2010-11-15
43
1
1
REPS
0
0
2010-11-15
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins)
took the chair at 10 am, made an acknowledgement of country
and read prayers.
MAIN COMMITTEE
2143
Miscellaneous
Private Members’ Motions
2143
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—In accordance with standing order 41(g), and the determinations of the Selection Committee, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Reid, Canberra and Blair. These items will be considered in the Main Committee later today.
PETITIONS
2143
Petitions
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr Murphy
—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
Marriage
83D
Mr Murphy
534
2143
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:
RETAIN THE DEFINITION Of MARRIAGE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN
We, the undersigned citizens draw to the attention of the House of Representatives assembled, that the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” is the foundation upon which our families are built and on which our society stands. To alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex “marriage”, as proposed by the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, would be to change the very structure of society to the detriment of all, especially children.
We, the undersigned citizens therefore request that the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, be opposed.
534
83D
Mr Murphy
by
Mr Murphy
(from 534 citizens)
Internet Content
83D
Mr Murphy
27
2143
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
We, the undersigned citizens draws to the attention of the House the forthcoming legislation to “implement compulsory filtering of the internet by ISP’s” in Australia and we hereby express our condemnation of this forthcoming legislation.
We believe:
-
that having all internet users subjected to a secret and unaccountable blacklist is a completely unacceptable act and an infringement on our “Human Rights”.
-
that Australia already has laws in place preventing the possession of and viewing of child pornography and other criminal material.
-
that the filter will not prevent those wishing to obtain such material and furthermore we believe that the millions of dollars that will be spent under this forthcoming legislation would be better spent in funding “The Australian Federal Police’s” efforts to investigate child pornography rings and therefore prevent crimes against children from happening in the first place.
-
that having an opt out blacklist rather than an opt in blacklist will impact many innocent websites and will cause a loss of profit for many businesses.
In addition we condemn all efforts by government, corporations and the media that attempt to implement any restrictions on our inalienable human right to the free exchange of speech.
Your petitioners respectfully ask the house to repeal all legislative action concerning implementation of compulsory content filtering of the internet in Australia and strongly uphold our fundamental human right to the free expression of ideas and opinions.
27
83D
Mr Murphy
by
Mr Murphy
(from 27 citizens)
Administration of Justice
83D
Mr Murphy
1
2143
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
SUPPLEMENT TO THE PETITION TO THE HOUSE 15TH MARCH 2010 AND 24TH MAY 2010
This petition of Antal Bittmann and fellow citizens that have been aggrieved by an administrative decision of a member of the Judiciary or an Officer of the Commonwealth as set out in Section 75(v) of the Constitution.
A writ of mandamus to show cause is based on a presumption of misbehaviour. Four writs were served and heard in the High Court in 2008.
Officers of the Commonwealth, appointed by the Governor-General made or sought orders to liquidate and/or freeze assets of companies and/or depositors on a presumption of insolvency.
These Officers (judicators) tendered their submission to the High Court.
The High Court failed to set aside orders that were obtained on a presumption.
Where a cause is pending involving interpretations of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court not to proceed without advising Parliament.
This is a matter that must be given to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (as per Section 78A —Intervention by the Attorney-General. This is a provision relating to the constitutional matters. Judiciary Act 1903.) and, for the House to resolve.
We the aggrieved citizens, with the right of petitioning the Parliament (a long established fundamental right), we request both Houses to use their exclusive powers to terminate appointments that breach the rules of natural justice.
We ask the House to address matters where only Parliament has jurisdiction.
This is not a matter for a working group by the standing committee of the Attorney-General to resolve.
1
83D
Mr Murphy
by
Mr Murphy
(from one citizen)
Paid Parental Leave
83D
Mr Murphy
25423
2143
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain Australian citizens draws to the attention of the House that Australians have been waiting many decades for a paid parental leave scheme to help families cope with financial and work commitments while also meeting the demands of caring for a new baby.
We therefore ask all MPs to support a paid parental leave scheme that will be fully operational by the 1st of January 2011.
25423
83D
Mr Murphy
by
Mr Murphy
(from 25,423 citizens)
Administration of Justice
83D
Mr Murphy
1
2143
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives;
This petition of a ‘resident of Australia’ and ‘certain citizens of Australia’ draws to the attention of the House
issues relating to Parliament
regarding the claim of
“no immediate allegation against a judge is in prospect”
is in error.
The Senate reported, about 7 December 2009, at Recommendation 10, “7.82 The committee recommends … modelled on the Judicial Commission of New South Wales”, which the “Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission Bill 2010” can do if allowed. This Senate recommendation is in part, because of knowledge within the Senate of complaints attempted to be filed with the High Court Chief Justice about 2005 to 2009, but unbeknown to the Senate, Officers of the Government and Federal Police have whitewashed complaints filed so they never saw the light of an investigation.
Courses of justice created by the Commonwealth like appeals and 75(v) writs have also been obstructed by these officers where the evidence and issues support judicial misbehaviour has occurred that is common knowledge in family law and still waiting investigation.
We pray the House expedites the passing of this bill due to complaints outstanding, and include the right the Committee accept public complaints that have been obstructed elsewhere. Plus ensure the Committee has power to recommend; the making of “Constitutional Writs” to a Chief Justice, and the award of compensation for judicial wrongs, and a matter be sent back to any Court for reconsideration.
