2009-10-22
42
1
6
REPS
0
0
2009-10-22
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers.
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
10671
Bills
R4221
First Reading
10671
Bill, explanatory memorandum and regulation impact statement presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10671
10671
09:01:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The need for action on climate change
The government is committed to taking action on climate change.
We accept the consensus view of scientists that global warming is unequivocal and human activities are very likely responsible for most of the observed warming over the last 50 years.
Climate change is real and there will be serious consequences if greenhouse gas emissions are not restrained.
Australia is highly exposed to the impacts of climate change. The effects on Australia’s environment—and economy—will be serious. The health of our population, the security of our water and energy supplies, and impacts on coastal communities and infrastructure all face unprecedented tests.
Acting on climate change is squarely in Australia’s national interest.
If we do not act, average temperatures across Australia are expected to rise by over five degrees Celsius (compared to 1990) by 2100. To put this in perspective, a one-degree Celsius rise in temperature risks a 15 per cent reduction in stream flow in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s biggest river system.
Under a worst case scenario, irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin would virtually disappear by 2100.
Bushfires are expected to become more intense, and the interval between them will shorten. The megafires in Victoria in 2009 and Canberra in 2003 are consistent with these expected changes in fire regimes.
The business community in Australia is calling for investment certainty so that they can commit the necessary investment to start to move the Australian economy to a low-carbon future.
As Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group said in a speech on 15 October 2009, ‘Many of our members are telling us that they are holding off making investments until there is a greater degree of clarity around domestic climate change legislation.’
Coupled with the Renewable Energy Target of 20 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will drive around $19 billion in investment in renewables in the period to 2020.
This demonstrates that Australia can take action against climate change whilst continuing to grow and prosper. In fact, modelling done by the Australian Treasury shows we can create 1.7 million jobs to 2020, while reducing carbon pollution.
And from an employment perspective, all major sectors—including the coalmining sector and electricity generation overall—grow over the years to 2020, delivering substantial increases in employment from today’s levels.
As the world prepares to gather in Copenhagen to strive towards an international deal, what each country does at home matters. All nations need to keep moving forward, and it is squarely in Australia’s national interest to show up at the negotiating table in Copenhagen with a plan to deliver our targets.
It maximises our chance of playing a constructive role in negotiations and sealing the deal we know the world needs, and it provides certainty that the targets we sign up for internationally will be achieved at the lowest possible overall cost.
To major developing countries, it would send the signal that Australia is serious about delivering the emissions reductions to which we have committed—and therefore encourage action from them.
For all nations, it will help build confidence that, even in one of the world’s most resource intensive economies, we can start to reduce our emissions while continuing to grow our economy.
I would like to address at the outset some of the major arguments of those who oppose action on climate change.
It is sometimes said that because Australia is responsible for a small proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions, we should not be ‘acting ahead of the rest of the world’ by unilaterally committing to reduce our emissions—that this would impose costs on Australia without solving the global warming problem.
We are not acting ahead of the rest of the world—in fact 27 EU countries, the US, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Korea all have, or are developing, cap-and-trade systems.
And there is no need to wait until after Copenhagen as there is nothing in the Bill which makes its passage contingent on Copenhagen outcomes.
The CPRS establishes the framework under which Australia’s emissions reduction targets will be achieved and it has been designed for Australia’s national circumstances. The CPRS has also been designed to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the range of possible outcomes from Copenhagen, so important details such as the scheme caps will not be set until after Copenhagen.
And finally, the Liberal Party have endorsed the government’s emissions targets for 2020, including a commitment to reduce emissions by at least five per cent compared to 2000 levels, irrespective of commitments by other countries. That is an important commitment across the political divide.
This is an ambitious commitment. It is important for the community to know how this will be achieved so that everyone—including business and households—can start down the path of reducing emissions.
So the debate over whether Australia should wait is over. In fact, it should have been over since 2007, when the Howard government endorsed the findings of its Task Group on Emissions Trading, which recommended that the then government announce an emissions target ahead of a post-Kyoto agreement and recommended the adoption of an emissions trading scheme to achieve those targets.
Development of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
Numerous reviews have found that an emissions trading scheme is the best and most efficient tool to achieve emissions reductions—including the former Prime Minister Howard’s Task Group on Emissions Trading and the Garnaut review.
Both of these reviews concluded that market based approaches that deliver a price on carbon will reduce greenhouse gases at least cost, and that an emissions trading scheme is the best market based approach.
This is why both major political parties went to the last election committing to establish an emissions trading scheme—and why the Rudd government has developed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Since the election of the Rudd government, there has been an extensive process to develop the CPRS.
The core principles of the scheme were clearly articulated as long ago as February 2008.
The government’s CPRS green paper was released for public consultation in June 2008. The Department of Climate Change undertook extensive stakeholder consultation in developing the green paper, including meetings and the release of 16 papers on different aspects of scheme design.
Final policy positions were set out in the CPRS white paper, released in December last year. In developing these policy positions, the government considered 1,026 submissions on the green paper, the final report of the Garnaut climate change review, the results of the Australian Treasury’s comprehensive modelling exercise, feedback from meetings, consultations, workshops and one-on-one stakeholder consultation and outcomes from a number of industry workshops.
In March and April 2009, the government released for consultation draft legislation to implement the CPRS. A number of changes were made to the legislation in light of that consultation.
From this brief history it is clear, I submit, that the CPRS has been subject to a great degree of public scrutiny. It has also had a great deal of parliamentary scrutiny. Three Senate committees considered and reported on the CPRS bills, and there was extensive parliamentary debate on those bills between April and August of this year.
We have conducted a thorough, consultative and transparent policy process over the last two years to reach this important final stage.
It is pleasing that the coalition has now finally come forward with proposals to amend the CPRS and the government is certainly looking forward to negotiating in good faith with all parties.
I now turn to consider some of the major elements of the CPRS Bill.
Emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries
The government recognises that the introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action may provide incentives for some trade exposed industries to relocate or source production offshore—a concept known as carbon leakage.
That is why the CPRS Bill provides for a program to support businesses producing internationally traded goods which face the most significant exposure to the carbon price.
The features of that program have been clearly stated by the government.
Assistance, in the form of administrative allocations of permits, will be provided to new and existing firms engaged in emissions-intensive trade-exposed—so called EITE—activities.
Assistance will be targeted to the most emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities. From the first year of the CPRS, highly emissions intensive activities will have an effective rate of assistance of almost 95 per cent, and less emissions intensive activities will have an effective rate of assistance of 66 per cent—rates of assistance endorsed by the opposition through their support for similar arrangements under the government’s renewable energy target legislation, although of course I recognise that in the proposals that have been advanced by the opposition in relation to this legislation they seek some changes.
Unlike the European Union scheme or the schemes proposed in the US Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer bills there is no overall cap on free permit allocations. And as assistance will be directly linked to output, this means that if production doubles the allocation of permits also doubles. That is an important distinction with the propositions that are being advanced in North America. This is an important thing to cater for the expansion of Australian industry, and is the key reason why the Australian arrangements are, the government submits, more generous than the European Union and proposed US schemes.
Notwithstanding these arrangements, the design of the emissions-intensive trade-exposed program ensures that even these firms face the full carbon price and have the same incentives as all other industries to find opportunities to reduce their emissions. Assistance is calculated based on historical, industry baselines of greenhouse intensity and assistance reduces by 1.3 per cent per year. This ensures that the most efficient producers in an industry, and the producers that become more efficient over time, are rewarded for their efforts.
The government is confident that its EITE program reduces the risk of carbon leakage, while promoting efficient production decisions and ensuring that all industries make a contribution to the national effort to reduce carbon emissions, without risking jobs.
In order to provide clear and detailed rules about how much assistance will be provided, the detail of activity definitions, rates of assistance and other matters will be set out in regulations, many of which are in draft form and available.
A significant proportion of the relevant regulations, as I have observed, have already been tabled. It is, of course, unusual that draft regulations be released for public comment ahead of the passage of legislation. The government has taken this extra step to make available as much information as possible to parliament when considering the CPRS bills.
Coverage of the CPRS
One important design principle that the government has adopted in developing the CPRS is breadth of coverage.
The CPRS has broad coverage, as it applies to approximately 75 per cent of Australia’s emissions.
This is consistent with the approach of former Prime Minister Howard’s task group on emissions trading, which said:
The efficiency and fairness of a national abatement effort will be increased to the extent that all sectors contribute to greenhouse gas reductions. The broader the opportunity to identify and implement abatement opportunities, the lower will be the costs to the economy of meeting any given abatement task. In addition to achieving abatement efficiently, comprehensive coverage has an important equity dimension: it ensures the abatement task is shared broadly across sectors of the economy …
For these reasons, any proposal to exclude or carve out sectors from the CPRS must be examined very carefully indeed. Any benefits have to be weighed up against the increased burden on other industry sectors, the loss of opportunities for low-cost emissions reductions, and the possible loss of permit revenue to assist households.
Domestic offsets
Agriculture is not currently in the CPRS, but the government has not ruled out including it in the future—from 2015 at the earliest.
The CPRS bill does, however, provide for domestic offsets for reforestation.
This is a crediting mechanism to encourage reductions in carbon pollution before the scheme starts. So that can be achieved, proponents of approved reforestation projects will be eligible to receive emission units for increases in carbon sequestration taking place from 1 July 2010.
These emissions units will then be available for purchase by liable entities—the large emitters and fuel suppliers—as an alternative to reducing their emissions or purchasing emissions units from other sources.
Given that there has been some discussion about including additional offsets in the CPRS, the government believes it is important to keep in mind the following points.
First, offsets should only be available for sectors that are outside the CPRS. There would be double counting if offsets are provided for abatement that would also be recognised through reductions in CPRS obligations.
Second, offsets should count towards Australia’s international commitments. Otherwise, Australia would need to tighten its scheme cap, with a cost to industry and consumers, or purchase Kyoto units on the international market, costing taxpayers.
Third, practical issues of measurement and administration have to be considered in detail. Some of these are as yet insufficiently defined.
Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme
Free permits will also be issued, on a once-off basis over the first five years of the CPRS, to investors who purchased or constructed coal fired generation assets prior to the Commonwealth government’s announcement of its support for an emissions trading scheme.
While such a policy change could have been foreseen prior to this announcement, the government considers it appropriate to partially recognise significant losses of asset value experienced by investors that were committed to such investments prior to a clear announcement by the Commonwealth government of its support for such a scheme.
It is estimated that the free permits to be provided to generators will be worth approximately $3.8 billion. This assistance is focused on the most emissions intensive generators as these generators are likely to experience the largest losses in asset value.
While individual electricity generators argue for increased assistance, what the whole electricity sector requires is certainty around the regulatory environment. It is only once they have that certainty, through the passage of this legislation, that they can make the necessary investments in lower emissions technologies.
This is another reason why the government considers we must act now.
Assistance for the Coal Sector
The government recognises that emissions intensive coalmines do need transitional assistance to adjust to the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
The government has said it will target assistance to the most gassy mines—those which are the most methane intensive—and has on the table a $750m package to assist these mines to investigate and implement abatement opportunities and ease their transition to the introduction of a carbon price.
The government believes this formulation will allow the coal sector to play its part in emissions reductions whilst providing assistance for the mines most affected by the introduction of a carbon price.
Those are some of the key issues contained within the legislation that I wish to address in this second reading speech.
Conclusion
Australians have made it clear they want action taken by the government on climate change.
The Australian government believes it is critical to take action on climate change now.
Business want the certainty that will allow them to invest.
And on the eve of the Copenhagen conference, the world is watching what Australia does in this regard.
The time has come, after 12 years of inaction, to provide business certainty and to act on the challenge of climate change.
The government is determined to meet this challenge and make this important reform.
The government welcomes the opposition’s proposals and looks forward to negotiating in good faith with all parties.
It is now incumbent upon the Leader of the Opposition to show how his proposals are environmentally credible and fiscally responsible and to commit to voting on the CPRS legislation this year.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
10676
Bills
R4215
First Reading
10676
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10676
10676
09:22:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2] contains consequential and transitional provisions relating to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
The bill seeks to amend 11 acts and one set of regulations.
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting
The most significant amendments relate to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.
This act provides the existing national framework for the reporting of information on greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and energy production. To maintain the government’s commitment to the streamlining of reporting of greenhouse and energy data, the act will be the starting framework for monitoring, reporting and assurance under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
A number of changes are proposed to strengthen the act and align it with the requirements of the scheme, as outlined in the government’s white paper titled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia’s low pollution future, which was released on 15 December 2008. Under the amendments, one report will satisfy an entity’s reporting requirements for the scheme and current reporting requirements under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.
Coverage of synthetic greenhouse gases
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme covers synthetic greenhouse gases. As some of these gases are already regulated under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989, amendments will be made to that act to align it with the scheme.
Establishment of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority
The bill also contains a number of consequential amendments relating to the establishment of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority.
As well as administering the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the new authority will take over administration of both greenhouse and energy reporting and the renewable energy target. This necessitates a number of legislative amendments to replace two existing statutory bodies—firstly, the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator and, secondly, the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer—and to transfer their functions to the authority.
The creation of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority also gives rise to a number of other consequential amendments—for example, to apply financial management and accountability requirements to the authority.
Measures to prevent market manipulation and misconduct
Australian emissions units and eligible international emissions units are to be financial products also for the purposes of chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 and division 2, part 2 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. The bill therefore amends these acts accordingly.
These amendments will provide a strong regulatory regime to reduce the risk of market manipulation and misconduct relating to emissions units. Appropriate adjustments to the regime to fit the characteristics of units and avoid unnecessary compliance costs will be made.
As required by the Corporations Agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories, the Ministerial Council for Corporations has been consulted about the amendments to the corporations legislation and, to the extent necessary, has approved those amendments.
Taxation treatment of emissions units
Schedule 2 of the bill amends various taxation laws to clarify the income tax and goods and services tax treatment of emissions units.
The main consideration in designing the tax treatment of units is that the tax treatment should not compromise the main objectives of the scheme. This means that tax should not influence decisions between purchasing, trading and surrendering units or alternatively reducing emissions. The preferred tax treatment will help implement the scheme and reduce compliance and administrative costs for taxpayers and the Australian government.
For income tax, the amendments establish a rolling balance treatment of registered emissions units which is similar to that for trading stock. The result of the treatment is that the cost of a unit is deductible, with the effect of the deduction generally being deferred through the rolling balance until the sale or surrender of the unit.
The proceeds of selling a unit are assessable income with any difference in the value of units held at the beginning of an income year and at the end of that year being reflected in taxable income. Any increase in value is included in assessable income and any decrease in value allowed as a deduction.
The bill also amends the goods and services tax law. It characterises a supply of an eligible emissions unit or a Kyoto unit specifically as a supply of a personal property right and not a supply of or directly connected with real property. The amendments will promote certainty about the application of the normal GST rules to scheme transactions.
Conclusion
The consequential amendments contained in this bill are important for the efficient and effective operation of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The amendments seek, where possible, to streamline institutional and regulatory arrangements and minimise administrative costs within the scheme.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
AUSTRALIAN CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATORY AUTHORITY BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
10678
Bills
R4213
First Reading
10678
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10678
10678
09:28:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill would establish the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority—a new statutory authority that would be responsible for administering the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
It is one of a package of bills to establish the scheme.
The authority will be responsible for auctioning and allocating emissions units, maintaining a national registry of emissions units and ensuring that firms comply with their obligations under the scheme.
The government’s intention is to establish an effective, efficient and independent regulator.
The authority will be a body corporate headed by a chair and between two and four other members. Through the chair, it will employ Australian Public Service employees on behalf of the Commonwealth.
It will have a modern set of information-gathering, inspection and enforcement powers, conferred on it by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009.
The authority will be at arm’s length from government. As with other independent regulators, the minister will only be able to provide directions on general matters and there are limited grounds on which a member of the authority may be removed from office.
The authority will also be accountable. It will be required to produce three-yearly corporate plans and annual reports, and comply with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
The authority will take over the functions of the existing Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator and the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer, so that a single regulatory body will have overall responsibility for administration of climate change laws. This transfer of functions is to be effected through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009.
While it will have strong powers to ensure that the scheme obligations are complied with, the authority will also have an important role in advising and assisting persons in relation to their obligations under the scheme—something that is formally reflected in the authority’s functions.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME (CHARGES—CUSTOMS) BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
10678
Bills
R4218
First Reading
10678
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10679
10679
09:31:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill, which is part of the legislative package to establish the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, is one of three technical bills which anticipate the possibility that the charge payable by a person to the Commonwealth for issue of an Australian emissions unit as the result of an auction, or for a fixed charge, is a tax within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.
The Commonwealth does not consider that these charges are taxes for constitutional purposes. However, the government has taken an approach of abundant caution, with the charges bills providing safeguards in case a court reaches a different view on this question.
This bill caters for the possibility that the charges I have mentioned are, in whole or part, both a tax and a duty of customs by providing for the imposition of such a charge under this bill.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME (CHARGES—EXCISE) BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
10679
Bills
R4219
First Reading
10679
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10679
10679
09:33:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill, as was the case in relation to the immediately preceding bill, is part of the legislative package to establish the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and it is one of three technical bills which anticipate the possibility that the charge payable by a person to the Commonwealth for issue of an Australian emissions unit as the result of an auction, or for a fixed charge, is a tax within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.
The Commonwealth does not consider that these charges are taxes for constitutional purposes. However, the government has taken an approach of abundant caution, with the charges bills providing safeguards in case a court reaches a different view on this question.
This bill caters for the possibility that the charges I have mentioned are, in whole or part, both a tax and a duty of excise by providing for the imposition of such a charge under this bill.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME (CHARGES—GENERAL) BILL 2009 [NO.2]
10679
Bills
R4216
First Reading
10679
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10679
10679
09:35:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill also is part of the legislative package to establish the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and it is also one of three technical bills which anticipate the possibility that the charge payable by a person to the Commonwealth for issue of an Australian emissions unit as the result of an auction, or for a fixed charge, is a tax within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.
The Commonwealth does not consider that these charges are taxes for constitutional purposes. However, the government, as I have reported in relation to the two previous bills, has taken an approach of abundant caution, with the charges bills providing safeguards in case a court reaches a different view on this question.
This bill caters for the possibility that the charges I have mentioned are, in whole or part, a tax. In those circumstances, this bill imposes the charge, but only to the extent the charge is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME (CPRS FUEL CREDITS) BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
10680
Bills
R4222
First Reading
10680
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10680
10680
09:37:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill seeks to establish in legislation the ‘CPRS fuel credit’ measure. It will provide transitional assistance to eligible industries and fuels that will not benefit from the cent-for-cent fuel tax reduction made under the Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009.
The CPRS fuel credit will offset the increase in eligible fuel prices by an amount equal to the reduction in the fuel tax rate. CPRS fuel credit amounts will be adjusted automatically with adjustments to the fuel tax made under the Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009.
The CPRS fuel credit program will give transitional assistance to the agriculture (excluding forestry) and fishing industries for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2014. For the period the government has fixed the emissions unit charge at $10 per tonne in the first year of the scheme, based on current taxation arrangements, this credit will equal 2.455c per litre.
Activities incidental to the agriculture and fishing industries currently receive 50 per cent of the fuel tax credit under the Fuel Tax Act until 30 June 2012 after which they will be entitled to a full fuel tax credit. As these incidental activities will therefore receive a partial benefit from the reduction in fuel tax until 30 June 2012, they will be entitled to a partial CPRS fuel credit until that date. This CPRS fuel credit will be 50 per cent of the full CPRS fuel credit while the reduced fuel tax credit rate applies, and the full CPRS fuel credit thereafter until 30 June 2014.
CPRS fuel credits will also provide transitional assistance to heavy on-road transport users for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. The industry will be entitled to a CPRS fuel credit of 2.455c per litre based on current taxation arrangements and the introduction of an emissions unit charge fixed at $10 per tonne.
Liquid petroleum gas (LPG), liquid natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) are alternative transport fuels and will face a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme emissions unit obligation. However, as LPG, LNG and CNG are currently outside the fuel excise system they will not benefit from the fuel tax reductions applying to other fuels. The CPRS fuel credit program will therefore be extended to these fuels.
To be eligible for a CPRS fuel credit for the supply of gaseous fuels, an entity must be the liable entity for that fuel under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009.
Suppliers will benefit from a CPRS fuel credit for differing transitional periods depending on the fuel.
The CPRS fuel credit will be provided to LPG suppliers for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2014 as it is predominantly used for private motoring as an alternative to petrol.
The CPRS fuel credit will be provided to LNG and CNG suppliers for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. This treatment is the same as for heavy on-road transport as LNG and CNG are predominantly used for this purpose.
The government will review these measures upon their conclusion.
As the volume of emissions from these fuels is substantially lower than the volume from petrol and diesel, the Australian emissions unit auction charge impact on them will be lower. To reflect this, these fuels will receive less than the full amount of the CPRS fuel credit.
From 1 July 2011, based on current taxation arrangements and the introduction of the emissions unit charge fixed at $10 per tonne for one year, CNG will receive a CPRS fuel credit of 1.91c per litre which is 78 per cent of the full credit, LNG will receive a credit of 1.23c per litre which is 50 per cent of the full CPRS fuel credit. LPG, which has the three year assistance period, will receive a credit of 1.64c per litre, which is 67 per cent on the full CPRS fuel credit, for the first year after which the credit will be adjusted in accordance with increases in the emissions unit charge.
The CPRS fuel credit program will be administered by the Australian Taxation Office and claims will be made in the Business Activity Statement in the same manner as fuel tax credits are currently dealt with.
Full details of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME (CPRS FUEL CREDITS) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
10681
Bills
R4220
First Reading
10681
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10681
10681
09:43:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2] will legislate amendments to the Fuel Tax Act 2006 (‘the Fuel Tax Act’), the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 necessitated by the introduction of the CPRS fuel credits bill and the administrative arrangements announced by the government.
The measures in the CPRS fuel credits consequential amendments bill are mechanical in nature. For example, the existing formula in the Fuel Tax Act for determining the net fuel amount, which is the amount either owed to the commissioner or the commissioner owes, is being replaced. The new formula includes the CPRS fuel credit and increasing or decreasing adjustments for CPRS fuel credits.
Full details of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 are contained in the explanatory memorandum that I tendered in relation to the previous bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME) BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
10682
Bills
R4217
First Reading
10682
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10682
10682
09:45:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill seeks to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to confirm in legislation the government’s commitment in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia’s Low Pollution Future white paper. The government will cut fuel taxes on a ‘cent for cent’ basis to offset the initial price impact on fuel of introducing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
The government recognises that people have limited flexibility to respond quickly to changes in fuel prices but that, over time, transport choices can respond to price changes.
To give households and businesses time to adjust to the scheme, this legislation introduces a mechanism to automatically adjust the rate of fuel tax on all fuels that are currently subject to the 38.143 cents per litre rate of excise.
Fuel tax consists of excise duty on domestically manufactured fuels and excise-equivalent customs duty on imported fuels. Fuel tax is predominantly applied at a rate of 38.143 cents per litre across the range of fuels including petrol, diesel, kerosene, fuel oil, heating oil, biodiesel and fuel ethanol.
Different fuels emit different amounts of carbon when they burn and their prices will increase according to the volume of their emissions. To minimise compliance costs, the fuel tax cut will be made ‘across the board’ to currently taxed fuels. The fuel excise adjustment will be based on the expected rise in the price of diesel resulting from the introduction of the scheme. This will ensure there is ‘cent for cent’ assistance for diesel users.
Diesel emits more carbon than petrol on a per litre basis, so the fuel tax cut will provide more than ‘cent for cent’ assistance for petrol users, which make up the majority of motorists. However, diesel use is becoming more common as fuel and vehicle standards improve. Basing the fuel tax cut on diesel will therefore ensure that the government’s ‘cent for cent’ commitment is delivered for the most common fuels used by households.
Any reductions will take place on 1 January and 1 July of each year, to harmonise with the business activity statement reporting period.
The first fuel tax reduction will occur on 1 July 2011 with the commencement of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. On 1 July 2011, based on current taxation arrangements and that the emissions unit charge will be fixed at $10 per tonne, the fuel tax will be reduced by 2.455 cents per litre to 35.688 cents per litre.
After the fixed emission unit price of $10 per tonne lapses after the first year of operation of the CPRS, on 30 June 2012, the need for further reductions, and the amount, will be assessed based on the average Australian emissions unit auction charge over the preceding six-month period. If the average unit charge at the time of the assessment is greater than the average unit charge that formed the basis of the previous reduction then the fuel tax rate will be further reduced. This approach will apply to adjustments that occur from 1 July 2012.
If the current average unit charge amount is less than the previous average unit charge amount then the rate of fuel tax will remain the same—the fuel tax rate will not be increased if the emissions charge has fallen.
Information on the six-month average Australian emissions unit auction charge will be published by the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority in accordance with section 271 of the CPRS bill.
The final reduction will be made, if necessary, on 1 July 2014. The fuel tax rate at that date will be the ongoing rate—that is, the fuel tax rate will not revert to the 38.143 cents per litre rate. At this time the government will review the mechanism introduced by these amendments.
The amendments to the Excise Tariff Act will commence on 1 July 2011, assuming that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme commences on that date.
Full details of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 are contained in the earlier explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME) BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
10683
Bills
R4214
First Reading
10683
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10683
10683
09:50:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
On this occasion I am introducing a bill to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to confirm in legislation the government’s commitment in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia’s Low Pollution Future white paper. The commitment is to cut fuel taxes on a ‘cent for cent’ basis to offset the initial price impact on fuel of introducing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
This amendment will introduce a new section into the Customs Tariff Act to ensure that the reductions made to the excise rates on fuels due to the introduction of the scheme also apply to the relevant imported products.
Where a relevant excise rate, as defined in the Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009, is reduced, this amendment will substitute the same rate to the excise-equivalent customs duty rates. The substitution will apply to the subheadings in schedules 3, 5, 6, 7 and item 50(1A) in schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act.
Only the rate of excise-equivalent duty—that is, the non ad valorem component of the duty—will be substituted.
The amendments to the Customs Tariff Act will commence on 1 July 2011, assuming the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 commences on that date.
Full details of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 are contained in the earlier explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME AMENDMENT (HOUSEHOLD ASSISTANCE) BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
10684
Bills
R4223
First Reading
10684
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10684
10684
09:53:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill delivers on the government’s commitment to assist low- and middle-income households with the expected increases in the cost of living arising from the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and it is therefore a very important piece of legislation.
Climate change threatens Australia’s way of life and our future prosperity, as I explained in relation to the principal bill.
Australians want the government to take action on climate change.
That is why the government has moved to introduce the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills to parliament today.
It will allow economic growth without growth in emissions.
The introduction of the scheme will have a modest impact on the cost of living for households.
That is why the government is providing low- and middle-income households with upfront assistance to adjust to the impacts of the scheme.
Through a package of cash assistance, tax offsets and other measures, the government will help these households maintain their standard of living while moving to a low-pollution future.
This bill delivers on the government’s commitments given in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme white paper that:
-
pensioners, seniors, carers, veterans, people with disability, the unemployed, students and other allowees will receive additional support, above indexation, to fully meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme;
-
low-income households will receive additional support, above indexation, to fully meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme; and
-
middle-income households will receive additional support, above indexation, to help meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme.
The assistance in this bill delivers on these commitments.
This bill takes account of changes to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme announced on 4 May 2009 that introduce an initial $10 per tonne fixed carbon price in 2011-12 and a flexible market driven carbon price in 2012-13. The composition of the household assistance package reflects this staged approach.
The bill also takes account of other policy changes in the budget, principally the government’s Secure and Sustainable Pension Reform, which will affect how assistance is paid.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will see a modest increase in the overall cost of living as we start to recognise the costs of carbon pollution in our everyday lives.
It is anticipated that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will result in increases in the cost of living of 0.4 per cent in 2011-12 and 0.8 per cent in 2012-13, resulting from an initial $10 per tonne fixed carbon price in 2011-12 and a flexible carbon price in 2012-13.
For many households, government payments represent only a share of their income. Therefore increasing payments in line with headline consumer price index impacts alone will not fully restore their standard of living following the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
To adequately compensate these households, compensation needs to go beyond the average household consumer price index impact.
To ensure fairness, household composition has also been taken into account in designing the assistance.
This household assistance will be funded from the auction of carbon pollution permits. The government has committed to use every cent raised from the introduction of the scheme and the auction of carbon pollution permits to help households and businesses adjust and move Australia to the low-pollution economy of the future.
Increases to pension, benefit and allowance payments
The measures contained in this bill will increase the amount of certain social security and Veterans’ Affairs pension and allowance payments by 2.8 per cent over two years. This includes a one per cent increase from 1 July 2011 and a further 1.8 per cent increase on 1 July 2012, including upfront indexation.
These payment increases include the bringing forward of the expected consumer price index related indexation increases that will automatically flow from the scheme’s introduction. These indexation increases are expected to be 0.4 per cent in 2011-12 and 0.8 per cent in 2012-13. The 0.4 per cent expected indexation increase for 2011-12 will be brought forward and paid from 1 July 2011. The 0.8 per cent increase in the expected indexation increase will be brought forward and paid from 1 July 2012.
Because assistance for the cost-of-living-increase provided through certain payments will be brought forward, subsequent indexation arrangements will be adjusted to avoid duplicate assistance.
These increases will apply to a range of income support payments including the age pension, carer payment, veteran service pension, disability support pension, Newstart allowance, youth allowance, parenting payment and special benefit. A list of affected payments is included in the bill.
Increases to family tax benefit
Similar to pension and allowance increases, family tax benefit will be increased to help low- and middle-income families meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The increases to family tax benefit will include the upfront payment of the expected automatic indexation increases that will flow from the scheme’s introduction. These automatic increases are expected to be 0.4 per cent in 2011-12 and 0.8 per cent in 2012-13. Subsequent indexation points for family tax benefit payments will be adjusted to avoid the duplication of assistance.
The per-child maximum standard rates of family tax benefit part A for under-16-year-olds and the family tax benefit part A supplement will be increased by 2.8 per cent over two years, in line with changes to pensions and allowances.
Per-family standard rates of family tax benefit part B and the part B supplement will also be increased by 2.8 per cent over two years.
Additional increases are also being made to the base rate of family tax benefit part A to assist recipients of these payments.
Adjustments will be made to indexation of family tax benefit part A and part B rates on 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2013 (and over further indexation points if necessary) to prevent duplication of the amounts brought forward on 1 July 2011 and 1 July 2012.
A new combined family tax benefit and end-of-financial-year supplement will be created for families eligible for both family tax benefit part A and part B where the main income earner has income above $60,000 per year. The value of the supplement will be up to $240 per family in 2011-12 and up to $680 per family in 2012-13 and later years. The supplement will phase in at four cents in the dollar when the primary earner’s income reaches $60,000 until the supplement reaches the maximum amount. The entitlement to this supplement will cease when a family’s entitlement to family tax benefit part A or part B ceases.
Measures delivered through the tax system
Assistance is also being provided through the tax system. These measures provide additional assistance to eligible low and middle-income households through increases to the low income tax offset and various tax offsets for taxpayers who maintain a dependant.
Low income tax offset
From 1 July 2011, the low income tax offset will increase by $150 from $1,500 to $1,650. From 1 July 2012, it will increase a further $280 to $1,930. This will increase the taxable income up to which a taxpayer is entitled to an amount of low-income tax offset to $71,250 for the 2011-12 income year and to $78,250 for the 2012-13 income year and later income years.
Senior Australians tax offset
These increases in the low income tax offset will increase the income level above which senior Australians eligible for the senior Australians tax offset begin to pay tax. From 1 July 2011, eligible senior Australians will have no tax liability until their income reaches $31,474 for singles and $27,680 for each member of a couple. From 1 July 2012, eligible senior Australians will have no tax liability until their income reaches $32,948 for singles and $29,547 for each member of a couple. Adjustments will also be made to the Medicare levy thresholds for senior Australians.
Dependency tax offsets
Measures for households also include assistance to eligible adults who maintain a dependant. These increases will apply to the dependent spouse offset, the child-housekeeper offset, the invalid-relative offset, the parent-parent in law offset and the housekeeper offset.
From 1 July 2011, these dependency offsets will increase by $60 while, from 1 July 2012, they will increase by $105. These increases will be in addition to the annual increases in these offsets that occur due to automatic indexation.
Transitional payments
A carbon pollution reduction transitional payment will be payable for each of the 2011-12 and 2012-13 income years to independent adults in low-income households who can show they have not been assisted in line with the government’s commitments.
The amount of the carbon pollution reduction transitional payment for the 2011-12 income year will be $200 per claimant and $550 per claimant in 2013.
The carbon pollution reduction transitional payment will become payable to qualifying individuals for the first year from 1 July 2012 and will be assessed with reference to the individual’s income in the 2011-12 financial year. The person will have until 30 June 2014 to lodge a claim for the 2012 carbon pollution reduction transitional payment.
The second year of carbon pollution reduction transitional payment will be assessed with reference to the individual’s income in the 2012-13 financial year and will become payable from 1 July 2013. A person will have until 30 June 2015 to lodge a claim to receive the 2013 carbon pollution reduction transitional payment.
Interaction with pension reform legislation
The government proposes to pay Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme household assistance to pensioners through the new pension supplement, announced in the budget as part of the pension reform package. As this supplement did not exist in law when this bill was originally drafted, several provisions that enable legislative instruments to be made were included to allow the timing discrepancy to be addressed.
However, the legislative instrument provisions are now unlikely to be used. Instead, the substantive amendments provided by the pension reform legislation to this current bill—amendments which will commence when this current bill is enacted—will reflect the structure of the new pension system following the government’s pension reforms and pay the household assistance to pensioners via the new pension supplement.
More specifically, the pension reform legislation will remove the relevant powers to create legislative instruments regarding payment amounts and mechanisms for pensioners, and include these details in the primary Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation.
Conclusion
Through measures introduced by this bill, the government will provide upfront support to low- and middle-income households to help in adjusting to a low pollution future.
The government will update the household assistance package on the basis of any new information on the estimated carbon price before the scheme starts. Each year, the adequacy of this assistance will be reviewed in the context of the budget.
As that is the final bill in this collection of measures designed to introduce the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, I would like finally to take the opportunity to thank my colleague the Minister for Climate Change, Senator Wong, and many of my other colleagues—and, in relation to this final bill, in particular my colleague the Hon. Jenny Macklin, from whose portfolio area this household assistance measure is largely drawn. I also want to thank all the officers and staff of the Department of Climate Change and Water, who have worked assiduously over a considerable period of time now to effectively formulate all of this legislation.
It is extremely important legislation in total and, as I have said on a number of occasions on behalf of the government, these bills collectively, in formulating the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, represent easily the most significant economic and environmental reform ever undertaken by an Australian government. I commend all of them to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Billson) adjourned.
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (INCORPORATION OF PROPOSALS) BILL 2009
10688
Bills
R4226
First Reading
10688
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Brendan O’Connor.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10688
10688
10:08:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
Minister for Home Affairs
1
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2009 contains several amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (the Customs Tariff).
The amendments in this bill were given effect through the tabling of Customs Tariff proposals in the House of Representatives during 2009.
Schedule 1 of the bill creates a new concessional item 41H in schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff. Item 41H provides duty-free entry into Australia for goods for use in the testing, quality control, manufacturing evaluation or engineering development of motor vehicles designed or engineered in Australia but not necessarily manufactured in Australia.
The new item will encourage automotive manufacturers to undertake design and engineering work for the international automotive market, as well as reducing administrative costs in importing such equipment.
Schedule 2 of the bill amends rates of duty for certain alcohol and tobacco products that are imported under the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement. The legislation that gave effect to Australia’s tariff commitments under that agreement did not include subsequent increases in the excise equivalent component of customs duty for these goods.
Schedule 2 of the bill applies the increased rates of duty for these goods, where required, from the commencement of the free trade agreement on 6 March 2009. This ensures that customs duty imposed on alcohol and tobacco products imported under the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement is the same as the duty imposed on these goods when imported from other countries and also the same as duties of excise imposed on these goods when manufactured in Australia.
Schedule 3 of the bill amends rates of duty for certain beer and grape wine products. The Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Act 2009 provided revised definitions for beer and grape wine products in the Customs Tariff. These revised definitions also required the creation of new subheadings in the Customs Tariff.
This legislation provided rates of duty for these subheadings that did not take into account subsequent increases in rates of excise equivalent customs duty. Schedule 3 of the bill applies the increased rates of duty, as required, to beer and grape wine products from the date of commencement of the legislation, on 28 August 2009. This ensures that customs duty imposed on these beer and grape wine products is consistent with duty imposed on other alcohol products and the excise duty imposed when these products are manufactured in Australia.
The creation of item 41H is a substantive amendment to the Customs Tariff with benefits to the Australian automotive manufacturing industry. The amendments relating to alcohol and tobacco products are technical but necessary to avoid a loss of government revenue and discrepancies between duty rates applying to imported and domestically manufactured alcohol and tobacco products.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Billson) adjourned.
COMMITTEES
10689
Committees
Public Works Committee
10689
Reference
10689
10689
10:12:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
Minister for Home Affairs
1
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, 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: AIMS Tropical Marine Research Facilities—Cape Ferguson and Townsville Works.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science proposes to undertake works associated with the Tropical Marine Research Facilities Project at Cape Ferguson and Townsville at an estimated out-turn cost of $49.5 million exclusive of GST. The new facilities delivered by this project will build on AIMS’s expertise and collaborative links both nationally and internationally. These facilities will support research that is directly relevant to the national research priorities—on sustainable development in tropical Australia and understanding the capacity of marine ecosystems to adapt to climate change and develop appropriate mitigating options.
Facilities to be built at Cape Ferguson and Townsville as part of the AIMS Tropical Marine Research Facilities Project will provide for the establishment of the Australian tropical ocean simulator, which will integrate with existing facilities to create significant seawater experimental infrastructure for cutting-edge research that was previously not possible—new infrastructure to enhance AIMS’s internationally significant coral core collection. It will provide for new tools for analysis and research of these critical records of tropical climate; improvements in energy supply systems, which will provide improved energy efficiencies and improved reliability of critical electrical power and seawater cooling and heating systems; and a vessel berthing and operations facility within the new light commercial marine precinct at Townsville port, ensuring appropriate and safe access to AIMS’s research vessels and capability to host visiting research vessels.
The investment reflects the government’s decision to make marine science an innovation priority. It represents an investment in Australia’s future and is building on existing strengths in our innovation system. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in March 2010 and be completed by late 2012. I commend the motion to the House.
10689
10:14:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
0
0
Mr LINDSAY
—For some decades now, the Australian Institute of Marine Science have been leading the world in tropical marine science. They are widely respected and widely regarded right across the planet. I strongly support this motion, which refers the proposed investment of $49.5 million to the Public Works Committee for consideration and report. AIMS, through the director, Dr Ian Poiner, and staff, have done a wonderful job. This referral will provide significant new scientific work space for AIMS. It will ensure that they can berth their vessels safely, with the construction of the new eastern access corridor at the Townsville port requiring AIMS vessels to be berthed further downstream. That is part of another very significant project in the city.
I am pleased to see that the tropical collections facility that is being proposed under this referral will allow AIMS to house their internationally famous coral core collection and other important biological collections so that as many researchers as possible will have easy access to those resources. The facilities being provided through this project will support research that is directly relevant to the National Research Priorities, to sustainable development in tropical Australia and to the understanding of the capacity of marine ecosystems to adapt to climate change and develop appropriate mitigation responses.
I congratulate AIMS on the work that they do in partnership with other agencies in the world but particularly their partnership with the marine and tropical sciences research unit at James Cook University, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and so on. It is a great collaboration. AIMS have always collaborated nationally and internationally. They will continue to do that. This referral to the Public Works Committee—and I hope we secure a green light from the committee—will allow construction to begin in November. There is a bit of urgency about that, but I know the chair of the committee, North Queensland Senator Jan McLucas, and together as committee members we will work very hard to make sure we get the approval back to the parliament before it rises because we want to see this project started.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
10690
Reference
10690
10690
10:17:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
Minister for Home Affairs
1
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, 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: Redevelopment of Tarin Kowt Stage 1 Project.
The Department of Defence proposes the redevelopment of Tarin Kowt stage 1 project. The project will provide upgraded living and working accommodation for Australian Defence Force personnel deployed to Tarin Kowt in Afghanistan. The project will replace the interim accommodation currently being used and provide longer term sustainable facilities with appropriate protection. The new facilities include protected living-in accommodation, kitchen facilities and working accommodation. Improvements will also be made to some existing facilities. The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal is $37.723 million plus GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in early 2010 and be completed by mid-2011. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMPETITION AND CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS) BILL 2009
10690
Bills
R4212
Second Reading
10690
Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Billson moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“given Labor’s rash, unjustified and irrational change of policy to force the break-up of Telstra in an arrogant attempt to prop-up its risky $43 billion National Broadband Network, further consideration of this bill should not proceed until after the NBN Implementation Study is presented to the Parliament”.
10690
10:19:00
Collins, Julie, MP
HWM
Franklin
ALP
1
0
Ms COLLINS
—Last night before the debate was interrupted, I was talking about payphones on an island in my electorate and Telstra’s response. The new universal service arrangements under the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 will also include reliability and repair responsibilities that will ensure that Telstra cannot choose which aspects of the telephone or payphone services it intends to maintain. These measures are consumer focused, as they should be. They will strengthen consumer protection and they will also assist in stopping the freefall of the service quality which so many of the consumers and constituents in my electorate have experienced over the past years.
But this is clearly not the only area in which Telstra is letting consumers down in my home state of Tasmania. I moved a private member’s motion about four weeks ago after hearing from many of my constituents about the $2.20 administration fee that Telstra is charging customers to pay their telephone bill in cash at Australia Post or a Telstra shop. My constituents in my electorate are completely outraged by this move by Telstra. It is certainly not conducive to improving quality service and customer satisfaction. In fact, I have now had people contact my office to say that the $2.20 fee is actually included in the total amount you have to pay. So, if you are paying by other means, you have to deduct this from the total amount given on your bill. Clearly, we are not getting the service that we deserve in Tasmania. I believe the structural separation is really important, as are the consumer protections that are part of this bill.
The structural separation is really important, as I have been saying, regardless of the National Broadband Network to ensure that consumers in my state of Tasmania get improved service quality from what is currently a near monopoly provider. But I do want to talk a bit about the National Broadband Network. I was very pleased when the Prime Minister came to Cambridge in my electorate to lay the first fibre-optic cable of the NBN. In Tasmania, this rollout has already begun in Smithton, Scottsdale and Midway Point, and it is the intention that around 200,000 premises will be connected in Tasmania by the end of 2014 along with all our hospitals and our schools. The Premier and Prime Minister announced just yesterday stage 2 of the rollout, which will be going to places like St Helens, Triabunna, Deloraine, Sorell and George Town. For me, I am really thrilled that a suburb in my electorate, Kingston Beach, is receiving broadband in stage 2, and I know that my constituents in that area will be really thrilled. Also, another suburb of Hobart, South Hobart, which is only three minutes from the city centre, currently does not have reliable access to a broadband service, so I am sure it will be much appreciated there.
The investment of the NBN is a very important step forward in expanding Australia’s telecommunication needs and will obviously be a crucial part of telecommunications in this country going forward. The delivery of high-speed broadband will open up a new window of opportunity and will be a technological advancement that will afford opportunities particularly in the areas of education, health and the delivery of government services. Under this Rudd government initiative every person and business in Australia will have access to affordable fast broadband. This investment will support and stimulate jobs in the short term and the long-term benefits are obviously there for all of us to see.
Tasmania at the moment has got about 39 per cent of broadband for households, and that is much lower than the national average of 52 per cent. That clearly shows that the current system and regulations are not working in Tasmania. The biggest barriers to people wanting to connect to broadband are that in many places they cannot get it connected. People who contact providers are often told that the service is not available in their area. I find that very difficult, particularly when these people live 10 minutes from the city of Hobart. Tasmania’s schools, homes and workplaces will be connected with fibre to the premises delivering speeds of up to 100 megabits per second and, as I said, we will be delivering it to all of our hospitals in Tasmania and 90 per cent of our schools. Rural and remote areas will also receive the benefits of the next generation wireless and satellite technologies. It means that everybody in Tasmania, no matter where they live, will have access to faster broadband. As I said, 200,000 will have fibre to the premises. It is wonderful to see this outcome. As a Tasmanian, I am really pleased that this is occurring.
The telecommunications regulatory reform package represents one of the most significant reforms to the telecommunications regime since open competition was introduced in 1997. Our Premier was asked at the National Press Club yesterday about his thoughts on Telstra’s separation. He said:
I applaud the leadership that Senator Conroy and Prime Minister Rudd have shown in taking the decision to embrace structural reform in telecommunications.
It will allow for a more competitive telecommunications market—one that is inherently more responsive to the needs of consumers in all states big and small.
That is a very welcome development, which supports the action we have been taking over the last ten years to make sure Tasmania was not forever a prisoner of a Telstra monopoly.
I conclude by commending the bill to the House. I am sure it will be a benefit to all Australians but particularly to those people I represent in Tasmania.
10692
10:25:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I rise in this important debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 to support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Dunkley and to take the opportunity to canvass what has happened over the course of the last couple of years. This policy area of communications, and particularly of broadband, from the Rudd Labor government is a first-class illustration of a broken election promise, of policy incompetence and chaos, and a classic example of where the outer suburbs, regional and remote areas of Australia are being let down.
If I could take the House back to March 2007 when the now Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, released his New Directions for Communications: A
Broadband Future for Australia—Building a National Broadband Network policy to the Australian people, the pledge was to fix broadband black spots with their broadband network plan. In 2007, the coalition government, as it then was, announced and commenced a new plan to fix broadband black spots in outer suburban areas in electorates such as Casey and Dunkley, which my friend and colleague represents. The former government had contracted OPEL to fix these broadband black spots on a case-by-case basis. The contract was signed and today those very areas would have had their black spots fixed, they would have affordable, quality broadband services, but after the election the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy cancelled that contract. In the beginning of 2008 he announced that he was cancelling that contract.
We move forward to April this year when the government, having been in office for nearly 18 months, having considered its election promise, having taken its only action which was to cancel a contract to fix broadband black spots, announced a new broadband plan—their NBN 2 plan. The plan was to spend $43 billion to have a broadband service some time into the future. This is policy and election promise leap-frogging like we have not seen before. The NBN for mainland Australia will commence, or be up and running, in the outer suburban areas of Casey and Dunkley in at best—no-one knows for sure—about eight years time. So, having promised to fix broadband black spots, the only action the government has taken is to cancel the contract that would have fixed in a targeted way those very broadband black spots. The government’s promise now to those people in electorates like mine of Casey is, ‘We could have fixed that broadband black spot, but we have a new and improved product that will deliver broadband services to you in at best’—it is hard to pin them down—‘about eight years time in 2017.’
This is unbelievable betrayal on a grand scale. In eight years time, in 2017, it will be 10 years since the election promise. In 2017 the residents of these areas will have been, on a best case scenario—it will probably be longer—waiting 10 years from Labor’s promise. Worse than that, from now they could have had broadband services if that OPEL contract had been honoured, but for eight years they will be denied them. Residents in Casey in black spot areas in the Lilydale Lakes Estate, the Gateway Estate—also in Lilydale—the Blue Ridge Estate in Mooroolbark and in Monbulk and the Patch could have had broadband services if the government had simply taken no action and had honoured the contract. Many commentators have made the point that the government has done absolutely nothing on communications. The one action that they have taken was to cancel that contract.
The member for Dunkley made a very good contribution at the beginning of this debate in this House. On the cancellation of the OPEL program, he pointed out that schoolkids could be using the technology right now. He said:
They would have started perhaps in year 7 at a secondary school and been able to use broadband to support their education. Now, they will have left secondary school before much of anything happens in terms of improving broadband in their areas.
That hit the nail right on the head.
Recently, I met with a group of residents in the Lilydale Lakes Estate. I met with Doug Stanton and a group of residents who have been denied affordable quality broadband. The former government recognised that this was unacceptable and put in place a contract to provide it, and it would have been provided by now or by the end of this year if the Labor government had simply honoured that contract. For all the rhetoric and all the speakers notes that those opposite will have about a wonderful new NBN, it will be years into the future if it occurs. They are proposing to spend $43 billion without knowing what the take-up rate will be, without knowing what the business case is and without knowing what the price will be.