1
83D
Mr Murphy
by
Mr Murphy
(from one citizen)
Administration of Justice
83D
Mr Murphy
1
2143
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives;
This petition of a ‘resident of Australia’ and ‘certain citizens of Australia’ draws to the attention of the House
issues relating to Parliament
regarding complaints about misbehaviour by judges. The Senate reported, about 7 December 2009, at Recommendation 10, “7.82 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government establish a federal judicial commission modelled on the Judicial Commission of New South Wales”, which the “Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission Bill 2010” can do if allowed.
Unless section 17 is revised, questions arise of the legitimate intent of the Bill/Act which otherwise falls short of what can be achieved by the Committee. This is supported by section 18 of this Bill which enables limits on the advice of the Committee to questions created by the uninformed Committee.
This would enable questions needing answers to go unanswered, to an extent the true value of the production of this Committee, Bill, improbable Act, and ability to address/correct wrongs, would be lost/wasted and “the Bill/Act 2010” produced for other than legitimate use.
We pray the Honourable House includes in section 18 standard questions to be answered like, if not the same;
-
Is a section 72(ii) warranted?
Is it recommended a “Constitutional Writ” on behalf of member/s of the public be made to a Chief Justice?
Is it recommended compensation for judicial wrongs be made to the House?
Is it recommended a matter be sent back to any Court for reconsideration?
1
83D
Mr Murphy
by
Mr Murphy
(from one citizen)
Administration of Justice
83D
Mr Murphy
1
2143
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives;
This petition of a ‘resident of ‘Australia’ and ‘certain citizens of Australia’ draws to the attention of the House, namely the Honourable Speaker;
issues relating to Parliament
regarding misbehaviour by judges, known to the 3 branches of Government, fallen on deaf ears in the Parliament.
Hence legitimate allegations with evidence produced have not caused the corrects and section 72 actions that should have occurred.
This raises questions of the legitimate intent of the “Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission Bill 2010”, first read 22 February, and whether or not section 17 (1) of “the Bill 2010” will restrict the Committee accepting complaints from “a House of Parliament” only, for legitimate reasons.
The “Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission Bill 2005 and 2007” were to correct this Constitutionally required short fall which the 2010 same named Bill will correct, if it is not shelved too due to unresolved complaints.
Section 17(2) of “the Bill 2010” limits complaints to the Committee to “only specific allegations … referred by a House.” Hence limiting the Committee to an extent the true value of this improbable Act and ability to address/correct wrongs, would be wasted thereby produced for other than legitimate use.
We pray the Honourable House revise section 17 to enable the public to file complaints with the Committee, causing investigations pursuant to the Senate recommendations and those sought in the unresolved
“Administration of Justice” petitions,
fallen on deaf ears.
1
83D
Mr Murphy
by
Mr Murphy
(from one citizen)
Medicare Joint Injection Rebate
83D
Mr Murphy
45
2143
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of residents of Wonthaggi and surrounding district in the state of Victoria, Electoral Division of McMillan, draws to the attention of the House:
-
The senior citizens of Wonthaggi object to the recent cancellation of the Medicare Rebate for Joint injections.
-
This is a gross imposition particularly on our older population who may require frequent injections to help with mobility and quality of life.
-
This was done without any consultation or advice to medical practitioners.
-
Because there is considerable expense involved, injections must now attract a charge of $25.00.
We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to ensure that the Health Minister Nicola Roxon MP make every effort to rescind this unfair decision and reinstate full Medicare Rebate for Joint Injections.
45
83D
Mr Murphy
by
Mr Murphy
(from 45 citizens)
Petitions received.
Responses
2143
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr Murphy
—Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Tamworth: Defence Force Basic Flying Training School
2143
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 1 June 2010 concerning a petition for the Australian Defence Force Basic Flying Training School to remain at Tamworth, NSW.
The Interim Basic Flying Training Request for Tender closed on 11 February 2010. Completion of the tender evaluation process is anticipated in late June 2010 and the contract is expected to be signed in September 2010.
There are a number of factors that must be balanced in determining the location of flying training units. All relevant factors will be considered by Defence in assessing the responses received from industry to ensure efficient, effective and ethical procurement outcomes are achieved as required by Section 44 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
While the Tamworth region may be suitable for future Australian Defence Force pilot training, until Defence has fully assessed the responses from industry, it is too early to confirm the basing location for the Interim Basic Flying Training School.
Your interest in this matter is appreciated.
from the
former Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner
Education: Intelligent Creation
2143
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 1 June 2010, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, concerning a petition regarding the place of biblical truth in our education systems. In this context, biblical truth stands for religious beliefs about the origin of life known as intelligent creation or intelligent design.
The Australian Academy of Science, which is the pre-eminent body representing scientists in Australia, considers that, whilst evolutionary theory, like any other scientific idea, is subject to empirical testing, creationist accounts of the origin of life are not scientific ideas because they cannot be tested empirically. State and territory education authorities, which have primary responsibility for education in their jurisdictions, agree with the position of the Australian Academy of Science. They generally stipulate that creationism or intelligent design ought not be taught to students as science. That is also the position adopted by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) which, on behalf of all of Australia’s education ministers, is preparing Australia’s first national curriculum, including for science.
The approved curricula currently in use in each state and territory are intended to ensure that students educated in a wide range of schools established with quite different philosophical bases acquire the necessary knowledge, understanding, skills, values and attitudes for their participation in contemporary Australian society.
Decisions about the teaching of religion and religious beliefs in schools are made by individual state and territory government and non-government education authorities. The petitioners may wish to raise their concerns about the place of biblical truth in Australian schools with those authorities. Contact details for those authorities can be found at www.deewr.qov.au/Schooling/ Pages/OrqContacts.aspx.
from the
former Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Ms Gillard
South Australia: Power Failures
2146
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 25 May 2010 forwarding a petition regarding disruptions to power supply distributed by South Australia’s ETSA Utilities. I am responding to this petition in my role as Minister for Resources and Energy.
Various factors, both planned and unplanned, can impede network reliability. Network businesses, in this case ETSA Utilities, are responsible for undertaking a range of maintenance practices aimed at reducing the number of outages and the time it takes to reconnect supply. In addition, jurisdictional governments have responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the reliability of distribution networks against performance standards.
With regard to the interruptions to supply between 30 November 2009 and 4 February 2010, I am advised that ETSA Utilities identified the causes for the distribution network failures as a faulty insulator and shorting out of the system due to interference by large flocks of corellas. In response to these issues, ETSA Utilities has replaced the faulty insulator and installed bird scarers, wide brace cross arms to minimise the risk of the lines touching, and additional fuses to minimise the likelihood of future outages.
from the
Minister for Resources and Energy, Mr Martin Ferguson
Statements
2147
2147
10:03:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Reid
ALP
1
0
Mr MURPHY
—Today I am pleased to take the opportunity to report to the House for the first time in this parliament about activities of the Standing Committee on Petitions. I am pleased to have been elected chair of the committee and to now make this statement on its behalf.
Briefly, I would first like to mention the committee of the 42nd Parliament. The petitions just presented were approved by the previous committee, and I present them on their behalf. On behalf of the committee, I would also like to express our appreciation for the previous committee, especially the former chair, Mrs Julia Irwin, and to wish her well for the future.
The standing orders of the House enable our committee to receive and process petitions in readiness for presentation to this House—that is, the committee scrutinises petitions for compliance with the standing orders. When petitions have been found to comply then I may present them to the House as chair, or an individual committee member may present an approved petition on behalf of a petitioner. The committee can also consider matters relating to petitions and to the petitions system as a whole. Since its establishment in 2008, the committee has been following up petitions in a variety of ways, not seeking to resolve issues itself but to bring them to the attention of the relevant ministers and other interested parties.
The first and usual response once a petition is presented in the House is for the committee to refer it to the minister holding the relevant portfolio, seeking their comment. Occasionally, the response is a success story in which the minister agrees to take the action that is sought. Much more often though, the purpose of a ministerial response is to explain a situation or matter that has been raised in the petition. Responses from ministers are published on the committee’s web page, once the committee has had an opportunity to consider them. The issues and the explanations by government are available not only to the committee and petitioners but also to the general public. Ministerial responses are also sent to the relevant principal petitioners once they have been considered by the committee.
In the last parliament the committee sometimes chose to speak to some principal petitioners and other related groups on specific issues raised in petitions in public hearings. The committee occasionally told witnesses it would follow certain matters up with relevant Public Service departments. To achieve this, the committee invited representatives of these departments to attend a public hearing in Parliament House from time to time to discuss petitioners’ grievances and ministerial responses to petitions.
These hearings proved useful for the committee to monitor what the government was doing in respect of issues raised by citizens in their petitions. The committee appreciates the way that ministers and their departmental staff have responded to the committee’s requests for further information about the matters that concerned citizens have raised through written responses and at hearings. These public hearing mechanisms have been another of the successes of the Standing Committee on Petitions. By reaching out to the public and discussing the responses of government in a transparent and open manner, links between the parliament and the public are strengthened. The publication of ministerial responses and transcripts of hearings with public servants on the committee’s web page make these interactions available to the public too.
In coming weeks at this time I will discuss further the work of the petitions committee and some of the issues it identifies in petitions. I thank the House.
WILD RIVERS (ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT) BILL 2010
2148
Bills
R4467
First Reading
2148
Bill presented by
Mr Abbott.
2148
10:08:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—I am very pleased to present the
Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010
because this bill strikes two important blows. It strikes a blow for Aboriginal rights and it strikes a blow for the importance of economic advancement for the Aboriginal people of Australia.
This private member’s bill is designed to correct the defects in the current Queensland Wild Rivers Act. I want to stress that this private member’s bill certainly does not scrap environmental protection. That is the last thing that I would want to do. What it does do, though, is enshrine the absolute necessity of consent by Aboriginal people for a Queensland wild rivers declaration to apply over their land and it does stress the absolute importance of economic development for the future of Aboriginal people. We do not want Aboriginal people living in remote areas to be confined forever to welfare villages. We want the Aboriginal people of remote areas to have access to all the benefits of Australian citizens. But part of the benefit of living in Australia is that you normally have reasonable rights to economically develop your land, and these reasonable rights have been in effect taken away by the current Queensland legislation. This is why this bill is important.