The promise and the pledge from this Prime Minister and from those opposite is: ‘Forget what we promised at the last election; we are now promising something for two or three elections time.’ It is absolutely scandalous. The promise to the people in the Lilydale Lakes Estate is that they should wait until this supposed Rolls Royce service comes along in 2017. Looking at the point the member for Dunkley made about schoolkids being able to use the internet, the rhetoric from this government is all about trying to give access to the internet to schoolchildren. They talk the talk, but when it comes to it they have taken a deliberate policy decision to deny schoolkids access to the internet in black spot areas that could have been filled and fixed by now.
Like robots, those opposite will get up and attack the former Howard government. I predict that that will occur when I finish my contribution. But I make this prediction also: they will not mention the cancellation of that contract. They will not say to those people living in those areas that it is right that they wait eight years, yet that is exactly what they are doing.
The Prime Minister is like the crazy architect that you see on some of those home-building programs. He is like the crazy architect in Grand Designs. He has the sketch. He has the house being build. The people who want their house built are living in a caravan. And he says: ‘Look, I know I promised you a two-bedroom or three-bedroom house and I know I said I’d build it within six months. But guess what? I’ve been back to the drawing board and I’ve worked out that in eight years time I can build you a mansion. All you’ve got to do is wait and live in the caravan.’ I saw an advertisement for the program Grand Designs last night. They have a new program. They are going to go back to some of these houses that have been constructed and they are going to look at the houses that are leaking or that never quite got finished. This is exactly what this Prime Minister is like: he is like the crazy architect in Grand Designs. But for those people living in broadband black spots, the only promise is to wait for 10 years until 2017.
And what might happen then? What might happen if the NBN rolls out—if the business case has been made; if it actually occurs; if this government manages with a bigger program to do what they could not do with a smaller program; if they manage to actually stick to their promise—is that they will, we are told, get broadband at high speed. But we are not promised that it will be affordable; we are not promised that at all because none of the business case has been done, there has been no detail on what the take-up rate will be, there has been no detail on exactly what the dimensions of the cost will be. So as well as being denied access to affordable broadband for eight years, as the families in the circuit in Lilydale Lakes Estate and surrounding streets and those other black spots have been, when families finally get broadband services they could very well be at a prohibitive cost. Going back to the example of the schoolchildren, by 2017 they will have left school—and that is the price those families are currently paying for Labor incompetence on a grand scale.
Those opposite know that this has been a shemozzle. They went to the last election with a promise to fix broadband black spots. They will go to the next election not having fixed one black spot in electorates like Dunkley or Casey. That is absolutely beyond doubt. And the member opposite, the member for Robertson, is nodding her head.
B36
Neal, Belinda, MP
Ms Neal interjecting—
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—You are agreeing that you will go to the next election without having fixed a single broadband black spot—that it is unbelievable, but it is absolutely the case. I say this to those opposite: do the right thing; fix broadband black spots in a targeted way; honour your promise. Whilst you can have speaking notes and you can stick to your rhetoric, bag the former government, and call the current Prime Minister ‘decisive’ a pre-scripted 10 times in your speech—although the member who is about to follow me might not stick to the script—I can tell you that the people in the Lilydale Lakes Estate, the Blue Ridge Estate and in black spot areas all over outer suburban Melbourne, from Casey through to Dunkley, know. They heard Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, promise that he would fix their black spots. They know that they have not been fixed. No amount of spin from those opposite will conceal the fact that they have not got what they were promised. They have not got it because the government cancelled that contract. They know that they are being denied it by this stubborn government that has demonstrated nothing but policy incompetence.
10695
10:39:00
Neal, Belinda, MP
B36
Robertson
ALP
1
0
Ms NEAL
—I have to commend the member for Casey for his valiant attempt to defend the indefensible by arguing that a bandaid, half-hearted solution that did not work was much better than a comprehensive national solution to the issue of high-speed broadband. I have to commend him for his bravery in the face of all the evidence before him. I rise in the House today to speak in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009. The bill introduces a package of legislative reforms aimed at enhancing competitive outcomes in the Australian telecommunications industry and strengthening consumer safeguards.
The bill has four broad components. Firstly, it addresses Telstra’s extreme level of vertical and horizontal integration within the telecommunications industry by requiring the company to separate either functionally or structurally. I have to say that for all the pounding by the opposition when they were in government, they never had the willingness or the intent to deal with this major problem in our telecommunications industry. Secondly, it streamlines access provisions and reforms the anticompetitive conduct regimes within the telecommunications sector. Thirdly, the bill strengthens consumer protection measures in the industry. Fourthly, the bill reduces red tape and eliminates certain regulations that have become impediments to long-term productivity growth.
The measures contained in this bill will radically transform the telecommunications industry in Australia, fundamentally reshaping both the structure of the industry and the manner by which it is regulated—something the previous government did not have the capacity to do. It will also bring significant benefits to consumers. This ambitious program of reform will prepare the way for the introduction of a national broadband network for Australia—a groundbreaking initiative of immense importance to Australia’s long-term economic and social prosperity. The $43 billion National Broadband Network represents the largest nation-building investment in Australia’s history. Frankly, it is about time the opposition recognised that, got on board and did something and said something positive.
Significantly, when it is established the NBN will be a wholesale-only telecommunications provider operating within an industry run along open access lines. The bill will move today’s telecommunications industry towards a more competitive, open access model in preparation for the NBN. The transition to the NBN will take approximately eight years and the government recognises that fundamental reform of the existing telecommunications regulatory regime is critical to Australia’s successful transition towards its future model. But I really have to restate the obvious: it will not take eight years to have NBN. The NBN is being rolled out progressively, and not one area at a time. Tasmania is very lucky to be the first area. That it is where it started but it will be progressing in a number of areas simultaneously, so many areas will not be waiting the eight years. The eight years is a completion date.
In short, the present arrangements are inadequate for this task and need significant root-and-branch change. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill before us delivers the first major instalment of these vital reforms. There has been longstanding concern across broad sectors of Australian society that the current system is failing consumers and business. These failings are evident in matters of pricing, quality of services and availability of services. That is evident to everyone, apparently, but the opposition. Affordable, high-quality telecommunications services, including high-speed broadband and reliable telephone capabilities, are critical if Australia’s economy is to grow, produce and innovate.
When the Rudd Labor government announced the introduction of the enhanced National Broadband Network in April 2009, it also announced its commitment to reforming the existing telecommunications regulatory regime. More than 140 submissions were received in response to a discussion paper circulated at the time that canvassed the various options for reform. Submissions were received from all major telecommunications service providers, broadcasters, media companies, state and territory governments, the ACCC, disability and consumer groups, business organisations and unions. Overwhelmingly the submissions supported the idea that the current regime was not serving the best interests of business or consumers and that it needed major reform. The submissions supported reform of Australia’s telecommunications sector, especially to improve competition, strengthen consumer safeguards and reduce red tape. The bill under discussion also takes decisive steps towards achieving these reforms.
The current structure of the Australian telecommunications industry is one of the major impediments to growth, productivity and innovation. The dominant position currently commanded by Telstra is central to the present structure. This dominance has severely limited the development of fair and open competition within the telecommunications market. Telstra is one of the most highly integrated telecommunications companies in the world. It has achieved levels of both vertical and horizontal integration that are unmatched by companies in any other sector of the Australian economy. Telstra owns the only fixed copper network connecting almost every house. It owns the largest hybrid fibre-coaxial cable network as well as the largest mobile network. It also owns a 50 per cent stake in Foxtel, which is Australia’s largest subscription television provider.
Despite more than 10 years of supposedly open competition within the telecommunications industry, Telstra has been able to maintain an extraordinary level of dominance in virtually all aspects of the national market. Past governments and current legislation have failed to promote effective competition within the industry over that decade of missed opportunity, and that was clearly a major failing of the previous government. As a result, Australia has fallen seriously behind other developed economies in terms of the availability, price and quality of its telecommunications services.
Telstra’s high level of vertical integration means it can operate as a wholesaler, carrier and retailer of telecommunications products and services. It also means that it continues to possess inbuilt incentives to favour its own retail businesses and to stifle true and open competition. This bill will enable the government to bring marked reforms to bear on this problem. The government’s goal in the first instance is that Telstra give a voluntary but enforceable undertaking to the ACCC to institute a structural separation of its wholesale from its retail businesses. If Telstra does not choose to give this undertaking to the regulator, the bill gives the government the powers to enforce a functional separation of the company. Functional separation will be achieved through amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997.
The amendments contained in the present bill will ensure that Telstra conducts its network operations and wholesale functions at arm’s length from the rest of the company. Telstra must also provide equivalent price and non-price terms both to its retail businesses and to non-Telstra wholesale customers. In addition to these requirements, Telstra must ensure that this equivalence of treatment is made transparent to the regulator and to its competitors.
Telstra and its shareholders therefore have the option of choosing the method by which the company achieves a separation of its vertically integrated structures. If the company chooses not to undertake a voluntary structural separation, this bill empowers the government to bring about a functional separation of its wholesale and retail businesses. Structural separation may, but does not have to, include the creation of a new company. Alternatively, Telstra may progressively move its fixed line traffic to the National Broadband Network over time and sell or cease to use its fixed line assets. The government has not predetermined which model Telstra may use to achieve its separation. Whichever model is employed, the ultimate goal of full structural separation will be achieved over time—that is, a wholesale-only network that is not controlled by any single retail entity.
Another element of market dominance that Telstra continues to possess is its high level of horizontal integration across different delivery platforms. The company owns multiple delivery platforms including copper, cable and mobile systems that it runs side by side. Under the new arrangements contained in this bill, Telstra will not be permitted to acquire specific bands of spectrum which could be used for advanced wireless broadband services unless it undertakes certain structural reforms. In short, it must introduce structural separation, divest itself of its hybrid fibre-coaxial cable network and relinquish its interests in Foxtel. These readjustments in the structure of the Australian telecommunications industry will address the market imbalance that Telstra enjoys under the current arrangements and foster strong competition in the industry.
Another major component of the telecommunications legislation amendment bill is the amendments to trade practices regulations that currently apply to the industry. These amendments will also promote competition, increase access to the industry and reduce anticompetitive behaviour. Competitors to established industry players seeking access to the industry have long been frustrated by lengthy legal delays and disputes. For example, from 1997 to mid-May 2009 there were 157 telecommunications access disputes lodged with the ACCC. By contrast, only three access disputes had been notified in other regulated sectors, including the aviation and energy industries.
Under the bill at hand, new arrangements will see the ACCC set price and non-price terms of access for declared services in an access determination that applies to all parties. This will streamline the access process considerably and make it less vulnerable to opportunistic legal and procedural delaying tactics. The days of so-called regulatory gaming, which involves the use of litigious obstruction to delay regulatory outcomes for one’s own benefit, will be numbered under these new rules.
The bill will also remove the right to seek merits review of the ACCC’s regulatory decisions. This approach is being pursued because Telstra has used the regulatory and legal avenues available to frustrate regulatory outcomes and cause uncertainty for its competitors. The ACCC will have powers to issue binding rules of conduct, allowing it to immediately implement remedies for breaches. In addition, it will no longer have to consult with a party before issuing a competition notice, so once again the regulator will be able to act quickly against anticompetitive behaviour in the telecommunications industry.
The bill will also ensure that the new anticompetitive provisions apply to content services supplied by carriers or carriage service providers. This will prevent a dominant provider from using its power in one market to damage a competitor in another. As new technologies move into more and more facets of home, work and business, the telecommunications sector is becoming an increasingly important part of the everyday life of all Australians. The need to protect consumers in the telecommunications industry is accordingly becoming more important over time.
Existing safeguards in this industry—including the universal service obligation, the customer service guarantee and the priority assistance arrangements—have been found by a number of recent reviews to need strengthening if consumers are to be properly safeguarded. The universal service obligation—designed to ensure standard telephone and payphone services are accessible to all Australians—is imprecise and needs updating. There is evidence that standards of service in this regard have been falling for several years, and I am sure any member has constant complaints about access to phones in their own electorate. Telstra will be required, upon request, to supply a basic service at specified standards covering connection, repair, reliability and performance benchmarks. These matters can no longer be left up to the discretion of the provider, in particular Telstra. Similarly, payphones must be supplied according to specified criteria and may be removed only with ACMA agreement. This is an initiative that will be applauded in many communities, including my own. To ensure industry compliance, these universal service obligation benchmarks will be backed up by civil penalties.
The customer service guarantee, which obliges telephone companies to meet minimum performance requirements or pay compensation, will also be reformed using new performance benchmarks. New time frames for connections and repair will be backed by civil penalties, thus reducing the scope for retailers to blame noncompliance on the network providers. In overseeing this new strengthened regulatory regime, ACMA will have powers to issue on-the-spot fines for breaches of the civil penalty provisions. However, in order not to stifle customer choice, existing provisions for exempting certain services from the customer service guarantee will remain but only with the customer’s express agreement. The priority assistance arrangements, which require the highest level of telephone service to be provided to customers with a diagnosed life-threatening medical condition, will be retained.
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill also contains measures to eliminate unnecessary red tape. These measures will remove additional impediments to long-term productivity growth, streamline certain business practices and provide clarity to consumers. Small carriers—those with revenues less than $25 million—will no longer have to pay an annual carrier licence charge. They will no longer have to contribute to the universal service levy or the national relay service.
Reporting procedures under the customer service guarantee and priority assistance arrangements will be relaxed as long as performance benchmarks are being met. Other unnecessary accounting and operational separation requirements will be repealed once the new regime is in place. The government will also remove the outdated requirement for Telstra to provide internet services with speeds of 19.2 kilobits per second. The Australian broadband guarantee offers broadband speeds of 512 kilobits or more.
The bill before us today will introduce a fundamental restructuring of the Australian telecommunications industry. It prepares the way for a seamless transition towards the wholesale-only, open-access market in Australia’s telecommunications sector. These new arrangement will be a necessary requirement for the introduction of the National Broadband Network. It is vital that the high degree of vertical and horizontal integration now held by Telstra be reformed. This will redress severe market imbalances that have favoured Telstra unfairly in the past and would hinder open access and equitable competition in the future. The measures contained in this bill will reshape the telecommunications sector. They will also reshape our society and our community. They are necessary and a part of the new NBN. I am very proud that this government has taken the steps to bring this about.
10699
10:58:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—It is with pleasure that I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009. I start by congratulating the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, for having the intestinal fortitude to in fact bring a piece of legislation such as this before the House. This is long overdue. In my view, it is correcting a problem that was created some time ago and then encouraged by subsequent governments, so we have had this rolling problem in the sense that the structural separation should have occurred at the start of the privatisation of Telstra process. That did not occur as I think the Howard government and, I would assume, initially the Rudd government may well have found it too difficult to address—and we have had the unscrambling the egg issue brought up time and time again. So I am very pleased that Senator Conroy and the government have taken the opportunity to actually put in place something that is required if we are going to have a real competitive process in telecommunications, particularly in country areas.
We have had a whole range of debates on telecommunications in the last few years. One of those debates took place around the sale of the third tranche of Telstra shares—the full privatisation. At the time, the Howard government was suggesting that one of the reasons for the privatisation was that it would be a way of delivering competition to country areas. Anybody—and I know you are a very eminent country representative, Deputy Speaker Sidebottom—who has lived and worked with country people in recent years would fully recognise that there has not been competition, particularly at the smaller end of the market. Even though I do congratulate Telstra Country Wide, Telstra has been operating a business to make money, not necessarily to deliver services to the small end of the market.
The movement to a national broadband network will, in fact, deliver the most important piece of infrastructure that we will see this century. We quite often talk about roads and railway lines, and they are very important, but high-speed broadband services, particularly for the education and health areas but also for the corporate and personal areas, are going to be the infrastructure which, in country areas particularly, will negate distance as being a disadvantage.
We have lived in a time, in the last century at least, where distance, smallness and remoteness have been disadvantages. We have seen a series of governments move towards concentrating people in more or less a feedlot mentality in our cities. The development of a national broadband network will break that nexus. Where you live will become less relevant to your capacity to do business or to be competitive, or to deliver health and education services to our young people, our families and our elderly. So I am very supportive of this legislation. It is long overdue. I did not think any minister would have the intestinal fortitude to do it.
I see the games being played at the moment in this place and outside this place. I see the arguments of the Telstra shareholders. I would remind people who, all of a sudden, are concerned for Telstra shareholders, particularly in the Liberal Party, that their Prime Minister at the time encouraged the mums and dads to buy Telstra shares at something like $7. Now they are worth less than half that. So to be running the argument that this will lead to a deterioration in the price of Telstra shares, given what has occurred in the past, indicates that this is more about frustrating the government than about trying to put in place a better policy by way of amendment. I will be supporting the legislation. Those who are attempting to delay it may well do country Australia a real disservice.
We are not going to get many opportunities at this very important piece of infrastructure. There have been a few attempts in the past, under the old arrangements, which have failed. The National Party in particular have been led by the nose right through this Telstra debate. If they are led by the nose again and oppose this for reasons of city based interests within the Liberal Party and corporate interests, we may well see a scenario where country Australia misses the opportunity to engage in a true national broadband arrangement.
Recently Senator Conroy came to my electorate and spent some time in Tamworth. It may seem that it was a big day for me and for Senator Conroy, but I congratulate him again—I will only do it twice—because he is the first minister I have seen to come to a public forum where he stood for 2½ hours answering questions from left, right and indifferent on some of the technical issues and the policy issues. Some of the people in the crowd would not have been supporters of the Labor Party and were probably not supporters of Senator Conroy, but they were very impressed with his capacity to deal with people who were asking legitimate questions—there were not many political questions. I thought it was a very good performance by Senator Conroy and I know the people in my electorate did as well.
Out of that meeting I have subsequently formed a small working group made up of an ex Telstra Country Wide regional operative, a man of great knowledge of our region, Alun Davies. With Alun, a fellow called David Jones and the University of New England, the small group will look at what optic cable we have in our area now and what could be put in place or assist in the rollout of the National Broadband Network in the future. That group will be working quietly to put a range of information and evidence together. Part of that may well involve—and we are dealing with Senator Conroy’s office to gain some assistance here—travelling to Tasmania for a couple of days to talk to the people who are rolling out the network down there. For Alun Davies, with his technical knowledge, it will be invaluable to see what is happening there. I would appreciate any assistance from the Tasmanians who are here today.
The broadband network, as I said earlier, is the most important piece of infrastructure that we are likely to see this century. It will need a degree of government intervention for it to come about, particularly in the country areas. The city areas could get by through the competitive forces but the country areas will not. I know that there is argument, again by some of the country representatives, that, with the high-speed broadband that is being delivered, 90 per cent of the population will get up to 100 megabits and 10 per cent of the population, which will be regionally based, will get only 12 megabits. I just reflect, for those who are playing the political game in relation to this legislation, that 12 megabits was the top end of the coalition’s ambitions for speed delivery—not just to country people but to all of us. Hence, there is a vast difference here.
I would be the first to say that it would be nice for every constituent in my electorate to have not fibre to the node but fibre to the house. There has been a lot of criticism of the potential $43 billion cost of the current program. I think that cost will come down when we ascertain the infrastructure that Telstra and other telecommunications companies—as well as non-telecommunications companies—have put in place. Once we ascertain what fibre the nation has, the cost may well be significantly reduced. Obviously, we will not know that until we roll the company together—hopefully, with Telstra’s cooperation. We need them and others to come together in a cooperative way to deliver a wholesale network that everybody can be involved in, including the government.
The full privatisation of Telstra has proven that some degree of government involvement is needed for regulatory arrangements and active participation, particularly for country people, because the competitive processes will not take care of the delivery of those services at the small end of the market. We were given an assurance at the time the legislation for the sale of Telstra was going through the Senate. I remember it vividly, and I think I have mentioned it in this parliament once or twice before. I had heard that the then President of the National Farmers Federation, Peter Corish, was going to hold a press conference at the Senate doors late one afternoon. Prior to that, there had been activity, particularly in relation to Senator Joyce, with the Liberal Party trying to convince him that everything would be okay and that country people would be well looked after. They said: ‘Don’t worry about it. Remove government from it and competition between the various players will deliver the services to the country towns.’ We know that that has not happened, and it was never going to happen at the time. But, at that particular time, an assurance was given by the Howard government to Senator Joyce and to Peter Corish, the then President of the National Farmers Federation, that there would be an absolute guarantee enshrined in the legislation for equity of access to broadband and telephone services. That was to be in the Telstra sale legislation. And they—Senator Joyce and Peter Corish—apparently had been told that there was a letter to that effect. No letter has ever been sighted. The legislation never incorporated that enshrinement. And life went on.
I believe Senator Joyce has since recognised the folly of his ways and that he was conned at that time by the Liberal Party. I think it is time for Senator Joyce to reconsider his position on the passage of this legislation and not be conned by the Liberal Party again. Country people will not get many opportunities to have a system such as this. I recognise that some people will have to operate with wireless at 12 megabits or with satellite in the very remote areas, but our major centres—such as Tamworth, Armidale, Inverell and also much smaller towns—where our key health delivery and key educational services are will benefit from 100 megabits per second broadband speed. It is those areas that will actually drive the country economies. If we can deliver some of these educational services—and we probably do not even comprehend many of them yet—and put world specialists in the operating theatres to give information and assistance through real-time, high-speed service delivery, it will be an incredible breakthrough not only for government cost but also in health delivery to country people.
I urge Senator Joyce, and particularly some of the National Party and Country Liberals who have been rambling on about this great problem that the Telstra shareholders are going to have and the great injustice that the government is perpetrating upon them, to recognise that there has always been some degree of regulation from government, even in a fully privatised operation. I do not see this legislation as a sinister socialist takeover of a corporate giant at all, which some people are suggesting—
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll
—Why not?
009LP
Windsor, Antony, MP
Mr WINDSOR
—Why not? I do not see that as an issue at all here. What I see as an issue is that we have an opportunity to put in place a system that can really put this country upfront and we are having these sideline political debates to try and delay it. Some people are suggesting that this does need to be delayed whilst the government’s $25 million implementation plan is put together. That has nothing to do with this bill. Some people are saying, ‘Let’s wait; let’s wait; let’s wait.’ It has nothing to do with this particular piece of legislation. What that will do is allow Telstra, and the camp followers who are in this building, to work a lather of sweat up into a campaign, some of which involves the shareholders, some of which involves this so-called ‘socialist’ policy they can see taking over the corporate sector. Telstra have had plenty of opportunities to be involved in the service delivery end of the business, particularly, in the electorate I represent, in the smaller communities. They know that they have had that monopoly power to keep others out of some sectors of the business area as well. So I would encourage country members in particular to think about their constituents in relation to this and put aside the politics of ‘the Labor Party is bringing in a scheme that is going to revolutionise broadband communications’.
The National Party, I am told, have been told by Senator Minchin and others that this particular bill reduces the universal service obligation. Talking to some people who should know, I am being told that the bill actually strengthens it. Those who are suggesting that it weakens it are going to have to articulate that position. Maybe the shadow minister will articulate where it is actually weakened. But I think anybody who has followed the debate in the past would fully recognise that Telstra, being the monopoly player, particularly in country areas, even though there was a degree of regulation virtually wrote their own USO. If I am incorrect there, I am quite willing to apologise to anyone I have offended. Someone might indicate that that was not the case. What this bill actually allows is the public, through their elected officials, to dictate the universal service obligation—not the monopoly corporate player. I think that is a significant benefit as well.
In conclusion, I think it is time that all country members stood up and supported this legislation. If this runs into the second half of next year and gets embroiled in the election period again we run the risk of missing the opportunity to have these services rolled out. I know there are some bits and pieces that do need tidying up, but I think we really need to get behind the process to have the National Broadband Network rolled out right across Australia.
10702
11:18:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
1
0
Mr RIPOLL
—It is a really great pleasure to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009. I think it is a landmark bill, along with a range of other bills in relation to telecommunications, particularly in the area of competition and consumer safeguards, which is what this bill is about. As the previous speaker said, and as I am sure many other speakers will say, this has been a long time coming. It is about righting the wrongs of the past. It is about making good what ought to be in the marketplace for consumers today but has not happened because of a range of mistakes made by former governments.
It does take a lot of courage, a lot of will, to deal with these types of issues, because they are massive issues. They involve massive amounts of taxpayers’ dollars—into the many billions—and they involve dealing with some complex issues which are, as I said, costly but also very time consuming. They will take many years to correct. Nonetheless, it remains exceptionally important that we deal with those issues and that we do it as quickly as we can. I think this bill is as important as bills in any infrastructure area, be it roads, rail, ports—those vital pieces of infrastructure that drive our economy. Telecommunications is at the core of all of those. It is at the beating heart of our economy and the way that people interact and deal with each other on a day-to-day basis, be it on personal or business grounds, or in the context of health or education issues. There are a whole range of areas where people use telecommunications. So it is exceptionally important that this bill is here. It does tackle all of those very difficult issues.
The reality is that none of the difficulties, none of the problems that exist today, can be fixed without a government that is prepared to intervene, without a government that is prepared to tackle the difficult issues and to make the changes and reforms happen. We know from experience, from what we read in the papers and from comments by Telstra executives that it just will not happen without the hand of government—and that is what these bills are about. This government intends to make sure that the two great priorities in telecommunications—an open competitive market with fair competition, and innovative services that drive the economy—exist and that ordinary consumers are protected along the way and have competitive access to a range of services. We are ensuring that that takes place.
I want to get into the general discussions about the long road that has taken us to this point today. The road to developing a National Broadband Network, to delivering what is a critical piece of infrastructure for all of Australia, started a long time ago. But, since we were elected to government in 2007, Minister Conroy has taken the responsibility to actually deal with this and create a bill that will make this happen, which is taking place now. The Rudd government’s commitment has not wavered on this issue. If anything, we have been forced into a situation which leads us to today.
On 7 April this year the government outlined its commitment to roll out the National Broadband Network as a wholesale-only, open-access network that will drive more effective competition in the telecommunications sector. We know this because of the extensive consultations we have had with the sector. We know that it will lead to better outcomes for consumers and for business.
With that said, the transition is of course a critical period, particularly during the full rollout of the National Broadband Network, which will take some eight years, which is a long time. It is a long time by government standards and it is a long time in the sense that most governments only deal with the short time period of one term—a 2½- to three-year period. I always see it as courageous that a government actually tackles issues that span multiple parliamentary terms. It is very much in line with the view that we had in opposition, and it is certainly the view that I continue to have, that good governments plan for the long-term and make long-term decisions about the future of the economy and for consumers.
On 7 April the government announced its commitment to reforming the existing telecommunications regulatory regime. A discussion paper was released to allow for a full consultation process. The issues were similar to those raised in 2008, which saw over 80 submissions received. There was a very strong response in the most recent discussion paper, with 140 submissions received from a broad range of stakeholders pretty much covering the whole sector—the states, the territories, government, broadcasters, media companies, the ACCC, consumer groups, disability groups, business organisations, unions and consumers. There was a large variety of people making submissions and it covered the whole community, and their submissions are of course available.
After consulting for over 15 months and having received in total more than 200 submissions there was an overwhelming message that came through from every submitter and that is that the current regime simply does not deliver in this era. It falls down in a whole range of areas and that is why the government is now developing its package of reform bills. The reforms in the bill that we are currently discussing, and the process itself, are broadly consistent with the overwhelming majority of submissions, having also received extensive and detailed advice from the ACCC.
This issue has been around for a very long time. Most people will agree that structural separation, the separation between the wholesale and retail arms of Telstra, is very important and probably should have been dealt with right at the beginning. But perhaps because of the difficulties or the lack of will, or maybe the lack of foresight from the previous government, 12 years elapsed, which actually entrenched the current problems and the situation that we face today making it harder and harder and harder.
YT4
Scott, Bruce, MP
Mr Bruce Scott
—You didn’t support the sale of any of Telstra.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr RIPOLL
—We hear interjections from members of the National Party and they say, ‘Well, we sold it off.’ If they are saying that they sold it off as some sort of cry that that was a solution, then that is far from the case. That certainly was not a solution. In fact, if anything, it entrenched deeper and deeper the problems that existed in this country about a fair, open and competitive marketplace. Given that what was sold off is not only the largest carrier in the country but enjoys an incredible monopoly, it has to be heavily regulated to control its activities and its anticompetitive behaviour. It has also meant that consumers in Australia endure some of the lowest standards in the world in the OECD and developed countries, in terms of broadband provision and in terms of telephony services, and some of the highest costs around the globe. I will have a bit to say about the National Party and the Liberal Party and some of their past behaviour in this area—as well as some of their current behaviour, which is par for the course when it comes to the LNP.
The reality for Telstra is that it is not only a vertically integrated organisation but also a horizontally integrated organisation. It owns all of the fixed copper lines—the network that spans right across the country and literally feeds to every home, business and person who uses telecommunications services—as well as having the largest hybrid fibre/coaxial-cable and mobile networks. On top of that it also has a 50 per cent stake in Australia’s largest subscription provider, Foxtel. It is not unusual in other areas—be it media, television or other areas—for there to be rules around one player owning too much of a particular sector. They are there for a good reason: it is about competition. Consumers inherently understand that, if one big player owns the lot, there is no competition. We see this in the debate around fuel and in the debate around grocery and food prices. We see this debate in many areas, and the debate is no different in telecommunications. The government is being forced to intervene—to act—although Telstra does have options where it can deal with some of these issues. But, to date at least, it is choosing not to do that.
I heard earlier from one of the opposition speakers about the complaint that it will take eight years and that that is somehow too long. I do not know whether eight years is too long, too short or just right, but I do not think the fact that it will take eight years to complete the National Broadband Network rollout is as important as it is that we actually start today—that we have a start date. It is important that we begin the process because for every day that it is delayed there is no rollout. The reality is that these guys sitting in opposition—and we are going to hear from the member for Maranoa shortly about his complaints and opposition to these bills and all the reforms in the National Broadband Network rollout—had the opportunity, the time and the resources to actually do something. For 12 years they sat on the government benches and did very little or nothing. They complain now that they might have changed some of the policies they had in place and that, if they had just been allowed one more term by the electorate, they would have finally done something. Well, isn’t it always the case? ‘Just give me one more term.’ So they would have had 15 years to maybe finally do something.
The reality is that we are not going to take 15 years; we are going to act right now. As we heard from the member for New England, it takes courage for a minister to step into this debate and make it happen. It takes courage on a whole range of fronts, but it must be done. I think the community really do understand this. They actually have a grasp of it. And why is that? Why do the community understand this? Because for the past decade at least they have realised that they have been getting a lower standard of service, they have realised that they have been paying too much and they have understood that Telstra, as the largest player on the block, has not delivered for them. And nowhere did they understand this better than in the bush. I see the member for Maranoa scoffing and laughing but—
YT4
Scott, Bruce, MP
Mr Bruce Scott
—Have you ever been out there on a pushbike? Have you ever been west of Ipswich?
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr RIPOLL
—The member for Maranoa will get his opportunity. I know he is pretty sensitive on these issues, because it is his constituents who are telling him that he is wrong. The reality for the member for Maranoa and others like him is that they have delivered very little to nothing for their constituents. And here we see them again. What do they actually do? I do not mean the rhetoric that we will hear, but what do they actually do? In 12 years, there was no delivery. In 12 years, there was nothing. In 12 years, all they did was just sell off Telstra. Now that there is a government with the courage to actually do something, what do the opposition do? They say their plan is to just delay it and block it. That is their plan. They do not want to see any delivery—no national broadband network rollout and no increase in competition. Their myopic view on these issues is to just continue to delay. It actually makes sense for them to delay. If you think about it, that is what they did for 12 years—they just delayed. They always put it off for another day: ‘It’ll be right; someone will fix it eventually.’
That someone is here today and is the Rudd government. It has only taken us two years, 24 months, to get to the position where we actually have legislation in the House. So here is an opportunity for the National Party and an opportunity for the Liberal Party. Here is an opportunity for the opposition to show leadership, some courage, and actually get on with the program, get on with rolling out a national broadband network to the country and get this in place. But no, their plan is quite simple and it is well documented, depending on which leader of the National Party you listen to. Clearly they are all of the view that blocking is the best policy. So I would be very interested to see how they go out to their electorates and talk to their country constituents about how they would get better services and better competition and how they would be able to get reasonable prices and access and how smaller businesses and other organisations in the telecommunications marketplace can gain fair and equitable access to market share. I would be interested to see how they work to resolve all those issues together and explain them to their constituents. I doubt that that will happen. They will just blame the government for the failings of the past when in fact they should recognise their failures over a very long period.
It is pretty easy to sum up this issue in a couple of terms. One is to ask who the winners are. Who is going to win out of this change? That is pretty easy: it is going to be the consumers. We have about 21 million people in Australia. So who wins? About 21 million people.
YT4
Scott, Bruce, MP
Mr Bruce Scott
—Twenty-two.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr RIPOLL
—We are getting close to 22 million, yes. If we hit that, it is even better. It strengthens my argument, so I thank the member for that. There will be even more winners. I acknowledge the member for Maranoa for agreeing that there will be more winners. There will be 22 million winners instead of 21 million. It is a great outcome.
Who else wins in this rollout of a national broadband network? Competition wins. When competition wins, people win. Who else wins? The marketplace wins. There will be more access and better opportunity for a whole range of people in the market. Who else wins? Innovation wins—innovation technology. With more players, more access and a better ability for people to share information, innovation becomes centre stage more and more in what can be delivered. Of course, the greatest winners of all are the Australian economy and the taxpayer. Taxpayers will finally be able to have a system that will deliver for them and a system that will deliver for the economy. In all of these debates it does not matter how real the facts are. We see it in a whole range of areas, particularly when we talk about climate change, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or the emissions trading scheme.
There will always be the sceptics, the naysayers or those who simply want to oppose things because they are in opposition. It is not much different in this debate over telecommunications. You have the sceptics and you have those who say, ‘It’s just not good enough.’ Of course, for those who say that, nothing ever is. When they are there they do not do anything, but as soon as somebody else steps up to the plate it is never good enough. There are the naysayers who will say no to absolutely everything. If it is not their idea, then it is not a good idea. We see those in the National Party as well as in the Liberal Party. Then there are those who are just missing in action. Who are the greatest ones for being missing in action? Those in the National Party. Who stands up for the people the National Party are supposed to represent—farmers, rural folk, bush folk, people out in the country who we all acknowledge do it tough and do not have the sort of service delivery that they should have? No-one in the party room in Canberra does. In the opposition party room, or what was then the Howard government party room, who stood up for the bush? The National Party members are pretty tough in here, but they were never tough in the party room, and they are certainly not tough when they go out into their electorates. We have plenty of evidence of that, so there is no need to debate that.
Who should be supporting this sort of legislation? That is pretty easy. I have mentioned this before. I think it is all those consumers who have a lot to gain out of this rollout—and they are supporting it. As I said, there are just a couple of barriers preventing really good reforms in competition, to opening up the telecommunications market and in having Telstra either functionally or structurally separate, and that barrier is the Liberal and National parties in Canberra. They are too focused on the past. They are more focused on their own image than on actually delivering. Perhaps they are just a little bit ashamed when they think back to their legacy, when they think back to what opportunities were missed and when they think back to all the things they could have done and what they did not do. There is probably some regret now. You can sense it in their tone of voice when they say, ‘We had contracts in place—
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr RIPOLL
—I see people in the gallery agree with me!
YT4
Scott, Bruce, MP
Mr Bruce Scott
—You’ve got babies crying!
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr RIPOLL
—They are crying out for the National Broadband Network! People everywhere are crying out. But I will tell you what they are really crying about in the bush. They are crying about not getting the sorts of services that they deserve and about being misled for 12 years, being betrayed, by the National Party and the Howard government. The coalition could have delivered something for them, but they will complain in this place that it takes too long or that we somehow cancelled some contracts or things that were in place. Isn’t it always the case that they are going to do something? They were always ‘gonna do this’; they were always ‘gonna do that’. But in the end people in the bush missed out—at least, they did then. But now we have a government in place with the courage and the fortitude to deliver this and make this happen. We will not back down. We will make sure it happens, one way or the other, through either the structural separation or functional separation of Telstra. It is up to Telstra to decide. They have some choice, some options. In the end, the winners will be the consumers and the Australian economy.
10707
11:38:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
0
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—Having listened to the previous contribution, I am amazed that someone who represents some rural areas around the fringes of Brisbane can speak so supportively of this legislation. With so many shareholders’ and superannuants’ shares and dividends at risk, I am at a loss when I hear contributions like that of the member for Oxley.
In speaking on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009, I support the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition. I want to put the words on the public record again:
… given Labor’s rash, unjustified and irrational change of policy to force the break-up of Telstra in an arrogant attempt to prop-up its risky $43 billion National Broadband Network, further consideration of this bill should not proceed until after the NBN Implementation Study is presented to the Parliament …
The opposition is asking for consideration of this bill to be delayed until the study that this government has commissioned is brought before the parliament so that we can consider it in the light of that report. Rushing through this legislation with blinkers on is so typical of this Labor government. We saw the same approach with the emissions trading scheme bill that was introduced into the House this morning. The coalition and many Australians believe the most sensible course of action on the emissions trading scheme, if I can touch on that for a moment, would be to wait until Copenhagen, which is at the end of the year, about 10 short weeks away, to see what the rest of the world is doing. But this government is blindly charging on with that legislation, so it is not surprising that they want to charge on with this legislation as well.
This bill, in essence, demands the functional separation of Telstra. If Telstra does not voluntarily separate, this legislation can force it to do so. That sounds like legislation we might have seen in the former Soviet Union. It is a socialist way of dealing with a public company: ‘If you won’t do as we want, we’ll force you via legislation.’ It is a publicly listed company with shareholders across Australia, including Australian taxpayers through the Future Fund. We know what the Future Fund directors have said that they are very concerned about this legislation because they have a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers in the administration of that fund. This government wants to force Telstra, if they will not do it voluntarily, to functionally separate its wholesale and retail divisions. The Labor government is also saying that, unless Telstra undergoes this structural separation and divests its hybrid fibre/coaxial cable network and its interest in Foxtel then it cannot acquire a specific brand of spectrum, which is a key factor in the exciting future of advanced wireless broadband. So they have not brought in a little stick; they have brought in a huge sledgehammer.
Interestingly, the Rudd government were not given an election mandate to force the functional separation of Telstra. In 2007, prior to the federal election, the policy they took to the Australian people stated:
Labor will ensure that Telstra’s wholesale and retail functions are clearly distinct within the company …
They said that to the people less than two years ago. It is quite clear: ‘Labor will ensure that Telstra’s wholesale and retail functions are clearly distinct within the company.’ That was a policy before the election. Now we have another policy. So what people voted for, what they saw in the Christmas election commitments document that came to them in the mail, is not what the government are going to deliver.
They also went to the Australian people promising to bring fast internet to every man and his dog. Everyone was going to be able to get this. And yet we are still waiting for this internet revolution. NBN mark 1 was a complete waste of time and money and now the Rudd government is spending some $25 million on consultants to tell them how to put together their $42 billion National Broadband Network. They are down in Tasmania allegedly rolling out more optic-fibre cable as part of the NBN. At the same time, the government have commissioned McKinsey, at a cost of $25 million to the Australian taxpayer, to tell them how to put this business case together.
I wonder if these consultants have told the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy that, in order for his new government run network, Telstra 2, to work and be viable, he will have to make sure that Telstra 1 is not a threat. The previous coalition government was able to make a successful exit from running a telecommunications company. We let the market decide Telstra’s success, but now this government is proposing to re-enter the business. This government wants to take taxpayers’ money and gamble it all on a new network which may not even be viable. Why are people going to switch to Telstra 2 when Telstra 1 is cheaper and better? It is simple: you make sure that Telstra 1 is not cheaper and better. If this government succeeds in forcing the closure of the existing copper network, then it can essentially eliminate competition against the NBN. That seems to be the push behind this legislation.
There are a number of Telstra customers who have not been entirely happy with Telstra over the past few years, particularly with the switchover from CDMA to the Next G network—and I was one of those people. But there have been relatively few problems with Telstra, considering they provide the majority of rural Australians with their telecommunication services—and I should know because I represent a very large area of Queensland which is very dependent on good, affordable, reliable communications. I certainly take this opportunity to commend Telstra Country Wide. The member for Oxley suggested we did nothing in government. Telstra Country Wide is a great success and was an initiative of the coalition government to ensure that Telstra had a physical presence in rural Australia. In the Hawke-Keating era, Labor were quite happy to see Telstra under pressure from competition to move further and further into the cities and establish call centres as part of the service obligation. We as the coalition government were not happy with that and implemented a process whereby Telstra Country Wide had to have a physical presence and a country division of Telstra to look after country areas of Australia.
My local Telstra Country Wide provide outstanding service, particularly in Roma, Longreach and Toowoomba. Once again they have that physical presence for the people of Maranoa in outback Queensland. Our local area general manager, Jeff Little, who has since retired, was a godsend. I am being truly honest when I say he worked so hard for the people of Maranoa regardless of whether they were Telstra customers, Optus customers, Dodo customers or Vodafone customers. He has since retired and I hope he is having a few well-deserved sleep-ins, because he worked tirelessly, I can assure you. He was a physical presence with the office out there, visiting these communities and customers and attending community events. Of course, his successor, Matthew Mocatta, is also a dedicated person. He personifies the new Telstra approach of collaboration and quality customer service. We are lucky to have such a dedicated Telstra Country Wide team in our part of Queensland. Needless to say, I hope this strong working relationship continues. We have had no commitment from the minister yet, but I would certainly be interested to hear what he has to say about Telstra Country Wide’s future, just as I am sure Telstra Country Wide staff and Telstra’s 30,000 employees would be interested to know if they have a future under this government. And I am sure the nine million customers are also wondering what it will mean for their services if this legislation passes.
I am quite confident in saying that Telstra’s 1.4 million shareholders are not too impressed with this legislation. We have read the articles; I have received the emails. They have every right to be angry. These are Australians who bought Telstra shares in good faith in the three tranches of the Telstra sale or have taken a stake in Telstra through their superannuation investments. These are mum and dad shareholders. Many of these people would have voted for this Labor government based on its policy commitment, given before the election, that there would not be a forced separation of Telstra. These people continued to invest in Telstra. These are people who naively thought that investing in a publicly listed company meant that it was certainly free from government interference. They thought wrongly and they have every right to feel deceived by this government’s attack on their little nest egg—the shares that they hold or the superannuation that will provide for, or is currently providing for, their retirement.
In what other democratic country would this be acceptable? In what other Western civilisation can a government decide to fundamentally change the structure of a company that has done nothing wrong except to be highly successful in what it does? They might have done it in the old Soviet Union; it might happen in the Soviet states. I hope we are not going in that direction with this government.
Imagine how foreign investors are looking at Australia now. If Telstra’s entire structure—its entire make-up—is at the whim of a government, imagine what else could be in its path. What would investors around the world considering investing in Australian publicly listed companies be thinking if this legislation passes and allows this government to force a publicly listed company to split its operations into wholesale and retail divisions? What is the minister going to tell the 1.4 million Telstra shareholders? What will happen to their dividends and the value of their share portfolios? Can the minister tell these shareholders and these superannuants whether their shares will go up or down? Will their dividends increase or decrease? In a recent interview the minister suggested that there might be some impact on share value and on earnings. ‘Might’ is not good enough if you are a superannuant out there or you have invested in Telstra as part of your portfolio or an investment strategy. This is just not good enough. It creates so much uncertainty for people out there who have, in good faith, invested in Telstra for their families or their own retirement and their own security. We are just not getting answers from the minister.
The government have made no significant move in telecommunications since being elected. No wonder they are trying to rush this legislation through—so that sometime later next year, when they will probably bring out their ‘first 1,000 days’ report, they can have something to say about communications. Of course, this government have done little for rural and regional telecommunications. As soon as they were elected to government they wasted little time in gutting the Communications Fund and the Future Fund. That was $2 billion that the coalition put aside to ensure that there were earnings that would provide money without having to go back to taxpayers or Treasury to fix the problem when there was a market failure in communications in rural and remote parts of Australia. That Communications Fund has been gutted by this government; it has been raided. They did not tell the people of Australia that they would do that.
In July the minister announced six priority regions for the rollout of optic-fibre cable as part of the NBN network. Tenders were called—I have his press release here—in July with the expectation of construction beginning in September. Well, I am not quite sure which September he meant. The way I read the press release was that it was a priority and he was getting on with the job—that by September this year the contracts would be awarded and construction would begin in September of 2009. Well, September has passed. Maybe he meant 2010, or 2011 or 2012. I am not quite sure. We are still waiting for the announcement of the successful tenderers.
I am a believer in the use of optic-fibre cable. It is a modern technology. It is the technology that is going to form the backbone of the nation’s network long into the future. I hope that the minister will announce the tenders very soon, because the backhaul fibre will have tremendous benefits for western Queensland, as he said in his press release. He mentioned the towns of Emerald and Longreach in Queensland. I think those communities had an expectation that by September they might have heard that this construction would start in their communities. The backhaul optic-fibre cable will have benefits for the people of western Queensland. I made a submission to the National Broadband Network: Backhaul Black spots Initiative. I called for the optic-fibre cable to run loops in far western Queensland towns where the market will always fail to provide optic-fibre connections. The towns of Birdsville, Bedourie, Boulia, Windorah, Betoota, Quilpie, Eromanga, Stonehenge, Jundah, Yaraka, Isisford, Emmet, Barcaldine, Muttaburra, Aramac, Winton, Cloncurry, Kynuna, McKinlay, Mount Isa and Longreach will all be connected, in a spider-like web, with optic fibre. These interconnecting links between these towns would mean that, if one of the links failed, then it would have a loop back the other way.
The optic-fibre cable would bring huge benefits to large properties and huge benefits to small businesses, tourist centres and outback tourism. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, have worked out in that part of the world and would know what it would mean to the people who live and earn a living in those communities. If we had optic-fibre links and loops through that part of western Queensland it would also allow the Royal Flying Doctor Service, that great mantle of safety for the people of outback Australia wherever they live or wherever they have come from, to take advantage of high-definition diagnostic capability. In this harsh time of drought, when many farmers and their families are feeling isolated and alone, having fast internet would certainly give them tremendous access to friends both close and afar.
Those communities are connected in many ways, such as by satellite, by single-channel radio or microwave links, but these are technologies of the past. Maybe there is a back-up future for them, but they are not the technology of the future. They have served those communities well but, as far as I am concerned, they will not serve them well into the future. In fact, when it comes to service, until about 1984 the community in Birdsville, in the Diamantina shire, did not even have a telephone service. It was the community themselves and the local Diamantina Shire Council that raised the money to put in the telephone service for their community through the Royal Flying Doctor network. When it comes to where markets fail, they fail out there all right, and people in that situation had to come forward and put up their own money to bring a telephone service to that community. That was back in 1983, when major cities and regional centres all around Australia not only had telephones but had automatic telephones.
So, when I talk about markets failing and the need for this optic-fibre cable in that part of remote Australia, it will bring huge benefits to them. Markets will fail, but this is a role for government to provide when markets fail. That is why I hope that, in relation to the black spots backhaul money, the minister will very soon announce the successful tenderer so we can start to roll that out into those remote communities around the back of my electorate and in the Kennedy electorate and up through the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia.
Another thing I want to say is that, when we do build and extend the optic-fibre network, we should be building from the outside to the inside—in other words, from the outback into the cities, not from the cities to the outback. I am concerned that the minister has already stated that, under the NBN mark 2, populations of 1,000 people or less will be bypassed and not connected to the optic-fibre network. I hope he is wrong; otherwise, as you leave Brisbane and get to Ipswich and Toowoomba, they would have a big sign up that reads: ‘When you come to a community of 1,000 people or less, Labor is bypassing you with optic-fibre cable.’ The government are suggesting that communities of 1,000 people or less will not get access to this optic-fibre cable under the NBN proposition. Even the Labor Premier of Queensland has rejected the approach by this government in relation to those smaller communities and will not accept a proposition like that. And I hope the minister will soon respond to the Glasson Review in relation to the $300 million that has not been committed.
10712
11:58:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—If the member for Maranoa thinks that Australia has a truly competitive telecommunications system, then I suggest that he must be living on another planet. No other industry in Australia, member for Maranoa and others in this place, is so dominated by one player as the telco industry and Telstra is one of the most dominant telcos within OECD countries. The self-regulatory regime has failed to foster real competition in the market and those opposite know it. Telstra has been able to use the regime to its advantage. That is a fact. Listening to the member for Maranoa, you would think that Telstra was the most benevolent telco that it was ever possible to have in Australia. Coming from regional Australia, I can tell you that that is not the case. We do not have genuine competition in this country. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 goes towards helping that happen. And it is about time.