I want to say how proud I am to be bringing this bill before the House on behalf of the Aboriginal people of remote Queensland and I want to say how pleased I am that the coalition parties in this parliament are supporting this piece of legislation. It is not so long ago that people would not have expected the coalition parties to be supporting the rights of Indigenous people in this way, but one of the ways in which the coalition I lead have changed is that we believe in the rights of Aboriginal people and we particularly believe in their right to take their place at the forefront of our national life.
Let me read what the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, the member for Griffith, said on the day of the celebrated national apology in this parliament. He said:
… unless the great symbolism of reconciliation is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging gong.
I of course congratulate the former Prime Minister on his act of statesmanship and leadership on that day, but I want to say that it ill behoves this parliament not to support this legislation, which is designed precisely to ensure that reconciliation is more than a simple gesture; that the fine words of this parliament on that day in February 2008 are backed up with concrete legislative action to give the Aboriginal people of this country the rights that they need.
I should also remind the parliament of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which the government subscribed in April last year, which provides for, amongst other things, the right of Indigenous peoples to own, use, develop and control their lands. These are worthy sentiments to which the government sitting opposite has subscribed, yet these are precisely the sentiments which are frustrated by the Queensland legislation that my act is designed to correct.
It is often said that the wild rivers legislation has not in fact stopped any particular developments.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—That’s a lie.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—This is wrong. There is the Cape Alumina development that has not gone ahead, which would have provided hundreds of millions of dollars of investment and hundreds of jobs for Aboriginal people on the Cape; there is the Matilda Zircon development, which has not gone ahead because of the impact of the Queensland wild rivers legislation; and then there are all the plans that are never made because Aboriginal people in Cape York—
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—The little sand and gravel operators.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—do not feel that they have the money, the time or the administrative skills to wade through these extra thickets of red tape which are now standing in the way of their development. My bill ensures that these wild rivers declarations cannot have effect without the specific consent of the affected Aboriginal people. Under the Queensland legislation there is a requirement to consult. I am saying what we need is a requirement for consent. What I am saying is that the economic development of Cape York, the Gulf and other remote parts of Queensland should not be subject to bureaucratic decision-making—
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—Brisbane based.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—by a Labor-Green alliance in Brisbane. I note the enthusiastic support of the member for Kennedy, who will second the motion for the introduction of this legislation. Over the last week I have been doing my best to consult with people on the ground. I want to thank Noel Pearson and Richie Ah Mat for their strong support for this legislation. I want to acknowledge the good work of the Cape York Partnerships and the Cape York Land Council in supporting this private member’s bill. I want to thank Greg McLean, the chairman of the Regional Organisation of Councils of Cape York, who has strongly opposed the Queensland government’s legislation in its present form and has done so on behalf of all of the elected councils of Cape York. I want to thank AgForce, representing the Indigenous and non-Indigenous graziers of remote Queensland, for their support of this legislation.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—Most of the gulf’s graziers are of Aboriginal descent.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—I also thank the Carpentaria Land Council for the consultations I had with them last week, along with my friend the member for Kennedy. The Carpentaria Land Council is, of course, part of his electorate. The Carpentaria Land Council does not support every aspect of the legislation I bring before the House today but I am pleased that we will be continuing the dialogue and I am pleased that they certainly support the principle of consent being further enshrined, as this legislation does. I also acknowledge discussions I have had with Cape York Sustainable Futures and the discussions I have had and will continue to have with Burke Shire Council.
I am prepared to contemplate further amendments to this bill, if that is what is necessary to secure broader support from the Aboriginal people of remote Australia. What I will not give up on under any circumstances is my determination to ensure that the Aboriginal people of Australia finally get a fair go where their land is concerned. The land which Aboriginal people have secured is obviously a cultural and spiritual asset but it should also be an economic asset. That is what my bill is designed to secure.
In closing, I think it is good that there is a further inquiry into the Queensland wild rivers legislation but it is very important that this inquiry not turn out to be a delaying tactic, given that we all know the importance of economic development—and it is clear that that legislation is a hindrance to it. I saw last week the excellent work of wild rivers rangers in and around Normanton. I support that work. That work should continue and it is quite wrong of Premier Bligh of Queensland to threaten those rangers with an end to their funding if this bill passes. I support their work. Were we in government, we would continue that program because they are doing good work. This bill should pass if we are serious about the economic advancement of Aboriginal people.
Bill read a first time.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—I will be seconding the motion with enthusiasm and determination.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, on which occasion I am sure the member for Kennedy, in his enthusiasm, will have an opportunity to address the House.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION (PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY) AMENDMENT BILL 2010
2150
Bills
R4482
First Reading
2150
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Hartsuyker.
2150
10:19:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—The purpose of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Public Health and Safety) Amendment Bill 2010
is to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to afford some relief to the residents of Maclean in my electorate of Cowper from the presence of a large colony of flying foxes. My amendment would, simply, deem the minister to have given consent to the licence application by the New South Wales state government for the relocation of the Maclean colony. It would not apply to any other colony or to any other licence application.