I know that those opposite know this to be true as well. But instead, like with most of our fundamental legislation to update to a modern economy in Australia, those opposite want to sit on their hands and delay purely and simply for point-scoring and ideological reasons. Their response to this legislation demonstrates that even more categorically.
Today I hope to add to the debate on what is a very important bill to this government and to the nation as a whole. It relates to something that we all regard as important. It is as simple as our ability to communicate via a competitive, fair and effective telecommunications framework. The essence of this legislation is about competition. A competitive telecommunications sector is vital to Australia clawing its way back towards the front in the telecommunications pack in international terms. We are way behind and we have been way behind for a long time. It also contributes to the social fabric, allowing friends and families to communicate with each other in many varied ways because of the rapid changes in technology that we see today.
In tandem with the Rudd government’s bold move to establish the National Broadband Network, it is also moving to create a level playing field for telecommunications through this bill. I am very pleased—as no doubt you are in your representation of Lyons, Deputy Speaker Adams—that Tasmania is the first rollout point of the National Broadband Network, and in particular one of my home towns, Smithton. From the outset, it is obvious that the bill is directly aimed at the prize position that Telstra occupies in the Australian telecommunications landscape. It is widely accepted that Telstra dominates the industry and it is very hard to find any other telco sector throughout the world where one company is so completely in control.
In an attempt to overcome the restrictions created by the dominance of one player in the market, the Rudd Labor government has acted. If passed, this safeguards package will represent the most significant reform to the telecommunications regime since open competition was introduced in 1997. Over 12 years have passed since that time and many stones have been cast by a number of smaller operators, but the goliath that is Telstra has failed to be felled or even dented by its competitors. Telstra remains one of the most integrated telecommunications companies in the world. It owns the only fixed line copper network in Australia, a network that connects almost every home and business, as well as the largest hybrid fibre-coaxial cable and mobile networks. It also has a 50 per cent share of Foxtel. This may be less of an issue in geographically smaller countries. But to duplicate even parts of Telstra’s network today would be an undertaking too huge to contemplate.
It is not hard to tell that the failure to address Telstra’s size and level of integration has also meant a missed opportunity to promote effective competition. That argument was very well made in this place by the member for New England in his speech in support of this legislation. His viewpoint is the same as mine, as we are both representatives of regional seats. Australia lags well behind other developed economies on a range of telecommunications indicators. In the telecommunications markets of other countries, competition drives companies to innovate and provide the best of services at the most competitive prices. In the United Kingdom, for example, the communications regulator reported that the net effect of the functional separation of British Telecom has been positive for both competition and consumers. Closer to home, in New Zealand the separation is only in its early days, but I understand that the preliminary results are again positive. It is important that we raise some of these examples to counter some of the gloom and doom and end-of-the-world scenarios that have been presented by those opposite—who effectively did nothing in the 11 years that they were in government.
The consequences of this lack of competition is obvious in my own region of Tasmania where, despite a good effort by Telstra—and I acknowledge the work of Telstra Countrywide; I have had a very positive relationship with them and those people involved with it, and I thank them for their ongoing efforts—the services available are limited. There is very little competition for the major dominant carrier. This has been well demonstrated in the recent outcry over Telstra’s decision to impose a $2.20 billing fee on people who wish to pay their bills in person. Many have contacted my office, and no doubt the offices of other members in this place, expressing a desire to switch carriers as a result of Telstra imposing this penalty payment. But they know that in reality they have little option but to stay with Telstra. I would again ask on behalf of the many thousands of loyal Telstra customers negatively affected by the charge but, more importantly, insulted by being penalised for paying in person that Telstra drop this penalty fee holus-bolus.
I acknowledge Mr David Thodey and his direct communications with me. It was very nice; he rang me up. I assume he was using a Telstra phone. And I acknowledge that Telstra was prepared to extend the concessions to the Commonwealth health card holders, but I did reiterate that it was not so much the amount as the principle that was involved. Again, I asked him to be a new Telstra and to drop this charge—this penalty fee, this tax on poverty—once and for all. In a more competitive market all carriers would be forced to consider carefully any move to institute wholesale and unpopular changes such as this.
Over the years we have heard many stories where the services offered by Telstra in regional Australia only a few kilometres beyond the local exchanges have failed to meet the basic expectations. Stronger competition will also increase the need to deliver on these expectations or risk losing important custom. Unkindly, but not necessarily inaccurately, Telstra’s idea of competition was recently defined by Melbourne based communications commentator David Llewellyn-Smith as ‘to invest just enough in services to become the least worst option’. Is this what we really want for the people of Australia?
The need for a structural separation of Telstra has been long recognised. The only difficulty in this place is that we have not done anything about it. I have heard some on the other side saying privately that we should have a structural separation and that it should have happened years ago. And those on this side say it as well. Well, here is the opportunity to do it. We ask those on the other side to get on with it so that we actually have a 21st century telecommunications system. The need for that was made quite clear during the inquiry into the structure of Telstra by the 2002 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and it is still highly relevant today. A submission from the University of Melbourne’s CoRE research group cast a critical eye over the subject of Telstra’s virtual monopoly.
CoRE’s Joshua Gans and Stephen King argued that the structure and behaviour of Telstra were key factors in determining both the efficiency of the telecommunications industry in Australia and the overall development of competition and innovation in telecommunications. At that stage, while they did not favour one model over another, they found that a rigorous inquiry into alternative structures was both justified on the basis of economics and important to the future of the Australian telecommunications industry. In the paper they said:
Because Telstra controls the CAN, it is also able to exercise significant influence over the provision of related retail services, such as fixed-line local and long distance telephony, and DSL broadband internet services. Thus, while it faces competitors in some parts of its business, those competitors must deal with Telstra if they want to provide services that allow their customers the ability to receive or make calls to fixed-line users.
The paper went on:
By owning and controlling the CAN, Telstra owns and controls a critical hub in the telecommunications network. Ubiquitous telecommunications services can only be achieved by Telstra’s competitors accessing the CAN.
At present, Telstra’s ability to use its market power in the CAN is limited by various price and non-price regulations. But … many of these regulations are a response to Telstra’s structure.
… … …
In the absence of regulation, Telstra would be able to use its monopoly position over the Customer Access Network both to control the degree of competition in related telecommunications markets and to distort competition in these markets.
Very little has changed in the position of Telstra and the telecommunications market in Australia since that submission of 2002.
In a submission to the same inquiry, noted communications analyst and commentator Paul Budde was highly critical of the telco’s position. He regrettably found:
… the self-regulatory regime has failed to foster real competition in the market and Telstra has been able to use the regime to its own advantage.
He said:
Their ‘gaming’ and delaying tactics have resulted in a reduction of competition.
He noted that Australia is the only country in the OECD where such a high level of market dominance is permitted. At the time, Budde urged the committee to consider a proposal to alter Telstra irrevocably, given its central role in the economic life of the nation. He said:
This is arguably the most important inquiry to be held in the history of our telco industry and, as such, deserves to be treated very seriously.
Nothing has changed since then.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in its submission to the 2002 inquiry was, I must admit, less enthusiastic about structural separation, but it too was very aware of the problems which existed then and do to this day. The ACCI contended that investment in telecommunications, and thus competition, has been hindered by the significant costs, rapid technology progression and long return time frames. The ACCI’s comments came at a time when the government still held a majority shareholding in Telstra and, while cautious about structural separation, it too saw the need to increase competition. But seven years later this is still to happen in any significant manner—thus, I suggest, testing the logic of the ACCI submission of 2002.
I believe today the support for such a change is even greater. On 7 April the government announced its commitment to reform the current telecommunications regulatory regime, with a discussion paper canvassing options for reform released on that day. A strong response of 140 submissions from a broad range of stakeholders was received, including all major telecommunication service providers, broadcasters, media companies, state and territory governments, the ACCC, disability and consumer groups, business organisations and unions. The overwhelming message from almost every submission was that the current regime does not work effectively to achieve its goals, it is failing business and consumers, and reforms were needed urgently.
We are heading into a new era of telecommunications with the National Broadband Network and all players will be given equal opportunity to be part of this future. Naturally there will be some level of uncertainty as we head down this new road. But the only other option is to sit back and do nothing like the previous government did for so long, and like they are still encouraging us to do today. I have already copped my fair share of criticism from Telstra shareholders in my electorate who were quick to assume that a separation of the company would guarantee a lower share price. I would ask them to take the time to examine the full case and to look at what has happened elsewhere, where such broad telco reforms have been put into place with a great deal of success both for consumers and for shareholders.
It is now part of history that the restructuring of BT, British Telecom, has resulted in a stronger share price and better performance. The same predictions could be made about Telstra if people would stand back and look at the advantages that a more competitive company would offer. It would be hard to argue that anyone else is in as strong a position as Telstra to position themselves as a leader in telecommunications in this country. A separate retail arm could soon become the provider of choice for people around the nation, thereby strengthening its share price. I know it is difficult for all the mum and dad investors who were encouraged by the previous government to be part of the ownership of Telstra, but this is a move that is designed to improve the prospects for all and will ultimately be better for all, including the share price, which has not been the fantastic performer it was expected to be under the current structure. Indeed, under the last Telstra regime, the Telstra share prices dropped by some 40 per cent. So I suggest that a leaner, more competitive Telstra that is hungry for real competition would see this trend reversed.
This bill includes a commitment to protect consumer access to affordable telecommunications services. The reforms give the regulator an ability to enforce existing consumer safeguards and mitigate the risk of Telstra reducing service quality on its copper network prior to the NBN. Amendments in this bill are focused on retaining and strengthening existing regulation to better protect consumer access to and the reliability of basic telephone services. This includes the removal of payphones, something that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, would know that the people of Tasmania’s west coast have been only too familiar with. I know that you, along with the mayor of the West Coast Council, Darryl Gerrity, have battled for years to stop Telstra removing public telephone boxes from areas like Linda, a small community just outside the regional hub of Queenstown. I have no doubt that similar threats to local phone infrastructure exist in other parts of Australia, particularly in regional Australia. The new universal service arrangements proposed in this bill make it clear for consumers of Telstra services, both voice and payphones, that Telstra must supply in fulfilment of its universal obligation, rather than these decisions being left up to Telstra’s discretion.
I have run out of time, but I am very pleased to be able to support this legislation. It will bring about protection for consumers and much greater opportunity for Telstra to make its own decisions to be more competitive, and to have a very competitive regime that is befitting of the 21st century and the technologies that go with it.
10716
12:18:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
0
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009, not in this instance because I think it is good legislation. On the contrary, I think that a number of questions have been asked and more questions ought to be asked about this piece of legislation. Peter Swan put it very nicely in an article in the Australian on 16 September this year when he said shareholders will be the biggest losers from the government’s unconstitutional moves against the telco. He pointed out that it is in Latin-American dictatorships that we would expect to see this kind of behaviour from a government. He said:
Latin-American dictatorships and the failed Soviet Union are notorious for thuggery in which private assets would be expropriated in the name of the state.
While that might sound dramatic, there is no doubt that this bill has elements of that. Peter Swan went on to say:
As a nation, we love a fair go and, aside from Ned Kelly, we are disinclined to worship theft.
Nonetheless, Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy plan to force Telstra to “voluntarily” functionally separate, without any form of compensation, let alone just compensation.
So there are two elements to this. It is about how Australia is going to be viewed by the business community, particularly the international community who traditionally have seen Australia as a great place to invest, when there is a risk that the government can come in and pass an act of parliament and take away your asset without just compensation. But, worse still, in this case we are talking about 1.4 million Australian shareholders who are affected by this action.
The bill, in amending the Telecommunications Act, seeks to prevent Telstra from acquiring specified brands of spectrum which could be used for advanced wireless broadband services unless it structurally separates and divests its hybrid fibre-coaxial cable network and its interests in Foxtel. The bill also contains amendments to increase the powers of the ACCC—and that is a concerning element of this—under the Trade Practices Act and changes to the USO and the consumer service guarantee. Essentially, the bill amends the Telecommunications Act to require that Telstra must conduct its network operations and wholesale functions at arm’s length from the rest of Telstra, provide the same information and access to regulated services on equivalent price and non-price terms to its retail business and non-Telstra wholesale customers, and put in place and maintain strong internal governance structures that provide transparency for the regulator and access seekers that equivalence arrangements are effective.
No-one would want to pretend that Telstra’s reputation was pure white particularly during this last decade. Nevertheless, while Telstra has not been perfect, overall it has been a great Australian company and it is delivering an important service to the community, and there are quite strong community service obligations. I think it can be said that the plan put forward by the coalition when we were in government, in the lead-up to the last election, made a lot of sense. Rather than demolish the whole set-up, there were practical ways in which to actually improve the delivery of broadband services to the nation and to make sure that there were service obligations to those areas, many of which I represent, which it would perhaps have been not profitable for a service provider to provide services to. The provisions are contained in a new part 9 of schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Act to be inserted by the bill’s part 1 of schedule 1. These telecommunications reforms, as I said to begin with, need very close scrutiny and the coalition intends to ensure that that happens. Why should we be concerned? Why should we require there to be scrutiny? I think there have been some extremely good media reports on this issue to draw from. I refer to an article that appeared on 9 September in Communications Day headed ‘NBN about as high risk as it gets’ and written by Luke Coleman. He says:
The national broadband network is about as risky as it gets for potential investors, according to one financial analyst. BBY telecoms analyst Mark McDonnell told the Telecoms World conference in Sydney that the NBN policy debate had become “politically charged” and “lacking in any measure of financial or commercial rigour.” He estimated NBN wholesale service will cost well upwards of $113 per month.
McDonnell said the NBN’s $43b price tag “does not appear to have been based on any kind of detailed study … specifically there is no clarity around the underpinning assumptions or about the kind of network and industry arrangements implied.
… … …
“Similarly, there is no clarity around whether the punitive $43b is simply the construction and deployment cost, or does it also make some allowance for the start-up operating losses of an entirely new venture we have all come to refer to as NBNCo.
He goes on to talk about the financials, which I will not go into. He finishes by quoting Mark McDonnell saying:
“But doing so under a government led process devoid of any real detail or definition, without any kind of business plan, is unlikely to generate substantial direct investments from the capital markets. Unless these basic limitations are overcome it appears the NBN will proceed mainly through reliance on government funding, sourced ultimately from taxpayers.”
I think that is a sobering warning. Yesterday in the House my colleague the member for Herbert raised a very interesting point, and I am sure taxpayers all over the country will be very interested in this when I repeat what the member said in his speech addressing this bill. He said:
… in April of this year Labor announced a new NBN, NBN mark 2. That is the $43 billion unplanned program—one costed on the back of an envelope—that will see the government own at least a 51 per cent share.
Where have they gone from there? Listen to this: they have created a National Broadband Network company and they are paying the CEO—
chief executive officer—
and the board an astonishing $43,000 of taxpayers’ money each week.
… … …
That is to run a company that has no customers and provides no services. What a good deal that is for the taxpayer! This is the Labor way.
I thought those words were worth repeating given that there have been delays in setting this up. I think it is fair to say that some of those delays are due to the disinterest of the private sector in buying into this folly known as NBN Co.
The legislation has also been referred to a Senate committee for examination with almost 100 submissions made. This provides an opportunity for all stakeholder views to be heard about the proposed changes, and they have been heard. These changes are causing a great deal of disquiet within the community. Many Telstra customers and shareholders have contacted my office on this issue. Following the government’s failed implementation of its 2007 election promise to provide $4.7 billion towards the upgrade of Telstra’s network to fibre to the node, it now has to break up Telstra in order to implement its new policy of spending $43 billion to create a government owned fibre-to-the-premises network—and people are rightly worried. From one account that I saw it seems it is likely to take 18 years before people can connect. It is clear to me that this action is an admission by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy that the government’s new NBN policy cannot be implemented without effectively re-nationalising fixed-line telecommunications in this country. The government simply does not want its NBN to have to compete with Telstra; it wants its NBN to be a government monopoly. What a dangerous situation this is, and I will be putting one or two quotes in relation to this.
There have been shareholder concerns, there has been anxiety by the unions and there have been people who question the implications for foreign investment in Australia into the future, because there is simply no guarantee that this will not happen to other businesses, with the government simply deciding that it wants to take over something when it does not want to compete. As was pointed out in Peter Swan’s article, this is the kind of action one would expect in Latin America or in a non-democratic polity. There were issues raised of sovereign risk, and the Australian Foundation Investment Co. had this to say about the sovereign risk aspect:
If the parliament passes this legislation we think Australia’s investment standing could be significantly diminished. Investors, particularly international investors, will perceive substantially heightened sovereign risk if the Australian Government can act arbitrarily in this way.
The Australian Shareholders Association were also concerned about the sovereign risk aspect when they said:
The ASA is concerned not just about the value destroying nature of the proposal for Telstra shareholders, but also about the implications of investment generally. International investors in particular will consider Australia to have a much higher level of sovereign risk if this Bill is passed and the Government allowed to impose its will on a private company. Investors, both small and large will consider that the level of risk of Government or regulator intervention when investing in highly regulated industries is increased by this decision. In addition the decision is likely to impact on the confidence the market will have in future privatisations.
So the concerns are very widespread, and with good reason. It has never been coalition policy to force the break-up of Telstra and until the parliament can be satisfied about the feasibility of the NBN, its final costs and its business plan, Telstra should not be forced to split in order to make way for the NBN and indeed to make it viable. While the government claims that these proposed reforms are about enhancing competition there is no evidence to suggest that they will, in fact, result in better and more affordable telecommunications services for Australians. In fact, an OECD working group and the Productivity Commission has determined that the costs associated with structural separation are likely to outweigh the benefits.
One just has to look at some of the submissions received by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts. For example, David Forman of Competitive Carriers Coalition told the public hearing on 14 October 2009:
We consider structural separation to be a poor policy option. It adds little to competition in the fixed line sector. It adds considerable cost to Telstra and so destroys value for shareholders. We believe the Government has proposed it because it improves the commercial prospects for the NBN, and because it is popular with Telstra’s competitors.
It is definitely not in the best interest of the constituencies. One has to ask why Labor has not bothered to even canvass more practical, realist and cost-effective alternatives to its $43 billion NBN—options consistent with the sensible approaches adopted by other governments. The government’s priority must remain with those parts of Australia that do not currently enjoy affordable access to decent broadband services. I highlighted those parts of my electorate being ignored by Labor when I previously spoke on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 in this place.
Some 21 communities in the Pearce electorate will miss out as part of this NBN proposal. This means 12,142 persons living in the communities of Bakers Hill, Beverley, Bindoon, Boddington, Brookton, Chidlow, Cuballing, Gingin, Herne Hill, Hovea, Lancelin, Lower Chittering Valley, Muchea, Pingelly, Sawyers Valley, Sovereign Hill, Tuart Rise and Williams have all been dumped in the too-hard basket by this Labor government. That is what this bill does. It dumps these communities—and communities like this right across Australia—into the too-hard basket, leaving them without decent broadband services and without any guarantee they will have them any time in the near future. The interesting thing is, a lot of these communities in my electorate are 30 minutes to one hour’s drive from the CBD. It is not as though you can exactly put them in the remote category, and yet they will be denied these services.
The coalition believes in working towards parity between residents living in cities and those living in rural and regional areas—and, indeed, outer metropolitan areas—and this plan simply cannot deliver that. We as an opposition do not support attempts by governments to ‘pick winners’ in the rapidly changing technology sector. Nor do we believe, in this economic environment, that taxpayers should be made to carry most of the risk in a large-scale speculative broadband venture.
Our approach remains realistic and pragmatic and we are not afraid to acknowledge that for a continent as vast and sparsely populated as ours Australians are generally well served when it comes to telecommunications. That is not to say that there are no gaps. The coalition is a strong believer in competition as a key driver of service expansion and innovation. We also believe the government can use various levers to encourage investment in broadband services and to ensure provision in under-served areas.
It is also important that a safety net be in place for those Australians who do not have affordable access to metro-equivalent broadband services. The unnecessary duplication of telecommunications infrastructure in well-served areas is unrealistic, and we heard about that in speeches made in this place yesterday by members of the coalition. It is unrealistic and it is also proof of a minister seriously out of his depth.
The coalition recognises the importance of universal access to fast, affordable and reliable broadband. We also fully support the continued enhancement of broadband services, including the deployment of next generation networks and services. In fact, the coalition government was set to invest $958 million in its rural and regional broadband network project, OPEL, with the private sector contributing a further $1 billion. This would have included the rollout of 15,000 kilometres of new open access fibre optic backhaul into regional and rural centres. Our plan would have been delivering services right now and would have been completed by the end of this year. Instead, Labor’s proposal to starve Telstra of spectrum will actually erode competition for this highly competitive and growing sector.
The fact that this government has a minister for deregulation is a joke. Since 2007 we have seen constant government interference in private enterprise and a raft of new regulations introduced. It is important that we have appropriate regulation and legislation in the business sector, but we have to be very careful that we do not overdo it, that we manage those tensions between our obligations in this parliament to the community and the opportunity for businesses to operate in a competitive environment. Frankly, this plan belies the Prime Minister’s claims of being an economic conservative.
10720
12:38:00
Cobb, John, MP
00AN1
Calare
NATS
0
0
Mr JOHN COBB
—The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 is not small pie; it is not something that you can ignore easily. It involves amending five different acts and it is very complex. Yet the government wants this legislation rammed through in just a few weeks. I find that absurd. Before we can make a decision about Labor’s telecommunications bill, the government needs to give us more information about what its broadband proposal is. We are being asked to pass a bill intrinsically connected to the NBN, and in doing so give unprecedented powers to the ACCC, before we know how the NBN rollout will occur. It would be reasonable for us to wait for the implementation study for the government’s proposed National Broadband Network, which is not due until February next year.
The government wants to force Telstra to structurally separate, whether willingly or unwillingly, and the government is in a mighty hurry to do that. Labor’s 2007 election policy was:
Labor will ensure that Telstra’s wholesale and retail functions are clearly distinct within the company …
They did not indicate before the election that structural separation was on the table, and there is no mandate for the government to do so.
Telstra is negotiating at the moment with the government about models for separation of its retail and cable networks. These negotiations are reportedly progressing constructively and they should be allowed to run their course. The government cannot build its NBN without Telstra, so it is desperately trying to force Telstra’s hand one way or another, but shareholders, employers and customers look like wearing any fallout that might accrue from it. We do need to consider the impact of any changes on shareholders, because they should not be attacked or be the losers by the government’s agenda. We need to respect the rights of the 1.4 million shareholders.
We must oppose any attempt by the government—and this, I think, is an enormous issue, particularly for regional Australia—to abolish the universal service obligation through its associated legislation and give the minister responsibility for determining what should not be in the USO. We do not want to see the USO being subject to the whims of the minister of the day.
The Nationals will assess our attitude, as we do with our coalition partners for any new model for telecommunications in Australia, on the basis of whether it will deliver quality services and technology to our regional Australians. We support measures to increase competition and consumer protection in regional areas, but we do not know if this bill will achieve those things.
I cannot forget in all of this that when we were in government we signed off on a deal with OPEL which by now would have delivered to 98 per cent of Australia, including regional Australia, modern telecommunications in the form of broadband. We still have no idea what the government’s NBN is, but it is aiming for something like only 90 per cent of Australia. Regional Australia might be the beneficiary of this, but when? It certainly will not be in 2009—if ever. When will it be? When the government announced this policy earlier this year, or was it late last year, even then it was talking about another five or six years before regional Australia seriously got a look-in. The government has already reduced the proposed coverage of its NBN network from 98 per cent to 90 per cent, as I said; who is to say it will not fall further? Certainly, a very large part of my electorate would be excluded from this. All the small towns would be excluded. Maybe a few big towns would be beneficiaries, but certainly the rest of my electorate would not be.
The cost of the Labor scheme has blown out from $4.7 billion to $43 billion, so regional Australia is not a good deal. We have lost $2 billion out of the Future Fund. We have lost nearly $2 billion from the OPEL deal—$1 billion from government and nearly $1 billion from Optus and Elders. That money is now going to be spent on the whole of Australia rather than on just regional Australia.
The coalition fully recognise the importance of universal access to fast, affordable and reliable broadband. That is why we went to the Australian people with the OPEL scheme. But Labor cancelled that network, which would have seen new services delivered this year to around 900,000 underserviced premises. Let us remember that our plan was nearly $1 billion, with $958 million in government money and $1 billion from the private sector. Rudd’s plan is $43 billion, and it leaves out eight per cent—
00ATG
Shorten, Bill, MP
Mr Shorten
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Calare has been in this parliament long enough to learn to refer to the Prime Minister by his title and not by his surname.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—The parliamentary secretary is correct. I am sure that the honourable member for Calare will observe the standing orders in future.
00AN1
Cobb, John, MP
Mr JOHN COBB
—I am chastened, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was very remiss of me. I feel very chastened. As I said, we need to know a bit about this plan. Nobody knows. I do not think Telstra knows. The government certainly do not know how they are going to do this plan. It is ridiculous to try to push legislation not just through the parliament but past the Australian people without knowing what that is.
Why do they need to? Why do the Rudd government—the Prime Minister’s government—need to rush this through when they do not even know what they are going to do with it? We can stand here and say, totally correctly, that we were going to look after all but two per cent of regional Australia, and that two per cent obviously had the opportunity to receive a subsidy that allowed them to go on satellite. This plan of the Rudd Labor government will leave 10 per cent—a very high proportion—of regional Australians without modern broadband.
They are in a panic to get this through. They are in a panic to get the ETS through. This government seems to be in a panic to rush things through rather than to get them right. Nobody has any idea why this Labor government wants to put the CPRS or an ETS through before they know what the rest of the world—not to mention the Americans—are doing. In the same way, none of us know why they want to get this telecommunications legislation through before they or anyone else knows what they are going to do.
10722
12:47:00
Chester, Darren, MP
IPZ
Gippsland
NATS
0
0
Mr CHESTER
—I have come to this debate today on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 with an open mind. I must say from the outset that the government has failed to convince me at this stage as to the merits of this legislation. It may shock the Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction, who is at the table, but there are a few basic principles that I try to apply when considering any legislation before the House. To begin with, I tend to accept the premise that the government has been elected to govern. I respect that view of the people of Australia in 2007 and I do not try to be deliberately obstructionist in that regard. Where the government has a clear mandate for action in relation to specific policy positions that were presented to the broader electorate, I tend to take the view that it has a right to pursue that agenda. It may not be a fashionable view among all on this side of the House, but it is a view that I tend to support. That is not to say though that the opposition should vacate the field. It most certainly must hold the government to account, and that is what I think the opposition are trying to do in this regard.
This brings me to a couple of other principles that I try to apply in my consideration of any legislation. I believe the legislation must be in the best interests of the people of regional Australia before I will support it and certainly it needs to be in the best interests of the people of Gippsland, who have sent me to this place to get the best possible outcomes on their behalf. It is in this regard that I do have some serious doubts about the legislation before the House and its capacity to deliver benefits to the people of regional Australia, who choose, obviously, to live outside our main cities.
I have followed this debate with interest. I would like to pick up on the commentary of the member for New England earlier this morning. I must admit that I do not always agree with the member for New England, but there were parts of his contribution which I thoroughly supported. The member did indicate that the National Broadband Network is critical infrastructure that has the potential to deliver enormous benefits, particularly to regional areas, throughout the rest of this century. He made the point quite well that where you live will become less relevant in terms of your capacity to do business or access health and education services in the future. It is a point that has been made by others on both sides of the House, including by the Leader of the Nationals, who spoke quite strongly on this issue earlier this week.
The word ‘potential’ is where it tends to get bogged down and where my reservations arise with the legislation before the House. I am not confident that the government has the commitment to deliver for regional communities. When it comes to telecommunications infrastructure, Gippslanders have no reason whatsoever to trust this government to act in the interests of regional Australians or Gippslanders in particular. The evidence has been all to the contrary. We all remember the $2.4 billion Future Fund, which was meant to be kept in perpetuity to invest in improved services in regional areas. The Rudd government has stolen that money from regional communities. It has been absorbed into other programs and it is gone. It will never be seen again in terms of its intended purpose to assist regional communities.
Over the years of the previous government there were some improvements to telecommunications services in regional areas. If you believe those opposite, the previous government did nothing anywhere for anyone or anything. That is a juvenile attempt, I believe, to dismiss the legacy of the previous government. It simply does not wash with the Australian public. No government—not even some of the appalling state governments we have at the moment—deliberately sets out to do nothing.
00ATG
Shorten, Bill, MP
Mr Shorten
—That’s a bit juvenile.
IPZ
Chester, Darren, MP
Mr CHESTER
—Work with me, Parliamentary Secretary. No government sets out to do nothing. We may always want more, but the Australian public expects the government members of the day to move past these very juvenile attempts to rewrite history.
The Howard government did deliver on many fronts. In my electorate there have been some improvements in mobile phone access over the past decade, but it does remain one of the biggest issues in my community. The additional towers that were established under the previous government’s Black Spot Program and allowed extended coverage throughout many parts of Gippsland have made it possible for service to be delivered to some areas that companies would never have justified servicing on a purely commercial basis. This effectively subsidised coverage has improved safety in my region.
As the parliamentary secretary is well aware, in terms of the most recent bushfires, coverage in emergency situations is a most critical issue for us in the electorate of Gippsland. On that point, I reflect on the need for improved mobile phone coverage in the future in terms of emergency services coverage. I already have spoken today on the new early warning system for natural disasters. I give credit to the government for undertaking that. I believe it has made a $15 million contribution to Telstra to pursue that agenda.
It is timely that the parliamentary secretary who has been involved in the bushfire reconstruction effort is in the chamber, because I believe it is important that we take the next step in the new national warning system. I understand that in the first stage it will be able to deliver voice messages to landlines and text messages to mobile phones based on their billing addresses. But I believe that, in the future, to deliver the real benefits to locals and visitors to Gippsland the system needs to progress to the next stage of delivering text messages to mobile phones based on the actual location of the phone at the time. That is the aim that I believe the government is pursuing. I understand the state and federal governments are both keen to pursue those as future stages of the agenda of a national early warning system. It is a real challenge.
Unfortunately, many areas in my electorate where the mobile coverage is poor are also those areas that are most exposed to the bushfire risk. I have sought additional funding from the federal government to deal with some of these black spot issues going forward. Areas in the Latrobe Valley were some of those that were directly impacted by the bushfires of Black Saturday and the earlier fires at the Delburn complex in the Boolarra area. There are areas right around Latrobe Valley where remarkably, in small towns only five, 10 or 15 minutes from major Latrobe Valley centres, the mobile phone coverage drops out. There are difficult issues to contend with. Further east, geography provides many obstacles to improved mobile phone coverage, but we are going to have to deal with that difficult terrain and we will probably need to subsidise services to those areas in the future if we are going to improve community safety and get the full benefits of any national early warning system.
I wrote to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in relation to this issue. The response I have received gives me no confidence in relation to legislation before the House today and the ongoing issue of telecommunications services to regional areas—whether it be mobile phone coverage, in this instance, or the future National Broadband Network. In his response to my concerns about the township of Mallacoota, one of the towns identified as a bushfire priority risk by the Victorian state government, he said:
The Australian Government appreciates the importance of mobile telephony to Australians. However, the decision to provide mobile phone coverage is primarily a commercial matter for mobile phone carriers. In making the decision to extend coverage to a particular area, a mobile phone carrier will consider a range of factors, including site availability, cost structures, likely levels of demand from users and overall economic viability of the service.
That message is fairly clear, I believe, but it is primarily a commercial matter and the minister has no intention of implementing a black spot program to assist. I think that draws us to the very point of the legislation before the House today. The issues facing regional communities are that, with the rollout of the National Broadband Network and broader mobile phone coverage, the carriers will quite naturally go to where the profits lie. I fear that there will be people at the end of the line who will miss out completely. That is my greatest concern with the legislation before the House today.
I do not want to pretend for a second that I am some sort of Telstra cheerleader, and I am not going to stand here and pretend that everything is fine in regional Australia or in my own electorate of Gippsland. I am not even going to try to defend Telstra’s record, particularly under the reign of the previous chief executive. I think there was an appalling lack of judgment at times by Telstra in relation to its handling of its regional customers. But I am a realist, and I want to know that under the government’s plans regional areas will actually be better off.
Those opposite have attempted to ridicule speakers from this side of the House who have sought to delay the progress of this legislation to make sure we get it right. I have a great deal of sympathy for the view of delaying it until we get it right. The government does not have a clear mandate for this policy position. Only a few months ago the minister was quoted as saying he had no intention of forcing such a separation upon Telstra, and it has never been put before the Australian public. To the best of my knowledge, it has never been Labor or coalition policy.
Having said that, I am not as hardline as some others about the broader issue of structural separation. I do believe we need to take steps to drive competition, particularly into regional areas. Telstra, as I have mentioned previously, has not always behaved appropriately in the best interests of its regional customers. I am hopeful that the new CEO, David Thodey, will be keen to address that situation. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr Thodey earlier this week and I was heartened by his comments and his attitude towards his regional customers. I believe that we may see a change of direction in that regard. I have been very critical in this chamber of Telstra’s handling of the user charge of $2.20 it applies to customers who pay their bills with legal tender across the counter at various agencies. I believe the point I made to Mr Thodey in that regard was well taken. I believe that Telstra may in the future take a more charitable view of its customers, particularly its older customers and those in regional areas.
There are areas where it will never be commercially viable for companies to invest in regional services. That is where I believe the Future Fund was designed to assist, along with the universal service obligation. As I indicated, I can see some merit in the position to help drive competition, but the process undertaken by the government must be appropriate to the circumstances. I fear that the government has held a metaphorical gun to the head of Telstra and its shareholders. Those opposite have discounted the arguments put forward in relation to the impact this decision will have on the shareholders of Telstra. I am not suggesting for a second that the interests of shareholders have to be our primary concern in this place, but they most certainly should be considered by us as responsible legislators. More than one million mum-and-dad shareholders will be affected by this decision, and I believe it is flippant and irresponsible for those opposite to just brush that issue aside.
It concerns me that we really do not have a complete understanding of all the issues in relation to this legislation. The reason we do not have a complete understanding is that the government simply has not done the homework or, if it has done the homework, it has not taken the people of Australia into its embrace and explained to them exactly what is intended. In a question in the House earlier this week the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister for more information on the National Broadband Network. It was a very pertinent question. The Leader of the Opposition asked:
How does the Prime Minister justify urging Australians to buy bonds in the $43 billion National Broadband Network, assuring them that those bonds would be a good investment, asserting that the National Broadband Network would be commercially viable and claiming its services will be affordable when the finance minister and, just a moment ago, the Treasurer have admitted that all of those statements were made without any business plan or cost-benefit analysis—in order words, without any reasonable or responsible basis for believing those statements were true?
In his answer, the Prime Minister, as he often does, sought to deflect attention to everyone but himself. He came out swinging in relation to the National Party. He said:
… the National Party in particular, surprises me, because so many Australians out there lack high-speed and effective broadband services.
There is no disagreement there, but under his own plan so many Australians will continue to not receive high-speed broadband services. The Prime Minister failed to mention that there was actually no business plan for this $43 billion National Broadband Network. I fear that the government is flying blind and it troubles me in relation to the legislation before the House at the moment. As I said at the outset, I am not interested in being obstructionist just for the sake of it, but I do have considerable reservations and support the delaying of this bill until the NBN implementation study is presented to the parliament. After two years of delivering absolutely nothing except empty promises, we can afford to wait for the findings of the $25 million study that the government has commissioned. I believe the House will be better informed in that regard with the findings of that study before it.
The government is asking me and other members to take what I believe is an enormous leap of faith. They are simply saying, ‘Trust us, everything will be okay; sure, we do not have a business plan for the $43 billion NBN program but you can rely on us.’ I am sorry, but I do not have that much confidence in this minister or in the government. We have already seen the National Broadband Network change remarkably in terms of the promises being made by this government. At first we had this fairytale about delivering fibre-to-the-node coverage to 98 per cent of Australian homes at a cost of just $4.7 billion. The Australian community should have signed up straightaway on that one. They were conned. The new promise is coverage to just 90 per cent of homes at a cost of $43 billion, but we really do not know where that figure of $43 billion has come from. It looks to me like it has just been some stab in the dark—a best guess. There is no business case or infrastructure plan that I have been made aware of. The promise has been downgraded to the extent that it excludes towns of fewer than 1,000 people. There are more than 1,000 towns, as I understand it, in Australia with fewer than 1,000 people in them and many of them are in the electorate of Gippsland.
I mentioned earlier that the NBN has the potential to deliver even greater benefits to regional areas than anywhere else, but many of the towns in Gippsland are simply not on the government’s radar, let alone in the government’s National Broadband Network plans. In all good faith to my electorate, I cannot support this proposition at this stage and I urge the government to wait until the implementation study is presented to the parliament.
One other aspect I would like to touch on is the confusion over the future of the universal service obligation under this bill. I take up the issue raised by the Leader of The Nationals on this matter. He highlighted that under this bill the legislated universal service obligation is abolished and it will be left to the whim of the minister to decide which services are provided. I do not believe this is good enough for regional areas. We have already seen the whim of the minister at work with the removal of the $2.4 billion Future Fund—an enormous betrayal of trust with regional communities. Before I can have confidence that this bill is in the interests of regional Australia I will need more information from this government in relation to its broadband proposals and how it intends to deliver those services to rural and regional communities.
There is a lot at stake for regional communities, as many people have indicated in their contributions to the debate before the House, because they have the most to gain from improved telecommunications services. The tyranny of distance is one of the main factors holding back the growth of regional communities and technology has the capacity to overcome a lot of those barriers. I believe that rural and regional Australians have every right to expect better telecommunications services in all its forms in the future. As the Leader of The Nationals correctly identified, a robust communications network will have a range of applications in regional Australia, both social and economic. It will create better health services, better education, and greater employment and business opportunities. I urge the government to take the time to get this right.
Finally, in the time allowed to me, I would like to refer to a media statement today from the shadow minister for broadband, communications and the digital economy. In his media statement, the shadow minister said:
Since coming to office the Rudd government has already: abolished the $2.4 billion Communications Fund, established by the Coalition for telecommunications upgrades in rural and regional Australia; cancelled the $2 billion OPEL project which would have seen fast and affordable broadband services delivered throughout under-served rural and regional areas this year; and is winding back the Australian Broadband Guarantee program which provides subsidised services for Australians living in under-served areas.
This government already has a dreadful track record and should not be believed when it says it is acting in the best interests of rural and regional Australia.
That just about sums it all up for me. The government has to prove its bona fides to regional Australians before it can reasonably expect us to support this bill.
10727
13:03:00
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
HWS
Grey
LP
0
0
Mr RAMSEY
—I rise on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 to support the amendment moved by the member for Dunkley. It was only a few weeks ago that I rose in this place to speak on the National Broadband Network information measures and I took the opportunity to point out many of the difficulties that the government had brought upon itself in its haste to try to meet some electoral commitments that it had probably blurted out unintentionally. I took the opportunity at the time to point out how the government had announced, first of all, the $4.7 billion package with 98 per cent of Australia to receive fibre to the node, how it had announced that policy without really understanding what it meant and the possibility of getting private partners to join with it. I also pointed out how then the government had jumped into the $43 billion version with, once again, no business plan and not truly understanding the implications of what it had been saying. I highlighted the fact that it did not have any financial plan, any business plan, for the implementation of either of these policies. I also took the opportunity to point out the incredibly low uptakes of expensive high-speed broadband around the world and, in particular, pointing to the uptake in Finland of 1½ per cent and Singapore of one per cent—which I will come back to later. I particularly took the opportunity to point out how regional and rural Australia was being ripped off and now was going to be totally left behind on the deal.
So what has changed? As I predicted at that time, another collapse of process; and now another enormous shift of policy, an untelegraphed shift of policy, by the government as it recognised it had no chance, once again, of delivering on its grand commitments. This shift in policy is nothing less than a nationalisation of a private Australian company—in this case Telstra. It is not something that I expected to see in my lifetime and certainly not something that we should leap into without due consideration. The moves by the government to force Telstra to separate their business will effectively place that part of the business in an unavoidable sale, takeover or merger with the only probable investor in the broadband upgrade, the government. The government is the only probable partner, given that it has signalled that it is prepared to throw $43 billion of taxpayers’ money at the deal and could not possibly be supplanted by any other partner.
Having the government as the only possible customer is likely to mean that Telstra shareholders will get a haircut or that taxpayers will own a network and that will result in losses for Telstra shareholders. The alternative is that taxpayers may well be left with an asset—which the government has committed to sell five years after completion—that may not be worth all that much. The government has moved so far on this policy since the last election, since we heard the commitment to build the fibre-to-the-node network for 98 per cent of Australia, commencing before the end of 2008 and using what now seems like a very small amount of public money, given the way this government has run up debts. That ‘very small’ amount of money—and I put that in inverted commas—was $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ funds.
So what of the argument the government should own the distribution network for telecommunications, that we should legislate to form a government monopoly in an industry? Imagine if anyone were to propose the same for the mobile network—the most dynamic, competitive and fastest growing of all forms of communication. What would the public say if we were to propose to get rid of the competitive nature of the market that has driven innovation and choice? The mobile sector was once dominated by Telstra, but it no longer even has the biggest share. The flexibility in that market has led to a sector where access has continually increased and the price of services has continued to fall. It is a sector where individual operators continually introduce new technologies. Imagine what it would mean for other businesses who have vertically integrated business models if they were to be pulled apart by the government. Imagine the loss of value, the loss of confidence in Australia’s business models if the government were to take this attitude across other industries. While many of us are not always happy with the power of some of our large industries, the reason they are so successful is that they have integrated business models which provide special advantages in the market.
There are myriad complications inherent in this legislation that could not possibly be explored in the time frame. The minister only flagged these moves a month ago, tabled the legislation and here we are, being expected to vote before the government’s own implementation committee—which has cost $25 million—has reported. We have little justification, once again, to bring it all under government control and make the government the regulator, owner and operator of the nation’s telecommunications network.
There were a couple of underlying reasons for the sell-off of Telstra. One was because the monopoly government corporation, as it was then, was unresponsive, lead-footed, lacked innovation and provided expensive services which were getting more expensive. Another reason for the sell-off of Telstra was the enormous debt Australia found itself in as a parting gift of the then Labor government. It seems remarkable that at a time when, as a nation, we will soon owe more than $200 billion we would be contemplating borrowing another $43 billion to build this new network.
So how did we get to this point? It all started during the last election campaign, when the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, was selling himself as ‘John Howard lite’. Nothing much would change; remember that? The attitude was: ‘Tax policy; we’ll copy that. It’s about right. Economic settings; they’re good. Immigration policy’—that is a moot point at the moment—‘We will do that about the same.’ We all remember it well. We certainly had different policies on industrial relations. Mr Rudd was looking for some big ideas, some broadbrush—
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! I remind the honourable member for Grey that he ought to refer to the Prime Minister by his title.
HWS
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
Mr RAMSEY
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at that time he was Mr Rudd; he was not the Prime Minister. I couched it in terms of the time frame, but I am happy to correct myself. At that time, the now Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, was looking for some big ideas, some broad vision stuff, so he committed the Labor Party to the National Broadband Network. It was to cost $4.7 billion and private industry was to match that amount. The government was to build a 12-megabyte fibre-to-the-node network for 98 per cent of Australians. Work was to commence before the end of 2008. That time is well past. At the time I thought this outcome extremely unlikely. I remembered the great Telecom rollout to rural Australia of the seventies and eighties. That was years and years of work and involved thousands and thousands of kilometres of deep ripped cables. I could not believe any government or private operator could possibly hope to duplicate that network for a sum somewhere near the proposed total of $10 billion.
The plan was to steal the $2 billion Communications Fund, which had been put in place to protect regional and rural Australia, and add another $2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money. The idea was that private enterprise would fall over itself to find another $5 billion to build this fibre-to-the-node network. Incidentally, the only part of this deal ever delivered was the stealing of the $2 billion—a great example of the decisive, effective action that the Prime Minister is so proud of trumpeting. Unfortunately, nothing else happened.
It became obvious that we had policy on the run. The government had not planned or consulted with the industry, and they most certainly had not commissioned a business case, because after 18 tortuous months the process collapsed. Despite interest from six parties, not one could deliver the goods for the money. Not one could find a business case that worked. But, not to be daunted, the Prime Minister proudly announced this total failure as a victory and committed the government to not a $10 billion network but a $43 billion fibre-to-the-house network for 90 per cent of Australians. We know that this was once again policy on the run. The government had not commissioned a business case and, once again, they had no idea how they were going to deliver on this grand promise. The government must have been alarmed at informed public criticism and industry scepticism about the chances of this network ever being viable.
We should remember at this point that there are fewer potential customers for this $43 billion project that will service 90 per cent of Australia than there were for the $10 billion model that was proposed to service 98 per cent of Australia, and the industry could not make the sums stack up on that model. So the Prime Minister and his minister for telecommunications had an enormous problem: high public expectation, a financial disaster on their hands and no plan for delivery. I remind the House that the last time I spoke on this issue I predicted that this plan would collapse as well. That is exactly what has happened.
So now we have the next impromptu plan. We have the effective nationalisation of Telstra, which for all intents and purposes will see a forced break-up of the company. I am almost certain this plan has had no more consideration than the last few but is seen as a get-out-of-jail card for the government. It is no more than propaganda for the government to say Telstra has a choice on this issue, but by denying extra bandwidth for mobile services they are holding a gun at the head of the company. Mobile services are the growth part of the industry. Telstra will have to have the bandwidth to roll out its 4G technology, for if they do not then customers will be forced to move to other providers when their 3G handpieces, which we all have now, reach their use-by date. So to pretend that Telstra has a choice in this game is rubbish! The only choice they have is Hobson’s.
Some would ask why we should feel any compassion for Telstra, but there are a number of messages here which do not sit comfortably with me. National takeovers of private industry are not something which happen in free-market economies. The message to investors is particularly bad, and in the case of Telstra we are looking at the biggest shareholder base on the Australian stock market, with over 1½ million investors, and a far bigger holding indirectly through our superannuation funds. They all stand to get a haircut with this deal.
The costs of structural separation to Telstra will be enormous. How do you pull apart a company which, as the core part of its business model, has strands running from top to bottom? Billing systems, overlapping maintenance workers, transport systems—all designed to service the whole company. Will the shareholders or taxpayers pick up this bill? The challenge for Telstra, the owners and operators of the copper network and the major player in the fibre network around Australia, has been to try to remain competitive with the fast-evolving mobile network. This has seriously eroded the company’s profitability. After all, we all know hundreds of people who have disconnected their fixed services. So this legislation attacks Telstra’s efficiencies and then will shift the risk of the ageing copper network to the new company, which ultimately will be owned and controlled by the taxpayers.
To keep in business, Telstra has made enormous efficiencies. To be fair, many—particularly those who live in electorates like mine—have not been happy about some of the changes as local work crews have been disbanded. However, no-one should ever think there are free lunches out there. If Telstra were to put back all the work crews, either the prices of all the services would rise significantly or they would have to start closing down networks. As always, we can all long for the idyllic bliss of our youth, but we cannot bring it back. I remember the local wars in the 1980s as my friends and neighbours were faced with bills worth thousands and thousands of dollars when the then government owned Telecom was asked to connect copper network to their farms. It caused an enormous ruction in my district; people were asked to pay bills of $8,000 and $10,000 to get a phone connected. Memories can be funny things sometimes. It is a part of human nature to remember the good times and sometimes forget the bad. But I return to the issue of the day: significantly increasing the price of access is simply not an option as all it will do is accelerate the abandonment of the network in favour of mobile services.
So what will happen once the government takes control of this network? The government will be the regulators and will set the price for access to the network. We must question the new company’s ability to raise the cost of access, if it proves impossible which, given the input of capital that the government is planning to pump in, will provide for an unprofitable company. The problem they will face will be the continual improvement and competitiveness of the mobile network which will limit their ability to compete in the marketplace. So, unless the government has once again changed its policy on this—and who would know?—the plan is to sell off the company five years after completion of the National Broadband Network. If it is not profitable, the price will be discounted until it is, at great loss to the taxpayer. Or perhaps they will not sell and will continue to operate the network themselves—that is, the government and the taxpayers—and taxpayers will pick up the bill for any losses that this company is likely to incur.