With the introduction of this bill imminent, consent was in fact given after months and months of delay and further suffering by the residents of Maclean. While I welcome this development, I wish to proceed with my bill for reasons which I will now explain. Over the past year we have seen an explosion in the number of flying foxes in a colony which inhabits the vegetation surrounding Maclean High School, the nearby TAFE and the surrounding residential area. There has been an invasion of thousands upon thousands of bats around the high school, which has some 1,100 students. These flying foxes defecate over the school, its students and its teachers. The smell is revolting and the colony can be extremely noisy. They pose a risk of hendra virus and lyssavirus, a risk which extends to the staff and students of the nearby TAFE and the surrounding residents. The school has been forced to take drastic measures to protect the safety of the students and teachers. Bubblers and seats have been covered to avoid contamination. Classrooms have windows permanently closed and air conditioning has been installed in some rooms because the windows cannot be opened. Car parks, walkways and disabled accesses are all going to be covered because of flying fox faeces. And let us not forget the residents living close by. Their homes have become virtually uninhabitable because of the stench and the problems these flying foxes cause and of course a similar situation is occurring at the nearby TAFE.
Until very recently, governments, both state and federal, had failed to disperse the bats. That is an absolute disgrace. Last year, federal and state bureaucrats established the Maclean Flying Fox Working Group, but it was designed to do nothing more than conduct paper shuffling. This was
Yes Minister
at its worst. A push by the community to draft a licence application to disperse the bats was knocked on the head last November when the bureaucrats made it clear to the school P&C that such an application would not be supported by government departments. This working group had no intention to act—it just pursued a process of endless delay in the hope that the community got sick of the issue. When the school commenced their Christmas holidays last December, we had the ludicrous situation of the bureaucrats having ensured that no licence application had been drafted and the federal environment minister being able to say that he would not approve an application because no application had been lodged. That is why I drafted this bill.
I wish now to continue to press the bill to ensure that action can be taken on behalf of the people of Maclean. I do so against a background of previous comments by the environment department that no consent would be issued and that coexistence between the school and the bat colony was the only option. I wish to ensure against the possibility of further delays and further conditions being placed on the licence in the years to come. As I said, I wish to ensure that action is taken to provide relief to the residents of Maclean and, in particular, the students and staff of Maclean High School and the nearby TAFE.
I welcome the great support that I have received from the community. I received a petition with some 4,300 signatures calling for support for Maclean High School on the urgent issue of the dispersal of the bats. It is a vital matter of health and safety that the colony be dispersed permanently from the grounds of the school. The health of the students and the staff is at stake. The health of the students and staff of the TAFE and of nearby residents is also at stake. No-one wants to see these bats harmed or destroyed, but the residents of Maclean do wish to see evidence that their elected representatives and their public servants will finally put the interests of the residents ahead of those of the bats.
This issue shows the very best and the very worst of our parliamentary and bureaucratic system, because bureaucrats were intending to use delay as a tool to circumvent a proper outcome—that proper outcome being to achieve a safe educational environment for our children. Bureaucratic processes were used to frustrate what the community wanted. Endless delay was used as a tool to attempt to cool community concerns, but unfortunately for the bureaucrats, both state and federal, it did not work. The community would not cop it, because they did not want their kids working at school in a substandard educational environment that was a risk to their health. It was absolutely outrageous.
Then we had this miraculous solution—two weeks before this bill was to be introduced into this House, all of a sudden the impossible became possible. I would like to view it as a happy coincidence that this occurred just a couple of weeks before the bill’s introduction. I would like to think that it was, but unfortunately I think the public are entitled to be cynical. I think the public are entitled to believe that, with the pressure of this bill imminent, the federal government bureaucrats finally saw their way clear to giving an approval which they had said time and time again was not possible. Up until then, we had been given the fairy story that the only solution was coexistence between the high school and the bat colony—a coexistence which, from a practical point of view, was surely not possible. Everyone in the community and at the school knew that, so why did the bureaucrats take this position? Why were they prepared to subject the students of Maclean High School to a health risk when a solution could have been found relatively quickly? Sir Humphrey Appleby would have been proud of the procrastination that these bureaucrats achieved—one year of delay and inaction while the staff, students and surrounding residents suffered.
It has been an absolutely outrageous display which I am pleased to see has finally come to an end, to a degree, with the giving of this approval which will last for five years. However, that five-year period then raises the concern of what happens if this approval were to lapse or what happens when this approval reaches its finality in five years time. Will we have to go through the whole process? Will we have to go through this all again—another year of delay with thousands of bats inhabiting the school? It is absolutely outrageous and that is why I have put this bill forward: to protect the community, to get an outcome on a permanent basis for the students and staff of Maclean High School and the surrounding residents and to get an outcome that is of a common-sense nature. I commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a first time.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
BANKING AMENDMENT (DELIVERING ESSENTIAL FINANCIAL SERVICES) BILL 2010
2152
Bills
R4484
First Reading
2152
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Bandt.
2152
10:28:00
Bandt, Adam, MP
M3C
Melbourne
AG
0
0
Mr BANDT
—Westpac Bank made a profit of $6.4 billion; the Commonwealth Bank, $5.7 billion; the NAB, $4.2 billion; and the ANZ Bank, $4.5 billion. That is $21 billion in profit after tax made by the big four banks, $21 billion in profit made on the back of the worst global recession the world has seen since the Great Depression and $21 billion in profit made while the government continues to provide some guarantees to the banks first provided during the global financial crisis. Enough is enough. The Australian taxpayer backed the banks through the GFC and now it is time the banks gave something back. It is time we put in place adequate regulation to ensure real competition and consumer choice and it is time that we stopped the banks profiteering at the expense of their customers.