Let me return to some of the issues I raised in this place last month. I spoke earlier about Finland, a nation that has been quite aggressive in its broadband rollout. The government was planning to guarantee delivery of 100-megabyte capability, with fibre-optic to every house and business. In reality they have been able to get 100 megabytes to about 40 per cent of homes and business because—this really is worth noting—of the vast cost of delivering services to its remote areas. If Finland is having trouble with its remote areas, you can only imagine the difficulties in my electorate of Grey, which is an area bigger than New South Wales. In Finland, the cost of access to a 100-megabyte service is about 2½ times as much as the generally available 10 megabytes. So how many Fins are signing up for this service? The take-up rate is just 1½ per cent, so how can anyone make a business case if your total market is just 1½ per cent? Clearly something has to give. Even in Helsinki, the place with the highest population density, it is proving difficult to sell the service. In Singapore, where 100 megabytes is available, the take-up rates are as low as one per cent.
Following the Prime Minister’s thought-bubble policies, you can imagine how horrified they must have been as the reality of what they had committed to sunk in. There are 10 million potential users in Australia, and if we were to achieve a 1½ per cent uptake that would be 150,000 customers. A network costing $43 billion, as the Prime Minister had proposed, would equate to a debt of $286,000 for each connection. So now, in panic, the next idea is to nationalise the Telstra network and force anyone who wants fixed-line services on to that network. I have no more confidence that they know anymore about the mark 3 version than they have done with anything else in the field, and so after two years of abandoning policy and announcing new ones and no action, it is now an emergency that we force this legislation through the parliament in the next few weeks. It was introduced in this House two days ago and is likely to be rammed through today.
What will be the effect of all this on my constituency—the 130,000 people spread over the part of South Australia that is, as I said, bigger than New South Wales? You can be sure it does not look good. One of the earlier government plans, if it is fair to call it that, committed to a fibre-to-the-node network for 98 per cent of Australians. That electoral commitment went out the window a few months ago and now we are down to a premium service for 90 per cent of Australians, You do not have to guess who the losers are: it is regional Australia. Towns with fewer than 1,000 people will miss out; they will stay on the current satellite service. I am probably the only member of this place who has no mobile phone service at my home and accesses the internet on a satellite signal. I know what the capabilities are like. Towns in my electorate like Booleroo Centre, Cleve, Yorketown, Wudinna, Gladstone, Kimba, Minlaton, Cummins, Stansbury and a host of others will be the losers. I estimate that more than 18,000 people will miss out on fast broadband in Grey. But they will not be entirely forgotten; they will certainly qualify for their full share of the $43 billion debt.
We do not know what the government has planned for country Australia. It really has just put it in the too-hard basket. What kind of service will the nationalised telco be required to provide to those of us who live in rural and regional areas? Unfortunately, we do not know, because this legislation is being forced through in such haste. The compulsory takeover of Telstra by the government has tried to hide the reality of what they are doing by claiming that Telstra has a choice in this structural separation. We are in a totally open-ended position where neither we, Telstra nor the government have any real idea where we are heading: what kinds of services will be offered, particularly to my constituency, and in fact what kind of liability the taxpayer will be faced with in the longer term. Yet the government demands we make a decision on the forced break-up of a public company in the next few weeks. (Time expired)
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! I would refer the honourable member for Grey to the actual wording of standing order 64, ‘No Member to be referred to by name’. When he reads that he will see the correctness of my ruling.
10732
13:24:00
Schultz, Alby, MP
83Q
Hume
LP
0
0
Mr SCHULTZ
—I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009. At the outset I must say that I have some reservations about some of the components of this bill. This bill introduces a new part, part 33, into the Telecommunications Act, which provide provisions for Telstra to structurally separate. I might I add that, should Telstra not voluntarily submit an undertaking to structurally separate to the ACCC, this bill requires functional separation of the company. It also seeks to prevent Telstra from acquiring specified bands of spectrum which could be used for advanced wireless broadband services, unless it structurally separates and divests its hybrid fibre-coaxial cable network and its interests in Foxtel. In addition to the prevention of access to spectrum in the absence of a structural separation undertaking accepted by the minister and the ACCC, the bill provides for functional separation of the company on terms defined by the minister. It also contains amendments to increase the powers of the ACCC under the Trade Practices Act and change the USO and the consumer service guarantee.
These amendments, which hold a gun to the head of Telstra and seek to force the company into a structural separation undertaking, are of great concern to me and to millions of Australians who are shareholders, employees and customers of Telstra. It is very clear to me that the changes proposed in this legislation are plainly about one thing only, and that is to assist in making the government’s new National Broadband Network viable. Concerns I have with the Rudd Labor government’s NBN mark 2 proposal are: it involves the renationalisation of our fixed-line telecommunications infrastructure; it exposes taxpayers to all the risks inherent in running a complex and costly telecommunications business; it renders the government hopelessly conflicted as the owner and operator of a commercial business which it is responsible for regulating and for which it has demonstrated it has no capacity to manage up to date; it involves massive borrowings underwritten by the taxpayer; and it is very unlikely that the government will be able to privatise it, as promised, five years after it is built—around 2023—leaving taxpayers stuck with $40-odd billion locked up in a telco company, which, on the government’s current performance, will not be commercially viable.
I recognise the importance of universal access to fast, affordable and reliable broadband, particularly in the predominantly rural electorate of Hume that I represent. I also support the continued improvement of broadband services, including the deployment of next-generation networks and services. Again, this will significantly benefit the rural and regional towns and villages located within the Hume electorate. Unlike Labor, the Liberal Party takes a practical and realistic approach to ensuring that all Australians have access to fast, affordable and reliable broadband services in the most cost-effective way to Australian taxpayers.
At the last election Mr Rudd and the Labor Party promised to commence the rollout of a new National Broadband Network services before the end of 2008. We are nearly at the end of 2009 and it has not even completed a project implementation study. The last two years have been wasted by the Rudd Labor government due to poor planning and incompetence. After running a failed tender for its NBN mark 1 proposal, which wasted 18 months and $20 million of taxpayers’ resources, in April 2009 the government announced that it had abandoned its 2007 election commitment and would commence a new process in a bid to deliver an NBN mark 2. In so doing they have raised the financial stakes and risk to taxpayers considerably.
To cover up the failure of its original NBN plan to spend up to $4.7 billion on a fibre-to-the-node upgrade of Telstra’s copper network at a total cost of $10 to $15 billion, Labor has made an extravagant promise to spend up to $43 billion to construct a fibre-to-the-premises network through the establishment of a government business enterprise—NBN Co.—in which the government owns a minimum 51 per cent stake. The proposal to spend up to $43 billion of taxpayers’ funds has been committed without any detailed cost-benefit analysis or business plan. That is what concerns me. Interestingly, I heard the contributions made by the Independents in this place. While I class the Independents as friends of mine, it would appear that the Independent members for Lyne and New England agree that it is okay to spend $43 billion of taxpayers’ funds without any detailed cost-benefit analysis or business plan. I find that reprehensible. I thought they had more common sense than that.
With a nine-month implementation study planned at a cost of over $50 million and a rollout period of eight years, this is broadband on the ‘never, never’. This proposal has the look of a cobbled together stunt to mask the government’s failure to deliver on its original election promise and to get it through the next election. Nobody denies that fibre-to-the-premise broadband, as proposed by Labor’s latest plan, is a premium service, but it will come at an enormous cost to Australian taxpayers and potentially consumers.
The opposition believes spending of this magnitude by government on broadband is reckless, irresponsible and unnecessary. The government has made this promise despite a failure to conduct any cost-benefit analysis or economic modelling. The government does not even know whether this new broadband company can be commercially viable. Many leading analysts predict that this project will not be commercially viable despite claims to the contrary.
The Rudd Labor government’s proposal also confirms that towns of under 1,000 people will receive not high-speed 100 megabits per second services but services of around one-tenth of the speed delivered by wireless or satellite. Under Labor’s plan, 10 per cent of the population. or 2.2 million Australians, will get the comparatively slower services despite the enormity of the planned spend. Such an outcome will in fact widen the digital divide rather than bridge it. In the electorate of Hume alone this will directly affect over 5,500 residents living in 20 towns and villages. These residents have been dumped into the too-hard basket by this government’s incompetence.
Labor’s broadband plan would see taxpayers carry the bulk of the risk, with the government becoming a 51 per cent majority shareholder in a new government business enterprise. From a position of heavy debt and deficit, created solely by this government, it will need to raise billions of dollars in further debt to fund this project. Labor cannot provide any detail about likely customer take-up rates or the prices consumers will have to pay to use the network. Few analysts predict prices for retail services under the NBN will be less than $100 per month. Therefore, consumers could be forced to pay double what the average broadband user pays today.
In an attempt to make the NBN mark 2 viable, the government announced that it intends to force the break-up of Australia’s largest telecommunications company, Telstra. The decision to break up Telstra is a stark change of policy by Mr Rudd. He said nothing about breaking up Telstra at the 2007 election. This new and radical policy is the ultimate consequence of the debacle that is his approach to broadband. Having botched the implementation of its 2007 election policy to provide $4.7 billion towards the upgrade of Telstra’s network to fibre-to-the-node, the government now has to break up Telstra in order to implement its latest policy of spending $43 billion to create a government owned fibre-to-the-premise network.
The government’s attack on Telstra and its 1.4 million shareholders is an admission that its new NBN policy cannot be implemented without effectively renationalising the fixed-line telecommunications network, supported by the migration of Telstra’s customers. The government does not want its NBN to have to compete with Telstra; it wants its NBN to be a majority government owned monopoly. This is the only way the numbers can even remotely stack up for the NBN.
The opposition believes government funding for broadband should be specifically targeted at underserved areas. It also believes in working towards parity between residents living in cities and those living in rural and regional centres. It does not support attempts by government to ‘pick winners’ in the rapidly changing technology sector. Nor does it believe, in this economic environment, that taxpayers should be made to carry most risk in a large-scale speculative broadband venture.
Our approach remains realistic and pragmatic and we are not afraid to acknowledge that, for a continent as vast and sparsely populated as ours, Australians are generally well served when it comes to telecommunications. The opposition is also a strong believer in competition as a key driver of service expansion and innovation and it believes government can use various levers to encourage investment in broadband services and to ensure provision in underserved areas.
It is also important that a safety net be in place for those Australians who do not have affordable access to metro equivalent broadband services. The opposition does not support the unnecessary duplication of telecommunications infrastructure in well served areas, but supports its immediate rollout in areas of under service. We had a fully costed and targeted plan to deliver new, fast and affordable broadband services across the country which was rejected by the Rudd Labor government. Their mismanagement included the cancellation of a rural and regional broadband network project, OPEL, announced in my electorate of Hume, which would have seen new services delivered this year to around 900,000 underserviced premises. The previous government was set to invest $958 million in this project, with the private sector contributing a further $1 billion. This would have included the rollout of 15,000 kilometres of new open access fibre optic back into rural and regional centres. This plan would have been delivering services now and would have been completed by the end of 2009.
I have some other points to make but I will close now by saying that I do not believe there is any harm in waiting until the implementation study is finalised before this bill is considered further by the parliament. If the House does not agree, I will most emphatically be opposing this bill in the House.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
13:36:00
—I move:
That the question be now put
.
Question put:
13:40:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)
74
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McKew, M.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
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.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
54
NOES
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.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, 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.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
4
PAIRS
Ellis, A.L.
Neville, P.C.
Price, L.R.S.
Mirabella, S.
McMullan, R.F.
Robb, A.
McClelland, R.B.
Hockey, J.B.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dunkley moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question put:
That this bill be now read a second time.
13:48:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)
76
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McKew, M.
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.
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.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Zappia, A.
53
NOES
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.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, 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.
4
PAIRS
Ellis, A.L.
Neville, P.C.
Price, L.R.S.
Mirabella, S.
McMullan, R.F.
Robb, A.
McClelland, R.B.
Hockey, J.B.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
10736
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government)
13:51:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
10736
13:52:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
0
0
Mr BILLSON
—We are curious about whether the government will accept in good faith the offer of the opposition to fillet out the regulatory reform measures in the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and leave the highly contentious, rash, unjustified and, frankly, unexplained attack on Telstra for a separate debate. As recently as yesterday, BBY telecoms analyst Mark McDonnell told a telecoms world conference in Sydney that the NBN debate had become politically charged and ‘lacking in any measure of financial or commercial rigour.’ He estimated that NBN wholesale costs would be upwards of $113 per month. He went on to say that the NBN’s $43 billion price tag ‘does not appear to have been based on any kind of detailed study’. He further said:
… specifically there is no clarity around the underpinning assumptions or about the kind of network and industry arrangements implied.
The industry arrangements go to the heart of why you are taking a meataxe to Telstra. There has been no justification brought forward in any of the debate in this chamber. There is widespread concern about the government’s motives. In good faith we offered to support the regulatory reform aspects of this bill while we fillet up this extraordinarily dubious and quite remarkable attack on one of Australia’s largest companies. One telecommunications analyst after another, and shareholders—anyone who has got the slightest interest in the structure of telecommunications into the future—know that the Rudd Labor government has not done the legwork. Its NBN is a slogan; it is a sound bite with as much detail as you could fit on the back of an envelope in crayon. There is no sound public policy backing it up. As recently as yesterday someone was saying that they had no idea what the industry arrangements might look like. How on earth can the Rudd Labor government take a meataxe to Telstra when it has no idea what the final outcome looks like. The taxpayers are spending $25 million to sort out your muddle—to sort out the sound bite and try to come up with some sound public policy to support what is nothing more than a political sloganeering exercise by this government.
We again urge and invite you, Minister, to take up our good faith offer to fillet off the regulatory reform aspects of this bill, for which we know there is widespread support within the sector. Some of the regulatory reforms are part of the ongoing remedying of regulatory reforms that has happened over successive governments, this one and previous ones included. Why not fillet that off and put the meat cleaver attack on Telstra to one side and have a serious debate about that once we know what the government is on about and once the government knows what it is on about. That will not be any earlier than February, when there is $25 million of work someone else needs to do to mop up for the laziness and slackness of this Rudd Labor government. That is our invitation. I invite you to take it up.
10737
13:55:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—We will of course be supporting the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 as it stands, because this is important legislation for the future of the nation. We have already consulted extensively on this. Indeed, telecommunications analysts are supportive of this legislation. They are supportive of structural separation. This is important microeconomic reform to improve outcomes for consumers. Greater competition in the industry is what this is about. This is necessary regulatory reform that the opposition failed to do in 12 years in government. They now want the current government to hold back on reform. This is all about delay. This is what the Australian Information Industry Association chief, Ian Birks, said yesterday:
Obviously, any kind of slowdown in the acceptance of the legislation and the delivery of the NBN has a detrimental effect on how quickly we can achieve the benefits of a digital economy.
It is extraordinary that, over in the Senate, Senator Joyce understands the importance of structural separation, but, in this place, the shadow minister representing the shadow minister does not. This is an important reform. We will not be delayed on it. People have waited long enough for the National Broadband Network. We are taking action and this legislation should be supported. I commend the legislation to the House as it will have great benefits, particularly for the business community and those who live in rural and regional Australia.
Question put:
That this bill be now read a third time.
14:01:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
78
AYES
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.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McKew, M.
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.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Zappia, A.
54
NOES
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.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, 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.
4
PAIRS
Ellis, A.L.
Neville, P.C.
Price, L.R.S.
Mirabella, S.
McMullan, R.F.
Robb, A.
McClelland, R.B.
Hockey, J.B.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
10739
Ministerial Arrangements
10739
14:04:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr RUDD
—I inform the House that the Attorney-General will be absent from question time today as he is in Cape York attending a native title determination. The Minister for Home Affairs will answer questions on the Attorney’s behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
10739
14:05:00
Questions Without Notice
Asylum Seekers
10739
14:05:00
10739
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. In the light of the arrival of another boatload of unauthorised asylum seekers intercepted off Christmas Island today, will the Prime Minister confirm whether the government intends to process unauthorised arrivals of asylum seekers on the mainland when the Christmas Island detention centre is full?
10739
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—As the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has said on a number of occasions, the Christmas Island facility has sufficient capacity within it at present. He has also indicated on the public record that further provision has been made at an associated facility in Darwin. The government has made no bones about the fact that we will maintain a policy of mandatory detention for the speedy and proper processing of asylum seekers. This challenge, as I said in a press conference earlier today, has been with us in the past and will remain with us into the future—as it remains with other countries around the world.
However, there is a key difference in approach. We believe in an approach which is balanced, which is tough but humane, when it comes to the challenge of asylum seekers. Yet we have on the part of the Leader of the Opposition a complete abandonment of principle in his response to the statements today by the member for O’Connor. This government makes no bones about the fact that we maintain a policy of mandatory detention to ensure that asylum seekers undertake health, identity and security checks when they arrive. However, the member for O’Connor went out there today and, effectively, claimed that every second or third boat arriving in Australia is carrying terrorists. That is what the member for O’Connor has, in effect, alleged today.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked very specifically whether he would confirm that asylum seekers arriving once Christmas Island is full will be processed on the mainland. He was not asked about anything else and therefore this is not relevant to the question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Before giving the Prime Minister the call I wish to make some comments to the point of order made by the member for Sturt. The Prime Minister is being relevant under the practices that have been carried out in this chamber. Members can shake their heads, but those are the facts. The failure has been of the House not to address the problems that people feel concerned about. All I say is that one of the great problems is that the same standing order about debate that applies to the question has not applied to answers. I suggest that members, collectively, of the House, if they feel frustrated in any way, might address that as part of their frustration. The Prime Minister has the call. He is responding to the question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The question went to the processing of asylum seekers, and specifically in relation to a recently arrived boat. What I was outlining to the Leader of the Opposition in my response was the procedures we have in place for the processing on Christmas Island, the capacity which exists on that island and the reserve capabilities which the Attorney-General has referred to on a number of occasions in the debate so far.
Furthermore, I was saying that, when it comes to the question of processing, that of itself is a product of our wider approach to policy on asylum seekers and the approach which we adopt in this place in the midst of the current debate about alternative approaches—hence the remarks which I have made already in this chamber today about the remarks made outside by the member for O’Connor. The member for O’Connor in his remarks outside today effectively claimed that every second or third boat arriving in Australia with asylum seekers is carrying terrorists. We can have the member for O’Connor seek to take a personal explanation, I am sure. And I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will be keen to explain why he has chosen not to distance himself from the comments made by the member for O’Connor as well.
For the record, nearly three-quarters of a million people have come to this country as refugees since the Second World War. In the period of the Howard government, 150,000 people came to this country as refugees. In the period of the Howard government nearly 15,000 came here as asylum seekers by boat. Ninety-five per cent of the temporary protection visas issued by the Howard government for asylum seekers resulted in permanent residency being granted. These are the facts which actually underpin this debate.
If the Leader of the Opposition has one shred of credibility, one shred of decency, on the question of asylum seekers, he would stand on his feet, repudiate the member for O’Connor and withdraw his support for the endorsement of the member for O’Connor to contest the next election on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The House will come to order.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—What we have had today is, frankly, a question of character on display on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. He convened a press conference at a quarter to two and was given an opportunity to distance himself; instead, he chose to embrace—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It is not helpful and I ask the member for Sturt to withdraw.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have this difficulty with the member for Warringah giving me advice all the time about it. I have indicated that I lower the bar a bit when these things are done by way of interjection, and I am asking the member for Sturt to withdraw.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I hear what you say, but what the Prime Minister said is not true, and, therefore, what is it if it is not what I said it was?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—No, the member for Sturt—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—But I will withdraw.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Yes, and he will be very careful about the way that he approaches the dispatch box and uses techniques to get things on the record.
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr Andrews
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Even under the terms of your previous ruling, the Prime Minister is now straying far from relevance on his answer.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister has the call and he, I hope, will be coming to a conclusion in his answer.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I thank, of course, the member for Menzies for his intervention, because he strayed a long way indeed from any decency in immigration policy when he occupied that portfolio.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question.
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr Andrews
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regard those remarks as deeply offensive and I demand they be withdrawn.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—It will assist the House if the Prime Minister withdraws.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Of course, Mr Speaker, to assist the House.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister, as members would have heard if the hubbub had died down, has withdrawn.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The House might just assist by exercising a degree of self-discipline.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—On the question of immigration policy, the challenge which the Leader of the Opposition faced at a quarter to two this afternoon when he went out to conduct his own press conference on this matter was in fact to distance himself from the member for O’Connor. He chose not to do so. Therefore, we can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition embraces the remarks made by the member for O’Connor. He finds no problem with them. By virtue of his silence, he chooses to embrace them. When the shadow minister for immigration was asked about these comments earlier today, I am advised that she had no comment to make about the comments made by the member for O’Connor—a conspicuous display of courage on the part of the member for Murray in this debate.
So we are left in this chamber asking this question: will, for the first time on this matter of asylum seekers policy, the Leader of the Opposition choose to lead his party or simply choose to follow the lead—
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr Andrews
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, you invited the Prime Minister to wind up his answer before. He has now gone on to further points.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Menzies will resume his seat.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—Winding me up!
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—The real leader up the back!
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I have five or six candidates on my right to be invited to leave the chamber with the member for O’Connor and you can have your discussions outside. But I do not think it assists the ability of even the Prime Minister to complete his answer when there is this discussion across the chamber in that manner. The Prime Minister has the call.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The Leader of the Opposition had a simple challenge today, which was to step up to the plate and provide leadership. He failed to do so. What we have seen is an abandonment of principle and an abandonment of policy on the part of the Liberal Party on this debate on asylum seekers. What we have seen before is again unfolding, old faithful in the Liberal Party campaign handbook, which is the politics of fear and the politics of smear. This is a sad and sorry day when the character of the Leader of the Opposition has been put to question: would he stand up for a matter of principle and repudiate the member for O’Connor and his extraordinary remarks today or embrace them by his silence? He has chosen a course of action which shows an absolute want of courage and moral leadership on this most important question for the nation.
Asylum Seekers
10742
10742
14:16:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
Mrs D’ATH
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government’s response to people-smuggling?
10742
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for her question. The government is committed to a tough but humane policy on immigration. The immigration policy that we have taken in relation to people smugglers embraces a range of measures which are in part consistent with those adopted by the previous government and includes enhancements which have been embraced by this government as well. Furthermore, in dealing with the challenge of asylum seekers worldwide, we will do so on the basis of a humane policy consistent with our international obligations.
The government has embraced this policy on immigration in part because the Liberal government which preceded it failed in a policy called the Pacific solution. The Pacific solution was ineffective and inhumane. It stripped away the dignity of human beings, most of whom are now lawfully living in Australia under decisions taken by the Howard government.
The Liberal Party defend the Pacific solution based on one claim and one claim alone. They claim that the Pacific solution caused the reduction in asylum seekers coming to Australia between 2001 and 2003. Unfortunately, this claim does not stand up when compared with the global figures of the time. They are as follows. The Liberal Party need to reflect on the fact that around the world we saw decreases in the arrival of asylum seekers across this period. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of Iraqis claiming asylum worldwide dropped from 52,000 to 27,000—a drop of 48 per cent. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of Afghans claiming asylum globally dropped from 50,000 to 14,000—a decrease of 73 per cent. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of Sri Lankans claiming asylum globally dropped from 14,000 to 5,600—a decrease of 61 per cent.
The decrease in asylum seekers we experienced arriving in Australia after the introduction of the Pacific solution happened at exactly the same time as decreases were occurring worldwide. The number of arrivals went down in Australia; they went down in the United Kingdom; they went down in Europe; they went down around the world.
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr Ruddock
—It was stopped here, quite a different performance.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The only problem that the Pacific solution solved was the Liberal Party’s predisposition to find the next scare campaign, about which the member for Berowra now, interestingly, interjects. The success of the Pacific solution was in many respects trumpeted by those opposite as an effective response to the real problem of asylum seekers. In fact, it did no such thing if you examine carefully the global statistics from the time. That is myth No. 1.
What is myth No. 2? Myth No. 2 from the Liberal Party is that this government’s new tough and humane immigration policy caused the current increase in asylum seekers arriving in Australia. That is exactly what they argue day in, day out on the doors and in the particular form of expression used by the member for Murray, the member for O’Connor and other members with a similar approach to these questions. Unfortunately, once again, this claim is simply false when compared again against the global figures. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of Iraqis claiming asylum globally increased from 14,000 to 42,000—an increase of 193 per cent. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of Sri Lankans claiming asylum globally increased from 5,000 to nearly 10,000—an increase of in excess of 75 per cent. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of Afghans claiming asylum globally increased from 7,000 to 18,000, a 139 per cent increase.
The increase in asylum seekers we are experiencing in Australia is happening at exactly the same time everywhere across the world. It is happening in Australia, it is happening in the United Kingdom, it is happening in Europe and it is happening around the world. When the global asylum claims go up around the world they also go up for Australia; when they go down around the world they also go down for Australia. That is myth No. 2.
Let us explore myth No. 3, which goes to the purported implication by the member for Murray, among others, that they have advocated a different policy in the past since this government has been elected. This is a very interesting point indeed because every time the Liberal Party get to their feet on the question of asylum seekers there is always a bit of a wink-wink, nudge-nudge that they actually have represented a different approach in the period since the last election. Let us subject this to a little scrutiny as well and actually go to the detail. When the government chose to abolish temporary protection visas, what did those opposite do? They did nothing. They did not vote against it one bit—absolute inaction. They now, however, seek to pretend that something was different.
Let us go to the other one, which is the whole question of an alternative policy which was considered by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration. The committee recommended that, as a priority, the Australian government introduce amendments to the Migration Act—
EM6
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
Dr Stone interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—You always know when the member for Murray is in trouble: she starts interjecting at a pace of knots. The committee recommended that, as a priority, the Australian government introduce amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to enshrine in legislation the reforms to immigration detention policy announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans. Sharman Stone, the member for Murray, was a member of that same parliamentary committee and said, ‘Labor is very much echoing what we did.’ Then, when asked if she welcomed the report’s recommendations to finetune the system, she said, ‘I do.’ On 16 April this year the member for Murray ruled out the reopening of offshore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. That is the Pacific solution. I quote the member for Murray again, as she studies her documents carefully knowing that these actually reflect what she has put on the public record:
We no longer have that requirement because we’ve got an alternative place which is in our excised migration zone, Christmas Island.
Myth No. 1, myth No. 2 and myth No. 3. What they have engaged in instead is simply the politics of fear. What they have sought to do is to deliberately cultivate a culture of fear in Australia about this because they, consistent with those who have gone before them, believe that this represents an excellent political strategy for the opposition rather than a real solution to the problem.
This is the party of the Pacific solution, this is the party of kids behind razor wire, this is the party of Vivian Alvarez and this is the party of Cornelia Rau—as those opposite who have previously held that office as migration ministers bury their heads again in their papers pretending that none of this ever happened and all can be carefully and precisely airbrushed from history. In fact, it cannot be so. The Liberal Party fear and smear campaign on this matter has no basis in fact, no basis in policy and no basis in morality. But the time has come for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and show some leadership on this question, to lead for the first time rather than always to follow.
Asylum Seekers
10744
10744
14:24:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House which organisation will detain, house and process asylum seekers who are apprehended by Indonesian government patrols intercepting boats en route to Australia? Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether these people will remain in detention longer than the 90 days they would be detained in Australia and, if so, how much longer and where they will be resettled?
10744
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—As I said in response to a question in this place yesterday, this government makes no apology whatsoever for the fact that it is expanding its cooperation with the Indonesian government in the area of people smuggling. That is because we are dealing with a global problem and a regional problem which requires the highest level of coordination with our friends and partners in Indonesia. The honourable gentleman’s first part of his question dealt with who actually is responsible for the processing within Indonesia. That of course is a matter for the Indonesian government. I would imagine that would involve the office of the UNHCR as well. The outcome of that processing—where individuals are resettled, how long a period of time that takes or how many of those individuals are sent back to a country of origin—is, of course, contingent on a proper UNHCR approval process. That is why we cooperate in these matters with the Indonesian government—because we believe it is the right approach for the future.
The honourable member asked a question about the processing of asylum seekers in Indonesia and yesterday, when he asked questions, he went to the point of the source of the asylum seekers arriving, namely, his questions about Afghanistan. What I found remarkable about the question yesterday was how the Leader of the Opposition fundamentally misrepresented the statements made by the Minister for Defence about our policy on Afghanistan. Here is what the defence minister had to say yesterday in the interview which was referred to and then deployed in a particular way by the Leader of the Opposition.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this is not pushing the envelope of irrelevance; it has broken right out of it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I would remind the Prime Minister that he needs to relate his material to the question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would be interested in a question which goes to the possible links between terrorist training in Afghanistan and asylum seekers in the region, given his decision to embrace the position taken by the member for O’Connor today. He inferred yesterday that the government’s policy on Afghanistan had changed. I conclude on this, Mr Speaker. This is what the defence minister had to say yesterday—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked a question about who would be managing the process in Indonesia, whether the process might take longer than 90 days and where they would be resettled. He was not asked a question about the defence minister’s earlier—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will listen carefully to the conclusion of the Prime Minister’s answer.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Of course, this is relevant to the truthfulness which underpins various of the assertions that we hear in this place, because the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that the government had embraced a policy for early withdrawal from Afghanistan. In the interview upon which he had based that, the defence minister says ‘I haven’t of course put a timeline on completing the training task’ in Afghanistan. The verballing that we had from those opposite of the defence minister yesterday suggests the care and attention they dedicate to truth in this general debate on asylum seekers where the overriding objective is the politics of fear and smear.
Asylum Seekers
10745
10745
14:29:00
Vamvakinou, Maria, MP
00AMT
Calwell
ALP
1
Ms VAMVAKINOU
—My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Has the minister seen suggestions of serious health risks posed by asylum seekers? What are the facts and what actions are the government taking?
10745
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Ms ROXON
—I thank the member for this question. She has had a longstanding interest in ensuring that our immigration policies are appropriate. Of course considerations of health concerns are serious ones and if raised properly would be issues that should be part of this discussion. In fact, most people in this House would be aware that one of the key purposes of a mandatory detention policy is to ensure that health, identity and security checks can be properly undertaken. We believe that these processes are a prudent course of action and an appropriate precaution.
However, I do not think that it assists the debate on this very serious issue to have members of the opposition comparing asylum seekers to cattle that spread foot and mouth disease. It is important to ensure that any people coming to and settling in our community are not going to spread disease. We take necessary, careful and precautionary action. One of the key reasons that we have a mandatory detention policy is to ensure that adequate health checks can be undertaken while people are detained to ensure that the community is properly protected.
As I said, I do not think that it assists the debate at all to have outrageous comparisons being made. It would serve all in the House well to go back to the basics. It is a policy that was adhered to by a previous Labor government; it was a policy that was adhered to by the previous coalition government. Health checks have always been a fundamental part of our immigration policies and particularly our mandatory detention policies. It might be well if the Leader of the Opposition could remind some members of his party to keep that in mind and take a sensible approach to ensure that health checks can be undertaken but that we do not have inflammatory comments made that might turn this into an even uglier debate.
Defence Personnel
10745
10745
14:31:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
0
Mr DUTTON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the SIEV36 explosion. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the welfare of the Navy personnel injured? How many have returned to active duty?
10745
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am not in a position to be able to update the House on this occasion. If that information comes to hand before the end of question time, I will provide it to him. If not, I will provide it when the House next meets.
Climate Change
10745
10745
14:32:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
Mr ZAPPIA
—My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. What is the government doing to ensure that the economy and the workforce are ready to transition to a lower carbon economy?
10745
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 Makin. I know that he is concerned about how we will respond with skills and training to the challenges of climate change. If you are going to lead the nation in the face of major challenges like tackling climate change then you need to have the capacity to lead. That is something that the opposition leader today has shown he does not have, as leadership on an important topic has passed to the member for O’Connor. Once again, it is true that as this nation faces the challenge of climate change it is the Rudd Labor government that is leading on this question and particularly leading in the development of the skills that we will need in our economy as we move to a lower carbon age.
As an example of us providing that leadership, I remind the House that on 30 July the Prime Minister announced our Clean Sustainable Skills Package. This was a $94 million investment to provide 50,000 young or disadvantaged Australians with training or job opportunities in the green skills that we will need for tomorrow. This package included 30,000 apprentices who will graduate over the next two years with the green skills that we will need for tomorrow. I remind the House that these green skills are needed in the most traditional of occupations, such as being a plumber, a carpenter, a motor mechanic. The nature of that work will change in a low-carbon economy.
This package provided 10,000 unemployed young Australians with the ability to join our national Green Corps initiative. It provided 4,000 training opportunities for people who are going to be involved in installing insulation in order to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of our nation. It also included 6,000 new local jobs in green skills and heritage projects. This package builds on our investment of around $200 million in vocational education and training through our teaching and capital learning fund, because we know that our VET sector will be providing a leading role in these new clean green skills for the future, and it builds on our $650 million sustainability round and Clean Energy Initiative for our university and TAFE systems to get ready for the economy of the future.
We have moved to deliver the biggest school modernisation project the nation has ever seen—and every dollar, every building, every big of maintenance and every job has been opposed by members of the Liberal Party. I take this opportunity to update the House on the fact that 82 per cent of buildings have incorporated insulation, 81 per cent have incorporated energy efficiency lighting, 57 per cent have incorporated water tanks and 2,400 projects have involved the installation of solar panels.
I am today advising the House that we are taking the next step in our green skills agenda. We will be entering a national green skills agreement with the states and territories, which will commence from 1 January next year, to help Australians get the skills that they will need for the future. Tomorrow I am hosting a green skills forum in Melbourne to consider the draft agreement and to make sure that those who care desperately about ensuring that Australia is prosperous and adapted to a low-carbon age come together for that discussion. This government will of course continue to provide the leadership necessary in the face of the big challenges of our age. I anticipate that what we will see from those opposite is what we have seen today from the Leader of the Opposition: a lack of courage and a lack of leadership.
Asylum Seekers
10746
10746
14:37:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
Dr STONE
—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Home Affairs, today representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. My question relates to the 42 asylum seekers from the SIEV36. The actions of the 42 asylum seekers are still the subject of police inquiries and a Northern Territory coronial inquest because police believe the fuel on the vessel was deliberately set alight, killing five people and seriously injuring many on board, including Australian service personnel. Can the minister confirm that permanent residency has been granted to these 42 asylum seekers and that they are not required to report their whereabouts to the department of immigration or any other agency?
10747
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
Minister for Home Affairs
1
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—I thank the honourable member for her question. As we know, there were injured passengers on SIEV36. They have since been discharged from hospital. We also know that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship had provided visas for those that were on board. This is a very tragic event, of course. This was very difficult for our personnel who were involved. It was a very difficult time for those people on that particular vessel. These matters have been subject to the Northern Territory coronial inquiry. They have also been subject to investigation by the Northern Territorian police. I am advised that the decision made by the department of immigration in relation to the visas of these people has been made in consultation with the police.
Economy
10747
10747
14:39:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the views of respected economists and business groups on the government’s fiscal settings?
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I will just say to all members that to continue discussion about the events that have happened in an earlier answer and question are just not helpful to the proper conduct of the House. I remind those that need reminding that I will use 94A without warning.
10747
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for Dobell for his question. It is a very important question because it is very clear and it is very consistent that respected economists and business groups believe that the government stimulus has kept the Australian economy growing in the face of the worst global recession in 75 years. And while virtually every advanced economy suffered a deep recession, our stimulus has ensured that that did not happen in this country. As a consequence Australia has had the strongest growth of 33 advanced economies—the only one to have grown through the year to June.
Because we acted quickly and we got in early we have been able to limit the worst effects of this global recession on Australian businesses, families and, of course, the economy. This is a view which is shared by economists and representatives of business. This is what the director of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry had to say to the Senate inquiry last month. He said:
The Australian government was right to take this path and in fact to act more quickly and decisively than most … the scope and scale of stimulus was entirely warranted.
And that has been backed very strongly by business economists like Rory Robertson. At that same Senate inquiry he said:
In terms of the formulation, there may not have been a more sensible package.
He said that Australian policymakers, like most of their counterparts across the world, moved macroeconomic policy ‘sharply in the right direction’.
Had it not been for our economic stimulus, and particularly our investment in infrastructure, the Australian economy would have been in recession. The fiscal stimulus was designed to have its maximum impact in the middle of this year, in June, and then to be gradually withdrawn from that time on. The stimulus, therefore, has already peaked and is gradually tapering away.
It is this in-built withdrawal which the Governor of the Reserve Bank referred to last month when he made this comment, which I think is pretty relevant to all of those opposite. He said:
Such an outcome would mean that fiscal and monetary policy would be acting broadly consistently, as they did when they were moved in the expansionary direction when the economy was slowing.
That statement was made only on 28 September. So I think it is the case that economists and business groups all agree that the stimulus is important. They also agree that its job is not finished, because withdrawing stimulus overnight would be simply devastating to tens of thousands of small businesses in this country and to tens of thousands of their employees.
That is why Dr Peter Burn of the Australian Industry Group had this to say on 28 September:
We are very wary of calls for the fiscal measures to be wound back ahead of the in-built schedule for their withdrawal. We think that this could undermine the recovery that appears to be taking hold.
That is a complete repudiation of the position of opposition members in this House. We know that opposition members in this House have been voting against the economic stimulus in the House and then going out into their own electorates and supporting it there and trying to claim credit for it.
I guess we are pretty used to that hypocrisy, but today I think I can reveal another chapter in that hypocrisy because on 12 March the shadow minister for families said in this chamber about the government’s response to the global financial crisis, ‘We are against the government’s stimulus package.’ Again on 5 February he said, ‘What this government is doing is too much and too soon.’ I can report to the House that the shadow minister for families went down to Canberra Grammar on Tuesday to address students and give them his views about life. This is a shadow minister in the opposition—the shadow minister for families. He went down there and do you know what he said? He said that the Rudd government ‘handled the global financial crisis well.’ So one thing in this House and entirely another outside of the House. He was pretty quick to tell all the assembled students that he would not be able to make that comment outside the classroom because the media might get onto it. We can understand his embarrassment because we can understand the embarrassment of all of those opposite. The hypocrisy of all those opposite is now clear for everybody to see.
Asylum Seekers
10748
10748
14:45:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister inform the House when he was first made aware through official channels of the allegation that the vessel in distress off the Indonesian coast carrying 78 asylum seekers was deliberately sabotaged?
10748
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I thank the member for her question. I have not received such advice. The first time I saw a suggestion that the vessel in distress may have been in distress as a result of actions of the people on board was when I read the front page of today’s Australian newspaper.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The question has been asked and it is being answered. Fortunately for me, I am unaware of those who are proposing to ask questions later in question time, but I stress, including to those that wish to sponsor other things later in the day, that I will use standing order 94(a). This was a question that was asked and under any definition of relevance it was actually being responded to properly. I would hope that the House would sit in silence in those circumstances.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—As I made clear on radio this morning, it is very, very important in my view that we take allegations and suggestions like that very carefully and in an appropriate, methodical process.
Let us be very clear about the circumstances of this case. Calls were made to Australian search and rescue authorities indicating that a vessel was in distress. The vessel in distress was in the Indonesian search and rescue area. As a consequence of that, I am advised that Australian officials contacted the relevant Indonesian search and rescue maritime authorities to indicate that a vessel was distressed in an area that was the responsibility of Indonesia. I am also advised that Indonesian officials indicated to Australian officials that they had no vessels in the vicinity and asked if Australia could help. Australian officials then contacted commercial shipping assets to see whether commercial assets were in the area, and when that inquiry indicated that no commercial assets were in the area the Armidale was sent to the vessel in distress.
I am advised two things occurred when the Armidale made contact with the vessel. One was that a young child on board was ill and may well have required medical attention. Secondly, a conclusion was made that the vessel was not able to go to port under its own steam. As a consequence the people on board, for humanitarian and for safety-at-sea obligations, were transferred to the Oceanic Viking. This was done at the request of the Indonesian search and rescue authorities and with the Indonesian search and rescue authorities being the lead agency.
The suggestion that somehow the vessel was in distress was, as I said, first drawn to my attention when it appeared on the front page of today’s Australian, for a very good reason. The obligation and the requirement on the part of the Australian government, its officials and its agencies, and the obligation on Australia, is to discharge our humanitarian and our search and rescue operations on the high seas. That is in the interests of Australia and in the interests of Australian citizens and that was done. When the suggestion was made that the vessel in distress may have been the subject of distress because of action by those on board—and I might say that the only thing I have seen so far is the Australian newspaper, which cites ‘sources’ that are not identified at all—
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—Have you asked for a brief?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Dickson will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Dickson then left the chamber.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—The seat of Dickson has been vacated twice! When the article was drawn to my attention, I made inquiries and the sensible advice I received was this: when the people on board the Oceanic Viking have been safely ported in Indonesia, then in the normal course of events what will occur will be a review as to the circumstances leading to this matter. I am not proposing to rely upon or respond to assertions. I am very happy to wait until I receive, and other ministers receive, the expert advice and the expert report from those on the HMAS Armidale and from those on the Oceanic Viking as to the state of the vessel in distress.
I also take the opportunity of drawing to the House’s attention that today in Senate estimates the Ambassador for People Smuggling Issues has said that he has not come to a concluded view. That will be done in the fullness of time—methodically, sensibly, not emotionally, not in a way which seeks to score political points. But his understanding is that the rudder apparatus of the vessel was disabled.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—We have seen examples in the past of where people jumped to conclusions about how things may have occurred on the high seas. And we have seen in the past some people try and take or make political advantage of that domestically in Australia—off the backs of the most vulnerable people that we have seen, off the backs of those people at risk on the high seas, off the backs of those people who rely upon not just Australia but other nation states to discharge their obligations for search and rescue on the high seas. The request came from Indonesian search and rescue authorities for Australia to assist.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Of course, anyone with any familiarity with these issues would know that, when a request came from the Indonesian authorities to assist the vessel in the Indonesian search and rescue area, if Australia had acted, there may well have been immigration consequences to flow from that. Those consequences were not known conclusively at the time. They are not known now because the people onboard that vessel have not been the subject of the UNHCR procedures, and the Indonesian government has indicated they will be. But whether there were to be immigration, refugee or asylum seeker consequences or not, Australia had a moral, a humanitarian and a national interest obligation to discharge our duties to rescue people in distress at sea, and that is what we did.
Transport
10750
10750
14:54:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
1
Mr RIPOLL
—My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Would the minister update the House on the rollout of the nation-building program and how this investment is supporting jobs and business within the construction industry?
10750
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the member for Oxley for his question. I note that in a continent such as ours, which has a small population spread across a vast area, transport infrastructure is absolutely vital to our economic performance. Under the government’s nation-building program we have more than doubled the federal roads budget and we have more than quadrupled the investment in rail. A majority of this funding has been allocated to regional and rural Australia. Today I can confirm that work has started on yet another rail project, the $56 million upgrade of the line between the New South Wales border and the Brisbane suburb of Acacia Ridge, funded from the economic stimulus—an important project that will support 120 jobs and improve the overall efficiency of the interstate network. The start of this project means that construction work which is now underway has ticked over the $9 billion mark, including the Brighton bypass down in Tassie, the northern expressway in Adelaide, the Western Ring Road in Melbourne, the Ipswich Motorway upgrade and the upgrade of the Hunter Valley rail network. In addition to that work which is now underway, we have completed 32 large-scale infrastructure projects within our first two years in office—32 projects announced, built, completed.
As well as building the road and rail infrastructure vital to our long-term economic prosperity, this investment has helped to shield the national economy from the full impact of the global economic downturn. Indeed, the Australian Constructors Association and the Australian Industry Group have noted this in their report released today. In a media release headed ‘Tough conditions forecast for engineering and commercial construction’, which I table, they remind the House that we are certainly not out of the woods yet, that there are still major challenges occurring because of the downturn, particularly in commercial construction. Their survey found that Australia’s construction companies are predicting an eight per cent fall in the total value of engineering and commercial construction work for the current financial year, followed by a further decline in 2010-2011. Indeed, the President of the Constructors Association, Wal King, said this:
“Encouragingly, the survey results indicate that the Government’s infrastructure stimulus measures and the number of large Government supported programs in the pipeline have avoided a larger downturn in activity …
“Importantly, the results indicate that infrastructure work will remain at high levels …
Heather Ridout, the CEO of the Australian Industry Group, said in her statement:
… there should be no confusion about the need to proceed with the “big planned economic infrastructure investments”.
Industry has been saying repeatedly that we are filling the void that was created by 12 years of neglect of major infrastructure. That is why I would say to the opposition—particularly to the opposition leader and Senator Coonan, the shadow finance minister, who have drawn into question the government’s infrastructure proposals—that they should actually sit down with the business community, analyse what is actually going on in the real world economy and support this government’s ongoing infrastructure investment which is supporting jobs today and building the infrastructure that we will need for our long-term prosperity.
Youth Issues
10751
10751
14:59:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
Ms RISHWORTH
—My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport. What action is the government taking to address the issues confronting young Australians?
10751
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport
1
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I thank the member for Kingston for her question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—A timely question.
DZU
Ellis, Kate, MP
Ms KATE ELLIS
—It was a timely question, indeed, with the release today of the State of Australia’s Young People report showing once more that today’s young people face a range of issues and concerns which are unique to their generation—cyber bullying, body image and unprecedented levels of violence and devastation in street assaults, to name a few. These are all issues which those opposite showed they were not interested in during their 12 years in government when they sidelined youth and abolished the portfolio, but they are issues which we take very seriously. In light of this, the Prime Minister has announced the government’s development of a national strategy for young Australians. The truth is that it is in all of our interests to ensure that young people are supported in their families and in their communities, that they are well served in the education and training sector, that they have access to early intervention services and programs to get their lives back on track, that they are equipped for their future employment, that they are aware of both their rights and responsibilities. These will form the core of the national strategy.
We also know that the only way to provide tangible and long-term results in these areas is by working in direct partnership with young people, as well as with their families and their communities. That is why earlier this morning, in an interactive launch out at Lyneham High School with students from years 9 and 10 and with the Prime Minister technologically armed in his office with a live blog and tweets with young people right around Australia, we launched the national conversation, a series of meetings, forums and online activities right around the country, which will engage in real discussion and real action as part of this national strategy.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Like the 2020 Summit.
DZU
Ellis, Kate, MP
Ms KATE ELLIS
—We also demonstrated that we are serious about action in this area. The member opposite has very kindly mentioned the 2020 Summit. I would like to inform him that earlier today the Prime Minister and I announced that the government will provide $10 million for the development of arts, business and community youth centres to encourage community based activities. This was one of the 10 recommendations from the Youth 2020 Summit when 100 young people from right around Australia came forward and put their views to government. Thank you for reminding me of that. These centres will offer a safe place for young people to socialise, as well as develop their skills in education, training and employment. This is yet another example of how this government is listening to young Australians and also acting on the advice they put forward.
Also announced earlier this morning was the inaugural Prime Minister’s Australian Youth Forum challenge, which will make available $120,000 in grants as part of a national competition for young people to get creative about how they get active and get other young people in their communities active and involved in their causes.
The third announcement which was made as part of the national strategy was in relation to violence. The Prime Minister has outlined that he has asked the Minister for Home Affairs to work with state ministers to work on the advice of our police commissioners to identify how best to tackle youth violence on our streets. We will have more to say on this very soon. We hear the community when they say that enough is enough. We hear the young people when they say that they want to be safe and secure when they are with their friends.
We are very serious about this national strategy for young Australians. We are serious about the national conversation and we are asking all MPs to become involved in their own communities by hosting forums in their own electorates. We have given resources to all members to ensure that they do that. We are also encouraging young people to become involved. If your local member does not take up the invitation to host one of the forums, we would ask that they access the website at www.youth.gov.au. Thank you.
Asylum Seekers
10752
10752
15:00:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Minister for Home Affairs’ answers about the Australian Federal Police report Strategic Intelligence Forecast—Transnational criminal trends and threats to Australia, which reportedly indicates that the government’s changes to border protection policy would be marketed by people smugglers to potential asylum seekers. Given that the minister has neither read nor bothered to get a copy of this very important report, which has been provided to nine government agencies, including the Prime Minister’s own department, and six overseas agencies, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will the Prime Minister now ensure that he reads the report and reports back to the parliament on its assessments?