Over the last few weeks, we have heard a lot of strong language about the banks from the opposition and the government. We have heard how the banks had ‘kicked sand in the face of the government’ and how the banks were ripping off the Australian people. The Greens too have been critical of the banks. The difference is, however, that we Greens have a concrete proposal for action. This bill I am introducing today is an opportunity for this parliament to take action. I urge the opposition and the government to take this opportunity in both hands and work with the Greens to ensure its passage through the House.
Banking is now an essential service and unless banks are properly regulated they will take unfair advantage of the need for that essential service. It is with this principle in mind that I introduce the Greens bill, the
Banking Amendment (Delivering Essential Financial Services) Bill 2010. This bill will ensure that, whatever other reforms may occur, Australians will have access to basic banking services, including minimising or removing fees from basic services and ensuring mortgage arrangements are transparent and fair for consumers.
The nature of banking services—the kinds of financial products that are offered and the fees that are charged—has a very broad impact on consumers. This bill is necessary because the rights of consumers should be protected by law and not by the self-regulation of the banking industry.
Banks enjoy a position of overwhelming market dominance in Australia, with around 90 per cent of the national market in loans and advances. This kind of market power leaves them free to charge their customers a range of fees that often bear little relationship to the actual or reasonable costs of providing banking services. These sorts of practices have resulted in ever-increasing profits for banks at the expense of their customers.
Australians are spending more on bank fees every year. The Australia Institute puts the figure at around $30 per week for the average person earning around $50,000. Requiring banks to offer basic accounts, in the face of such monumental profit, is a measured and reasonable step for parliament to take.
The first measure that this bill takes is to regulate ATM fees. The bill prohibits banks from charging their own customers for ATM transactions, locking in current practice. It also caps the charge for using another bank’s ATMs at a level sufficient to cover the cost to the bank of the transaction. The most common fee charged for foreign ATM transactions is around $2, yet in 2007 the Reserve Bank of Australia estimated that the average cost to banks for ATM transactions is 75c—less than 40 per cent of the fee they levy upon consumers. The rest is pure profit for the banks. Australians are the second highest per capita ATM users in the world, so the profits the banks make through this premium on ATM transactions are significant.
ATM fees have a disproportionate impact on poorer people, who are more likely to withdraw smaller sums and therefore pay a greater proportion of each withdrawal—and indeed of their income—in ATM fees. The bill’s restrictions on charges for ATM use would address this problem, while still permitting banks to break even on the cost incurred when non-customers use their ATMs.
The bill’s proposed basic transaction account offers banking customers an easy to understand account that provides essential banking services without any hidden profiteering in the form of exploitative fees. It is similar to the accounts some banks choose to offer to low income customers at present, but it will ensure that such accounts offer the same minimum features and are available to all customers of all banks. This represents a return to a simpler banking model where banks benefit from the use of their customers’ money, and in exchange they keep the funds secure and offer the customer secure and convenient access. The only fees that may be levied will be for breaches of contract that the account holder is personally responsible for, and these fees will be purely to recover the cost to the bank of the breach.
It is time for action on interest rates. The bill introduces a requirement that authorised deposit-taking institutions—ADIs—offer ‘fixed interest gap’ mortgages and loans with interest rates fixed at a negotiated percentage above the lender’s cost of funds. The ADI’s cost of funds will be calculated according to a formula approved by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. These loans will protect customers from interest rate fluctuations that are not genuinely caused by changes to the ADI’s cost of funds. In the past, there have been occasions where the RBA has lifted interest rates and the banks have lifted their interest rates even higher. If the ADIs were only passing on increases to their costs, their interest rate rises would be lower than those of the RBA, as a third of their borrowing is done in overseas markets that are unaffected by RBA interest rate hikes. These additional increases would not be possible with fixed interest gap loans. By keeping the lender’s margin on the loan constant, and faithfully passing on changes to the lender’s costs under the supervision of an independent authority, these loans will offer customers greater transparency and reassurance by behaving as customers expect variable rate loans to behave.
Finally, the bill limits mortgage and loan exit fees to the actual and reasonable costs of early repayment and obliges lenders to make consumers aware of the existence and amount of these fees up front. The existence of exit fees must be mentioned in advertising, and they must routinely be included in the mortgage/loan contract under the uniform heading ‘early repayment charges’. Exit fees are presently disclosed in the fine print of mortgage contracts, but this measure will ensure that they can be identified much more easily. They must be given as a dollar amount for variable rate loans, and a plain language explanation of how the fee will be calculated for fixed rate loans—as it is not possible to anticipate the cost of early termination for these loans. These changes would introduce greater transparency to the lending market and remove a significant barrier to greater competition.
In 2008, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission observed that ‘some [exit fees] do not appear to be related to the underlying costs they are purporting to recover’ and ‘the size of these fees might now present a barrier to switching loans’. The fact that many lenders waive exit fees after three or four years does not assist in most cases, as ASIC observed that ‘the average Australian mortgage is terminated or refinanced within approximately three years’. The changes made by the bill reduce this barrier to switching loans and make it easier for unhappy customers to take their business elsewhere, pressuring lenders to offer consumers a better deal or risk losing their business. I welcome moves from certain banks in recent weeks to move towards this system; but, again, it should be law, not self-regulation, that sees an end to unfairly high exit fees.