10752
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I would draw his attention closely to the response delivered by the Minister for Home Affairs at the dispatch box yesterday where he directly referred to statements by the police commissioner concerning the classification of this document and how it should be handled between professional police services. I stand entirely by the minister’s statement.
PRIME MINISTER
10753
Motions
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
10753
10753
15:05:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—I seek leave to move a motion of censure against the Prime Minister.
Leave not granted.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr TURNBULL
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Wentworth moving immediately—
That this House censures the Prime Minister for softening Australia’s border protection policies, for denying that his changes have caused a surge in people smuggling, for refusing to take urgent action to address this policy crisis of his own making; and with each boat, another policy failure is exposed, further weakening our nation’s borders.
What we have seen from the Prime Minister today is another desperate attempt to distract attention from his own colossal failure of policy. We have seen an extraordinary failure in policy. It is the government’s stated objective to bring an end to what the Prime Minister has called ‘the vile trade of people smuggling’ and prevent unauthorised maritime arrivals of people smugglers into Australian waters. That is the Prime Minister’s objective, as it was the objective of the previous government—and I have no doubt it would be the objective of any and every Australian government.
The fact of the matter is this: the Howard government took hard decisions to stop the flow of people smugglers—and it worked. In 2001-02 there were 19 boats with 3,039 people. In 2002-03 no boats arrived. Over the next five years there were a total of 18 boats carrying 301 people. On average, 60 asylum seekers arrived by boat each year. Since the government’s changes in policy in August last year, we have seen 43 boats arrive, carrying nearly 2,000 people. Today we saw the Prime Minister confronted with another boat arrival. When his Deputy Prime Minister was the shadow minister for immigration, she used to issue press releases which said ‘Another boat, another policy failure’. By that measure, there have been 43 policy failures since the Rudd government changed the border protection policies of the Howard government. We saw today the Prime Minister’s desperate attempt to distract attention from this matter. The more he bellows and shrieks with his confected outrage, the more he confirms his own failure to protect our borders.
He drew attention to some remarks by the member for O’Connor. Let me say this. I reject any statement which suggests that asylum seekers are, or are likely to be, terrorists—full stop. I made that perfectly clear today. I make no criticism of asylum seekers. I note that the member for O’Connor issued his own statement today in which he said that he did not state that asylum seekers were terrorists. The member for O’Connor and I do not always agree—that is well known. The fact is that the person with control over our borders at the moment is not the member for O’Connor; it is not anyone in the opposition; it is the Prime Minister of Australia, and he seeks constantly to find distractions from his own colossal failure of policy.
We come back to this fundamental point: we have two objectives and we should address them in a calm and measured way, as I did earlier this week in the House—and I was complimented for doing so by the Attorney-General himself. This is no place for hysteria; this is no place for any type of hyperbole. We have a simple factual problem here—the Prime Minister’s policy has failed. The Prime Minister says that the changes to domestic policy, the so-called pull factors, have had absolutely no influence or impact on this huge surge in arrivals—over 2,000 people—since August last year. That is his contention. He pulls statistics out of the air. It is misrepresenting statistics to suggest that there has been an extraordinary increase in the push factors. The fact is that the push factors are enormous. They have always been enormous. There are millions of refugees around the world, each and every one of whom would love to come to Australia. According to the UNHCR, the number of refugees and people in refugee-like situations over the course of 2008 declined by eight per cent, but it is still an extraordinary number and an incredible toll of misery and tragedy. That is the enormous push factor that exists all the time.
And so every Australian government, regardless of its political persuasion, has to try to balance two objectives. One objective is to protect our borders and ensure that there is an end to people smuggling and that we do not have unauthorised arrivals of asylum seekers coming into our waters and onto our shores. That is a clear statement of policy. The other objective is to treat asylum seekers humanely and compassionately in accordance with the UN convention on refugees. Balancing those two challenges, those two objectives, is the work of every Australian government.
The challenge for the Rudd government is this: they say that nothing that they have done has affected the flow of refugees. They say there is no pull factor at all. And yet we know, insofar as the enormous push factors are concerned, that the enormous pressure from refugees around the world has changed over the last 12 months. The numbers have, according to the UNHCR’s own report, declined somewhat. I concede that the push factors are enormous and that they will always be enormous. So the question then is a factual one. This is why we should approach this issue in a calm and rational way—not with the hysteria, the character assassination, the venom and the viciousness that the Prime Minister displayed today. Let us simply look at the facts. The push factors are huge today and they will always be huge. They may be somewhat larger in some years, but they are massive. That is a given.
We know from reports, and also from the AFP report that the government is so reluctant to publish, that people smugglers would market recent changes to Australia’s immigration policy to entice potential illegal immigrants. That makes perfect sense. People smugglers are demanding thousands of dollars—this is a large sum even by Australian standards, let alone by the standards of desperate people, whether they come from Afghanistan, Iraq or Sri Lanka—so they have to be able to promise with credibility that they can deliver residency in Australia. So, plainly, that is a marketing tool. On 22 April, Indonesia’s Ambassador to Australia said that he thought the traffickers may use this—that is, the government’s change in policies—as a trial to organise more flows of refugees, because they get more money for it. We saw the UNHCR’s regional representative, Richard Towle, confirming that Australia’s changed immigration policies are a marketing tool for people smugglers. On 16 October, he said:
… I think perceptions of policy can certainly play a role in people smuggling. They have a product that they need to market, and to show that Australia is a place where refugees can get fair and effective refugee protection is something that is understood.
Finally, we have seen in the media so many reports from interviews with asylum seekers themselves. On 24 April an Iraqi refugee in Indonesia told the ABC:
Kevin Rudd—he’s changed everything about refugee. If I go to Australia now, different … Maybe accepted but when John Howard, president, Australia, he said come back to Indonesia.
So there is no question that these pull factors have been absolutely critical. The Prime Minister’s policy has failed and no amount of hyperbole, of hysteria, of venom and of vicious personal character attack will distract Australians from the fact that this government’s policy objective of protecting our borders has comprehensively failed.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
10755
15:15:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I second the motion. Another day, another boat, another policy failure. The Labor government’s border protection policy is in tatters. Since Labor changed its border protection system in August 2008, 43 boats—or is it 44 boats, Prime Minister; what is it today: 42, 43, 44 boats?—have been intercepted or arrived on our shores, intercepted by our Australian Navy personnel. Over 2,000 people have now arrived in this way, and the Prime Minister has refused to take any responsibility for the change in the border protection policies which have led to this outcome. The Prime Minister would have Australians believe that it is just an unhappy coincidence and that when he changed the law, when he provided the people smugglers with marketing tools to lure people to Australia, when he changed the laws to play into the hands of the people smugglers, it had no impact—that the surge in boat arrivals in the 14 months since he changed that law was just a coincidence. Well, Prime Minister, it is no coincidence; it is the major cause of the surge in boat arrivals in this country since August 2008.
The Australian Federal Police know it is no coincidence. The Australian Federal Police completed a report in March this year called Strategic Intelligence Forecast—Transnational criminal trends and threats to Australia. That report contains an indication that the government’s changes to border protection policies are going to be marketed by people smugglers to potential asylum seekers. That was a warning from the Australian Federal Police. Yet, unbelievably, the minister will try and tell this House, tell the Australian people, that he does not know anything about the contents of that report. It was a warning to the government that the changes in policies were being used as a marketing tool by people smugglers. Prime Minister, your minister has not even bothered to read that report, yet we hear that the report has been disseminated around the world—to agencies in Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada. A Canadian Mounty can read this report, but not the minister! I find that an outrageous state of affairs and a very disgraceful reflection on this government.
The Prime Minister has not directed that this report should be considered by the ministers who are responsible for the border protection policies. Isn’t it a matter of concern that the Australian Federal Police have warned this government that its changes in policies are being used as marketing tools by people smugglers, by the people-smuggling trade that the Prime Minister feigns such outrage about? He calls them ‘vile, outrageous people’, yet his own minister has not even read an Australian Federal Police report that warned the government about the dangers of changing the border protection policies. It is no coincidence, according to the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia, who said that people smugglers were using the weakening of the laws as a marketing tool. It is no coincidence, according to the International Organisation for Migration’s chief-of-mission in Indonesia, who said that the people smugglers were ‘testing the envelope’ because of the changes in the border protection laws. The numbers speak for themselves. It is no coincidence, and the government knows it. Yet the Prime Minister thinks that by putting his head in the sand this will all go away, that it will just be a nasty nightmare. It will not go away, Prime Minister—another day, another boat arrival, another policy failure.
The government has also lost control over the immigration detention facilities. Remember when the members opposite called Christmas Island a ‘white elephant’ and said ‘It’ll never be used; it’ll never be needed’? Christmas Island is at breaking point. It is not a question of ‘if’ the government will be bringing asylum seekers onto mainland Australia; it is a question of ‘when’. Christmas Island is having to put up with makeshift accommodation that has been pressed into service. Contractors, staff and supplies are being flown in to deal with the thousands of people who are arriving and being intercepted by Australian authorities. And none of this has been budgeted for, because the Labor government took the border protection policies of the Howard government for granted. They inherited a border protection system which kept our borders safe, which reduced the number of boat arrivals to an average of three per year. In some years there were no boat arrivals. In the 14 months since this government changed the laws, there have been 43 or 44 boat arrivals carrying 2,000 people. Prime Minister, this is an abject policy failure. The Prime Minister must take responsibility for his failure to keep our borders safe. (Time expired)
10756
15:20:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr RUDD
—I rise to speak in this debate on the suspension of standing orders. I listened very carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say before. He said two things in particular. He said, ‘I make no criticism of asylum seekers.’ He went on to say, ‘And we must address this question in a calm and measured way.’I repeat what he said to the parliament and the nation at large. He said, ‘I make no criticism of asylum seekers’ and then he went on to say, ‘And we must address this question in a calm and measured way.’ I am not quite sure what lawyer’s trick the member for Wentworth believes he is playing with this parliament and the people of Australia, but he knows full well that he has unleashed this debate for a base political motive, which is to inculcate a culture of fear in Australia. And he has sat back and encouraged the likes of all those opposite to engage in the most extreme comments possible in order to, first of all, have a debate on this matter; secondly, to bring about fear in the community; and, thirdly, to obtain political advantage from the above. But then the lawyer from central casting, the barrister from Wentworth, says, ‘Oh, I make no criticism of asylum seekers’ and ‘Oh, we must address this question in a calm and measured way.’
All this, of course, was put into absolutely stark contrast earlier today when the member for O’Connor went out and made his most extraordinary statements this morning about asylum seekers. Then, at a quarter to two this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether he owned those comments or distanced himself from them. There was stunning and absolute silence as the Leader of the Opposition, completely abandoned of any morally consistent position on this question, simply hoped that he could allow that one to go through to the keeper. It was the old dog-whistle approach of allowing Wilson and the others to go out there to talk it up, while saying, ‘I, the Leader of the Opposition, an innocent party, supporter of asylum seekers and supporter of calm and rational debate have nothing to do with the above.’ And then, mysteriously, an hour and a half later here in the House of Representatives, as this motion was moved, he said something rapidly in passing to the effect of—if I heard it correctly—that he did not approve of certain elements of what the member for O’Connor said.
I am somewhat confused by all this. At a quarter to two he goes out there with the Australian media and is asked a question about whether he stands behind the comments of the member for O’Connor, or whether he repudiates them or whether he will do the right and correct thing, which is to demand that the member for O’Connor be disendorsed as the Liberal candidate for O’Connor. Silence, silence, silence! Then the pressure comes on in the House of Representatives and, whoopsie, we have got to make a correction here in the House. Where has the moral fibre and moral character of the Leader of the Opposition gone? And then there is the consistency in approach of what we have seen with all three Liberal frontbenchers engaged in this debate—the member for Murray, the member for Curtin and the Leader of the Opposition—all politically endangered species. That is what it is about. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition is on borrowed political time. We know that, once there is a leadership change within the opposition, the member for Curtin is next in the gun. And we know that the member for Murray has suddenly hit her straps on this issue, notwithstanding her historical position on certain of these issues. But, suddenly, having done ‘Berowra with pike’ she decided that in fact the smart thing to do was to get with the message and get on with the fear campaign about asylum seekers. So what is the common point here between the member for Murray, the member for Curtin and the member for Wentworth? All fear for their political careers. So what do they do? They shred anything approaching policy principle, they shred anything approaching political consistency and they shred anything in terms of a consistent moral compass on any of these matters.
I say to those opposite that the entire basis for their attack on asylum seekers and the way in which this government responds to this challenge rests on the assumption that their policies were responsible for a reduction in arrivals to Australia and that our policies have been responsible for an increase in arrivals to Australia. They are completely oblivious to all the global facts. The global facts, which they choose to ignore, are that in the period 2001 to 2003, following their introduction of the Pacific solution, we had a radical global decrease in the numbers coming from Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka because of global factors operating around the world. All countries experienced a global reduction. What has happened in the period subsequent to that—2007, 2008 and into the present time—is that around the world there has been a global increase in the outflow from Sri Lanka, Iraq and Afghanistan, and all countries in the world are experiencing an increase in the number of arrivals coming from those countries.
The third great myth alive in this piece of, shall I say, political self-preservation on the part of the member for Curtin, the member for Murray and the member for Wentworth is to somehow pretend that they have embraced a different policy. So why was it, Member for Murray, that you stood up in such false embrace of the government’s formal change in position when you made those remarks in support of the government’s policy? When asked, ‘Do you support these approaches?’ you said, ‘I do.’ Those opposite pretend that they were not here in the parliament when we decided to change our approach on temporary protection visas. They had an opportunity to register a view in this place and they did not. In other words, their policy on temporary protection visas is the same as the government’s policy since the election of this government. Their policy on the abolition of the Pacific solution is the same as the government’s, as we said we would do in government prior to the election. And I assume they do not want to return children to behind razor wire—or do they? That is one of the other policy positions that we have taken since being in government. But I wait for a clear statement from those opposite. What is the alternative policy? What is that which they seek us to change? Do you hear a clear statement from those opposite?
Government members—No.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—In other words, factually underpinning this is the global decrease in numbers from 2001 to 2003. That argument blows their entire case out of the water. The global increase in the number of arrivals in 2007 and 2008 blows their argument out of the water in relation to this government. And the conspicuous silence about where they stand on temporary protection visas, the Pacific solution and kids behind razor wire blows that argument out of the water. So what are we left with?
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr Ruddock
—The government’s failure. That is what we are left with.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—We are left with a crude exercise in rank politics on the part of those opposite. I always enjoy it when the principled members for Berowra and Menzies choose to make principled interjections in this debate—because they know a lot about principle!
Can I also say that, when it goes to this debate about numbers, those opposite were referring to arrivals here since this government has come into office. Can I just ask: in the 12 years that the Howard government was in office, how many boats arrived on our shores? Almost 250. How many individuals came with those boats? Almost 15,000. In the period that we have been in office, which is now nearly two years, how many boats have come? Based on our calculation, there have been 38 or 39. And the number of arrivals is around about 1,700. Across the spread of time, the average over the last 14 years has been in the vicinity of 20 boats per year. That will go up and down as the global factors change. But that is the numerical context in which this debate is being conducted. So there collapses the fourth argument advanced by those opposite in terms of the validity of their position on people smugglers.
But at its core this is actually a debate about leadership, character and what you stand for. What we are seeing today on the part of this collapsing moral authority of the Leader of the Opposition is a Leader of the Opposition flailing in the breeze, willing to lurch to the right on these questions in the hope of garnering support within the party room to stagger through until Christmas and, at the same time, engender a debate in this nation which is about asylum seekers as the necessary price to pay to try and preserve one man’s job, and parallel with the tactics employed by the members for Murray and Curtin in a vain attempt to preserve their jobs as well. Why is it that the member for Wentworth, given his historical position on asylum seekers and people smugglers, when he has publicly embraced the position adopted by the member for Kooyong, has turned 180 degrees? It has nothing to do with principle; it has everything to do with expediency. Malcolm Turnbull has the business cards of the leader of a political party but none of its moral authority. That has been on rancid display in this place this week.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—Who wrote that for you?
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I say, as he interjects and seeks to make a difference on this matter, his motives are transparent to the Australian people. (Time expired)
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Turnbull’s) be agreed to.
15:35:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
51
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.
Coulton, M.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
76
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McKew, M.
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.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
4
PAIRS
Neville, P.C.
Ellis, A.L.
Mirabella, S.
Price, L.R.S.
Robb, A.
McMullan, R.F.
Hockey, J.B.
McClelland, R.B.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
10759
Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers
Defence Personnel
10759
10759
15:39:00
Mr RUDD,MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr RUDD
—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister may proceed.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Mr Speaker, the now absent member for Dickson asked me a question concerning those who were on board SIEV36. I am advised of the following by the Department of Defence. Five ADF personnel received injuries in the explosion which occurred on SIEV36. Those injuries were minor. Fifty-four personnel on board the vessel participated in critical mental health screening following their involvement in the incident. This screening identified 17 personnel with the potential for adverse mental health outcomes. Three personnel were off work, two for psychological injury and one for physical injury. The two members with psychological injuries were placed on temporary restrictions. As of 21 October, the two members that suffered psychological injury are on a return-to-work program and the member with physical injury has returned to work. There has been one additional member that has subsequently developed mental health problems and has been reviewed by the medical review board.
Once again, I would like to express the government’s gratitude to and admiration for the men and women of the ADF, Customs and Border Protection Command for their dedication to duty in response to a very difficult situation.
10760
15:40:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—On indulgence, I thank the Prime Minister for those additional remarks and join with him in thanking the ADF for their heroic efforts in defending our borders and undertaking the great risks that they do in dealing with these dangerous situations at sea.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
10760
Personal Explanations
10760
15:40:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
0
0
Mr TUCKEY
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—I do.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—In a media statement and further remarks in this House today, the Prime Minister said I was placing a ‘slur on the three-quarters of a million refugees to come to Australia since World War 2’. I am sure that the grandfather of two of my grandchildren, who bear his family name, and the Chief Opposition Whip would be surprised by that untrue allegation.
My remarks today related to the security of Australia’s borders and its people, and nothing in the transcript of my remarks today can be honestly interpreted otherwise. I did not state that asylum seekers were terrorists. To the contrary, I made supportive remarks regarding the 13,000 legal refugee entrants to Australia annually.
MR DON LANE
10760
Miscellaneous
10760
15:41:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
0
Mr GARRETT
—On indulgence: it is my sad task to inform the House of the passing away of the American born but very popular Australian entertainer Don Lane, who has died from a dementia related illness aged 75. Many of us in this House and many listening will know Don Lane for his work on the Don Lane Show. It debuted on the Nine Network in 1975 and ran for almost a decade. Over what was a very extensive career, he won some 15 Logie awards, and in 2003 he was inducted into the Logie Hall of Fame. Lane was diagnosed with dementia in 2005. I think that he has been living in a care facility since reports surfaced that he was suffering from dementia.
Interestingly, Don Lane began his working life as a nightclub performer and singer. He briefly appeared on one episode of the Ed Sullivan Show in the late 1950s as one half of a double act. In Australia in the sixties he was involved in a number of different television programs, but it was the Don Lane Show on the Nine Network that made him a household name around Australia. On behalf of the government, I pass on to his family, friends and colleagues our sympathies for this tragic loss.
10761
15:43:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
0
Mr CIOBO
—On indulgence, on behalf of the coalition, we would like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the minister on the passing of Don Lane. He is certainly, although not a native-born Australian, someone who made a very marked impact on Australian cultural life. Many millions of Australians would recognise the amazing contribution he made. Having been born in New York City to a Catholic mother and a Jewish father, he certainly grew up with a lifestyle and in a family that was, although not unique, perhaps interesting coming into Australia.
His early work as a nightclub performer and a singer, doing a mix of comedy and singing, certainly boded well for his subsequent years on the Don Lane Show. Of course, he worked very closely with a number of famous Australians, including Bert Newton. The various national Logie awards that he received—including the Gold Logie; Most Popular Male Personality; Most Popular Male, in Victoria; and Most Popular Show—were all a testament to his fine contribution to Australian culture. He will certainly be missed.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
10761
Personal Explanations
10761
15:44:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—I do.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—In purporting to quote me today the Treasurer neglected to mention my further comments to the effect that the Australian people will be paying the price of the government’s stimulus package for years to come in terms of higher interest rates and higher taxes.
DOCUMENTS
10761
Documents
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
15:44:00
—Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs—House of Representatives Standing Committee—The long road to statehood: Report of the inquiry into the federal implications of statehood for the Northern Territory—Report, May 2007—Government response.
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust—Report for 2008-09.
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—Report—95th—Treaties tabled on 4 June, 17 June, 25 June and 26 August 2008—Report, October 2008—Government response.
Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned.
BUSINESS
10761
Business
Days and Hours of Meeting
10761
10761
15:45:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I present a chart showing the program of sittings for 2010. Copies of the program have been placed on the table. I ask leave of the House to move that the program be agreed to.
Leave granted.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That the program of sittings for 2010 be agreed to.
Question put.
15:50:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
76
AYES
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.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McKew, M.
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.
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.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Zappia, A.
49
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
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.
Coulton, M.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
4
PAIRS
Ellis, A.L.
Neville, P.C.
Price, L.R.S.
Mirabella, S.
McMullan, R.F.
Robb, A.
McClelland, R.B.
Hockey, J.B.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
10762
Committees
Membership
10762
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received advice from the Acting Chief Government Whip nominating changes in the membership of certain committees.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government)
15:54:00
—by leave—I move:
That Mr Bidgood be discharged from the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation, Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
10763
Matters of Public Importance
Parliamentary Reform
10763
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Sturt proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to embrace a parliamentary reform agenda.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
10763
15:55:00
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
0
0
Mr PYNE
—This is a very important matter of public importance for debate today. It comes out of the extraordinary frustration that my colleagues on this side of the House feel, I know that the public feel, and I would be very surprised if members of the Labor Party did not also feel, about the performance of this government in terms of question time and the handling of matters in this House. Mr Speaker, as you said in the House today:
The failure has been of the House not to address the problems that people feel concerned about.
Today I wish to go to some of those problems and to the reform agenda that the opposition has placed on the record. I have written to the Leader of the House and to the Procedure Committee. I would expect a sensible response from the Leader of the House, and I would also expect that the Procedure Committee, which can refer matters to itself, would seriously look at the reform agenda that the opposition has put forward covering matters as far reaching as a backbench question time specifically for backbenchers to ask ministers about issues in their local electorate, a take note session after question time, and of course time limits for answers, which would come as an enormous relief to everybody in the chamber. I think I could even speak for the members of the government—it would come as a great relief to them if there were limits on the Prime Minister in particular. I think they would be popping champagne corks in the caucus if the government actually adopted the opposition’s proposals for reform of the parliamentary system.
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr Anthony Smith
—They could demand it in the caucus.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—In fact, I would expect that the caucus will start to push for parliamentary reform given the extraordinary waste of time and effort and energy that goes into what has become a joke of a question time. For two hours every day we have to hear the Prime Minister blathering on in confected outrage in ugly displays like today. It was an extraordinary performance, verballing members of the opposition and telling outright falsehoods about our positions on issues. We have to listen to the Treasurer telling falsehoods about the positions we have taken on bills—bills that we suggested in the first place. I am referring, of course, to the bank guarantee. On four occasions the Leader of the Opposition has had to take personal explanations about the blatant disregard for the truth that the Treasurer displays in this House about a bill which we are on the record as having supported.
The Prime Minister is by far and away the worst offender in terms of his performance in question time. I pity the new members of this chamber having to see the performance of the Prime Minister in comparison to the performance of previous prime ministers. I am not just talking about John Howard, the former member for Bennelong, who most people—even the member for Banks—would agree was quite a parliamentary performer. There were other prime ministers who were great parliamentary performers, and they were not even from my own party.
Paul Keating was a very entertaining parliamentary performer; Bob Hawke was a satisfactory parliamentary performer. Gough Whitlam was a legendary parliamentary performer. On our side of the House there have been prime ministers like Robert Menzies. There have been whole books written about his parliamentary performances and his capacity to speak in this place. Robert Menzies is just one example but Malcolm Fraser of course is another. I have already talked about John Howard.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Billy McMahon.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—While Billy McMahon had good days and bad days, generally speaking Billy McMahon was regarded as quite a parliamentary performer in his own fashion. But unfortunately the Prime Minister of today in this chamber would be rated the worst parliamentary performer in living memory—much worse than Billy McMahon; much worse than Bob Hawke; much worse than Malcolm Fraser. I pity the new members of parliament that they have to put up with this dirge, this turgid display, this uninteresting performance he gives every day which goes for far too long and in which he never says anything of any interest at all. And as far as the public are concerned, I have had an extraordinary deluge of emails, letters and correspondence, along with people raising it with me on the street or through Facebook or other methods, about what a joke question time has become in the national parliament. That is sad, because it is a very important part of the day.
Let me give you some statistics. I know that the Labor Party love to talk about facts. Well, these are the facts. In 2008, only 31 per cent of question time was spent answering questions from the opposition and the Independents. The average time that the government takes to answer questions from the opposition is two minutes and 38 seconds. Yet the average time that the government takes to answer questions from their own backbench is five minutes and 10 seconds. This year, the Prime Minister has set new benchmarks—new lows—on performance in the parliament and for boring the parliament to death. He is called ‘the Bradman of boredom’. He takes an average of seven minutes and 16 seconds to answer a question from his own side. He has broken almost all the records, with an answer to one question in the last sitting fortnight which went for 12 minutes and 30 seconds.
It is not just me who thinks this is boring: it is all of my colleagues, most members of the Labor Party and certainly the members of the press gallery, who have started to be turned off from coming to question time. I also pity the members of the public who travel from all over the country to come to question time in what is supposed to be the most senior and important parliament in the country. The public come here and have to put up with the dirge that the Prime Minister tries to pass off as answers to questions.
The government, when they were in opposition, had quite a different view about the need to reform the parliament. I know that the member for Banks was very keen on the need to reform the parliament, but he was not the only one. Former Labor leader Bill Hayden right back in 1978 moved a motion to introduce a time limit for answers in question time of three minutes.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Bill Hayden?
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—Bill Hayden was not the most recent example, I can assure, Leader of the House. The most recent examples include people like Melissa Parke, the member for Fremantle, who has written that imposing time limits on questions and answers would perhaps constrain the tendency for questions and answers to be used for point scoring. Bob McMullan, the member for Fraser, believes that no answer should be longer than four minutes. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, the member for Lalor, argued in opposition to limit answers to questions during question time to four minutes. Wayne Swan, now the Treasurer, the member for Lilley, argued in opposition that time limits should apply. All of these opinions were given in speeches to the chamber, applications to the Procedure Committee and responses to suggestions and all were from the Labor Party.
The Speaker of the House, Mr Jenkins, whom we all revere, has also expressed his belief that it would be helpful if answers were shorter. Even the Clerk of the House, who is usually like the sphinx in terms of expressing a view on any political matter, noted in a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure during the last parliament that ‘time limits would reduce the risk of more prolonged answers, answers which are more likely to give rise to challenges on the ground of relevance’. And ain’t that the truth.
The reason I am so much at the dispatch box during question time drawing the attention of the House and the Speaker to the question of relevance is because the answers go for so long that there is no doubt that the minister will stray from relevance and their answer will go into the irrelevancies that we have to put up with every day in this chamber. I would most like not to have to be at the dispatch box regularly pointing out the irrelevance of the answers to questions given by the Prime Minister in particular. You can save the chamber and the public from having to put up with me at the dispatch box by simply keeping your answers short and being relevant.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—We like it.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—We know that you like to be at the dispatch box because you are a narcissist—there is no doubt about that. But I am not a narcissist.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—If the member could withdraw, that would be good.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—‘Narcissist’ is not unparliamentary.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for Sturt has the call.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—Only a person who might be a narcissist would be so sensitive about being called one. The other point that I would like to make is that the opposition has placed on the agenda in writing to the Leader of the House and in writing to the Procedure Committee a program of reform. I would like to outline that in all seriousness as part of this matter of public importance. We propose that time limits should be introduced. We propose a one-minute time limit on questions and a four-minute time limit on answers. Most people would not need much convincing that that would be a very good idea.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—Bob Katter would.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—We might have to give Bob Katter, the member for Kennedy, an exception. Otherwise, he would not be able to ever make it.
In terms of the other areas of reform, we have noticed that ministerial statements have burgeoned to such an extent that the matter of public importance debate—except for today—has been pushed further back on the agenda of the day until it is no longer at a relevant time. The matter of public importance is described in The House of Representatives Practice as one of the principle avenues available to private members. In the last term of the previous government there were 12 ministerial statements, taking up less than three hours of parliamentary time. But in the 20 months of the current government there have been 93 ministerial statements, taking up over 37 hours of parliamentary time. And they have been on some of the most important subjects imaginable, including issues like the runway end safety area at Sydney airport and the accessibility of cinemas! I am sure that the accessibility of cinemas and the runway end safety area at Sydney airport could easily have been dealt with through speeches by the ministers, by press releases or any other way that they wished to do so.
But ministerial statements are becoming a tool, which, as the Leader of the House well knows, is the reason there have been so many. There have been 93 in 20 months that have taken up 37 hours of parliamentary time. We know that it is being done deliberately to push the matters of public importance back in the day, so we propose that standing orders be changed to put the matter of public importance immediately after question time.
We also propose that there be new ‘take note’ sessions created in the chamber—not unlike the Senate ‘take note’ sessions—where answers in question time can be remarked upon by private members after question time. So, for half an hour after each question time, private members—three on either side—would be able to speak for five minutes each on answers that they had heard in question time and wished to respond to. For example, a local member might ask a question in question time, as the member for Berowra did yesterday when he asked a question about infrastructure in his electorate. He might then choose to respond to the extremely irrelevant answer from the minister for transport, where he basically simply bellowed hysterically across the chamber. The member for Berowra might want seriously to respond to that after question time in a ‘take note’ session.
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr Ruddock
—Can I do it now?
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—You would be very welcome to do it but don’t take my time!
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—No, you couldn’t.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—We also propose that there be the creation of a backbench question session. One of the real problems in opposition is that we only have 10 questions a day, essentially, and most of those questions go to the front bench. They try to make political points and hold the government to account. But it becomes very difficult for backbenchers to represent their electorates on local issues. I am sure that is the case, too, for members of the Labor Party. A backbench question session would be held every day or every couple of days for half an hour or an hour. Ministers would have notice of the question. It would be a question on notice arrangement where, in the morning, those questions were provided to the ministers. The backbench question session would allow for a supplementary question on that local issue to be asked of the minister. That would be good for democracy and good for the parliament and it would include all the private members in the importance of question time every day. I think it would be a very useful change to the standing orders to make sure this place works better.
In summary, humour has been employed in this debate so far—and I am sure the Leader of the House will respond in kind—but parliamentary reform is a serious issue. The opposition has placed on the agenda a number of changes that, if they were serious about what they said in opposition, the government would pursue. I know the Leader of the House will say: ‘This is what you did. You weren’t any good so we’re just doing it back to you.’ I hope that the Labor Party and the Leader of the House will be better than that. I hope that they believe in what they said in opposition about parliamentary reform. Now, with the opportunity they have, they can actually try to follow through on the promises that they made before the election. (Time expired)
10767
16:10:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I am certainly pleased to respond to this matter of public importance, although I note that at a time when the global economic crisis is still having an impact on Australia and on a day when we have introduced the CPRS legislation and had a debate about the future of telecommunications and broadband, the opposition are reduced to moving MPIs about the processes in this parliament. Nothing could typify more the fact that they are all about an inward focus—about themselves—rather than about what interests the community out there.
Indeed, the Manager of Opposition Business has a very short memory. Let us have a look at the issues that he raises. The first thing is that he says that parliamentary question time is partisan. Well, you would think that! During the 12 years in which I sat on the other side of the chamber I recall ministers who sat on this side of the chamber accusing us of being un-Australian, accusing us of not supporting our troops in Iraq and accusing us of supporting terrorists coming to this country—accusing us of the worst imaginable things that they could think of, day after day, as they stood up in this chamber.
What do they propose? The first issue that the member for Sturt has raised is question time reform and time limits. To back that up, one of the arguments that he used was the relative amounts of time spent on questions from government members and questions from opposition members. In fact, if the member for Sturt had done his homework he would have found that this side of the House—the current government—actually spends more time on opposition questions as a percentage than the former government did. The former government spent 28 per cent of its time on opposition questions. Indeed, time after time their strategy was to stand up and give one-word answers to questions from the opposition. So it simply does not stack up.
Indeed, a prominent parliamentarian said this about time limits.
… to accommodate all of the challenges that the new membership of this place brings, it is much better to have a flexible and cooperative approach to allowing members to speak rather than having a prescriptive and restrictive set of rules which inhibit the capacity of the house … to act responsibly and maturely in managing its own affairs.
The person who said that was Philip Davis, the Liberal Party leader in the Legislative Council in Victoria. When the non-government members got the numbers for a majority in the Legislative Council in Victoria over the last couple of years they actually abolished time limits. Time limits were there but they abolished them. They say one thing but when they have an opportunity they do the precise opposite.
They also put forward a number of other reforms to the Standing Committee on Procedure but they do not take any responsibility for their own actions. Today, we have seen yet another suspension of standing orders during question time, to have a motion without any momentum whatsoever, without any focus, just ‘It’s Thursday, we’ll move a suspension’. That is what happens every Thursday in this place. It is so predictable and it occurs constantly.
One of the issues raised by the Manager of Opposition Business is ministerial statements. That is a reform that has been taken seriously by this government because we believe it is appropriate that ministers be accountable in this place and that we make announcements in the House of Representatives. We have had 100 ministerial statements during this term and nine prime ministerial statements on major issues such as defence and the major updates that will occur every year about closing the gap with Indigenous Australians. The making of these major statements in this chamber is all about treating the parliament with respect. Of course there is equal time for shadow ministers to respond. This is an important part of the parliament, in which both sides get to put their views, and it is a reform that has been adopted. But those opposite—having argued that it should happen—are now arguing against it.
We have also changed the way in which this parliament works by raising its respect. The most important thing we have done is to acknowledge, for the first time in our history, that this is Aboriginal land. For the first time in our history we have had a Welcome to Country—something that I think all members of the House of Representatives now support and all members participate in. One of the issues being considered by the Procedure Committee is how we can enhance the opening of parliament so that we acknowledge the fact that history did not begin on this land when Federation occurred; that we have a history that goes back tens of thousands of years. That is a vital and important reform advanced by this government—belatedly, but it has happened.
We have established the Petitions Committee to ensure that millions of Australians now get their voices heard. Previously, petitions were tabled and they went downstairs, somewhere, never to be seen again. No minister responded to what constituents were saying out there. We have enhanced the process. Between 2004 and 2007 more than one million people signed over 900 petitions but there was no response whatsoever. It is an important reform.
We have acknowledged the fact that the parliament is changing. We are not where we should be yet but we do have increased representation of women, particularly younger women. Proxy votes for nursing mothers is an important reform that both sides of the chamber have supported, acknowledging that we can move forward as a modern day institution.
All of these issues have been important, but perhaps the most extraordinary statement by the Manager of Opposition Business is the purported concern for increasing the backbencher role in this parliament. We advanced the most important reform that could have happened, and that was the Friday sittings. The Friday sittings gave an opportunity for backbench members to discuss issues of concern to their constituents and issues of concern to the nation. Private members’ bills have been used more by opposition members than by government members. There were many people—government members of long standing who had experience in governments past and present—who thought that we were providing an opportunity to the opposition that was extremely generous.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr Melham interjecting—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—The member for Banks puts himself on the record as one of them. He said the opposition could take advantage of that. It was a day when there was focus on what members of parliament—not ministers—did and they operated in exactly the same way as the Main Committee does. We do not have divisions or quorums in the Main Committee and it has operated successfully, exactly the same way, with the Monday and Tuesday meetings. But those opposite chose to destroy and wreck that opportunity for backbench members. Backbench time occurs in other parliaments. For example, New South Wales sits on Friday. Backbench members have an opportunity to raise issues of concern to their electorate but, here, they decided to trash it. They did so in a way that was extraordinarily disrespectful to the Prime Minister, by bringing in a cardboard cut-out of the Prime Minister—and they think that is pretty funny.
We would never have brought a cardboard cut-out of John Howard into this parliament. We would never have done that. They still do not seem to understand that the Prime Minister is not a backbencher. This was a specific opportunity. It was a reform for backbench members. It is one that I supported strongly. It is one, as the member for Banks has said, that was not unanimously supported by those on this side of the House because many members thought that an opportunity was being given to the opposition that we were not given over that previous period of time. Think about, for example, the opportunity at the end of budget week. You have the budget on the Tuesday night and on the Friday you would have private members’ motions and eight speakers in the grievance debate having 10 minutes each to give a critique of what they thought of the budget without a focus on what ministers were doing. This was a real opportunity for reform that they blew. I think that the smart ones amongst them, by the way, Manager of Opposition Business, have certainly recognised that was an opportunity lost. Many members on your side have said that they regret the fact that they did not take a constructive opportunity in terms of parliamentary sitting.
But of course opposition and behavioural problems is something that has characterised those opposite, because when they are essentially not able to put forward an argument about something—and they cannot because they do not know what their position is on the CPRS, they do not know what their position is on asylum seekers and what they will be doing there and they do not know what their position is on economic stimulus—and they cannot put forward a position, they end up having an argument about nothing because they do not stand for anything. That is why, extraordinarily, we have now seen over 1,200 points of order moved by those opposite. The Manager of Opposition Business has well over 200 points of order. The former Manager of Opposition Business is also over 200. The Leader of the Opposition, someone who is supposed to be engaged in high policy debates, has moved over 100 points of order during that time. The comparison is extraordinary: it took them half the time to move more points of order than were moved during the entire term last time. Those opposite interrupt one-third of questions. Then they stand up and move suspensions and censures. Remember Utegate week? They did not move anything on the Monday and they waited until the Wednesday, when we knew it was a fake email, and then moved a censure motion. That was a highlight of the tactical geniuses opposite. The fact is that they have no issues of substance to be able to advance. They have moved more suspensions, more points of order, more dissents from the Speaker than were moved— (Time expired)
10769
16:25:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important matter in this matters of public importance debate. I note that the purpose of this parliament is to hold the government to account. The purpose of this parliament is to govern well for the benefit of the people of Australia. It is interesting to note that the Leader of the House talked about the importance of Friday sittings, a day on which the Prime Minister was not going to bother to turn up, a day for which the taxpayers were paying to keep this parliament functioning yet at the same time we were not going to have a question time. We were not going to have a questioning of the executive. We were going to have nothing more than a Clayton’s parliament. It is absolutely outrageous that the Leader of the House would suggest that the taxpayers of this country pay to keep this parliament open when there was no ability to hold this government to account.
The government tries to achieve a very similar situation in question time by, effectively, constantly filibustering. Rather than providing decisive answers to questions and rather than being concise, we have the Prime Minister filibustering for virtually hours in question time. In fact, I think he could be renamed ‘Stilnox’ for his incredible power to send not only the members of this House but perhaps half of the nation to sleep with his dreary, dull and irrelevant performances in question time. The subject of relevance is very important and the deficiency of the standing orders in relation to question time is made clear by the performance of the Prime Minister and his senior ministers in this place. It certainly does detract from the ability of the parliament to hold the government to account and to seek important answers to questions on important issues that the public of Australia—and this parliament—has a right to know.
On the issue of asylum seekers, we have seen the government ducking and weaving and avoiding answering the proper and appropriate questions that have been put forward by this opposition. The government is intent on maintaining a situation whereby it can continue to do that. It is absolutely important that parliament evolve over time. It is absolutely important that the parliament have the ability to probe the goings-on within the executive, however murky they might be. But it seems clear that this government is going to stand and defend its right to filibuster, that it is going to stand and defend its right to be perpetually irrelevant and that it is going to stand and defend its right to avoid the very proper scrutiny that should be occurring in this House. The Prime Minister can run but he cannot hide from the Australian people for much longer because I think they are growing wise to the fact that his performance—and the performance of his ministers—in question time is nothing more than a filibuster and wasting the time of this parliament and wasting the time of the Australian people. They should be answering correctly and properly the questions that are being put forward by this opposition. They should be hearing the voice of the Australian people, who are calling for accountability by this government and for answers on important questions about subjects such as asylum seekers. They are wanting to know how wisely their taxpayer dollars are being spent. They are wanting to know what is going on in relation to the control of our borders and the ways in which this government should be discharging its obligation to defend our coastline, an obligation on which those opposite are sadly letting the Australian people down.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
10770
Adjournment
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Australian Indigenous Minority Supplier Council
10770
10770
16:30:00
George, Jennie, MP
JH5
Throsby
ALP
0
0
Ms GEORGE
—On 15 September in parliament’s Mural Hall I participated in the launch of the Australian Indigenous Minority Supplier Council. It was a memorable evening for all who were there, but especially so for Michael McLeod, whose vision had finally come to fruition. I know Michael McLeod personally and have an understanding that for him this has been a triumph of will over fortune. Many of Michael’s longstanding friends, like Col and Melissa Markham, were there to celebrate Michael’s success.
A member of the stolen generation, Michael was removed from his parents at two years of age and lived through a turbulent youth in foster homes and institutions. This legacy saw him entangled in substance abuse and despair until such time as treatment opened a new chapter in his life. He was attracted to the internet and decided to try his hand at helping others to access it. In the process he established Australia’s first indigenous ISP. Fifteen years later, Michael together with his mentor and business partner, Dug Russell, is now the successful owner and manager of the multimillion dollar communication business Message Stick. In this remarkable journey, Michael McLeod stands as an inspiration to us all.
Not content to rest on his remarkable personal achievements, Michael became a passionate advocate for the creation of an Australian Indigenous minority supplier council, inspired by a similar successful model in the United States, as well as in Canada and the UK. In the early days of the Labor government, I was able to put Michael in contact with the then newly elected member for Corio and chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Richard Marles. It was both a fruitful and fortuitous meeting. At the time, the standing committee was undertaking an inquiry which led to the report Open for business: developing Indigenous enterprises in Australia.
The Australian Indigenous Minority Supplier Council has now been launched with 32 founding corporate members and 15 Indigenous businesses and strategic partners, most of whom were present on that memorable evening. The corporates there read like a list of who’s who of the Australian Stock Exchange—IBM, Qantas, Citigroup, Wesfarmers, Telstra, Rio Tinto, Harvey Norman and Woolworths, to name just a few. At the launch, I sat next to Gavin Lester, a former Rugby League player and mentor of young Indigenous people, who is now a part-owner of the Sydney based building company X-Site. Gavin made it clear that his involvement was about real business outcomes—not special treatment but just the chance to win contracts to create employment and generate wealth for his people.
The council’s role is to connect Indigenous businesses with the procurement processes of mainstream, blue-chip companies. As we know, vibrant Indigenous businesses will be a powerful driver in closing the gap for Indigenous Australians. I congratulate the Rudd Labor government for providing seed funding for the council. I am sure that over time it will prove to be an investment that helps foster and encourage other businesses.
Michael McLeod’s grit, determination, intelligence and vision will leave a lasting legacy through the creation of the council. Let us hope that in the future there will be many hundreds of Indigenous Australians walking in the footsteps of Michael McLeod.
Ryan Electorate
10771
10771
16:34:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mr JOHNSON
—Today in the federal parliament I would like to direct my remarks to the people of Ashgrove, Bardon, Ferny Grove, Keperra, Enoggera, Mitchelton and Upper Kedron and say to those families, those owners of businesses, those entrepreneurs, those innovators, those who have served our country, to veterans, to young people in the suburbs of Ashgrove, Bardon, Ferny Grove, Keperra, Enoggera, Mitchelton and Upper Kedron, and also to people who represent community groups, who are community minded, who represent charities and work tirelessly for a cause which seeks to make lives and societies better, that I will be their new federal member next year. I direct my remarks to them because I look forward very much to representing them here in the Australian parliament. I look forward to being their new, dedicated, committed and tireless member. I intend to represent them as I have represented the suburbs in the current Ryan electorate over the last nine years—with energy, enthusiasm, integrity and passion.
I had the great honour of being elected by the people of Ryan in 2001. I was then a 31-year-old. I am a migrant to this country. I was not born in Australia but, as I said in my first speech, the love I have for this country is immeasurable because it has given me an opportunity to become a member of this great chamber of democracy. The deep privilege I have being the member for Ryan will translate to being a representative of those people. Being a member of this parliament gives us an opportunity to fight for our constituents, to represent them here in the national parliament on issues of great concern.
To the families of Ashgrove, Bardon, Ferny Grove, Keperra, Enoggera, Mitchelton and Upper Kedron I want to give the flavour of two local issues on which I am fighting currently on behalf of some of my existing constituents. Residents in Karana Downs, in the western suburbs of Brisbane, are facing a developer who seeks to take over the golf course and transform it into a development.
I said to the residents and the families of Karana Downs that I am neither for nor against development. My role is to provide a platform for those families and constituents and to provide a voice and to be the voice for them. I do not live in the suburb of Karana Downs. I live in the suburb of Taringa in the Ryan electorate. I have lived in the Ryan electorate for some 25 years now. I said to the community of Karana Downs that I cannot be for or against development. My job is to empower them and to inform them with expert advice so that they can make a decision on a matter and so that they can stand up and say: ‘We are for this development,’ or ‘We are not for it,’ or ‘We are for it with certain qualifications and conditions,’ or ‘We are not for it because the environmental impact studies have not been done’ or ‘We are not for it because we have not been consulted adequately.’ That is one issue that I draw to the attention of the constituents and families living in those suburbs that will be part of the new Ryan electorate.
The other issue concerns my fight for the people and the families living in Bardon and Rainworth. Currently, Telstra is seeking to put up a mobile phone tower in that local community. My beef with Telstra is that they have not given sufficient notice to the families in that community or undertaken any meaningful consultation with them. The proposed mobile phone tower is going to be only 170 metres from the Rainworth State Primary School, which is in the Ryan electorate. I have spoken in the parliament twice this week, calling on the federal Labor government to revisit the relevant legislation that will help those families. I am going to fight for those constituents in Ashgrove, Bardon, Enoggera, Ferny Grove, Keperra, Mitchelton and Upper Kedron with all the energy and enthusiasm I can, because it is important that their voice is heard in the Australian parliament. If you happen to be from those suburbs, my Brisbane electorate number is 33781599 and my email address is Michael.Johnson.MP@aph.gov.au (Time expired)
Parliament
10772
10772
16:39:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
1
0
Mr MELHAM
—I rise to make some comments on the cheeky contribution by the member for Sturt, Mr Pyne, in the discussion of a matter of public importance, which was in the following terms:
The Government’s failure to embrace a Parliamentary reform agenda
I was scheduled to speak on the MPI but time defeated me. As the Leader of the House pointed out, this government brought in the ‘welcome to country’ at the time of the opening of parliament. That was resisted by the former government. This government has brought in a petitions committee, which has enhanced the workings of the parliament and given the public a genuine opportunity to make a further contribution when their petitions have been lodged. We also brought forward an opportunity for Friday sittings, which was basically going to be devoted to backbenchers. As pointed out by the Leader of the House, it is something that I privately thought was a crazy idea because, frankly, if it had been properly used by the opposition, if they had understood it, they could have exploited the Friday sittings. They looked a gift horse in the mouth. They rejected it—and now the horse has moved on. The constitutional questions were not fatal, in my view, but the point is that an effort was made, with no cooperation from the opposition. I have a background as a lawyer and, as I said, when I looked at the idea of the Friday sittings I thought it was being extremely generous to the opposition. It would have also been generous to government members but, on balance, I think the proposition favoured the opposition. In the end, I was part of the government that collectively brought that idea forward.
I was on the Procedures Committee way back in 1993 to 1996, when Neal Blewett brought in a report which led to the establishment of a second chamber for non-contentious legislation. This allowed quality debate to continue in this House on contentious legislation while the non-contentious legislation—the second stream—was debated in the Main Committee. The Labor government introduced that, and the House of Commons—the mother parliament—thought it was so good that it picked it up. Now they have a similar situation in Great Britain based on what a Labor government introduced here.
We are into reform. But what was the 11½-year track record of the former government—the Howard government—on reform? What is so funny is that they are reaping what they sowed. A lot of the things that they are putting forward had been suggested to them when they were in government, but those ideas were dismissed out of hand because they were seen to advantage the opposition. They never, ever thought that they would be in opposition one day. When the Manager of Opposition Business talks about frustration, it is not just about question time; it is about the fact that they lost the election and are not in control.
When it comes to parliamentary reform, you have to look at it not from a government or opposition angle but in terms of what enhances the working of the parliament. Under the Howard government, I saw a number of measures. We saw secretariats who serviced one House committees being forced to service two house committees so that, in effect, the executive would not be as troubled by them because their resources would be split. We saw former Speaker Halverson allow supplementary questions, as was his discretion, at question time. I asked one of the successful supplementary questions to the then Attorney-General, Mr Williams. Subsequently, Speakers of the House were basically warned against allowing supplementary questions. So we do not have them, even though they are in the standing orders.
As a member of a House committee—the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs—some parliaments ago I took advantage of standing order 337, which has been in the orders since 1901. It says:
When a Committee is examining witnesses, strangers may be admitted, but shall be excluded at the request of any Member, or at the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee, and shall always be excluded when the Committee is deliberating.
Opposition members are in a minority on those committees. That standing order was in there to give some level of equality for opposition members so that there could be consensus. But the member for Mackellar went feral when I invoked that standing order. The clerk backed me up on it, but cabinet changed the standing order and members have now lost that right. That is what the former government did. At every opportunity, not only did they not progress the proceedings of this House but they took away existing rights because they saw them as a nuisance.
I want to see reform. In relation to question time I think there needs to be reform—but reform that will benefit the parliament. At the moment it is self-regulation. If ministers speak for too long, I do not think they do too well in terms of the members of the public. (Time expired)
Traveston Crossing Dam
10774
10774
16:44:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Leader of the Nationals
0
0
Mr TRUSS
—The future of the Mary Valley, which lies in the heart of my electorate, will be decided by the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts in just a few weeks. The livelihoods of the communities of the Mary Valley, as well as the survival of a range of endangered species, are in his hands. The minister has received the environmental impact statement for his consideration, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, for the Queensland government’s Traveston Crossing dam. The Queensland coordinator-general, incredibly, has recommended approval of this project with more than 1,200 conditions. Any project which requires 1,200 conditions and requirements, just to reduce the environmental damage, should never be approved.
Mary Valley residents have sent a very strong message to Mr Garrett over the past couple of years. I have delivered more than 9,450 dam protest letters to Parliament House in Canberra from local residents; 16,000 submissions were made in response to the Queensland government’s environmental impact statement; and a 5,393-signature petition was tabled in the House of Representatives last month. Just today, a friend of the minister, former Midnight Oil drummer Rob Hirst, has joined the campaign to demand that the minister reject this proposal.
What is at stake is not just the minister’s credibility and the survival of a river system, its people and industry, but also a number of extraordinary rare and endangered species—the Australian lungfish, the only Australian fish with lungs; the Mary River turtle, and another recently discovered turtle, both with gills; and the Mary River cod, found nowhere else in the world outside this river. The Queensland government plans to build a fish lift, like the one on the Paradise Dam, to provide a way for the lungfish and the cod to move around the dam. But this $24 million structure has been a complete failure, not moving a single mature lungfish since its construction. The proposed turtle bypass for Traveston has not even been invented. The government’s fallback position is to continuously catch these endangered creatures and carry them around the dam. It is simply farcical that the survival of these rare and endangered species is going to be dependent upon a continual process of endeavouring to catch these fish and turtles and move them around the dam—up or down.
The Queensland coordinator-general has acknowledged that building the second stage of the dam is too great a risk, so only the first stage should be approved. Stage 1 delivers only 80,000 megalitres of yield. There are plenty of ways of delivering that amount of extra water to Brisbane without having to destroy the environment. Raising the Borumba Dam, on the same river system, would be acceptable. Improved management of the existing dams would achieve the same amount of extra water. One extra desalination plant and recycling could all deliver that quantity of water. There is no need for the government to improve this environmental destruction.
I am deeply concerned about the approval process for the Traveston Crossing Dam. The dam is a proposal that was elevated by the state Labor government above the options that were recommended by their advisers. The state government have been the political advocates for the project. The state government undertook the environmental impact assessment. And now a state government official has reviewed the assessment and has recommended conditions which should apply. If it goes ahead, the state government will build the dam. It will be state government bureaucrats who then decide whether the conditions have been fulfilled. It will be the state government which imposes any penalties on itself when these conditions are not honoured. How can anybody believe that that is a fair and honest process? The minister, Mr Garrett, is the only outside voice. I appeal to him to make the right environmental decision—not a political decision. There are plenty of ways that Brisbane can be delivered the water it needs without destroying this beautiful valley and the people who live there.
Nation Building and Jobs Plan
10775
10775
16:49:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—The ABS data that has been released in the last couple of weeks shows that Queensland’s population grew by 2.6 per cent in the last year, with a national average of 1.6 per cent. Queensland has had five new federal seats in this place in the last 25 years and will now add another one, the seat of Wright. The seats of Dickson, Longman, Blair, Bonner, Flynn and now Wright have been added to this parliament from Queensland, all at the expense of the other states. As I have said on numerous occasions, we beat New South Wales in the State of Origin and we beat them in the Electoral Commission!
South-East Queensland is growing at a rapid rate. Ipswich city, where I live, has a current population of 160,000 people. It is expected to grow to 434,000 by 2031. That is growth of 274,000 people over a 20- to 22-year period. That represents a 173 per cent growth rate. We are talking about growth that will need about 3,500 to 4,500 dwellings per year. That is why it is so important that the Nation Building and Jobs Plan that we have undertaken makes an impact in Ipswich. Nine social housing units, to the value of $2.4 million, have been approved for Blair. Construction commences this year with dwellings to be commenced by 30 June 2010. And 281 social housing units in Blair will undergo repairs and maintenance to the value of $1.2 million.
I was pleased to visit, at Flinders View in the estate of Fairview Rise, a number of Defence houses which have been built under the auspices of the Defence Housing Authority. I had a barbecue with the workers on the site at 12.15 pm on Thursday, 1 October 2009 at Spotted Gum Crescent, Fairview Rise, Ipswich. I visited 54 Defence houses being built there as part of our nation-building economic stimulus plan. Those new homes are part of the 133 Defence houses being built in Ipswich over the next two years. This is injecting $36 million into our local businesses, and the construction industry is seeing another 35,000 jobs created in our community, indirectly and directly. The construction company St Hilliers and Prospero Homes are building those homes under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. These builders are generating and maintaining local jobs in our area. This is very important for the prosperity of Ipswich and will ensure that the vast number of people who are coming to our area receive jobs and receive housing. We have the biggest Air Force base in the country, at Amberley, and there are 133 houses under construction in my seat. The Defence Housing Authority maintains 436 homes in the Blair electorate. The majority of those homes are found in Brassall, Flinders View, Raymonds Hill, Yamanto and Deebing Heights. Twenty-two new apprenticeship jobs were created across Australia under that building program.
The federal government is providing $245.58 million in additional funds to Defence Housing, as part of our nation-building economic stimulus plan, to build an additional 802 new residential dwellings throughout Australia. The final construction under that program is scheduled for completion by June 2011. DHA is managing about 17,500 residences across Australia worth about $7.6 billion. DHA plays an important role in the relocation of ADF personnel. It arranges about 24,500 relocations each year for ADF personnel and their families. At the RAAF base at Amberley there are about 3,500 Defence personnel—in the Air Force and some in 9 FSB. These homes are particularly important for the Air Force and for the Army unit as well.
We in Ipswich have a strong affinity with the military, and providing good quality housing in good suburbs like Flinders View is extremely important for the lifestyle and family life of people in my electorate. When we bring people to Ipswich City we want to make sure that they are welcome and we want to make sure that they have the kinds of dwellings they would live in anywhere else throughout Australia. At the same time, the government is to be commended for the job creation, for the apprentices who were offered positions and also for the employment opportunities in the Ipswich area as a result of the nation-building and economic stimulus plan, which is being played out locally in my electorate and, curiously enough, in my suburb.
Farrer Electorate: Water
New South Wales: Dust Storms
10776
10776
16:54:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
0
Ms LEY
—I would like to bring to the attention of the House matters of great concern in my electorate of Farrer, which, as many know, is defined by the Murray River and the southern Murray-Darling Basin. Last week I visited Booligal and Hay. Booligal is a town on the Lachlan River. The New South Wales government has decided to restrict water flows into the Lachlan downstream of Condobolin in a bid to ensure there is sufficient water for the major towns upstream on that river system. The New South Wales Water Commissioner, David Harriss, described the move as ‘extraordinary resource management constraints’. Water will flow along the river system until the end of October and then drought measures will be put in place, which will essentially put a stop in the river to prevent further water running downstream.
I actually make no criticism of the management by New South Wales in these extraordinary times, as it was explained to me that it takes maybe 136,000 megs to run the river and only 68,000 megs are left in the dam. Clearly, you simply lose so much water in transmission, particularly in an environment affected by drought, that you do have to take these extraordinary steps. But when we sacrifice landholders and farmers at the bottom end of a river system in order to preserve water where it might be ‘more efficient’—that is, at the top of the river system—we have to do something for those landholders. Measures that have been suggested include digging a bore within the river system and, somehow, carting water to feed stock and the people of the very small townships of Booligal and Oxley. These are important places but they are very small and they are easily forgotten. The Hay Shire is doing a great job and is aware of its responsibilities, but it does not have huge resources; it has suffered a loss in population because the drought has affected rural communities in the same way it has affected agriculture and farms. The Hay Shire is probably going to have to cart water out to people. But nobody has actually thought about how it gets from the storages to the tanks at individual houses. People there are not well-off. They cannot buy enormous tanks costing thousand of dollars, nor can they arrange their own pipelines and water systems.
When we have to take these stringent measures, we understand. But other efforts must be brought into play to look after people in a way that actually helps, such as sinking bores—some of the water might actually be quite good—and providing the funds to transport water. And then those people who have to make the sacrifices will feel that they too are being looked after.
Earlier this week, members of the Pastoralists’ Association of West Darling came to Canberra to meet with them Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke, about the dust storms in the western division of New South Wales, particularly the unincorporated area. Those dust storms have been declared by New South Wales to be a natural disaster. I am very pleased and I thank everyone because we made a big effort to get that recognition. At the New South Wales level, that does not provide a whole lot of help, I have to say. The Rural Assistance Authority can provide interest-free loans of about $130,000 and there are also freight subsidies for trucking your sheep and cattle out of the area to find feed. Most of the farmers have maxed out their freight subsidies already because of the drought and many cannot access low-interest loans. So I thank the agriculture minister for seeing the delegation. They gave him a list of things that would help them. I urge the minister and this government to act on what we can do as the Commonwealth government because we stand by communities affected by natural disasters.
This area has suffered for years now and it was quite heartbreaking to stand at Nundooka Station on my travels through that part of my electorate a couple of weeks ago and have all the landholders come along and talk about what affected them. I remember one landholder saying that his son, aged 20, had never seen a wet season, did not know how to get a ute out of a bog and did not know that you could take Saturdays and Sundays off.
The application, the effort, the management and the care that these western division families put into their stations and their farms really has to be seen to be believed. We must recognise that the best land management for the western division is the farmers who are there themselves. It is not the New South Wales national parks service locking up great areas and saying that humans have damaged the landscape. They have not. They have managed it and they have done a sterling job. Whatever we as a government, at all levels, can do to recognise their efforts, we certainly should do.
Question agreed to.
10777
16:59:00
House adjourned at 4.59 pm
NOTICES
10777
Notices
The following notice was given:
HW9
Champion, Nick, MP
Mr Champion
—to move:
That the House:
-
supports the Productivity Commission’s recommendation to:
-
lower the maximum bet limit per button push from $10.00 to $1.00 on electronic gaming machines;
-
lower the cash input limit on electronic gaming machines; and
-
implement by 2016, a universal pre‑commitment system for electronic gaming machines;
-
notes the observations of Productivity Commission Chairman Mr Gary Banks that ‘despite progress since our last report 10 years ago, there is considerably more that governments can do to make gaming machines a safer recreational pursuit.’; and
-
calls on State governments and the gaming industry to support the implementation of the Productivity Commission’s recommendations.
2009-10-22
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.30 am.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
10779
Constituency Statements
Petition: Pharmaceutical Benefits
10779
10779
09:30:00
Vale, Danna, MP
VK6
Hughes
LP
0
0
Mrs VALE
—I rise to present a petition from the residents of Wattle Grove, Holsworthy and surrounding suburbs in my electorate of Hughes. It draws the attention of the House to the fact that this community does not have reasonable access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits by an approved chemist. Chen’s Pharmacy, which is located in the Wattle Grove Shopping Village, has operated as a non-PBS pharmacy since February 1998 and has cared for this community despite not being able to provide medicines that are subsidised by the Commonwealth government. A section 90 approval has been denied to this pharmacy due to the current pharmacy location rules criteria. We therefore ask the House to give Wattle Grove and Holsworthy reasonable access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits by requesting that the Minister for Health and Ageing exercises ministerial discretion so as to provide a section 90 approval to Chen’s Pharmacy at Wattle Grove.
Mr Chen’s application to supply pharmaceutical benefits under rule 113 was refused by the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority on the grounds that the catchment area did not have greater than 3,000 people. It said also that there was not more than one doctor serving the area and that the proposed premises was not at least 1.5 kilometres in a straight line from the nearest approved premises. However, the catchment area of this particular part of my electorate does have greater than 3,000 people and it is serviced by more than one doctor. I note that there is another pharmacy within that 1.5-kilometre range. However, that is also owned by Mr and Mrs Chen. That pharmacy, in Hammondville, is separated from the populations of Wattle Grove and Holsworthy by a major road, Heathcote Road. It is almost impossible for mothers with prams or for elderly people to access this pharmacy. If they do not have their own private transport, it can be a walk of something like two kilometres from their residence—not from the pharmacy—to actually access pharmaceutical benefits. It is a great privilege to tender this petition on behalf of my constituents so that they may be heard by the minister.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of the local community of Wattle Grove/Holsworthy and the residents of surrounding suburbs draws to the attention of the House that this community does not have reasonable access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits by an approved pharmacist. Chen’s Pharmacy which is located in Wattle Grove Shopping Village has operated as a non-PBS pharmacy since February 1998 and has cared for this community despite not being able to provide medicines which are subsidised by the Commonwealth Government. A Section 90 approval has been denied to this pharmacy due to the current pharmacy location rules criteria.
We therefore ask the House to give Wattle Grove/Holsworthy reasonable access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits by requesting that the Minister for Health exercise Ministerial Discretion so as to provide a Section 90 approval to Chen’s Pharmacy, Wattle Grove.
from 1,331 citizens
Petition received.
Werriwa Electorate: Western Suburbs District Junior Rugby League
10780
10780
09:33:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I rise today to speak about an exemplary sporting organisation that operates in my electorate, the Western Suburbs District Junior Rugby League. The sheer numbers that this organisation deals with on a weekly basis are truly impressive. Let me share with the House some of those numbers associated with the 2009 season: 236 teams, 3,989 registered players and 1,400 volunteers. That means nearly 4,000 young people are given the opportunity to be active and healthy week in and week out during the rugby league season. By the way, that is all thanks to the 1,400 volunteers who help run each and every game. The hard work shown by players and volunteers was evident in the first and second weeks of September, when the Western Suburbs District Junior Rugby League hosted the grand finals for 66 teams, from under-8s through to the open A-grade competition.
I went along to watch a few games at Campbelltown Sports Stadium on 5 September, and I was truly impressed by the talent that was on display. I can assure the chamber that rugby league in south-west Sydney is absolutely strong and bright. I want to extend my personal congratulations to all teams who competed in the grand finals, to the winners and to those gallant in defeat. The true meaning of sportsmanship was on display that day. Of course, grand finals and the whole season would not have been possible without the 1,400 volunteers that I mentioned earlier.
I would like to reserve special mention for the Chief Executive Officer of the Western Suburbs District Junior Rugby League, Julie Luke, and her board chairman, Wayne Hardy-Smith. I have had the pleasure of knowing Julie Luke since my son started playing rugby league well over 20 years ago. In those days, Julie was a young mum looking after her son’s rugby league club, the Ingleburn RSL. Now she oversees the entire competition, run throughout south-west Sydney. Together with Wayne Hardy-Smith, they have proven to be invaluable administrators of this great sport and of one of, quite frankly, the largest junior rugby leagues in the country. The passion that these two people have shown to the game of rugby league is truly commendable. Their commitment to developing and promoting rugby league as an enjoyable, healthy, safe sport must be applauded. Julie and Wayne, together with the entire board, showed great foresight this year when they joined the New South Wales Country Rugby league Group 6 to establish the inaugural joint rugby league for senior grades. This competition has 52 teams, from under-18 teams through to all-age teams. The partnership will help to strengthen the ability of players and also to strengthen the game as a whole. The hard work of Julie and Wayne Hardy-Smith is evident to all who reside in Liverpool, Camden or the immediate surrounds. I look forward to attending the junior rugby league’s presentation night this Saturday to celebrate the triumph of the 2009 season. (Time expired)
Pearce Electorate: Chittering Landcare Group
10780
10780
09:36:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
0
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—Partnerships that last a decade deserve recognition and such was the case on 25 September when the Chittering Landcare Group celebrated its 10-year partnership with Tiwest, the world’s largest integrated titanium minerals production and manufacturing company. The Chittering Landcare Centre is a community based organisation supporting land conservation and rehabilitation efforts within the Ellenbrook and Brockman River catchments. Tiwest provides housing and financial assistance for the landcare centre. It houses a regional herbarium and acts as a resource centre for the community. Without assistance from Tiwest, however, none of the restoration work or community support would happen.
Water monitoring done by officers from the centre is included in the state database to enable a clear picture to be formed of the water quality within the area. Among its achievements is the development of an innovative land management decision-making CD called Landsmart, which is available to any landholders who wish to take advantage of it. Constant requests from government agencies for this product demonstrate its enormous value.
The centre also produces weed management brochures informing landowners about weed control and management. The Chittering Landcare Centre, like all other environmental organisations, applies for grants to run the centre. Unfortunately, due to federal government cuts, it will have to downgrade services to the communities of Wannamal, Chittering, Gingin and North Swan. This will increase pressure on the local governments of the region to supply information on dieback, weeds and feral animals and will bring to a halt revegetation of the Ellenbrook and surrounds. While not going down without a fight, the centre staff are frankly struggling to find an alternative.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, has expressed an opinion that there is no value for money in supporting community driven natural resource management as it ‘does not achieve the outcomes required’. This partnership and the exceptional work done by the Chittering Landcare Centre for a decade proves, I think, the value of this organisation within the community. I would ask the minister to consider their request for funding so that the Chittering Landcare Centre can continue to operate in this important area. This is a very important water catchment area.
Before my time expires, I also want to recognise the work of all those at the centre, who are mostly volunteers—the community members and those one or two who are there on a daily basis—for their services to the area and also to recognise Tiwest for their good corporate citizenship in supporting better environmental management within the region.
Holt Electorate: Mr Dale Sheppard
10781
10781
09:39:00
Byrne, Anthony, MP
008K0
Holt
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Trade
1
0
Mr BYRNE
—On numerous occasions in this place, I have taken the opportunity to speak about inspirational people in my electorate who make a difference—people who themselves have overcome great personal adversity and, through enormous courage and sacrifice, are helping others do the same. In that spirit, I wish to pay tribute to another one of these individuals—a constituent of mine, a young man who lives in Narre Warren, Dale Sheppard.
Dale’s life was changed forever in the briefest of moments when he was 18, when his bicycle collided with a motor car as he was riding home from work. The accident left Dale a quadriplegic. Dale was deemed to be uninsured at the time as he was riding a bike, not driving a car. But through his consistent and relentless campaigning Dale’s accident resulted in amendments to the Victorian Transport Accident Act that ensured that people who found themselves in circumstances similar to Dale’s would in fact be covered by this act, which is an incredible achievement.
Many people facing these enormous challenges at such a young age, and having battled to change important legislation, would be tempted to sit back and be understandably overwhelmed by the circumstances of this terrible accident and its painful legacy, which is that Dale has been left in a wheelchair. But he has not done so. That is not the path that Dale took. Dale now runs a successful consultancy business that employs four people, Access Solutions National, having started his company from scratch. This company assists individuals with a disability, addressing access issues and taking on an advocacy role for a significant number of our fellow Australians. Dale’s company is now a leading Australian company, based in Narre Warren. His reputation in this field is so strong that he has recently been asked to work with large corporations such as Qantas and the Melbourne Airport Corporation to advise on making planes and facilities more accessible for those with a disability. That is what I call making a difference.
Even though he is only 31, Dale has achieved a great deal in his life, but the relentless desire to help others that still drives Dale has resulted in another project, which is a proposal to build a retreat for those with a disability, those who are homeless, ex-prisoners and those fleeing sexual servitude and degradation. This retreat will be a safe haven for these people, a place for people who have not had the same opportunities as the majority of us have. They will experience activities like canoeing, travelling on a flying fox and four-wheel driving in some of Australia’s best state forest areas. Dale aims to partner with Chisholm TAFE to provide these individuals with courses such as horticulture, cooking, administration and recreation type programs. The aim of pairing these experiences with strategic partners like Chisholm TAFE will ensure that people who go to the retreat can build on the skills they develop there to expand their opportunities and improve their lives.
Dale is an incredible and inspirational individual—just a fellow who came into my office. He is a guy who is making a difference, and in this place we should celebrate people like Dale who have the courage and the capacity to change people’s lives. (Time expired)
Greenway Electorate: Merriville Road Development
10782
10782
09:42:00
Markus, Louise, MP
E07
Greenway
LP
0
0
Mrs MARKUS
—I rise to draw the nation’s attention to the New South Wales Labor government’s approach to planning and development. I have been contacted by many constituents in various parts of the electorate complaining about the New South Wales Labor government’s disregard for the community’s rights and concerns for their area. I refer in particular to a recent proposed development for Merriville Road, Kellyville Ridge. The development consists of 268 residential units and 23 shopfronts rising from two to eight storeys high and located on the corner of Windsor Road and Merriville Road, Kellyville Ridge.
This proposed development is inappropriate for the area. That is not just my opinion. A public meeting attended by approximately 300 people was held on 19 October. The community has the following concerns about the development: it is massive overdevelopment for that site; it has no infrastructure to cope with the additional estimated 250 families, 700 residents, and their cars or traffic and pedestrian movements on a major road intersection that is already struggling to cope with traffic; it will exacerbate social problems already existing; it has no open space or facilities for families nearby; it will significantly increase traffic and parking problems in Merriville Road; it will significantly increase the risk to many schoolchildren who catch buses near that intersection; and it will also significantly increase traffic and the potential for road accidents, with the proposed construction of a roundabout very close to a major set of traffic lights.
Those attending the meeting made it clear they opposed the development. The public meeting was organised by Rosie Bonham, a local resident, and John Gerdtz, of the Kellyville Ridge Community Association. The meeting was addressed by local and state government representatives, who all expressed their opposition to the development. However, such a chorus of community solidarity opposing a development will most likely fall on deaf ears. Why? Because under the New South Wales Labor government planning laws the decision to approve or reject this proposal, valued at over $10 million, is in the hands of three people appointed by the New South Wales Labor government to what is called a joint regional planning panel. The decision has been taken out of the hands of local government. I understand even the New South Wales planning minister, Kristina Keneally, does not have the authority to make the decision. It is in the hands of three Labor government appointees.
The panel was supposed to have five members: three Labor government appointees plus two members nominated by the local government. In this instance Blacktown Council, which has been dominated by the Labor Party for many years, were so opposed to the development that they declined to nominate two panel members, as they did not want to be seen to be compliant in the decision for approval if it is approved. That is why it is important to talk about the New South Wales Labor government. The New South Wales Labor government is a part of the much bigger machine of the Labor Party and shares the same values as the current federal Labor government, which said that governments should be at the centre of the economy. Labor’s view is that the government knows best. Does it? Because what we see here is an example of government at its worst. What we see here is an abuse of democracy. (Time expired)
Lyons Electorate: Derwent and Tyenna Valleys
10783
10783
09:45:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
1
0
Mr ADAMS
—Today I want to talk about the Derwent and Tyenna valleys. The Tyenna Valley is one of the wonderful small valleys that run into the Derwent Valley. The Tyenna River enters the great Derwent River, which flows down past the historic and working town of New Norfolk. This area is becoming a much sought after place for tourists to visit. In the future I see much more opportunity for local tourist growth.
The township of Maydena is a hub for tourism in the Tyenna Valley. The small business people there are working hard to offer exciting tourist experiences for those who visit. There is a growing sense that this is one of the new areas people will visit in Tasmania. The Giants Table is a great experience for accommodation and food. My family and friends visited there slightly over a year ago and we experienced a great weekend. It is a great walking area. There is accommodation—and over 100 beds are available every night—and there are cafes, restaurants and hotels. I understand there were four large conferences there during the winter, which enabled people to experience this great area. Of course, this region takes in the Mount Field National Park, the Styx and Florentine valleys forest areas, the Junee Cave reserve, Marriotts Falls, Lake Pedder, the Gordon Dam and the Eagles Eyrie, which is on top of Mount Maydena. People can now walk or bike up to this area and look over the whole south-west wilderness area of Tasmania. You can certainly see how many trees are still growing in Tasmania, despite the debates we have had. This is a magnificent area. (Time expired)
Drought
10783
10783
09:48:00
Cobb, John, MP
00AN1
Calare
NATS
0
0
Mr JOHN COBB
—I too am very proud of my region, just as the member for most of Tasmania is. I wrote to the Prime Minster, which I do not do very often, some three weeks ago, on 28 September. I wrote to him because of the deteriorating drought situation in western New South Wales, south-western Queensland and parts of north-western Victoria and what is happening with the crops. I said to him that within the month we would know exactly how bad the current harvest was going to be. Much of the central west and the far west of New South Wales is going to have another disaster. This cannot be put down to climate change. Climate change may well have an effect on how severe the drought is, but it is not the reason for it. Things do not happen that quickly.
I believe it is time for the Prime Minister, as I said to him in the letter I wrote to him, to show the leadership that his predecessor did whenever Australia was in trouble. Once again, this part of Australia is in trouble. I am addressing my remarks to central and western New South Wales. While a lot of the area is still receiving exceptional circumstances benefits, there are people there who have been in drought so long that they have reached the limits of assistance that they are allowed to get. There are two issues here. Firstly, there needs to be a continuation of the exceptional circumstances payments. The second issue, which the agriculture minister has ignored advice on, is not to take areas out of the scheme simply because they have had rain after six or seven or even eight years of drought, as happened in March of this year in parts of the region. They almost certainly deserve to go back in, as this crop obviously will fail. It is about time the Prime Minister went out there and showed empathy and gave support, both moral and financial, to the people of the region. The situation is life-threatening. We know that mental health problems are exacerbated every time the drought reaches a new stage. The Prime Minister is taking cabinet to Bathurst next month. That is a wonderful opportunity for him, because the harvest will have started and it will be obvious how bad it is. The people in the region, central western and western New South Wales, will welcome him and show him just what the state of play is. I invite him to come out and see it for himself.
Leichhardt Electorate: Employment
10784
10784
09:51:00
Turnour, Jim, MP
HVV
Leichhardt
ALP
1
0
Mr TURNOUR
—Unemployment hit 13.8 per cent in Far North Queensland in September. Tourism and construction are being hard hit by the global recession. It defies belief that the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition are calling for the pulling of the rug out from underneath communities like Cairns by stopping the economic stimulus. It highlights how out of touch they are and what poor judgment they continue to show through this global recession.
The Rudd government are committed to continuing the rollout of our stimulus to support jobs in communities like mine in Cairns that are being hard hit by the global recession. We have over $150 million in education projects, and just last week I announced that more than 200 social housing projects will be built in Cairns. The government have identified Cairns as a priority employment region, and a local employment coordinator is working to support jobs in the region. The recent Keep Australia Working forum attended by the Minister for Employment Participation, Senator Arbib, Parliamentary Secretary Jason Clare and community and business leaders was a success and a good step in moving away from the boom-bust cycle we are experiencing in Cairns.
Since then I have continued to look for ways to support and create jobs in Cairns. I have been advocating for regulatory reform to encourage aviation into Cairns international airport. I want to ensure the local builders and tradies get the stimulus work. Many of these construction projects are only just getting underway, and later this month we will have a major projects forum to talk about tendering and quoting and have all of the peak contractors there to speak to local tradies and contractors. I recently had a roundtable in my office of local business leaders to look at us becoming a hub for the Pacific region and particularly taking up the opportunities in PNG with developments over there and the big LNG project. I am supporting the local Skill360 and TAFE campaign to get 50 apprentices in 15 days. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement of the Apprentice Kickstart program, which is increasing our support for apprentices to almost $5,000 to businesses that take them on from 1 December.
In Canberra this week I have been speaking to a number of ministers, and I caught up with the Prime Minister quickly yesterday to talk about the unemployment problems in Cairns. Minister Arbib has committed to come back to Cairns after these parliamentary sittings and follow up on the Keep Cairns Working projects that we have going now. I have said to him that the jobs expo planned for next year is too late; we need to bring that forward. He has committed to bringing that forward to December. We are working with other ministers to see what we can do to make sure that we have mining companies and other people there to provide jobs in the local community, particularly with mining starting to get going in Northern Australia. It is critically important that we continue to work to diversify the Cairns economy. Jobs, though, are created in the private sector and we need to work constructively with the private sector. I thank Minister Arbib and other ministers for continuing to work with me and the local community on this very important work.
Gippsland Electorate: National Warning System
10785
10785
09:54:00
Chester, Darren, MP
IPZ
Gippsland
NATS
0
0
Mr CHESTER
—Telstra has received a $15 million contract to build a new national warning system that will send alerts to phones of residents threatened by disasters. In the first stage of this program there will be the capacity to deliver voice recordings to landlines on properties in the vicinity of disasters such as a bushfire. It is also expected that it will have the capacity to send a text message to mobile phones based on their billing address. As someone who has seen firsthand the effects and the traumas of the Black Saturday bushfires and the fires that raged through Bellara 10 days earlier, I am generally supportive of the need to improve communication systems for people in the path of such dangerous events. But I would like to add a few words of caution and appeal to the federal government to make sure that this program is effective in assisting the people who need it the most.
As I mentioned previously, the initial stages of this early warning system will allow text messages to mobile phones based on billing addresses only, but for the system to have maximum value in a region such as Gippsland—maximum value for both locals and visitors to the region—the emergency services need to be able to send messages to mobile phones based in their locations. It is not much point in receiving a message based on your billing address rather than your actual location if you are relaxing on a beach 500 kilometres away. I understand that the next stage of the process will allow for text messages to be sent based upon the actual location of the mobile phone at the time of the event.
It is a simple fact of geography that the areas with the worst mobile phone coverage in my electorate happen to be areas that are most prone to bushfires in the first place. From the national parks around the Latrobe Valley, through to the coastal regions and the most mountainous parts of East Gippsland, the areas with the worst mobile phone coverage are those areas where the bushfires are most likely to strike. Three of the towns recognised as at risk by the state government—Loch Sport, Bemm River and Mallacoota—all suffer from patchy mobile phone coverage at best. And, while I welcome the federal government’s commitment to the first step, there has to be a genuine commitment to ensuring the program is extended and that it helps the people who need it most in the future.
The federal government must provide additional funding to eliminate mobile phone black spots to allow this technology to achieve its full purpose. I have sought additional funding from the federal minister to roll out more mobile phone towers to address these black spots. Also, in a meeting this week with the Telstra chief executive, David Thodey, I made the same point, and I must say that Mr Thodey was understanding of the problem and supportive of the need to expand the reach of the service. It is one thing to have a warning system in place; it is a completely different matter to ensure that it reaches the people who need it the most.
We also must make sure that we do not give people a false hope about this warning system. Nothing takes the place of extensive preparation and understanding the need to leave your premises on severe bushfire days if you do not believe you are capable of defending your property. If we learnt one lesson at all from Black Saturday it was that possessions can be replaced, but lives are lost forever. I urge families in bushfire prone areas to ensure they are well prepared for the coming bushfire season. In the time that is left to me, I also take the opportunity to wish all of our firefighters a safe and very quiet bushfire season.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I thank the member, and I hope for the same.
Australian Justice System
10786
10786
09:57:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
0
Mr DANBY
—Open democratic societies like Australia have their faults and commit abuses, but through vigorous public debate, adversarial press, parliamentary elections and courts we can encourage reform. I recently made some criticisms of public policy from which I resile not an inch, but it is very important to understand and defend the freedoms that we have in Australia—unlike other societies. I particularly want to commend Dr Gerard Henderson in his column in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday for laying out the successful defence of Australian society with the extraordinary series of arrests and convictions in Australian courts under our democratic system, under the law as established by the parliament of Australia, of various people who would use violent means to attack our societies.
He laid out the two cases that took place in Sydney—on 25 September with the conviction of Bilal Khazal and Justice Latham’s remarks and the conviction that was on the front page just the other day of a number of men in Parramatta—and on 3 February and 2 September in the Victorian Supreme Court, where Mr Justice Bongiorno convicted first seven men and then sentenced Shane Kent, who pleaded guilty to being a member of a terrorist organisation.
In these cases the judges went out of their way to see that these people received a fair trial, and in a couple of cases they made sure that the circumstances under which they were being incarcerated were changed to make sure they were in more comfortable circumstances before they came to sentencing. Dr Henderson says:
The fact is that guilty verdicts have been reached, and relatively tough sentences handed out, on account of evidence which led to convictions beyond reasonable doubt. ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and state police forces tend to receive criticism. However, the convictions in the terrorism-related cases in both NSW and Victoria demonstrate that Australia’s intelligence and police services have done a first-rate job in protecting the liberties of all of us.
The same can be said for our politicians. The present terrorism legislation is the product of agreement between the Coalition and Labor—
and it is legislation that I want to pointedly argue has been the responsibility of elected MPs, not suggested by some arcane group of elite lawyers who, via a human rights charter, will decide what is in the national security interests of this country. It is commendable that the human right of all Australians to personal safety has been guaranteed by our police forces, our courts and our elected parliamentary system.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ constituency statements has concluded.
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL PREVENTIVE HEALTH AGENCY BILL 2009
10787
Bills
R4188
Second Reading
10787
Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
10787
10:01:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
0
Mrs D’ATH
—In continuation of my support for the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009, prior to the adjournment yesterday I was taking the House to some of the more commonly known preventable chronic diseases, one of these being cardiovascular disease. I should clarify that, although the diseases I refer to are certainly known, it should not be taken as meaning that many Australians are fully aware that they are in fact specifically at risk themselves. Cardiovascular disease is a prime example. Women in Australia generally think of men being particularly vulnerable to this disease. However, as I learned when attending the Go Red for Women campaign launched by the Heart Foundation in June 2009, women are at significant risk. The Go Red for Women campaign is about lifting awareness amongst women that cardiovascular disease is the greatest killer of women in Australia. In 2007, heart disease accounted for four times the number of deaths in women than that of breast cancer. Women think that their husbands, their partners and their fathers are the ones at risk. We worry about them not eating properly and not exercising enough. We certainly do not consider ourselves at the same risk. If we are to prevent the death of women in Australia from cardiovascular disease, we must do much more to educate women on the risks to them.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge another great campaign of the Heart Foundation—Jump Rope for Heart. This is a skipping competition that has been running since 1983 in our schools. I personally attended St Paul’s School at Bald Hills in my electorate to witness their Jump Rope for Heart event. My own children have also participated in this event at their school.
Of course, too many people have been touched by another insidious disease—cancer. If we have not personally been affected, we generally know someone who has—either a family member, friend or work colleague. Many lives have been saved because of early detection of cancers. The education of women to get regular checkups for cervical cancer and for breast cancer has improved the chances of a woman diagnosed with cancer being able to live a long and healthy life. Last weekend I had the pleasure of attending the launch of the ‘Pink Bits’ calendar. This calendar contains beautiful photos of the ladies from the Redcliffe Pink Snapdragons posing with some very attractive men. The Redcliffe Pink Snapdragons is a dragon boat club and the Redcliffe Pink Snapdragons membership is made up of ladies who have gone through or are still going through breast cancer. Proceeds of the calendar will go towards the ‘pink ladies’ going to Canada in June 2010 for the International Participatory Breast Cancer Dragon Boat Festival. I recommend to anyone wanting to support the team by donating money or purchasing a calendar to look up their website or contact my office. These women are truly remarkable and are a shining example of why we must continue to fight this disease and engage in preventative measures to diagnose breast cancer early. The Snapdragons have recently participated in our local Cancer Council’s Relay For Life, another fantastic event that goes on around this country. I know the member for Forde certainly recently participated in his own local Relay For Life.
For the second year, my team, the Petrie Possums, entered the Redcliffe Relay for Life. Most of the teams stayed for the entire 18 hours, camping overnight, with some of us, like myself, getting about one hour’s sleep. Not only did members of the local community come and support my team by walking with us; I had my children join us again for the second year. I think it is important that our children get to engage with our community on these issues because many children’s lives are also touched by cancer.
This was a great opportunity for local organisations to support the event. I know I had support from Redcliffe Leagues Club, Polyworld, Ballycara Retirement Village, Belvedere Hotel, Reality Cruises and The Ox Restaurant. Helen-Maree Butler, one of my team members, personally raised $660 and came along and participated in the event with her daughters. Overall, our team was the highest fundraiser, raising $6,221 for the Cancer Council.
Recently, a young boy from Bracken Ridge State High School in my electorate, 13-year-old Jaz Jorgensen, took the initiative of walking the old Hornibrook Bridge, which is over 2.2 kilometres, 20 times to raise money for breast cancer. His grandmother was diagnosed last year. We started at 5.00 in the morning and did the first couple of laps with Jaz and his mum. He raised over $2,000. These are just some of the amazing local people and events that are supporting awareness and education, and are fundraising for chronic disease in my local area.
As I have already noted, much work has been undertaken to lift awareness in the aim of preventing diseases such as cervical cancer, skin cancer and prostate cancer. Women now regularly ensure that they get check-ups. The problem is that there are other diseases, such as prostate cancer, where we have not come far enough. Men are still not getting regular check-ups and they are not getting regular notices that they should go to get tested and assessed. We thank people like Wayne Swan who have come out publicly and talked about their experience with prostate cancer to lift that awareness and to encourage men to also get tested.
A nationally coordinated approach can improve the early detection and treatment of these chronic diseases. The list of preventable diseases is lengthy, and there is no way that I can deal with all of those in this short period of time. Diseases, such as sexually transmitted diseases, are truly preventable, and we need to do more to educate our young people especially about the risks. Then there is the significant effect that tobacco, alcohol and drugs are having on our society, as well as the cost. In 2004-05 the estimated economic cost of licit and illicit drug use to our society was over $56 billion. We need to be doing more in these areas. Obesity is another chronic disease that is preventable, and we certainly need to be doing more to support this.
I am pleased that our GP Superclinic, which is in the process of being built at the moment, will concentrate on acute care and acute general practice services, but importantly, also, on chronic disease management. I know from discussions with the foundation and the consortium that they have a keen focus on preventative health and issues, and this focus will play an important role in the new Moreton Bay Integrated Care Centre being built at Redcliffe.
I have referred to many statistics. This is a necessary tool in lifting awareness and educating all of us about the risks facing each and every one of us if we are not vigilant. We need to do more to make people aware of their diet, physical wellbeing, and the need to get regular check-ups and be more aware of warning signs. It is through the education of warning signs and through being more aware of our bodies that we can prevent a chronic disease developing and progressing. By focusing on preventive measures, by investing in this agency and funding important educational and other initiatives, we can save in the long run. These savings can then be used in a more targeted way to improve our health and hospital system around the country to ensure quality treatment and support to those most in need.
I have already had the benefit of being part of the federal government’s consultation on the Health and Hospital Reforms recommendations at our Royal Women’s Hospital and to talk with some of my local health professionals about ways the government can improve our health in hospitals locally. This dialogue will continue—and not just as our local GP superclinic progresses and as part of the consultation on the reform recommendations. I will continue to play my important role as a local spokesperson for the government in explaining and discussing the government’s broader health policy and as a spokesperson for my local community to advocate on their behalf to the government and the relevant ministers to work towards providing the best quality health care in my local community. I applaud the Rudd government in establishing this agency and commend this bill to the House.
10789
10:09:00
Farmer, Patrick, MP
00AMO
Macarthur
LP
0
0
Mr FARMER
—I also stand to support the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009. This is a major issue in relation to the health of the nation and to the expenses that are incurred by governments right across the board—whether they be local councils or state or federal governments—in the health portfolio. It has been estimated that around $10 billion is used each year to supplement the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. A lot of the expenses relating to private and public health right across the board could be alleviated through a significant presence of the sports portfolio and a recognition of the connection between sport and other physical activity and the various lifestyle diseases that we suffer from. There is cancer, heart disease, diabetes and the list goes on. Every single thing that involves the human body can be alleviated through physical activity and through the support of physical activity. I, together with a number of the members of the government, would like to call for a greater emphasis on the sports portfolio in relation to preventative medicine.
I am very happy to speak on the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009 because it is only through preventative health measures that we will cut down on the numbers on waiting lists for our public hospital system, create a much healthier nation and keep people out of nursing homes. It was estimated by the This is Your Life program a number of years ago that I personally had raised over $2 million for various worthwhile charitable causes. A number of those causes related to heart disease and a number to diabetes et cetera. There have been so many different causes that I find it difficult to recall them all at this point in time. Nevertheless, I have done that because I truly and honestly believe that the issue needs a two-pronged approach: one, we need significant investment in our health portfolio; and, two, we need awareness by each and every Australian that they need to take responsibility for their own lives. That means taking responsibility for every single thing that they consume and taking responsibility for their lifestyle. Events such as the Walk to Work Day and the various sporting and activity programs that are set up for youth, for our children and for many adults as well need to be applauded and supported.
One thing I mentioned to the previous government was that I was little disappointed that a lot of federal funding, and indeed a lot of state funding, goes into the high end of sport. That is often because of the glamour and because it is covered on TV and throughout the media quite extensively. However, I believe that the true benefits to this nation will come through financial support for the junior sports. There are a number of mums and dads out there who are coaches and who could be encouraged to complete St John’s Ambulance courses and to be the on-field representatives of St John’s Ambulance in the event that anybody is hurt or injured during the course of playing sport. Others could take up coaching and then encourage their children and other children to participate in sport. Once again, it is about prevention and it is about creating a greater volume of activity amongst our younger people so that they can move with a healthier lifestyle from the primary years into their secondary years and then through to adulthood. This means there is a significant role for those at the senior level too.
In my own electorate of Macarthur a number of surveys on mental health patients were done by the area health service. They discovered that, if they could get mental health patients in Waratah House and other venues around Western Sydney to participate in a regular physical activity program, (1) they could cut down on the amount of medication needed, (2) they could cut down on the amount of violence perpetrated by patients through the frustration they felt at being confined in these places and (3) patients could recover much more quickly from a number of the ailments they were suffering as a result of their mental health condition and return to a relatively normal lifestyle. That means they could return home to their families and even get back into the workforce. That is all through physical activity in a regular physical activity program.
The same organisation, Western Sydney Area Health Service, have also done numerous tests and run pilot programs for the elderly in nursing homes about being physically active. They found that through that physical activity they were able to stave off a lot of the problems of an ageing lifestyle and consequently stay out of the hospital system for much longer, cut down on medication and be of greater worth to both their community and their families—and to themselves.
As we live longer lives, it is most important that we lead healthier lives as well, and it is only through preventative health that we can do that. I call on the government to please consider the sport portfolio as a major portfolio in the prevention of a number of the health problems that we experience in Australia today. I encourage all of the other members who will be speaking in this debate to be advocates for preventative health out there in the wider community. I would like to thank the government for giving us all the opportunity to speak on this bill and for putting this bill forward.
10790
10:16:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—I would like to endorse the words of the member for Macarthur and say that I agree wholeheartedly with what he said about preventative health. Investment in preventative health is the best possible investment that we can make in our nation’s health.
The Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009 establishes the agency to support the Australian Health Ministers Conference and, through the conference, the Council of Australian Governments to address the increasingly complex challenges associated with preventable chronic diseases. The agency will assist these councils in their efforts to cross portfolios, jurisdictions and sections in support of nationally agreed preventative health policies. The establishment of the agency was recommended by both the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission and the National Preventative Health Taskforce. The agency will provide the leadership, coordination and monitoring required to support the successful implementation of the initiatives funded through the national strategy, including interventions to help Australians modify their lifestyles.
The Commonwealth will be providing funding of $133.2 million over four years for the agency. Of this, $17.6 million will go to its establishment and maintenance; $102 million will be used for social marketing, which is extremely important in relation to preventative health because of its educational role; and $13.1 million will be used for preventative health research and its translation into practice; and $0.5 million will be used for an audit of preventive health workforce availability and the development of a strategy to address any identified gaps. Under the auspices of COAG, the federal government reached agreement with the states and territories in November last year for a National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health, which will be funded by $872 million from the government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you might ask why all this is needed. I would draw the House’s attention to the greatest health costs we face in this country, which are chronic illness and issues associated with the ageing of the population. This legislation will give the government and the Australian people a mechanism by which to address the lifestyle diseases that have increased in recent times. I would like to draw the House’s attention to the fact that cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, arthritis and cancer are all lifestyle diseases and are linked into this legislation. Preventive health can make a major impact on the incidence of all of those diseases. Cardiovascular disease is still claiming the lives of Australians and is one of the highest incidence diseases affecting Australians. In relation to stroke, I recently brought a private member’s motion to the House. That motion addressed the lifestyle issues that impact on people and lead to an increased incidence of stroke.
We still have a high incidence of alcohol use and abuse. In Australia, 90 per cent of people have tried alcohol in their lifetime, 83 per cent have consumed an alcoholic drink in the past 12 months, only about 10 per cent of Australian adults have never had a serve of alcohol, around eight per cent drink daily and around 41 per cent drink weekly. There is also an enormous cost associated with the abuse of alcohol through the incidences of motor vehicle accidents, domestic violence and the number of people in hospital due to consumption of alcohol. It also contributes to a number of cancers, stroke, diabetes and to so many of the lifestyle diseases that we have been talking about.
When we were discussing the alcopops legislation, it was highlighted by the AMA what a problem the use of alcohol and binge drinking has created in our society. The agency will be working to educate and raise people’s awareness of issues relating to alcohol. I think that, if you put that into the context of society as a whole, you will see there are enormous savings to be made in the area of health through, for example, domestic violence and policing. The whole of the community will benefit not just one sector but right across the community.
As well as alcohol there is the tobacco problem. Twenty per cent of people still smoke. The diseases that I have referred to previously such as stroke, cardiovascular, arthritis and cancer are all negatively impacted upon by smoking. These are lifestyle diseases. There has been a reduction in the number of people who do smoke, but it is still an enormous problem within our community. Unless the issues of tobacco and alcohol are addressed we will not see the decline in cardiovascular, stroke, arthritis and cancer diseases that we would like to see in our community.
The member for Macarthur rightly pointed out that with a fitter and healthier society enormous savings right across the board can be made, including savings in medication. Every member of this House is constantly approached by companies that have drugs that address the illnesses that have been caused by smoking, alcohol and other lifestyle issues.
I would like to turn to one issue that is very close to my heart. I see that the member for Hindmarsh has entered the chamber, and he chairs the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. An issue that we on the health and ageing committee looked at in great detail was obesity. We brought down a report in May this year, called Weighing it up, which looked at obesity. In the report we made some recommendations and one of them was to look at supporting such an agency—a whole-of-government and a whole-of-community approach to addressing the issue of obesity. Australia is a country with one of the greatest numbers of overweight people in the developed nations, with about one in two adults and up to one in four children being overweight or obese. That is a rather frightening statistic. We face a situation where the children growing up in Australia look at dying at a younger age than the generation we are part of. I believe that the establishment of the agency and the effect of having the Commonwealth government, the state governments, the business community and health professionals—everybody who is involved in the sector—coming together and working as one will help to address this, as it will for the other illnesses that I have mentioned. Currently, only two per cent of the health budget is spent on preventative health; the rest of it is spent on treating the illnesses that could be prevented if we had a strong preventative health program in place. That is what will be delivered through this legislation.