The provisions of this bill will not prevent banks from offering a range of other financial products. They simply ensure that banking customers also have access to basic, essential, transparent banking services on fair and reasonable terms. The Greens will seek to pursue other measures in the coming period including a two-year freeze on interest rate rises beyond that announced by the Reserve Bank and a requirement for the banks to deliver any interest rate cuts as well. We will also positively examine other proposals that come before the parliament.
In the meantime this bill is an important start on reining in the banks and an opportunity for those who have spoken so loudly in recent weeks to put their money where their mouth is. I commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a first time.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
DEFENCE AMENDMENT (PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL OF OVERSEAS SERVICE) BILL 2010
2155
Bills
R4483
First Reading
2155
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Bandt.
2155
10:38:00
Bandt, Adam, MP
M3C
Melbourne
AG
0
0
Mr BANDT
—The decision to deploy troops overseas into a war zone is always difficult, always dangerous and always important. Such a decision should always demand debate and scrutiny and should be one that Australian citizens can own and be engaged in. Only by returning the power to deploy troops overseas to the most representative branch of government, by requiring both houses of parliament to agree, can sufficient debate and scrutiny exist for a decision to made democratically; for a decision to be as representative of the will of the Australian people as possible.
As we have seen with the parliamentary debate on Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan, each elected representative that has spoken has made worthwhile contributions on behalf of their constituents—constituents who, through their representatives in a democracy such as ours, should have a say in any question to deploy troops. That the Defence Act does not currently allow for that level of decision making, scrutiny and debate on such important questions is, I believe, a failure of democracy. The
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2010
simply requires that such decisions be made not by the executive alone but rather by parliament as a whole.
This bill was initiated by the Democrats and supported by the Australian Greens, who took carriage of the bill after 2007. It is the latest iteration of bills introduced into the Senate in 1985 that aimed to increase the transparency and accountability of governments by involving parliamentary discussion and scrutiny of the decision to deploy Australian military forces to overseas conflicts. It was reintroduced by my party colleague Senator Ludlam in late 2008 and referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in August 2009. The committee, while neglecting to hold a hearing, nonetheless made a useful critique of the bill without undermining its essential purpose, in its report of February 2010. Senator Ludlam’s dissenting report into the bill provided the transcript of an informal ‘hearing’ undertaken subsequent to the majority committee decision not to take evidence directly. I am proud to be the latest in a line of parliamentarians to sponsor a bill with this purpose.
This bill seeks to address the absence of checks and balances on the power of the executive which are characteristic of, and broadly considered essential to, any functioning democracy. Under the Defence Act 1903, the Prime Minister can commit Australian troops to conflict zones without the support of the United Nations, the Australian parliament or the people. The Prime Minister can exercise this power as part of the government’s prerogative powers or through a cabinet decision. The absence of appropriate checks and balances on this decision-making power saw the Australian Prime Minister rapidly deploy troops to an illegal war in Iraq in 2003 without consulting the people’s representatives in parliament. A lesson can and must be learned from this kind of mistake, which is more easily made when a handful of people take closed and secret decisions on behalf of a nation without due consultation or participation. The Howard government was the first government in Australia’s history to go to war without the support of both houses of parliament. This bill provides an opportunity to ensure that this never happens again.
The responsibility of sending Australian men and women into danger and quite possibly to their deaths should not be solely on the shoulders of a handful of leaders, but more broadly shared by policy makers and the public they represent. While citizens do delegate responsibilities to leaders by electing them into power, the democratic system includes an ongoing forum for discussion where leaders must provide reasoning and accounting for their decisions: the parliament. Citizens that do regularly participate and contribute to public debates through engaging their representatives are denied their democratic right to participate in the gravest decision of sending the country to war, which often has implications far into the future.
This bill would bring Australia into conformity with principles and practices utilised in other democracies like Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey, where troop deployment is set down in constitutional or legislative provisions. Some form of parliamentary approval or consultation is also routinely undertaken in Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway. Even our ally the United States has a similar provision that subjects the decision to go to war to a broader forum—section 8 of the US Constitution quite clearly says, ‘Congress shall have power to declare war’.
Arguments against utilising our democratic structures on the important issue of troop deployment made by governments include that it would be impractical, restrictive and inefficient. Such arguments ignore the fact that parliaments can and do make complex and nuanced decisions, rapidly when necessary. While autocracies or dictatorships may well be more speedy and efficient, they are not legitimate or acceptable forms of government. Similarly, decisions about war and peace made in undue haste that do not enjoy the mandate of the population are not legitimate or acceptable, especially when they involve sending Australia’s sons, daughters, fathers and mothers into battle. There are appropriate exemptions made in the bill that do not interfere with the non-warlike overseas service with which Australian troops are engaged. There are also appropriate exemptions in the bill to provide for the practicalities of situations where parliament cannot immediately meet.