Returning to obesity, our report highlighted things that do work and things that need to be done to address the issue of overweight and obesity. It also highlighted the cost to Australia of the fact that we have such a problem with overweight. It referred to the Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey that stated that 17 per cent of children in Australia are classified as overweight and six per cent are classified as obese. I see that as a very significant figure. It also highlighted that, in addition to the cost of being overweight and obesity for individuals, families and communities, there is a huge financial cost for the health system. Access Economics released a report: The growing cost of obesity in 2008. The latest report found that the total cost of obesity in 2008 came to $58.2 billion—quite a significant amount. It linked obesity to the fact that we have increased problems with arthritis and diabetes, and it highlighted some actions that could be taken to address these issues.
One of the best programs we visited whilst we were doing this report into obesity was the Active After-school Communities program. It did just what the member for Macarthur was talking about—it encouraged children to be active and looked at nutrition. They were given healthy afternoon teas, they exercised and they had fun. Young children who are involved in programs like this discover that exercise is fun. I think we as members of parliament should encourage children to be involved in planned activities. In the Shortland electorate we have five junior and senior surf lifesaving clubs. We should encourage young people to be involved in surf lifesaving, netball, soccer, football of whatever code, basketball or walking with the family.
With a strong social marketing program the government can provide education, including education on nutrition. One of the best advertisements that the committee looked at was one that highlighted eating foods from different food groups and combining that with exercise. A healthy lifestyle is about eating well, exercising well, cutting out smoking, and monitoring and using alcohol sensibly. If we do all of those things, we will have a healthier society. The Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009 puts in place a structure through which this can be done. It can be a coordinated approach, whereby all levels of government direct their social marketing towards the common goal of increasing the fitness and improving the health of all Australians. Reducing people’s alcohol intake, reducing the number of people who smoke, and reducing the number of people who are obese or overweight will achieve that goal.
This will be a whole-of-government approach. The Commonwealth and the state governments will work together, but I think local governments also have a part to play. When we build our cities and communities there should be proper walking and cycle tracks set in place. I commend the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government on the cycle tracks that have been approved by this government because they are all about promoting health. They are all about the family getting out on the weekend and going for a walk or cycle. The family can do things together and the side effect is a healthier community.
I would also like to look at addressing preventative health measures towards our ageing population. As people get older they tend to become less active, but that is not necessary. There are a number of activities that older Australians can participate in. Given the right sort of support, they embrace the fact that they can still be involved in activities.
I hold two seniors forums, or information days, a year. As part of those information days, I include an exercise component. Sometimes it will be Tai Chi or sometimes it will be people coming along from Heartmoves, and they run through some very simple exercises that people can do. People can exercise sitting on a chair and still improve their fitness. At the same time, information is provided on nutrition.
As we get a little bit older, we often feel that we know what we should eat and that we know how we should exercise—we have done it all our lives. I must admit that I do not exercise as much as I used to when I was younger. I have tended to look towards what I have done in the past to determine what I do now. But a really big component is changing our behaviour and saying: ‘Well, we can exercise more. We can eat differently.’ By undertaking these types of life changes, we become healthier people and, as such, we become a healthier nation.
I commend this legislation to the parliament and congratulate the minister on getting the agreement that she has. I know that she is totally committed to preventative health and improving the health of all Australians.
10793
10:36:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—Before I start, can I say that I endorse everything that the member for Shortland said. The member for Shortland is on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing with me and I know her interest in this area and how seriously she takes this issue.
I rise today in support of the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009. This bill creates an agency which will provide evidence based advice to health ministers on key national-level preventative health issues, either at their direction or by providing information about emerging challenges and threats. It will also provide national leadership, which is very important and something that we have not seen for 11 years, and stewardship of surveillance data on preventable chronic diseases. We are seeing the emergence of these lifestyle diseases, as they are called, which relate to risk factors and the agency will work to improve the availability and comparability of the evidence of links.
Illnesses of modern day life, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, blood pressure and obesity, can be prevented. These are preventable illnesses. We know that cardiovascular disease is caused by the excesses of today’s modern world. We all eat too much. We do not exercise enough. We know that the cause of diabetes is, again, lifestyle. We are seeing increasing numbers of people with diabetes in our communities. Blood pressure is another example. The list goes on.
The whole idea is to prevent these illnesses, or at least do all that we can to ensure that people know all they can about the prevention of these illnesses. We know that you can prevent these things by exercise and by eating less. That is something that we should all be doing—perhaps I am not a very good example of that, but I do try occasionally. When I do try, those kilos do drop off. It is important that we keep this in mind and change our lifestyles to ensure that we do go on to live healthier and longer. As I said, all these diseases are preventable—cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes, just to name a few. All of these diseases can be prevented if we lead the right lifestyles.
In today’s modern world it is difficult and it is hard. This is where governments and our community come in, to ensure that we are doing all that we can to encourage people to eat less and to exercise more. We live in a world today where both parents work; where they rush home from work; where we are all very busy; and where sometimes it is easier to go and get some takeaway than to sit down and have a traditional cooked meal as we used to many, many years ago.
When I was chairing the inquiry into obesity by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, where we delivered the report, Weighing it up: obesity in Australia, one of the things we also discovered was that many people have lost the art of nutritional cooking. Because of the lifestyles of today, many people have not passed on those culinary skills to the next generation. We have found that within one generation we have lost the whole art of healthy, nutritional cooking that our grandparents and great-grandparents had. But these are all things that can be overcome. These are not things that we have to just sit back and accept.
During the inquiry we visited some schools and saw some great things. One school that stands out is the primary school in the suburb of Northcote. They conducted a particular project: part of the children’s science class was to grow vegetables, to grow food. They learnt about the science side of it, as well as the nutritional benefits, but they also learnt some culinary skills through having to cook their meals. There was no canteen or tuckshop in the school. Every day their lunch was cooked by the children themselves in the communal kitchen. They used the ingredients from the garden, and food was bought from the butcher and other places. We saw some great, healthy foods being cooked. For example, we saw a lentil dish that these kids cooked the day we were there. After the cook-up, they all sat down and shared their meal. They were learning about the scientific side—the growing of the vegetables—they were learning about healthy, nutritional eating, and they were learning the culinary skills. When we spoke to them about takeaway food, they complained that sometimes their parents wanted to get takeaway and the kids would tell them off and say, ‘No, we should cook a meal that is very simple,’ and they had all the skills to be able to do it. This is a classic example of putting preventive health into action by educating the next generation. This was a great example. These kids will grow up knowing nutritional food, knowing what is good for them, and I dare say that most of them will be much healthier than their parents if they continue along these lines.
We all have a role to play in this: governments including state and local governments, community, industry and all of us for ourselves. We have seen many successful campaigns in the past, such as the campaigns to reduce the number of people smoking; the AIDS campaign which was very successful in the mid-80s; and the Life. Be In It campaign, with Norm. Most people around my age would remember Norm. I cannot remember what his partner’s name was, but she was very healthy and liked to be active, and Norm would always sit on the couch. These were all campaigns that were proven, tested and were working.
Currently, there is a great campaign on television called Weighing It Up. It shows a man walking through a measurement belt. His young daughter throws a ball at him, but he gradually gains weight as he is walking. It is a great ad that hits you, and it shows how easy it is for those kilograms to creep on over the years and the damage that those kilograms can then do. This particular ad shows this man turning his life around—within seconds of course, although in reality it takes a lot longer—and it does bring the message home. We have managed to ensure that the number of people in Australia who smoke has been drastically reduced, and that has been through campaigns telling people the damage that cigarettes and smoking do. Through education we have a whole generation of people now who understand that it is dangerous to smoke, that it will affect their health and they will die from it one day. I look around sometimes and wonder how many people I know over the age of 60 who still smoke. I do not know any because those who did are either dead or have quit. So that is a good message for our young people who are contemplating smoking: it does do damage and you will die from it one day. The AIDS campaign was another great campaign, and Australia had one of the lowest rates of AIDS in the world due to the quick action of the then government that took on this big advertising campaign showing the dangers and all the issues involved with that disease.
The House committee, as I mentioned, produced the report Weighing it up: obesity in Australia. We saw the connection between obesity and illnesses and diseases and how the majority of the illnesses and diseases were caused by our lifestyle. We saw the many issues that were involved but also learnt how we could assist in turning it around to ensure that people lived healthier lifestyles. As I also said, it is something in which all of us have a role to play. That includes local government, state government, the federal government, industry and us as individuals in the community. For example, one thing that I cannot for the life of me ever understand is this. Every time a restaurant or a business opens up somewhere local government requires that they have X number of car parks. That does not encourage anyone to walk or catch a bus. It means that we expect to find a car park in front of the premises that we are going to. These are just some little things that could change the attitudes of people. If you cannot find a car park, you will leave your car further up or you will catch public transport and do a bit of walking.
We have created massive Westfield shopping centres out in the middle of suburbia which have ensured that every little corner shop has shut down. Therefore, you have to physically get into a motor vehicle to drive down to the shopping centre and park your car right out the front. You find the closest car park that you can. You go in and do a little bit of shopping, go back into your car and then drive all the way home—with no exercise at all. Many years ago, our shopping and our other activities were done in the suburban main street. I think this still goes on in some of the country towns. You would walk down the main street, you would go to the butcher and you would say hello to a few people. It was also good for the mind, because you would have a discussion with half a dozen people along the way. This has all vanished from our landscape. A lot of the things that we used to do that kept us healthy—without us even knowing about it—have disappeared. I think we have a lot to answer for when it comes to our planning laws. Local governments, state governments and all of us have played a role in this. We have not thought of the other effects that these planning laws have had on our health. We all have a role to play. We need to ensure that, when we come up with planning laws, we take into account bikeways, pathways and connectivity so that people can feel comfortable about going out. We should encourage people to walk or to lead lifestyles where they are exercising and they do not even know about it.
As the member for Shortland said, the committee visited a school in her electorate. It was Marks Point Public School. They had a program going that they asked us to get involved in. It was an exercise program, and it was a lot of fun. You played different sports. They were very simple sports. There was a sport called ‘sockey’, where there was a ball similar to a soccer ball but you hit it with a big hockey stick. It was great fun. By the end of it I realised I had done some exercise without even knowing I was exercising. These are the things that we have to encourage people to do. We also saw the tai chi that the Gold Coast City Council offered its residents free of charge on a park near the beach every morning. It was wonderful to go out there and see what they were doing. Many pensioners were part of the group that would come out in the morning and do tai chi. It was about encouraging people to exercise and get some fresh air. Again, there was the other issue of connecting with other people. As many of them were very elderly, if not for the tai chi class they might not have seen anyone else for the rest of the day.
There are other preventive areas that we should be looking at as well. I am pleased that the government has looked at binge drinking and alcohol. It is very sad when you go out on a Saturday night, in many of the city centres, and see young adults, young adolescents and young people absolutely blind drunk. That is in some circumstances. I am not saying all kids do this. The damage that binge drinking does to the mind and to the body will obviously have effects on their health in future years. I am glad that the government is tackling that area of alcohol and binge drinking.
We should be working very hard to educate young people that it is not good for you to binge drink and wipe yourself out. I do not know why we have this culture, but it is a cultural thing and we have to turn it around. I think the only way we can turn it around is through preventative health programs such as what is being proposed here. There will be some advertising, and we have seen lots of good advertising about binge drinking. But it is also a cultural thing. We need to change people’s way of thinking and let them know that it is not okay to binge drink and wipe yourself out. As I said, the health effects will be a big issue in the future.
The government is tackling these big issues through this particular bill, through the alcopops bill and through the advertising on obesity that we have seen on TV. These issues are very, very important. As the member for Shortland said earlier, and as many other speakers have said in this debate, we are an ageing population. We are living longer. But the costs to governments to provide the required health services are going to be enormous. For example, in the inquiry into obesity we heard that Access Economics have done some figures showing that the fact that we are an overweight nation is already costing us $68 billion a year. That is a lot of money and it will only increase; it is on the way up. Unless we can turn it around, for any government—whether Labor, Liberal, National or Callithumpian—funding our health services in the future is going to be an enormous task. We must turn it around. We received a lot of evidence during the inquiry from professors, doctors and cardiologists that perhaps the next generation would be the first generation in hundreds of years that lived a shorter life than the one before because of lifestyle. That would be due to us overeating, overdrinking and leading the lives that we do. The future health costs will be enormous unless this issue is tackled at this point in time so that we can turn it around. How do we do that? Again, the only way to do it is through preventative health measures. Preventative health is so important, especially, as I said, given the ageing population and the estimation of future costs.
When I visit the doctor occasionally in my electorate, I go to a fantastic clinic that I have been going to ever since I was a little kid—the Western Clinic. I have great doctors there, Dr Chia and Dr White, who regularly talk to me about preventative health. I had a discussion with Dr Chia, when I was there last, about this bill and what we were doing. He basically said that this was the way to go. Doctors are so overrun in their clinics, especially in some suburban areas. This particular clinic in my electorate is continually packed. It is in a low-income area that has lots of migrants. The doctors are so overworked in this clinic; there is a continuous line-up. When I speak to my doctor about it and I say, ‘You are so busy,’ he says to me, ‘How can we turn people away?’ They bulk-bill, of course. So this is another area that we must tackle: the ability of doctors, health workers and nurses to provide the services that we as a community demand. How do we do this? When we talk about preventative health, we are talking not only about preventing lifestyle illnesses and diseases but also about being able to access health services where you can have check-ups at an early stage to ensure that illnesses are detected and you can be helped before it is too late. That addresses two issues: firstly, it is detrimental to your health not to act early and, secondly, it is costly because the costs escalate.
If we can make opportunities for people to access doctors, to access services were they can have check-ups—for instance, where you can check your diabetes, your blood sugar level, and where blokes can check their prostate. I was interested to hear when I attended the launch of the prostate foundation’s Prostate Awareness Month last month that the earlier you can get in for a check-up, the earlier you diagnose it, the higher the likelihood there is of you surviving prostate cancer. That means you survive it: you have treatment early and the costs are low. If you let it go, you will not survive it and the costs will escalate as well. These are the areas that we must tackle, and I am glad to see that this government has taken the initiative to tackle this area. When you speak to all of the experts, they are saying that preventative health is the way we must go. When I speak to my local doctor, he says the same thing. When we spoke to professors and to the many learned people who appeared before the inquiry that we had into obesity, they also had the same view that that was the way we should all be heading. As I said, prevention is better than looking for the diagnosis after you have the illness. I commend this bill to the House.
10798
10:56:00
Trevor, Chris, MP
HVU
Flynn
ALP
1
0
Mr TREVOR
—Today I wish to support the government’s Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009. In speaking on this bill, I would like to make note of the important preventive health initiatives, including the important role that community and supporting infrastructure can play in preventive health, particularly in rural and regional Australia. Health is a serious issue in my electorate of Flynn. People are tired of the blame game and they just want an outcome. At the inaugural meeting of the Prime Minister’s country task force, which I chair, we heard in no uncertain terms that health was the No. 1 issue concerning the local Longreach community, situated in the western part of Flynn. This is a concern that is echoed in my home town of Gladstone in Central Queensland, where many local residents have campaigned tirelessly over many years for better local health care services, including proper cancer treatment services in their own home town. These local crusaders have my full support and conviction on this matter and I call on the Queensland state government to further assist them.
I was pleased to have recently been able to host the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Service Delivery, the Hon. Warren Snowdon, for a public health forum held in my home town of Gladstone. The minister heard the same story that day, among many others. The public forum allowed Gladstone and district communities to have direct input into the future direction and structure of our healthcare system and to comment directly to the minister on the government’s National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission’s report. As their local federal member, I was pleased that local residents from various walks of life—from health care professionals to patients—were able to attend and contribute to this forum, giving a true 360-degree picture of our current healthcare system in Gladstone. Today I would like to thank the honourable Minister Snowdon and all those who attended for their participation in this important discussion concerning the national interest—that is, health. I know that the minister left Gladstone with a much clearer picture of our local healthcare system, its faults and its problems and our future healthcare needs.
If it is the case that our health is the most important issue to us all then it is only logical that, as a government, we take steps to protect people’s health. It is after all, as I have always said privately and publicly, the most important asset that we will ever have. To protect people’s health, the Rudd government has a focus on preventive health measures and I am proud to see this bill in this parliament to establish Australia’s first national preventative health agency. This focus on preventative health measures has been a key recommendation from several expert bodies, including in the Preventative Health Taskforce, the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission and the External Reference Group on primary health care through the Department of Health and Ageing. I would like to thank all of these bodies for their advice to government on this matter.
Preventative health is, of course, about preventing chronic diseases. It is about managing our health and our lifestyle in a way that may avoid such serious chronic diseases, including but not limited to diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain forms of cancer. If one were to visit almost any hospital in any town in Australia, one could quickly see the painful suffering that chronic diseases can bring to the lives of ordinary Australians and their families. One would quickly witness patients along with their families suffering from emphysema, heart disease, lung cancer or complications caused by diabetes, just to name a few. In many of these cases, these chronic diseases and the suffering that comes along with them may have been prevented by better awareness and education on the dangers of modern life, including obesity, alcohol, drugs and tobacco use. Chronic diseases can take an emotional toll on our families and our communities, but there is also an economic toll, with recent estimates that obesity, alcohol and tobacco cost our economy over $31 billion every year when we take into account crime, lost productivity and the burden that they place on our health system.
Up to 70 per cent of our healthcare budget is taken up by treating chronic diseases, many of which are preventable, while currently only two per cent of health expenditure is targeted at preventative health measures. These numbers show that there is a clear need to act towards preventative health and that there are clear advantages in taking action on preventative health. As the old saying goes, ‘An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’ I am pleased to be a member of a government of action, and this bill before us today acts to create the Australian National Preventative Health Agency. This agency will be a vital weapon we can use to combat the ever-complex and challenging nature of chronic diseases and preventative health in this country. Run by a CEO, the agency will consist of an advisory council of between seven and 11 members, offering expertise from a diverse range of health fields and sectors. It is proposed that the agency will be up and running from 1 January 2010. To ensure the Australian National Preventative Health Agency has sufficient resources, funding of $133.2 million has been allocated over four years, with $102 million of this to be focused on national level social marketing campaigns targeting obesity and smoking.
I am pleased that a significant part of the agency’s resources will be used on social marketing campaigns. We only need to look at the success of anti-drink-driving campaigns over the past decade on shifting community attitudes with drink driving now considered by many as the most unacceptable and antisocial of actions, even if one is not caught. Equally important will be the agency’s role in providing evidence based advice to government on key preventative health measures. This agency will offer long overdue national leadership and coordination on preventative health strategies. The Australian National Preventative Health Agency will be a key driver as we attempt to change certain behaviours through education, promotion and community awareness, all of which will be backed by the latest research and evidence to ensure their effectiveness.
There are already some community and health groups that are stepping up to the challenge of tackling preventative health. I am pleased to see that this bill proposes that the agency can provide financial assistance or grants to third parties to support research and interventions. Perhaps the most important role of the Australian National Preventative Health Agency will be its biennial report on the state of preventative health in this country so that we can ensure that we are on track and that preventative health strategies are indeed working.
The National Preventive Health Agency is just one avenue that the Rudd Labor government is using to help encourage healthier choices and promote the benefits of a healthier lifestyle in our communities. Already, we have the Healthy Kids Check, a new health service this government introduced to ensure that every four-year-old Australian is healthy, fit and ready to learn when they start school. The Healthy Kids Check is also a tool to promote a healthy lifestyle to both the child and their parents, and comes with its own resource, Get Set 4 Life, which ensures that the healthy living message continues well after the initial consultation. I encourage all families in my electorate of Flynn to take advantage of this service.
Another tool in our preventative health campaign is the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program. This is a fascinating and unique program where the government provides funding to local state primary schools to grow, harvest and cook their own food, teaching our students a valuable lesson about healthy food and helping to understand better the relationship between food and the table. The Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program is currently underway at one of the primary schools in my electorate of Flynn. I make special mention of the dedicated staff and students of Rosedale State School for their commitment and great work to date in running this program. I congratulate them for this week being awarded an Order of Australia Primary Schools Citizenship Award, recognising their efforts and innovations in running the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program.
I also congratulate the Wondai State School—its teachers, students and parents—in the southern part of my electorate, together with their partner BIEDO—the Burnett Inland Economic Development Organisation. Together, and in partnership, they recently won a National Australia Bank award through the Schools First program. The school had a number of concerns, including students with poor eating habits, a lack of knowledge about how to obtain or make healthy foods, a lack of energy and engagement in class, and associated behavioural issues. The program involved a partner assisting students with garden design, choosing plants, teaching students permaculture principles, organising excursions, developing community links, organising working bees and sourcing grant opportunities. Students at Wondai work in the garden planting, growing, harvesting, cooking and eating. They attend working bees, care for chooks and lead an environmental action group. Teachers, parents and community members have also been heavily involved. I congratulate them all, including the National Australia Bank. The Wondai State School is an example to all Australian schools that good outcomes, including a better outcome for health, can be achieved by these programs.
Preventative health is not only about education, healthy eating and healthy choices. It is also about encouraging members of our community to be more active and to enjoy our great outdoors. I am pleased to be part of a government that recognises this fact and is a government committed to health. We have been able to make real inroads into providing better health and community infrastructure throughout Flynn, encouraging residents to be active. In Longreach, in the west, the Rudd government has contributed to new walking tracks and paths. In Emerald we are funding a BMX track and an upgrade to McIndoe Park. In Blackwater the Rudd government is providing $1 million to upgrade the town’s aquatic centre. In Gladstone the Rudd Labor government has committed $200,000 worth of funding to upgrade the local hockey fields. The Gladstone Regional Council and the Gladstone Hockey Association are both contributing to this worthy, healthy project but, despite this, we are still falling short on the total funds required to complete this project. I call on the Queensland state government and big business to come to the table and contribute to getting this project up and running for the health, wellbeing and advancement of our local children.
Building healthier communities takes a great deal of effort and resources, and by attacking the problem from many sides we can expect to see real results. The President of the Public Health Association has said that the National Preventive Health Agency represents:
… a massive step forward in improving health and lives of all Australians.
He said further:
Moves such as this will make Australia the international leader in promoting health and preventing disease.
I firmly believe that this is where Australia belongs, as an international leader in preventing disease. That is why I support the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009, and I commend it to the House.
10801
11:11:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—I welcome the opportunity today to make a contribution on the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009. There is a lot to be said for all of us in this country realising that we hold our own health situation in the palms of our hands. So many of us, if we really look at the opportunities we have around us, would realise that we do not need a gym to make an impact on our personal health. We do not need to pay $1,000 for six months gym membership to do something for ourselves. A lot of preventative health is all about taking personal responsibility. Indeed, as we grow up, we have those opportunities held out in front of us, whether it is the football, in the case of a lot of young blokes at primary and secondary school, or whether it is netball for the girls, or maybe, beyond that, less traditional sports. They are out there. At the school level, children can choose to participate; there are very few limitations on them participating. Of course, if they want to go beyond that and participate in sport at the club level, then that does come down to parents being behind them as well.
A lot of parents do support their children. They realise that they have a responsibility to make sure their children are growing up with the right attitude towards their own health. That is why, on Saturday mornings or Wednesday afternoons, depending on the time of the year, we often see up in Kingsway sporting complex the Wanneroo Districts Netball Association, with well over 1,000 players participating. I commend all of those young people, and not quite so young people, who participate, whether it is as a member of a team or whether is in some other capacity—coaching, supporting sport or the administration of the association. I have spoken on the Wanneroo Districts Netball Association before. But I also commend the parents who want to set that good example for their children by making it easy for them to participate by driving them and, where possible, walking to the Kingsway sporting complex. That is very good.
But, as I said before, we do not necessarily need to have a club to participate in sport, to look after ourselves. I will not go to the point of delivering some sermon because I know I have a few skeletons in the closet of my personal health, but it is the responsibility of all of us to look in the mirror each day and say: ‘Well, am I doing all I can? Am I being the best person I can be? Am I making the effort to look after myself?’ Our children see what we are doing to ourselves as well, whether it is alcohol abuse, drug abuse or abuse of fast food. Although I turned from the path of my personal self-destruction, which is hot chips, about 15 years ago, I admit that about once a year I might go to Hungry Jack’s for a whopper.
Indeed, my children do seem to be quite fond of fried chips. I guess when you are younger you have more of a capacity to burn off these things. But what I would always say is that no life should be based upon the consumption of fast food. It always worries me when I see people who look like they should be avoiding fast food making their way to KFC, Hungry Jack’s—over in Perth, particularly Hungry Jack’s—McDonald’s or one of those other outlets. Again, it comes down to personal responsibility and parents showing the leadership in their household that they should not make hot chips or fried chicken or hamburgers a staple of everyday sustenance. That should never be the case.
I spoke before about netball as an excellent local sport and an excellent local option for young people within the electorate of Cowan. I have also spoken before about the number of Little Athletics clubs we have within Cowan; indeed, I am sure all members of this House have Little Athletics clubs in their electorates. As we would know, Little Athletics is one of those organisations where the parents are most certainly involved not just in transporting their children to training sessions and competitions on Saturdays but also there is a great deal of parental participation in making sure these clubs are running, whether it is as timekeepers or equipment managers. There are roles for just about all parents.
I believe so strongly in junior sport that I—and probably other members as well—sponsor my own interschool basketball competition, where I try to bring together schools that would not normally associate with each other, because they are 10 suburbs apart or that sort of limitation, and have them come to a local sporting complex for a bit of a round robin event. It is lots of good fun. We are about to do the second one in November—not very far away—and I am certainly looking forward to that.
One of the things I like about junior sport is that it gives children not just the fitness aspects of the sport but so often it is about teamwork, dedication and thinking about other people apart from yourself. I also like it because it tends to limit the independence that so many children seem to have forced upon them these days. What I mean by that, to be absolutely clear, is that if a 16-year-old who has social demands upon them—whether it is, sadly, underage drinking or other bad things, or whether it is basically not having a great deal of direction just by associating with friends—and you can maintain reliance between a young person and a parent, as in, ‘I need you mum or dad to drive me to training or to drive me to the game,’ that is an extremely positive thing. That keeps open a line of communication between young people and parents and that is an entirely positive thing. Of course, as we know, if we set the right examples for young people and promote junior sport as well, we would imagine that children will have a pretty good chance of growing up with the capacity to make the right decisions and to lead the good lifestyle that the parents have demonstrated to them and they will enjoy better success in the future as a result.
Some years ago I was working in the Army not too far from here, down at Weston Creek, which was at that time called the Australian College of Defence and Strategic Studies. As a captain I was a very junior officer compared to the other participants, as they were called there, who were one-stars, brigadiers and above, as well as some from overseas. There was the occasional SES-grade public servant, but participants were predominantly Australian Army, Navy or Air Force. I remember one of the PTIs, the physical training instructors, came to the gym to instruct the senior officers in the safe use of the gym, and he said to them, and I took this on board as well: ‘If you do a thousand push-ups a day you’ll have a fabulous set of stomach muscles; but if you don’t change your lifestyle, if you don’t reduce the amount of food you take in, then you might have a fabulous set of muscles but they’ll be under quite a deal of fat.’
When we talk about the gym or exercise of any kind, the reality is that, particularly when you are pushing 45 like me, you need to make those other choices that are not quite as much fun, like using the treadmill or the cross-trainer in the gym downstairs, where you can watch TV. I watch the news, of course, to keep up to date with events—nothing that entertaining. You have to make those hard decisions with your life. As much as I would like to turn away from ice cream, bread and butter, and things like that, I have not yet crossed that line. But about 15 years ago, realising I had a form of addiction, I decided that my daily intake of hot chips was not going to serve me well in the future and so I stopped. It was a bit hard and, whenever my kids are sitting there with their hot chips or in the back of the car with their hot chips, there is occasionally a little sense of envy. But I have turned from that path of self-destruction!
As I said before, when we look in the mirror and see that maybe the sixpack is not there anymore—not even close to it—or we are looking a bit heavy, we have got to start looking at the bad choices we are making as individuals. While I agree that government has a part to play and preventative programs have a part to play, first and foremost we as individuals and adults need to make those hard decisions ourselves. In particular, as parents we need to set good examples in the responsible consumption of alcohol, which other members have referred to, no use of illicit drugs whatsoever—and I condemn that outright—and, above all, the case of food. We must make sure that we make the lifestyle choices which give us a chance, because we do have a responsibility. We assume a certain right to access the health system in this country, but as with all rights there are responsibilities. We need to acknowledge that we should not place undue pressure on the health system with diseases caused by self-abuse, as in putting on too much weight.
To move on to something a little bit more controversial, some years ago—I have not seen too much of it lately—there was a lot of discussion about self-image and body image and the fact that it was bad to tell young people in particular that they were overweight. I would never say that as parents we should be saying to our daughters, ‘You’re fat; lose some weight.’ There are ways to say these things properly. But we should also never walk away from that responsibility. I have two daughters; that is why I am giving this example. If I thought that one of my daughters was putting on a little bit of weight then I would address that without making that outright statement, which would be seen as negative. We should never run away from the fact that these discussions need to be had, because, again, it comes down to our responsibilities as parents. No-one has a right to weigh down the system just because they have no self-control.
Moving on, recently we received some knowledge about the Active After-school Communities program. All members were invited to participate in that program. As it is my second year in this place, I looked forward to doing that. Unfortunately, in the first year I managed to tear a ligament in my knee on the first day that I went along to one of those programs, at Landsdale Primary School in the electorate of Cowan. I did a bit of damage. I would like to say that it was from doing something dramatic, but I am afraid it was not doing anything dramatic apart from picking up a ball, which reminds me that I am getting on a bit at the age of 44. This year I went along to Landsdale Primary School, St Stephen’s School in Karama and also the Landsdale Gardens Adventist School. The kids do a great job in participating and the staff of the department in the region, away from Canberra, do a great job of promoting healthy lifestyles. This year it was skipping, to see how many millions of skips everyone could do; last year they did paces, with the aim of ‘pacing to Beijing’. There are schools doing a good job, as other members have said as well. One of the schools in my area, Hawker Park Primary School, has the Big Friendly Garden, where all the kids participate in growing and eating nutritious food. Basically, they try to back up parents with good and healthy choices about food.
I have taken up a fair amount of time in this place today, so I finish by saying there is a lot to be said about preventative action with regard to health and there is a lot to be said about programs provided by government to lighten the load on the health system in this country. At the same time, there is no substitute for introspection—the look in the mirror that we all need to do to assess whether we are doing ourselves some damage or whether there are things that we can do better in order to be a healthier person and then set the right example for our children. That is a responsibility of being a parent. Across this country, every citizen has the responsibility to take that action and make sure that they are doing the best job and not just relying on the health system to make up for the indulgences that we gave ourselves in the past.
I have some distance to go myself in this matter. While I now like to lift weights at the gym and do cross-training, I could always do more. Probably all of us here could do more. It is important that we in this place set examples, as well as in our capacities as parents. At least as community leaders, in a way, across this country, we should be setting a good example. I will try to do better myself in the future.
10804
11:29:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
0
Mr BIDGOOD
—I rise to speak to the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009. This bill establishes the Australian National Preventive Health Agency to support Australian health ministers in tackling the complex and growing challenge of preventable chronic disease. The Australian National Preventive Health Agency will be a statutory authority under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The Council of Australian Governments agreed to establish the ANPHA in November 2008 as part of the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health, known as Prevention NP. The ANPHA will, broadly, support Australian health ministers in meeting the challenges posed by preventable chronic conditions and the lifestyle related risk factors. A chief executive officer will manage the agency and will be directly accountable to the health minister for the financial management of the agency, via the minister, and for the Australian National Preventive Health Agency’s performance against agreed strategic objectives and operational plans. The agency will have an advisory council comprising between seven and 11 members with preventative health expertise in a variety of disciplines and from a variety of sectors.
This program will be funded and will deliver outcomes. The Rudd Labor government will provide funding of $133.2 million over four years for the new agency. Of this, $17.6 million will be provided for the establishment and maintenance; $102 million will be provided for national level social marketing campaigns targeting obesity and smoking; and $13.1 million will be provided for a preventative health research fund focusing on translational research to support policy development.
Preventative health is a priority area for this government. Preventative health is important for us all. Cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes—in many cases, for many people, all preventable diseases—consume about 70 per cent of the nation’s healthcare budget, yet less than two per cent of health expenditure is directed towards preventing illness. While Australia’s life expectancy on average is one of the highest in the world, second only to Japan’s, it is vitally important that we do better on keeping people healthy and out of hospital so that we can improve and extend lives and reduce the pressure on our hospital system. Chronic disease is a major burden on the health of Australians. In 1996 chronic disease accounted for 80 per cent of the burden of disease, measured in terms of loss of years and quality of life.
One of the emerging challenges and threats facing our health is obesity. As a nation we are more obese than ever. Our young people are now more obese than ever. Our diets are richer and our exercise rate as a population is much lower than it was. Overweight and obesity are major risk factors for many chronic diseases. Obesity causes one-fifth of colorectal, breast, uterine and kidney cancers. In 2007-08, 61 per cent of Australian adults aged 18 and over were either overweight, 36.6 per cent, or obese, 24.8 per cent. In the same year, 25 per cent of Australian children aged between five and 17 were overweight, 17.1 per cent, or obese, 7.8 per cent.
Type 2 diabetes is also a lifestyle disease and is strongly associated with high blood pressure, abnormal blood fats and the classic apple-shape body type, in which there is extra weight around the waist. While it usually affects adults, more and younger people, even children, are getting type 2 diabetes. Diseases such as type 2 diabetes are also on the rise. Type 2 diabetes is by far the most common form of diabetes, affecting 85 to 90 per cent of all people with diabetes.
Cardiovascular disease is also a major concern. It accounts for 34 per cent of deaths in Australia. It is a burden on families and community and is also a huge economic burden. We cannot underestimate the damage that a disease that kills one Australian every 10 minutes has. This is a disease that affects two out of three families, and these are diseases whose prevalence could be mitigated with prevention strategies.
Many diseases and cancers can be addressed through such things as improved lifestyle, weight management and an increase in physical activity. People ought to keep an eye on their blood pressure, watch the type of food they eat and beverages they drink, know their cholesterol levels, enjoy alcohol in moderation and, of course, quit smoking. While it is true that fewer people than ever before are smoking, thousands of young people continue to take up the habit each year. Tobacco remains the single biggest preventable cause of death and disease in Australia. Today we all know that smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer—Australia’s biggest cancer killer.
Some alarming facts about lung cancer are these: more than 8,000 Australians are diagnosed with lung cancer each year; more than 7,000 Australians die from lung cancer each year; and about one in 30 Australians will develop lung cancer by the age of 75. It is estimated that up to 90 per cent of lung cancers are due to smoking. So, one million fewer smokers in Australia would prevent the premature deaths of almost 300,000 Australians. That is staggering. We really do have to think seriously about preventive health because this hammers home the message that prevention is better than cure. These are staggering figures, and they are all preventable.
Through the Australian National Preventive Health Agency, we are providing for and recognising preventive health measures in our communities. I am very excited to be part of a government, in partnership with key stakeholder groups, that is about supporting behavioural change through educational, promotional and community awareness programs relating to preventive health. By forming partnerships with these relative groups—industry, non-government and community sectors—to encourage cooperative action leading to preventive health gains, we will make massive inroads to health outcomes for all Australians. I am sure that you can see, from the figures that I mentioned, that this is truly a measure which will prevent the possible deaths, prematurely, of over 300,000 Australians. I wholeheartedly recommend this bill to the House.
10806
11:39:00
Collins, Julie, MP
HWM
Franklin
ALP
1
0
Ms COLLINS
—I rise in support of the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009. I want to start by congratulating the minister for introducing this important bill, a bill which is designed to tackle the complex and growing challenges of preventable chronic diseases. This bill will establish the Australian National Preventive Health Agency to support all state and federal health ministers to manage the challenges associated with the growing incidence of chronic disease.
The bill also specifies the functions, governance and structure of the agency, including how it will closely interact with the Minister for Health and Ageing. The impetus for the Preventive Health Agency comes from the decision of COAG in November last year. It builds on the national agreement that focuses on preventive health initiatives to improve the health and wellbeing of all Australians.
The Australian National Preventive Health Agency’s role will be to facilitate best practice in the delivery of preventable health interventions and activities. The governance of this agency will be interactive in nature, whereby the CEO will be responsible for working with and supporting all Australian health ministers in their efforts to combat preventable diseases before they become chronic in nature. With millions of Australians suffering from preventable chronic diseases, the role and importance of this agency will be immeasurable. Education, promotion and community awareness will be key responsibilities for the agency, as will its role in research—ensuring up to date data on preventable chronic diseases and their lifestyle related risk factors is made more readily available.
A healthier future for all Australians can be achieved by removing the impact of preventable chronic diseases, which often chokes the heart of our public health system. We know that there are around 670,000 hospital admissions every year due to preventable chronic disease. You only have to walk down the local streets to see some of the lifestyle behaviours that contribute to our growing incidence of chronic diseases. Obesity, lack of exercise, unhealthy eating and smoking are often key contributors to chronic disease such as heart disease, cardiovascular disease, cancers, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and respiratory diseases such as the chronic obstructive airways disease.
All of these chronic diseases can be prevented, to a large extent, by initiating healthy lifestyle choices. A key role of the preventive agency will be to provide leadership and to successfully coordinate health based initiatives that will promote and support Australians to choose a healthy lifestyle, thereby diminishing their risk of developing these chronic diseases. Heart disease, cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, asthma, diabetes and obesity are often given the chronic label, as the symptoms that people suffer from them tend to be long-lasting and persistent. In many circumstances, the symptoms people suffer develop to an acute stage, when intense medical and nursing interventions are required to treat the patient in a hospital environment. This is what we want to stop.
I spoke earlier of the national partnership that focuses on preventive health measures. Under this partnership, the Commonwealth will be providing funding of $133.2 million over four years to the Australian National Preventive Health Agency. This funding will be used to establish and maintain the agency, but the funding will also provide for some social marketing to educate and support the Australian public in healthy lifestyle choices. More importantly, the money committed to this agency will also ensure preventive health research is carried out to further foster the evidence based approach which remains crucial to this area of health.
I support this bill because it will contribute to reducing the burden of chronic disease in our community. For a long time, the focus of debate on health care has been in the secondary and tertiary context. It is now time that we shift the focus to the primary level, where we can prevent rather than cure. Chronic disease is an area where we can certainly achieve this. Strengthening the focus of primary health care by promoting good health and reducing lifestyle risk, such as smoking and obesity, must be a common-sense starting point.
A national health survey released by the ABS in June this year reflects on the health of Australians throughout 2007-08. I want to go through some of the statistics. We know that the body shape of Australians is changing considerably, especially that of our children. In 2007-08 around 600,000 children aged between five and 17 were overweight. That is one quarter of Australia’s children. Since 1995, obesity in children has climbed by 21 per cent. Due to lifestyle changes, our children are at risk of developing chronic disease. An example is type 2 diabetes. This preventable disease is often associated with people in their 60s and 70s. The figures now reveal that type 2 diabetes is an ever-increasing health issue for Australians aged in their 20s and 30s.
I have to say I was quite shocked and surprised when I first looked at the chronic disease statistics from my home state of Tasmania. The ABS figures reveal that around 390,000 Tasmanians have a health condition that will affect them for six months or more. That is around 77 per cent of Tasmania’s population who suffer from a health condition that could easily become chronic, where they may suffer long-lasting effects. Obviously this impacts on our health system.
When you look at the key health risk factors for Tasmania you start to realise the impact not only on the health system but on Tasmanians themselves. The ABS found that 65.6 per cent of adult males and 62.4 per cent of adult females were overweight or obese in Tasmania. The highest proportions in Tasmania were in the older groups, of 65 plus, which is also very interesting. For the first time the ABS focused the spotlight on children’s consumption of alcohol, and in Tasmania approximately 19 per cent of males aged 15 and over and 29.1 per cent of females aged 15 and over report that they consume alcohol. The highest proportion of those who consume alcohol is in the 25- to 34-year age group. Around 24 per cent of Tasmanians still smoke. Alarmingly, the figures reveal the highest proportion of smokers is in the 24- to 34-year age group, but unfortunately it is also growing in the 18- to 24-year age group, where I was amazed to find that 42 per cent of those who smoke are young females. The lifestyle behaviours listed above—the obesity, the alcohol consumption and the smoking—have the capacity to increase the risk of people developing chronic disease.
The Australian Heart Foundation has also recently released some health statistics on cardiovascular disease prevalence. Its figures reveal that the four regions in Tasmania have some of the highest cardiovascular prevalence across the country. The bigger blow to the health of Tasmanians is that the island boasts the highest rates of cholesterol, the highest rates of blood pressure and, as I said before, the highest rates of smoking. Southern Tasmania, where my electorate of Franklin is, has the highest smoking rates of any region in the country. It also falls into the top worst 10 per cent for high prevalence of cholesterol and blood pressure. In the Greater Hobart area, 21.5 per cent of people suffer from cardiovascular disease.
These statistics give us more reason to support this important health bill. The initiatives included in this bill will, over time, contribute significantly to slowing down and abating the prevalence of chronic disease in Australia. We have to act to prevent the increase in chronic disease prevalence; we need to manage its effects and the impact on Australians and also on the health system. We can achieve this by a number of key measures that will be the responsibility of the new preventative agency that is the core of this bill. The social marketing, the evidence based initiatives, the robust preventative health research and the interaction with all the health ministers in all the states and territories will be vital to ensure we tackle the challenges which exist around chronic disease.
In the lead-up to the last federal election the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing—the then opposition leader and shadow health minister—put preventative health care firmly on the national agenda by promising to invest more in tackling the rising incidence of chronic disease. Since coming to office we have done just that. This government, as part of the COAG agreement, has committed $872 million in the single biggest investment ever by a Commonwealth government in preventative health care. We initiated the Preventative Health Taskforce report, which was delivered to the government on 1 September this year. Its recommendations are now being considered by the government in conjunction with the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report, which is also a big issue for debate at the moment. We have also removed the tax loophole on alcopops, the drinks I have spoken about in this place that I believe are directly marketed to our young people, and as part of the strategy to discourage our young from binge drinking we have already invested in a National Binge Drinking Strategy.
But we are doing more than that. We are also investing, through other programs, in local sporting venues to encourage our communities to be fit and active. I was pleased to have $6 million allocated recently under the community infrastructure program to two sporting facilities in my electorate, at Bellerive Oval and for the Kingborough twin ovals development. For those announcements I had the local sporting clubs there, and they were really thrilled because they believe the projects will encourage young children in the area to get active and participate in sport, which is obviously a big deal when it comes to preventing some of these diseases. The local sporting infrastructure projects will ensure that the children have access to first-class facilities. At Kingborough, in the south of my electorate, for the first time there will be an AFL standard oval. AFL is a very big deal in my home state of Tasmania and we have been fighting for an AFL team for a little while now, so the young children are very encouraged by that.
Since coming to office this government has also undertaken, as I mentioned, the massive task of reforming the health and hospital system to ensure a healthy future for all Australians. The Prime Minister and the health minister have been travelling around the country holding meetings with clinicians and doctors in hospitals to hear their concerns and views on the current state of Australia’s public health system. I understand that to date the Prime Minister has personally attended 14 meetings and more than 55 direct consultations have occurred across the country. It is a huge task to undertake, considering there are 750 public hospitals across this nation. I was pleased to sit in on the roundtable discussion with the Prime Minister at the Royal Hobart Hospital just over a week ago, along with my federal Tasmanian colleagues. We had a community cabinet in Hobart. We also had consultations at the LGH on the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Tasmania.
At the Royal Hobart Hospital the clinicians and doctors gave us their passionate views about the future of the healthcare system. Some of the GPs talked about primary health care and its important roles. We also talked about the long-term reform of the health and hospital system being a vital component to ensure a sustainable, high-quality, responsive health system for all Australians. We all know that health is always one of the big issues when you ask Australians what they care about. To turn our back on it and not improve and act early when we can on preventable diseases, I believe, is a folly. The old saying ‘prevention is better than cure’ speaks volumes when it comes to improving the health of all Australians. Through measures such as those contained in this bill, the agency will drive many of the health initiatives that will address some of the challenges around chronic disease. It gives us something to build on, a springboard to launch other primary healthcare and preventive healthcare initiatives. It is a commonsense approach to abating the prevalence of chronic disease in Australia. It is a measure that I am quite passionate about and one that I fully support. I commend the bill to the House.
10809
11:51:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
1
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—It is great to join with my colleagues today to support the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009 and great to see the focus on preventive health, which Australia is well overdue for. The Rudd Labor government is committed to improving the health of all Australians through policies that deal with the challenges of access, affordability and the overall cost of providing quality health care. We are doing that in the face of evidence that warns us that those aims will be hard to achieve in the coming decades due to the increased demands and costs associated with the ageing population and increasing rates of chronic disease. That is why we place such priority on preventive health policies and this bill is an integral part of that important strategy.
We recognise that our health system should be as much about keeping people in good health as it is about treating them when they are sick. The focus on preventive health, however, involves a major change in the way we organise and fund our health system, and in the way people think about their lifestyles and personal responsibility for their wellbeing. That requires national leadership, something that was recognised and recommended by both the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission and the National Preventative Health Task Force. The government sees the Australian National Preventive Health Agency as a key part of the national effort towards driving those essential changes in the way we look at health.
The bill before us today establishes the Australian National Preventive Health Agency to support Australian health ministers in tackling the complex and growing challenge of preventable chronic disease. The bill specifies the functions, governance and structure of the agency, including the interaction with the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing and the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference. An important part of the structure of the Preventive Health Agency is the advisory council, which will be made up of between seven and 11 members, all with preventive health expertise in a variety of disciplines and from a variety of sectors.
The Australian National Preventive Health Agency takes its place within a much broader preventive health effort being undertaken through a historic partnership on preventive health between Commonwealth and state governments. One year ago COAG signed off on the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health. That partnership represents an initial $872 million investment in preventive health measures, developing strategies to inform people of the risks of obesity, smoking and drinking, and encouraging people to make choices that will lead to better long-term health outcomes. That partnership agreement included the establishment of this Preventive Health Agency.
COAG recognised that supporting or enabling infrastructure such as the Preventive Health Agency, and research and surveillance capacity, was required to support the Commonwealth and the states in their attempts to tackle the complex challenges associated with preventable chronic conditions. It is in this context that the National Preventive Health Agency is being established in order to support Australian health ministers as they attempt to achieve the outcomes specified in the prevention partnership signed off at COAG, particularly those around healthy weight, physical activity, healthy eating and smoking.
A key initial role of the Preventive Health Agency will be to provide the leadership, coordination and monitoring required to support the successful implementation of initiatives funded through the prevention partnership, including $692 million out of that $872 million I mentioned earlier, to provide interventions to help Australians to modify their lifestyles. Beyond this, the Preventive Health Agency will more broadly support Australian health ministers in meeting the challenges posed by preventable chronic conditions and the lifestyle related risk factors.
Under the prevention partnership, the Commonwealth will provide funding of $133.2 million over four years for the Australian National Preventive Health Agency. Of this, $17.6 million will be provided for the establishment and maintenance of the agency. Other funds will be used for social marketing—an amount of $102 million—and there is $13.1 million to support preventative health research, particularly that which focuses on the translation of research into practice. There is also money for audit workforce availability and to develop a strategy to address any identified gaps in that workforce. Subject to the passage of this bill, the agency will commence operations on 1 January 2010. That is important as funds for its establishment and for a range of measures commence in the 2009-2010 financial year.
We know that the challenges surrounding chronic disease and lifestyle risk factors are very large. There are already, of course, numerous programs across the country aimed at increasing Australians’ physical activity levels and reducing those lifestyle factors that impact so negatively on people’s health. I would like to talk about a number of programs that are already underway in my electorate. The first one is 10,000 Steps, which has almost become part of our language these days. Most people are familiar with the idea that 10,000 steps is the minimum requirement of activity for a healthy lifestyle. It is now eight years since a collaboration between Central Queensland University, the Queensland University of Technology and the University of Queensland and, also in partnership with Sports Medicine Australia and the National Heart Foundation, started the 10,000 Steps campaign. It was designed as a whole-of-community physical activity initiative, with the promotion of daily exercise being backed up by the research and evaluation capacity of the three participating universities.
Communities throughout Queensland, and now other states, have been encouraged to get people out walking their 10,000 steps each day as a way of keeping fit. It is genuinely a whole-of-community effort when the 10,000 Steps program is embraced by particular towns and communities. For example, in Rockhampton there are walking paths all around town telling people how many steps there are from one point to the other. The council has backed that up by extending the network of walking paths and bike paths and also by establishing shade structures and water stops to support people and facilitate the uptake of that activity.
Now that the program has been well established, Queensland Health provides the funding for 10,000 Steps which is run out of Central Queensland University in Rockhampton. CQ University’s health professionals, academics and graduates coordinate the dissemination of the 10,000 Steps model, assisting individuals and health professionals around Australia and the world. As I said, the 10,000 Steps project aims to increase the day-to-day activity of Australians by encouraging community members to use a step-counting pedometer to accumulate incidental physical activity as part of everyday living. Significant health and wellbeing benefits can be made simply by moving more every day, and 10,000 Steps can provide support, free resources and information. The project has been successful in motivating local communities, workplaces and individuals to increase their physical activity levels.
There are three categories of involvement in 10,000 Steps. The first one—under the Active Lifestyles banner—is for individuals. At the moment there are over 80,000 online members. Over 46 billion steps have been logged under the 10,000 Steps campaign; over 300 online members regularly participate in the monthly individual challenges; there are over 3,800 online walking buddies; and over 3,000 members have registered with the Million Milestone Challenge, with the highest accumulated step count being just over 55 million.
The other category is Active Workplaces. In that part of the program there are over 3,000 registered 10,000 Steps providers with more than 3,000 provider members also registered. Over 800 organisations have participated in Workplace Challenges. Over 36,000 members have participated in the Workplace Challenges and there have been over 6,000 teams registered with those Workplace Challenges.
Finally, there are Active Communities under the 10,000 Steps program. There are 15 of those communities throughout Queensland and interstate with over 230 stores stocking the 10,000 Steps pedometers and over 100 Queensland libraries lending pedometers to the public. So you can see that the program is really aimed at turning around people’s attitudes and habits and really making it easy for people and encouraging them to make exercise is part of their daily routine.
10,000 Steps was Australia’s first whole-of-community health promotion physical activity project funded by Queensland Health. As I said, it was back in 2001 that the Rockhampton region was chosen for the initial two-year trial. Rockhampton was chosen because the residents there showed typical levels of inactivity and had fairly high rates of things like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The initial 10,000 Steps Rockhampton project was found to be an exemplary model of an effective multistrategy, multisector physical activity project. As a result of the success in Rockhampton, Queensland Health has extended their funding and the project is currently rolling out as a sustainable statewide and beyond initiative.
The other project that I want to talk about is aimed at reducing binge drinking and the consequences of binge drinking. It is run by an Indigenous organisation known as Milbi, and over the years its primary focus has been the early intervention and prevention of alcohol, drugs and substance misuse. It provides accommodation for homeless people. It also provides accommodation for young people at risk of substance misuse and involved in court related matters, and it plays its role in reducing the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth and adults in the Queensland criminal justice system. It also has a great reputation for youth mentoring through a youth camp that it runs and it is able to provide psychological counselling.
Off the back of that great track record, Milbi was successful in obtaining funding under the National Binge Drinking Strategy and it has got a successful community project underway aimed at tackling preventable chronic diseases through the reduction of binge drinking in our community. The name of the project is the Club 500 Binge Drinking Awareness program and it is targeting Indigenous youth between the ages of 11 and 17 years, but also up to the age of 24 years.
Club 500 is about creating a way to reach out to 500 Indigenous youth and their families to be members of a social development club that will deliver newsletters, health information, youth and family activities and provide a community based safety net for young people who may not have good role models within and among their families and friends. The project features posters and flyers as a way of marketing the anti-binge drinking message. Milbi is also developing two video clips featuring the anti-binge drinking message to target Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth within that 18 to 24 age group. They are also conducting anti-binge drinking events such as concerts and school visits, something which is very important in addressing the problem of binge drinking, which spends too much time on the front pages of Rockhampton newspaper at the moment.
Finally, there is Kick Start Central Queensland, or Kick Start CQ. This is an initiative of the Rockhampton Regional Council. It provides a holistic and inclusive approach to the support of the community in encouraging them to get out and get active. The council has been doing a really great job with this initiative. This has only been going for a short time but it has got a very high profile and they have been running a lot of activities which have had great support. It is about getting members of the community to commit to becoming healthier and more active. Participants can pledge to reduce or increase a number of activities which can improve their health or wellbeing.
An example of one of the things that has been organised was the Kickstart CQ Kids Try-athlon on the weekend of 10 October. I went down to that and it was great to see how many kids, down to the age of four, were there with their families just having a go, swimming, cycling and running in the triathlon. That was followed up with us oldies having a fun run later in the afternoon—the Rockhampton Road Runners 25th Anniversary Run—which was sponsored by Kickstart CQ. There was also the Pink Ribbon Breakfast a couple of weeks ago; the Netta Program for children aged five to 10, introducing them to netball, the Get Wet Weekend, with coaching by qualified Surfing Queensland coaches; Exposing Diabetes, which was set up to enable people to learn from experts and get practical and motivational tips about managing diabetes; and also Lighten Up to a Healthy Lifestyle, which is a group of adults who want to improve their health through changing their lifestyle. These events underline the fact that this is a whole-of-community challenge, but it is one that the federal government is seeking to lead in with our support and with funding.
I mention just one more: the Shape Up Shed in Collinsville. Collinsville is a small rural mining community in the very north of Capricornia. The Shape Up Shed was opened earlier this year with the help of federal government funding and it has provided a great facility in that community to bring people together to get some qualified exercise activities under way. When I was in Collinsville last week I was told that there are 60 members and that they are going to come to me asking for more money for a bigger facility within a short space of time, so people in Collinsville have certainly got the message. The federal government has been very happy to facilitate the take-up of healthy, active lifestyles in Collinsville and will continue to help them out in the future.
There is no doubt that we have a big job ahead of us to make preventative health care the centre of our health system. Australia is now getting the leadership and the funding it needs to tackle the complex and growing challenge of preventable chronic diseases caused by smoking, diet, alcohol, obesity and poor lifestyle choices. I commend this bill to the House as one more step in tackling that challenge.
10813
12:07:00
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
Minister for Ageing
1
0
Mrs ELLIOT
—I am very pleased to have the opportunity to sum up debate on the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009. The introduction of Medicare by Labor in 1984 provides a lasting legacy for Australia: we have a health system with a wonderful foundation. It is not just something that those in the Hawke Labor government are proud but also something that we are very proud of to this day. I hope the establishment of the Australian National Preventive Health Agency will also provide a lasting legacy. But after a decade of idleness and neglect by the coalition, where it squandered the benefits of the resources boom, underfunded public hospitals and left the health workforce to atrophy, our health system is in definite need of reform to deal with the issues of the 21st century.
The Rudd government has an ambitious three-pronged reform agenda. First, the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission has reported to the government its 123 recommendations for reforming the acute hospital system in particular but with reference to the interrelationship with aged, dental and primary care and the need for a much greater focus on preventative health to keep people out of hospital. Secondly, the Minister for Health and Ageing released the draft of Australia’s first National Primary Healthcare National Strategy in August. The draft strategy sets out the building blocks and priority areas for modernising the delivery of front-line health care. Thirdly, in September the minister released the final report of the National Preventative Health Taskforce. With its initial policy priorities of tobacco, alcohol and obesity, it makes a detailed series of findings and recommendations on its prescription for making Australia the healthiest nation by 2020. A key part of its recommendations is the establishment of an infrastructure to guide, oversee and build the evidence base for ever more effective preventative health measures. The Australian National Preventive Health Agency is this infrastructure.
The government has already shown leadership in preventative health, demonstrated by the unprecedented $872 million COAG commitment. The establishment of the Australian National Preventive Health Agency will embed preventative health thinking and action permanently as an enduring institution into the future. Too often in the past individuals, communities and governments have focused on the issues of treating people after they have become sick. To put it another way, for far too long we have focused on the need for an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, not a fence at the top. The work of the new agency will help make our health system more sustainable. It will boost Australia’s productivity through a healthier workforce that can contribute more to the growth of our economy. Most important of all is the reduced human cost: it will ensure that we have longer, healthier and happier lives. This is a reform of which the Minister for Health and Ageing and I are very proud. The minister and I would like to thank the many public health agencies, like the Public Health Association of Australia, who have been so supportive of the establishment of the agency.
There is strong consensus that we need to bring together the best expertise in the country and we need to engage employers, businesses, other sectors and the wider community in prevention. I would like to thank all the honourable members who have made contributions to this debate. The member for Dickson raised three issues. First, will the agency become intrusive in future? The agency’s role is to provide the best available evidence not just to federal and state health ministers but indeed to all Australians. The Australian people deserve the best available information and evidence to assist them in making their lifestyle choices. This is not intrusion and it is not directive. It is empowering them to make informed decisions. Secondly, he drew a very long bow and tried to make a connection between spending on social marketing to promote health whilst we are making savings by making cataract payments better reflect the true cost. He called this duplicitous. To say you are for preventative health but against acting on it is duplicitous. The comparison is false. What the member for Dickson wants us to do is take money away from stopping people getting sick and put it straight into the pockets of ophthalmologists, so letting people get sicker to make eye surgeons richer.
The National Preventative Health Taskforce makes it clear that social marketing campaigns do make a difference, particularly when the campaigns are coupled with a range of comprehensive range of programs to underpin the message. Social marketing campaigns in relation to smoking, drink driving and seat belts spring to mind. We have also funded the Don’t Turn a Night Out into a Nightmare campaign as one part of the multitiered national binge drinking strategy. This agency will be a component of the COAG $872 million preventative health package.
Thirdly, the member for Dickson talks about a lack of engagement with industry. This is not correct. In fact, the CEO of the Australian Food and Grocery Council was on the task force, and I would like to thank Kate Carnell for her effort and contribution. Business and industry have been consulted by the task force. The agency will have an advisory council and, while the bill is not prescriptive about business representation, the explanatory memorandum does note that this may include business.
The member for Pearce raised two issues. Firstly, will the outcomes of the agency be measurable? I would respond by pointing out that the CEO will be responsible to the Australian Health Ministers Conference for performance against agreed triennial strategic and annual operational plans. Secondly, she notes that the government has not yet responded to the national prevention task force. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing are currently road-testing the recommendations of the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission in conjunction with the recommendations of the task force, and we will respond comprehensively via COAG later this year. However, this is a recommendation we are keen to proceed with now so that the agency can be established by January 2010 and commence its very important work.
As the Minister for Health and Ageing noted when the bill was introduced, the agency is a COAG mandated body that is being established to support all health ministers—federal, state and territory—in tackling the complex challenges posed by preventable chronic disease. The agency’s role will be to provide evidence based policy advice to health and other ministers interested in preventative health and to administer social marketing programs and other national preventative health programs which it may be tasked with by the health ministers. The agency will also have responsibility for stakeholder consultation and overseeing surveillance and research activities. In carrying out its roles and responsibilities, the agency will help make our health system sustainable in the long term and help ensure that Australia does not go backwards in health status.
It is important that the bill is passed in the spring sittings to allow the agency to commence operations on 1 January 2010 and start benefiting all Australians. The minister and I would also like to thank all of those who have directly or indirectly been involved in the development of this very important legislation. The minister and I look forward to seeing Australia’s agency operation changing Australia’s health for the better into the long term.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
TAX AGENT SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2009
10815
Bills
R4169
Second Reading
10815
Debate resumed from 24 June, on motion by Mr Pearce:
That this bill be now read a second time.
10815
12:15:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—The Tax Agent Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 follows on from the substantive bill that passed through in March of this year. That bill, the Tax Agent Services Bill, introduced national regulation for all tax practitioners. It was a bill that had the full support of the coalition. The new tax agent services regime will mean that for the first time there will be a single national regime governing the registration and regulation of tax practitioners.
This second bill before us today contains a number of consequential amendments contained in a couple of schedules. The first schedule includes the safe harbour provisions that protect taxpayers from administrative penalties that otherwise would arise from certain shortfalls or late lodgements. It also provides protection to taxpayers who provide their tax agents with all required information but their tax agent then fails to take reasonable care by making a false or misleading statement or by failing to lodge a return. This will provide certainty and confidence for all of those taxpayers who use a tax agent to manage their affairs. The schedule also amends existing law to reflect the changes to definitions and to include references to the new tax agent services regime. All of these changes ensure that the tax agent services regime will operate correctly with existing tax legislation.
The second schedule provides for the transition from the current state based registration system to the new national system. It includes provisions to ensure that those tax agents who are currently providing tax agent services will be granted registration through that transitional period, which is a three-year period, and also includes certain entities that are not currently required to be registered. It also includes provisions to register those specialist tax advisers, such as those who provide tax advice in the research and development area, regardless of their ability to meet the registration requirements. Schedule 2 also includes provisions to transfer all the responsibilities and roles of those existing boards at the state level to the new national Tax Agents Board. The schedule will ensure that the new board will be able to adopt all of the functions of those existing boards at the state level across Australia and also ensure that the roles that those boards are playing at the moment in legal proceedings and inquiries will be continued by the new national board.
In conclusion, this bill does not itself include the requirements that tax agents must meet for registration or the requirements for associations to be recognised as professional associations, or a definition of such professional associations, because, we are told, these will be included in regulations sometime in the future—in the not too distant future, we hope and we are told. Those regulations will include requirements for registration, definition of professional associations, fees for registration application, allowances for appearing before the board, obligations of the commissioner and the like. We note that Treasury undertook public consultation on the draft regulations in August.
The tax agents regime itself, of course, has undergone a very long process of consultation and development dating back more than 10 years. The coalition former government consulted very heavily in this area. The government have too, and we encourage them to continue to do that. It is a technical area but something, when this regime comes into play, that will be very much welcomed and is very much in the interests of all Australian taxpayers and tax agents.
The intent of this reform has always been to require those who provide a tax or BAS service for a fee to be registered. It has also always been its intent that those who manage their own tax affairs in their own business will not be subject to the requirements. Those intentions were reflected in the draft material that the coalition former government worked on in the consultations that occurred over those years, and we obviously take it in good faith that the current government intends to maintain the original intention that the tax agent services regime would cover those who provide their service for a fee.
There is obviously some concern about the scope of the regulations, and I would encourage the government to table those regulations soon and to continue their consultation on those matters to provide certainty and finality to what, I say in conclusion and in a bipartisan way, has been a very long but necessary and important reform that will be a step forward in tax administration.
10816
12:22:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I rise to speak in support of the Tax Agent Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009. When I started in legal practice back in 1983, the firm I worked for was a firm now known as Walker Pender in Ipswich. The day I walked in I saw people coming one after another into the offices there and I asked the senior partner: ‘Who are all these people? What are they doing? They can’t all have legal issues.’ He told me: ‘They’re people coming to get their tax affairs in order. They do this every year.’ There were farmers, small business operators, large business operators, individuals. They were registered tax agents and they were meeting people at the coalface with legal issues. From there they got their wills done and their conveyancing done, along with any other issues dealt with that caused them problems or conflict or travails in their lives.
This tax law may be esoteric, it may be a bit unsexy, but it relates to where people meet the tax office. They do not go into the Commissioner of Taxation and have meetings with him when they file their tax returns, but they do meet with their tax agent. When small business operators do their BASs they need someone who can provide them with accurate advice, collate the data and ensure that they comply with the laws, because across the whole country, and certainly in my electorate, people generally do the right thing when it comes to tax law and when it comes to doing their BAS.
The transitional provisions in this legislation really build on the national approach we have undertaken with respect to the creation of the independent Tax Practitioners Board to replace the state based systems. A lot of people think that we members of parliament come down here and fight about every issue. Sure, we have our disagreements. The member for Mayo over there and I have had plenty of disagreements about Work Choices and other issues. But the truth of the matter is that on many pieces of legislation we agree, because most people come to this place with good intentions and want to serve their local communities.
The legislation before us, the Tax Agent Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, builds on the Tax Agent Services Bill, which has an impact on people’s lives almost daily, because any person who is in business knows that on a daily basis they think about their BAS.I was in business for 20 years and I know what it is like to run a business. I know it takes a lot of effort and it takes risk. I know what it does in terms of getting everything together, making sure your staff keep records on computers of what goes in and what goes out, the fees that are rendered and services that are undertaken, and making sure that you spend money appropriately in a way that is prudent and fiscally responsible. When it comes to meeting with my tax agent and talking to him about issues, I know that I want to minimise my tax, as Kerry Packer once said, but in a lawful way.
This legislation has a number of amendments. They are minor and they are technical, as the member for Casey said. They are in relation to reducing two safe harbour provisions and about making minor amendments that provide the disclosure information for the new Tax Practitioners Board under the act to the Commissioner of Taxation. They are also about ensuring a transition with respect to tax agents and those involved in BAS advice in a way that provides as little disruption as possible in the new regime.
For those people who are listening to parliament, this bill demonstrates the government’s commitment to the integrity of the tax system. It demonstrates that we want to make sure that we have a tax system in this country that works efficiently and effectively, and that provides certainty to both consumers and tax agents. We need to make sure that we have a national approach. This is an example of bipartisan cooperation with the states and territories through a COAG process that overcomes the rigidities and eccentricities of our federal system of government. I am sure many of us in this place would like to go back 100 years and give a bit of sage advice to Barton, Watson, Parkes, Fisher and Hughes, and to many of the people who were involved in the process of forming our Federation. This piece of legislation and the previous one, the substantive bill, are great examples of the COAG process working.
What are we doing with this legislation? We are establishing, as I said, a national Tax Practitioners Board. The legislation, the Tax Agents Services Bill 2008 was introduced into the parliament on 13 November 2008 and the Tax Agents Services Act 2009 received royal assent on 26 March 2009. That board is a statutory authority within the Australian Taxation Office and it requires entities that provide tax agent services and business activity statement services to be registered. And so they should. We do not want people out there who are rogues and who do not know what they are doing when they are meeting our constituents, the Australian public, every day and giving them advice. There are qualifications that must be met. There are minimum standards which we require. You do that in nearly every job whether you are a real estate agent, a lawyer, an accountant, a school teacher or a doctor. Every profession must have minimum qualifications. There are two types of registration; one being a tax agent registration and the other being a BAS agent registration. That is appropriate because people have different roles in different circumstances.
There are also character tests and there are a lot of professions as well that require character tests as well as minimum educational qualifications. It is important that people understand why we have done this. It is important for people to understand that, when it comes to a board, there needs to be a professional code of conduct because we do want people to give the highest standards of advice. There needs to be disciplinary sanctions as well in all circumstances. We cannot have people giving advice in relation to these important areas of the law without having sanction if they engage in misconduct.
The technical amendments here do provide some changes. They want to align the legislation with the government’s intention that BAS agents have sufficient though not excessive time to obtain the necessary qualifications and/or relevant experience in order to meet all the registration requirements at the time of their registration renewal. Without the amendments here, BAS agents that transition to the new regime could gain an unintended advantage by allowing their registration to lapse before they apply for re-registration and obtain a minimum three-years of registration. That is not the government’s intention.
10000
Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr AJ Schultz)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
ADJOURNMENT
10818
Adjournment
Mr MELHAM
(Banks)
12:30:00
—I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Ms Talitha Kooy
Ms Estelle Petrie
10818
10818
12:31:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I rise today to recognise two outstanding young Australians in the electorate of Casey. The first is Talitha Kooy, a young lady who walked last weekend to raise money for juvenile diabetes. Talitha was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes recently. We are all very familiar in our electorates with cases of type 1 diabetes, the efforts to find a cure and the fundraising efforts that occur. It is a chronic condition that affects 140,000 Australians. We are told that, every day, five Australians are diagnosed with the disease, for which at present there is no cure but which we all hope will one day be overcome through research. What that will require is great medical advances, which are occurring. That research is necessarily based on increased funding to make it come about.
Talitha was one of many young Australians who decided that she wanted to do something to assist that research. She wanted to help raise some money. With the support of many people in her community who sponsored her, she raised $2½ thousand when she joined the Walk to Cure Diabetes last weekend in Melbourne. I was very happy to support her, along with many other people—her family, her friends and the school community at Lilydale West Primary School. As I said, she raised just over $2½ thousand. When I originally met her, she was setting out to raise $1,000. The community at Lilydale West Primary School are very proud of her determination, her drive, her positive attitude, her leadership and her inspiring effort. I want to pay tribute to her today in this House.
I also want to pay tribute to Estelle Petrie. Estelle has been selected to represent Australia as part of the 2010 Australian delegation to The Hague International Model United Nations in the Netherlands in January next year. Estelle was selected by the United Nations Youth Association of Australia to be one of just 17 outstanding senior high school delegates to represent our country at one of the most significant gatherings of young people in the world. She was chosen after participating in a two-round selection process, first at the Victorian Model UN Conference and then at the national conference.
The Hague conference is a week-long conference involving 4,000 secondary school students from over 90 countries around the world. It is the most significant gathering of young people globally and the largest international youth conference held anywhere. Reports from the debates will be provided to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I have met Estelle and supported her in her endeavours to travel to The Hague. She is passionate about foreign affairs and human rights. She is very much a future leader. The program will help her develop her knowledge of international affairs. I commend her for her enthusiasm, her dedication and her leadership skills and wish her very well for the rest of her studies this year and for the conference that she will travel to early in the new year.
Shortland Electorate
10819
10819
12:35:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—Today, I rise to share with the House some of the activities that have been happening within the Shortland electorate. Never in the time that I have been a member of a parliament have I seen a government invest so much in the electorate that I represent. The government’s nation building and economic stimulus package has been a real benefit to the people of Shortland. During the last 12 months there has been a total of $89,023,255 spent or allocated to be spent on the Building the Education Revolution. This includes refurbishment of the schools in the electorate, including school facilities, pupil amenities, fencing, shade structures, play areas, school halls, libraries and school repairs—just to name a few things.
The Rudd government is providing an unprecedented amount of funding to schools around Australia and I feel privileged to be part of it. Building the Education Revolution has provided much needed investment for our local schools. When I contact my local schools, principal after principal say to me that this is the greatest thing that has happened to education in his or her lifetime.
On 21 August I attended Mount Hutton Primary School to take part in a sod turning ceremony to begin work on their multipurpose hall. Members of the school community, the staff and the students were present. The students told me just how important this school multipurpose hall would be for them and how they had been seeking to have a multipurpose hall for years. They told me what a difference it would make to their school. I am really pleased to have been part of that sod turning. I actually gave to the school the spade that was used for that sod turning. From now on I am giving a spade to each of the schools when I turn the sods. On 21 September I attended Marks Point School and we did a similar thing there. We had representatives from all those groups that were involved in the project as well as the school.
The BER is a fantastic program that is putting money into our school communities, providing amenities for our schools and creating jobs at the same time. It is keeping the economy moving and investing in the building and construction industry that is always the hardest hit in times of economic downturn.
In addition to the money that is being spent on the schools there has also been money allocated to black spots programs, and $580,000 has been allocated to four black spots programs within the Shortland electorate. These areas were quite dangerous and the money is being used to make our roads safer and to protect the people of the community.
There have been three community infrastructure projects totalling $1,676,000 in the Shortland electorate. At Lake Macquarie there is a shared biking and walking pathway in Eleebana that is costing over $1 million, and there are two cycleways in the Wyong part of the Shortland electorate. They are worthwhile projects, creating jobs in local communities.
There is money being spent on social housing. There is the national rental initiative. Money is being spent in the electorate of Shortland. The Energy Efficient Homes package is delivering for the people of Shortland. In addition to that, there has been money allocated through the better facility program for TAFEs. Belmont has struggled for a long time to have investment in that college. These are great investments in the Shortland electorate—investments that are needed and investments that are appreciated by the community which I represent in this parliament.
Emissions Trading Scheme
10820
10820
12:40:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
0
0
Mrs GASH
—I certainly do not envy my Labor colleagues in Throsby and Cunningham when it comes to defending the current CPRS legislation on the table. With the coal industry bearing the brunt of the emissions reduction target and the loss of jobs that regions rich in coal like the Illawarra will incur, I wonder whether MPs will choose to protect their own jobs or the jobs of their constituents when push comes to shove. Where once coalminers were held in such high regard in Wollongong, today they are the forgotten people. Coal has become a dirty word despite the enormous wealth it has brought the country. Now much of our steel is being imported and the once-great Australian coalmining industry is in danger of going the way of the merino. Where once the mighty steelworks at Port Kembla directly employed almost 25,000 people, today it is less than 10 per cent of that figure. Jobs have gone and Wollongong has become impoverished.
The unemployment rate around Wollongong is amongst the highest in New South Wales. The latest round of unemployment figures for some areas are in double digits, with Shellharbour recording a 24 per cent jump in unemployment. Unemployment affects families and communities as a whole. In order to pay the extra tax on food, petrol, milk, electricity and more people will need their jobs. The coalition is putting forward amendments that seek to cushion the initial blow. The cap-and-trade approach for electricity generators means prices go up gradually. More compensation for big and essential emitters means less cost passed on to us as consumers, who cannot pass on the costs any further down the line.
Lastly, we are looking out for farmers and small business, who have also been neglected in the government’s proposed scheme. There are now, in 2009, approximately 73 dairy farms in Gilmore. They were, in the year 2000, some 168. Deregulation hit the area hard some years ago. With the drought and all sorts of indirect taxes already being added to these hardworking people, the last thing they need is the threat of a direct ‘burping cow tax’. We want direct tax out and offsets for all the environment work that farmers do in. The community are willing to embrace environmental practices and should be rewarded for their voluntary contributions.
Small business also deserves our support, particularly those who depend on electricity. There is currently no provision for them in the government’s emissions trading scheme. Why do we as residents on the South Coast, who face the threat of job losses and higher commodity prices, need to be locked into a scheme that will help Australia reduce five per cent of the total global emissions contribution of 1.4 per cent before we even know what the rest of the world is doing? It has been suggested that only 91.5 per cent of people actually understand what an ETS is and how it works, and that figure is alarming. I do not want to see Australia lose the ability to grow our own food. I certainly do not want to be drinking reconstituted milk from Japan and eating beef from Brazil because livestock are just too expensive to hang onto in our country. And I will certainly be asking that question of my constituents. Most of us want to make a difference to our environment for the sake of future generations, but this flawed ETS is certainly not the best way of doing that in my books. I support the coalition’s amendments for the sake of jobs, farmers and small business.
In the time I have left I would like to touch on the concern we have in Gilmore that this Labor government is slowly dismantling Medicare by removing items from the Medicare Benefits Schedule. I have received letters from very concerned doctors and patients in my electorate in relation to the removal of items 50124 and 50125 from the MBS, stating that this will triple patient costs and cause pensioners, in particular those who suffer from arthritis, to choose between having to pay for much-needed injections and having to pay their electricity bill. The items which will be removed at midnight on 31October relate specifically to corticosteroid injections for the treatment of arthritis, particularly in frail elderly people for whom anti-inflammatory medication is often unsafe. In Gilmore we have almost 27,000 people over the age of 65, and for many of them this treatment is crucial for their mobility and wellbeing. These changes would see them go from paying about $15 for their specialist visit to around $45—a move I simply cannot support.
Why is it that, when the government wants to make savings to make up for its prolific spending, it draws from the limited resources of our elderly population? I have written to the Minister for Health and Ageing regarding this issue, calling for the government to immediately roll back its planned changes to MBS and focus on adding to healthcare rather than taking away from it. To date I have received no response. I am told by a local rheumatologist and clinical associate professor that these injections are specifically for patients who suffer from inflammatory conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, gouty arthritis and degenerative arthritis. If such patients present with a painful swollen joint they may require an immediate injection, particularly to prevent septic arthritis, which can be life threatening. I call on the government to make these specific changes.
Moreton Electorate: Oxley Creek
10822
10822
12:45:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
0
Mr PERRETT
—I rise to congratulate the Oxley Creek Catchment Association, who have won the 2009 Theiss Riverprize. The generous prize, which will make a real difference, is $200,000. Of that, $150,000 will go towards the restoration, protection and sustainable management of Oxley Creek while the association will direct the remaining $50,000 to support another waterway organisation that needs help to improve their area—perhaps in western Queensland or northern Queensland. The association will then be able to use their learning and initiative so they can be duplicated in another community. So congratulations to Anne Clarke and to all members and volunteers of the association, who do such a fine job protecting one of the south side of Brisbane’s greatest environmental assets.
Beginning in Flinders Peak, near Ipswich, Oxley Creek twists and turns its way nearly 70 kilometres through Logan and Brisbane’s south side, including the suburbs of Rocklea, Archerfield, Acacia Ridge, Oxley and Corinda—in my electorate—before meeting the Brisbane River in Tennyson. On the banks of the Oxley Creek grow weeping bottlebrush and figs, providing a unique habitat for native birds, both local and migratory, including even Jabiru. Although in my walks there I have never seen any Jabiru, I have seen some twitchers. Some bird spotters have given me some books that have photos of Jabiru. There are lots of other animals there as well. There are all sorts of interesting birds there. In fact, I noticed on the weekend that we had Miranda Kerr come from overseas. She spent some time down at the Oxley Common for a charity event. I have never seen so many people at Oxley Common. Obviously Miranda Kerr has a bit more attraction than Jabiru!
However, I was sad to see the Healthy Waterways report card for the Oxley catchment that was handed down yesterday. The freshwater results released yesterday unfortunately gave the Oxley catchment an ‘F’. The streams are in poor condition and there is significant decline in nutrient recycling throughout the year; however, there was a slight improvement in the physical chemical indicator. The estuary, where the Oxley Creek meets the Brisbane River at Tennyson, was given a ‘D’. They said it has continued low-dissolved oxygen and increases in nutrients and turbidity and in phytoplankton abundance, particularly above seven kilometres from the mouth of the estuary. I was at the Corinda State High School the other day. Some of the year nine students had actually done some experiments on Oxley Creek. Their science class results would reflect the Healthy Waterways assessment. Obviously, with an ‘F’ and a ‘D’ we need to do a lot more.
The beautiful Flinders Peak is not in my electorate but, closer to home I am particularly interested in the Oxley Creek Common area. The common includes walking paths, shelter and farming land which is used by Corinda State High School students in their agricultural program and also for local residents to walk their dogs et cetera. I have been approached by a number of individuals and community groups recently who want to see more done to develop the environmental aspects of Oxley Creek Common. I understand the state government has a draft future community planning strategy in place and that this strategy is the basis for ongoing consultation with stakeholders and community groups like Friends of Oxley Creek Common and the Oxley Creek Catchment Association. This sort of community consultation is important. I would contrast that with the horrible community consultation that took place with the Sherwood bus depot, which is right next door to the Oxley Creek Common, and the disastrous approach by the Brisbane City Council in saying, ‘This is what will be rammed down your throat.’ I would take a slightly different approach. I would like to consult with the Brisbane City Council, the state government and our environment minister to see what can be done to look after this unique area right in the middle of Brisbane.
The planning strategy covers such aspects as how will we continue to make sure that Corinda State High School’s agricultural program continues. I was talking about this with the principal, Helen Jamieson—who, incidentally, I used to teach with—and she is certainly supportive of being involved. There are some other possibilities where we could increase the use, such as a community farm. I know there are some on the north side that have done well. We could probably do it better on the south side! We also need to preserve the bird habitats—perhaps bring in some twitchers from around the world; and maintain the open spaces and paths so that local people can use them, including me and my son—we go for bike rides there. We also need to limit vehicle access as much as possible in the defined area, but also make sure there is plenty of parking there for people who will perhaps come from all around Australia to see this unique area; and improve the access from the eastern and southern parts of the sites. As I said, I will be consulting extensively with my community, with the local government, with the state government and with the environment minister. (Time expired)
National Water Week
10823
10823
12:50:00
Secker, Patrick, MP
848
Barker
LP
0
0
Mr SECKER
—Today I would like to alert the House to the fact that this week is National Water Week. Considering I have the whole South Australian stretch of the Murray River and also the Lower Lakes in my electorate, it is fitting that I speak on it today. Recent rainfalls in the state have improved some flows, which has renewed hopes of allocations increasing, but that does not distract from the fact that the Murray River and the Lower Lakes are in dire need of infrastructure spending. In fact, the influx of flows has in some cases highlighted the need for infrastructure spending, with overflows being wasted. The last thing the community want to see is water being wasted when they have been struggling throughout this long drought.
In my electorate the focus is on revitalising the Murray River and the Lower Lakes and making sure that irrigators have access to water through good infrastructure and water management. South Australia can boldly boast that we are the best managers of any state when it comes to using water. The problem is that no infrastructure has been built in my electorate since Labor has been in government, even though the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, has made several announcements of significant funding and several visits to the area. In fact, my electorate is worse off under the Labor government.
Labor have abolished the Community Water Grants—a funding program that delivered up to $50,000 for water-saving projects and inspired community groups across Barker to become leaders in the conservation of our precious water supply. The Community Water Grants program had helped over 8,000 community groups across Australia save the equivalent of 40,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools of water each year, but instead all we have now are empty promises and no action from the Labor government. Despite visiting the electorate a few months ago, the minister could not provide the community with any answers on when taxpayer funded projects would commence or why there was still no action from the Labor government on infrastructure. The astounding thing is that the minister was left $5.8 billion in funding for water-saving infrastructure projects by the Howard government, and she has still failed to see any projects into fruition. Just last week the Prime Minister also visited the electorate as part of his health reforms tour but, when probed by members of the community on water issues, he remained tight-lipped and refused to answer any questions on this vital issue. Here we have a clear show of community outrage on an important issue, and neither Mr Rudd as Prime Minister nor Minister Wong can provide answers on why projects have not been started.
National Water Week is all about highlighting water awareness and water efficiency to the community, but perhaps we should be concentrating on creating awareness within the Labor government instead. Members should be aware that about 12 months ago Lake Albert was blocked off from Lake Alexandrina, with a proviso that water would be pumped from Lake Alexandrina to Lake Albert. Unfortunately, about six months ago, those pumps were turned off indefinitely, with no provision to start them up again. Now Lake Albert has been condemned to death by the state and federal Labor governments. Fish will die. Turtles will die. And Labor has no solution. When will this government do something about Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina?
Werriwa Electorate: Reconstructing Lives Program
10824
10824
12:54:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I rise today to speak about particular program running in my electorate—one which makes a difference to young disadvantaged people between the ages of 16 and 20 who live in Macquarie Fields. The program is called Reconstructing Lives and is funded under the new Innovation Fund, which we know is designed to address the needs of the most disadvantaged job seekers in our community, and that is exactly what this program is doing.
I am talking about young people in my electorate who have a history of unemployment. This project takes on particular significance given that the youth in my electorate, particularly in the suburb of Macquarie Fields, are not faring all that well. Youth unemployment is running at 25 per cent and there is generational unemployment as well as gangs, drugs, alcohol and anger management issues. It is for these reasons that this location and this project are ideal to address the disengaged youth in Werriwa.
The Rudd government in June this year provided $154,000 to MAX Network at Ingleburn for this life-changing Reconstructing Lives project that aims to break the cycle of poverty and unemployment through a residential program aimed at the development of the participants. The project includes residential training, work experience and then placement into ongoing employment opportunities in the building and construction industry.
About four weeks ago at Eucalyptus Reserve in Macquarie Fields, I farewelled 15 enthusiastic young men and women who were setting off for their four-week residential job training program which will ultimately give them a Certificate I in Construction, with white-card accreditation. The participants were: Andrew Speechley, Beau Collier, Sina Mativa, Margaret Pera, Darcey Phillips, Salia Hafoka, Sarah Tana, Jason Hopson, Normie-Luke Manns, Mark Pace, Faauuga Taimalie, Joseph Turaganivolo, Sione Fonokalafi, Mohammed Ali and Rongo Pera. They are all now involved in a range of both physical and mental development activities planned specifically with their needs in mind. It includes early mornings, cleaning and cooking, loads of exercise and, very clearly, new rules. It should be known that most of these young people have never been away from home, their family and their friends, so this was a pretty big deal for them.
I have spoken with Dianne Hamer, Regional Manager, Southern Region, MAX Employment, who is overseeing this project and she advised me that there have been a few issues along the way; nevertheless, she was happy to report that all but two participants are today in their final week of the residential program. She went on to say that all the participants are focused and working hard to achieve their personal goals. This project is already changing lives. These young people are becoming more confident every day and, more importantly, are determined to return to their local community to make a positive difference.
Following the completion of the residential program next week, the participants will begin their four-week work experience with Spotless and its subcontractors. These organisations have the contract to maintain Housing NSW accommodation in Macquarie Fields, and the participants will be given the opportunity to work on a number of these dwellings that are under construction or renovation, with the design of securing ongoing employment for the participants in their local area. Following this, mentoring and post-placement support will be provided for six months. This will include mentoring by the Wests Tigers Rugby League Club, for the benefit of all the participants.
Last night a graduation ceremony for the participants to pay tribute to their achievements thus far was held at Wests Leagues Club. In fact, Gordon Tallis, one of our Rugby League greats, was the guest speaker, and he spoke about having goals, being proud of who you are and staying on course, even if your friends are straying. I am advised that the event was a huge success and that the difference in the participants was obvious. Their improved communication skills and confidence levels, their smiles and the spring in their steps were all noticeable. I would like to read an excerpt from one of the many speeches that were made. It is from Andrew Speechley, who said:
Six months ago I was trying to get my life back on track, cause I was doing drugs and drinking alcohol and I thought to myself I need to change. Mandy from Max Employment saw me in the street as I was walking past the office and asked if I wanted to do a course. I said yes and next thing I know I was packing my bags and I was off. We arrived at Mowbray Park Farm Stay all quite nervous, not knowing what was on the road ahead.
This is indicative of the experience these young people had, and we now have13 ambassadors for the youth in our area. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
10825
13:00:00
Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
10826
Questions in Writing
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts: Overseas Travel
1
1
890
1
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
Mr Ciobo
asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 12 August 2009:
In respect of his recent trip to France—
-
How many of his (i) personal, and (ii) departmental, staff travelled with him.
-
What was the total cost of his trip.
-
What was the total cost of (i) airfares, and (ii) accommodation, for him and his delegation.
-
How many engagements did he attend in Paris, and what were they for.
1
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:
-
In Paris, France the Minister was accompanied by one ministerial staff member. No departmental staff travelled with Minister Garrett to Paris, France.
-
All costs of official overseas travel by Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, accompanying spouses (where relevant) and accompanying staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 are paid for by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. As at 17 September 2009, expenditure for this overseas visit had not yet been reconciled. Dates, destinations, the purpose and costs of all official overseas travel are tabled in the Parliament every six months in a report titled Parliamentarians’ Travel Paid By The Department of Finance and Deregulation. Reports detailing this visit will be available at http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/.
-
All costs of official overseas travel by Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, accompanying spouses (where relevant) and accompanying staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 are paid for by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. As at 17 September 2009, expenditure for this overseas visit had not yet been reconciled. Dates, destinations, the purpose and costs of all official overseas travel are tabled in the Parliament every six months in a report titled Parliamentarians’ Travel Paid By The Department of Finance and Deregulation. Reports detailing this visit will be available at http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/.
-
Minister Garrett attended eight engagements in Paris, France. The details are as follows:
Meeting with the Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA). Discussion included opportunities to strengthen linkages between Australia and the IEA, an update on Australia’s energy efficiency activities to support the transition to a low carbon economy and Australia’s National Strategy on Energy Efficiency.
Meeting with senior officials at the Musée d’Orsay to discuss the implications of the global financial crisis on the museum and arrangements for a major exhibition of some of the Musée’s post-Impressionist paintings to be mounted at the National Gallery of Australia from December 2009-April 2010.
Meeting with the Ambassador of Australia to France to discuss the bilateral relationship, especially in the fields of arts-culture and environment.
Meeting with key French arts and culture figures. Discussions focused on the Australia-France cultural exchange initiatives, with particular reference to the Australia-France Foundation, and commercial opportunities for Australian arts in France. Following this, a visit was undertaken to the Musée du Quai Branley, which features the Australian Indigenous Art Commission and is recognised as a major institution dedicated to the world’s indigenous arts and cultures.
Meeting with Directors of the OECD’s Divisions for Agricultural Policies and Environment, and Climate Change, Biodiversity and Development to discuss the economics of climate change, “green growth” and policy instruments to protect biodiversity.
Meeting with French Minister of Culture and Communication, Mr Frédéric Mitterand to discuss arts-culture issues and the repatriation of Indigenous human remains. Included in this engagement was the presentation to Minister Garrett of an Ordre des Arts et Lettres (French Order of Arts and Letters).
Meeting with key Australian arts and culture figures working in Paris.
Meeting with Mr Michel Rocard, France’s Ambassador for International Negotiations on the Arctic and Antarctic and Chair of a Committee of Experts appointed by President Sarkozy to consider the possible imposition of a French carbon tax. Discussion focused on the outcomes of the 32nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, co-operation on sub-Antarctic fisheries management and enforcement, and an update on the Committee of Experts’ work.
Budget Forecasts
10827
10827
920
10827
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
0
Dr Southcott
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 12 August 2009:
In respect of the 2009 Budget forecasts and Chart 16 on pages 2-33 of Budget Paper No.1 for 2009-10: for each quarter from June 2009 to June 2011, what was the forecast (a) number of employed persons, (b) labour force, (c) unemployment rate, (d) numbers of unemployed persons, and (e) employment growth.
10827
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr Swan
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Jun-09
Sep-09
Dec-09
Mar-10
Jun-10
Sep-10
Dec-10
Mar-11
Jun-11
(i) Employed
10,737
10,681
10,628
10,588
10,580
10,571
10,579
10,603
10,632
(ii) Labour Force
11,432
11,456
11,481
11,505
11,530
11,550
11,570
11,590
11,610
(iii) Unemployment rate
6.1
6.8
7.4
8.0
8.2
8.5
8.6
8.5
8.4
(iv) Unemployed
695
775
853
918
950
979
991
986
977
(v) Employment growth
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
Budget Forecasts
10827
10827
921
10827
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
0
Dr Southcott
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 12 August 2009:
In respect of the 2009 Budget forecasts and Chart 17 on pages 2-33 of Budget Paper No.1 for 2009-10: for each quarter from June 2009 to June 2011, what was the (a) pre-stimulus, and (b) post-stimulus, forecast (i) number of employed persons, (ii) labour force, (iii) unemployment rate, (iv) numbers of unemployed persons, and (v) employment growth.
10827
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr Swan
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Jun-09
Sep-09
Dec-09
Mar-10
Jun-10
Sep-10
Dec-10
Mar-11
Jun-11
(i) Employed
(a) Pre-stimulus
10,707
10,603
10,487
10,398
10,371
10,364
10,390
10,443
10,496
(b) Post-stimulus
10,737
10,681
10,628
10,588
10,580
10,571
10,579
10,603
10,632
(ii) Labour Force
(a) Pre-stimulus
11,425
11,446
11,467
11,488
11,509
11,525
11,541
11,557
11,573
(b) Post-stimulus
11,432
11,456
11,481
11,505
11,530
11,550
11,570
11,590
11,610
(iii) Unemployment rate
(a) Pre-stimulus
6.3
7.4
8.5
9.5
9.9
10.1
10.0
9.6
9.3
(b) Post-stimulus
6.1
6.8
7.4
8.0
8.2
8.5
8.6
8.5
8.4
(iv) Unemployed
(a) Pre-stimulus
718
843
980
1,090
1,137
1,160
1,151
1,114
1,078
(b) Post-stimulus
695
775
853
918
950
979
991
986
977
(v) Employment growth
(a) Pre-stimulus
-0.8
-1.0
-1.1
-0.8
-0.3
-0.1
0.2
0.5
0.5
(b) Post-stimulus
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
Northern Territory Mining Licences
10828
10828
983
10828
Oakeshott, Rob, MP
IYS
Lyne
IND
0
Mr Oakeshott
asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 8 September 2009:
In respect of the Angela Pamela exploratory licence, granted in 2008 by the Northern Territory Government: what (a) is the Australian Government’s involvement, and (b) processes are involved in approving this site for the development of a uranium mine.
10828
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:
-
The Australian Government had no involvement in the granting by the Northern Territory Government of the exploration licence over the Angela-Pamela deposits.
-
Any proposal to mine the Angela-Pamela deposits will need to be referred to me under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) if it is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. Following referral, if I determined a proposal to be a controlled action under the EPBC Act, it would then be subject to a rigorous environmental assessment process. This would include public consultation. I would take into account the outcomes of the assessment process and issues raised in public submissions in deciding whether or not to approve the proposal.
A proposal to mine would also require approval from the Northern Territory Government.
Employment: International Students
10828
10828
989
10828
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
Dr Stone
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 10 September 2009:
What percentage of international students gain employment within six months of obtaining permanent residency status.
10828
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
Mr McClelland
—The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
My Department has used information from its third Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia (LSIA 3) to respond to this question. The LSIA 3 collected information from former international students on two occasions: in August 2005, six months after their permanent visa was granted, and then again in August 2006, 18 months after their transition to permanent residency.
In August 2005, six months after the grant of permanent residency, 85 per cent of former international students were working, their participation rate was 93 per cent and their unemployment rate was 8 per cent. The national unemployment rate at this time was 4.9 per cent.
Twelve months later, in August 2006, 92 per cent of former international students were working, their participation rate was 95 per cent and their unemployment rate had fallen to 3 per cent. The national unemployment rate at this time was 4.7 per cent.
It is noted that former international students have more favourable labour market outcomes (with the exception of their initial unemployment rate) than the general Australian population. This may be due to their relatively younger median age and the two year waiting period which applies before they are entitled to social security benefits.
My Department has established an ongoing survey for monitoring migrant outcomes (including former international students), the Continuous Survey of Australia’s Migrants. The first wave of this survey is underway, with results expected in early 2010.
Oversight Group
10829
10829
1022
10829
Robb, Andrew, MP
FU4
Goldstein
LP
0
Mr Robb
asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 16 September 2009:
Has the Oversight Group (defined at A4 of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Agreement of 5 February 2009) charged with supporting and monitoring the implementation of key infrastructure and stimulus measures, made recommendations to COAG concerning possible interventions to prevent and address concerns with project slippages, cost overruns and project delivery as specified at A9 of the COAG Agreement of 5 February 2009; if so, what are they.
10829
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr Rudd
—I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The ‘Oversight Group’ (or Office of the Coordinator General) within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has prepared detailed reports for COAG on the progress of implementation of Nation Building programs. These reports were developed in consultation with Coordinators—General from all states and territories and were provided to COAG for its meetings on 30 April 2009 and 2 July 2009.
Caring for Our Country
10829
10829
1032
10829
Coulton, Mark, MP
HWN
Parkes
NATS
0
Mr Coulton
asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 17 September 2009:
-
Were the 57 competitive projects under the 2009-10 Caring for Our Country business plan authorised when he announced them on 2 July 2009.
-
Is it a fact that authorisation for these projects, under Regulation 9 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act, did not occur until 4 August 2009.
-
Is it a fact that as at 17 September 2009, staff of his department were retro-fitting the outcomes of the 2008-09 Caring for Our Country projects to ensure they were aligned with the initiative’s targets.
-
Is it a fact that nearly 90 per cent of the investment proposals received by the Government for the 2009-10 Caring for Our Country business plan will not be funded.
-
Will he consider remodelling the Caring for Our Country initiative to make it more accessible.
-
Do all projects that have commenced under the 2009-10 Caring for Our Country business plan have the necessary planning, approvals, permits and permissions.
10830
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr Garrett
—The answers to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
No. This statement is incorrect.
-
2008‑09 was a transition year for Caring for our Country. In this first year a wide range of projects were funded under the national priorities to ensure continuity of natural resource management activity that was consistent with the high-level program objectives while the more detailed program architecture was being developed. Investments funded during the transition year included open grants, community coastcare, regional projects and election commitments. These transition year projects have since been analysed to establish their contribution to the specific outcomes and targets which were developed later and which sit beneath the national priorities. This mapping of investments to targets will facilitate consistent reporting on expenditure and progress each year.
-
Final data on the actual success rate for proposals developed under the 2009-10 Caring for our Country business plan will not be available until I have announced all successful proposals. I am confident the success rate will be greater than 10%.
-
The Government is committed to continuous improvement, and to this end the business plan and application process has been extensively reviewed and redesigned, taking into account stakeholder feedback. Revised targets, an on-line application form and clear supporting instructions and information are being developed for 2010‑11. Both achievements and implementation will be reviewed each year and any necessary adjustments made.
-
All proponents who are funded under the 2009-10 Caring for our Country business plan declared in their applications that they took full responsibility for ensuring the necessary planning, approvals, permits and permissions were in place before commencing their projects. Non-compliance with this requirement would constitute a breach under the funding agreement. My department is not aware of any such breaches having occurred.