The international community supports countries emerging from conflict in a process known as ‘security sector reform’. During this post-conflict reconstruction phase, security forces are retrained and, importantly, decision making is restructured to conform to democratic principles. A core component of regaining public faith in an effective security sector is placing it under democratic control. One standard espoused by the international community is military forces coming under the general rules of parliamentary control, accountability and other procedures seen as important in establishing transparent and legitimate government. It is time that Australia joined its closest allies and like-minded democratic states by involving the parliament in the decision to send troops into battle. I commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a first time.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PAID PARENTAL LEAVE (REDUCTION OF COMPLIANCE BURDEN FOR EMPLOYERS) AMENDMENT BILL 2010
2157
Bills
R4486
First Reading
2157
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Billson.
2157
10:45:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
0
0
Mr BILLSON
—The
Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010
seeks to remove the unnecessary and unjustified administrative and compliance burden that the Gillard government wants to impose on employers as part of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. In June 2010, the parliament passed a Paid Parental Leave scheme, which will come into effect from 1 January 2011.
The PPL scheme provides for eligible recipients to receive up to 18 weeks paid parental leave per child, paid in instalments, at the national minimum wage. Under the government’s scheme, payments will be administered by Centrelink’s Family Assistance Office for the first six months, after which employers will be obliged to receive payments from the Commonwealth for on-forwarding to eligible employees. This government imposition produces needless costs and risks for employers which include the need for employers to become familiarised with their obligations and responsibilities under the government’s scheme; necessary changes to payroll and accounting systems and software; staff training; the receipt, handling, processing and timely payment of instalment amounts; compliance, verification and reporting requirements; and the opportunity costs of the displaced effort and resources all this involves. Significant fines may be imposed on employers who fail to comply with the numerous obligations and compliance requirements imposed under the scheme.
This bill aims to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to remove the ability to impose pay clerk responsibilities on employers. The bill seeks to deliver on the coalition’s election promise to relieve the administrative and compliance burden of Labor’s PPL scheme by ensuring that ‘government will be the paymaster, not business’. This will have the effect of indefinitely maintaining the role of the secretary to administer payments to eligible recipients, via Centrelink’s Family Assistance Office, beyond the first six months of the scheme. Taxpayers are already investing in establishing the PPL scheme machinery to enable Centrelink’s Family Assistance Office to administer the scheme and make payments to eligible recipients. The bill seeks an ongoing benefit from this investment of public money and not just from what the Gillard government characterises as a transitional period designed only to ‘help employers prepare for the scheme’.
The coalition believes that the government expenditure incurred to establish the Centrelink administered PPL system should continue to deliver benefits to the Australian community well beyond the six-month shelf life the Gillard government has arbitrarily determined. It is not surprising that there has been such an outcry against the Gillard Labor government’s demand that employers, both big and small, relieve the government and Centrelink of their responsibility to administer the paid parental leave system. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s 12 October 2010 media statement captured the key concerns with the government’s approach. ACCI chief executive, Peter Anderson, said:
The industrial relations system is already complex enough … without the government adding an unnecessary level of red tape on parental leave.
Mr Anderson went on to say:
It would be simpler and cleaner for the Australian paid parental leave scheme to be wholly run through the Government’s Family Assistance Office, as in New Zealand.
ACCI adds that the benefits of the scheme are not evenly spread and that the ‘three-way merry-go-round’ of eligibility assessment, information exchange and payment handling is not supported by any payment or rebate, unlike the UK system, where ‘the government provides 104.5% of the payment to employers as compensation for administering the system on behalf of the State’.
The Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Western Australia called for reimbursement for the paymaster role as part of its criticism of the government’s PPL pay clerk imposition on employers. The New South Wales Business Chamber CEO, Stephen Cartwright, said in a 12 October 2010 statement that the government funded PPL is ‘social policy that should be run by government and not incorporated into the costs of business’. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland president, David Goodwin, shares the coalition’s view that the Centrelink Family Assistance Office should continue to administer the scheme, saying that ‘any other arrangement would simply be needlessly adding a layer of regulatory burden on businesses that sidetracks them from employing and growing’. The Australian Retailers Association executive director, Russell Zimmerman, hit the nail on the head when he said, ‘For a small retailer, administering the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is a costly, time-consuming administrative nightmare.’
The particular concerns about the government’s approach to smaller employers has been emphasised by the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. VECCI CEO, Wayne Kayler-Thomson, said: ‘Small businesses are not an extension of the federal bureaucracy and it is unreasonable to expect them to administer federal government programs. Small businesses in particular simply do not have the resources to devote to bureaucracy.’ COSBOA executive director, Peter Strong, astutely picked up how the government’s decision to impose the PPL pay clerk responsibilities on smaller employers shows that the government ‘does not value the time and effort put into the economy by small business by continuing with this’.
The government itself recognises the additional burden it is imposing and how it lands most heavily and disproportionately on small business people. The needless costs, red tape burdens and compliance risks are particularly problematic for smaller employers without dedicated payroll staff and settled software and systems where upgrades are rare or not routine. The Gillard Labor government’s justifications and explanations for the imposition of the PPL pay clerk role on employers are simply feeble and completely unpersuasive.
Minister Macklin told this parliament in June that the employer as PPL pay clerk element of the government’s scheme:
… was recommended by the Productivity Commission as it sends a very strong message that taking leave from work around the time of a birth is a normal part of work and family life.
This opportunity and the need for time to be spent with a newborn is not new or contested. Relevant leave provisions have been available for some time and paid parental leave is commonplace in many larger workplaces in the public sector. Was Ms Macklin’s remark targeted at smaller employers? Robert Mallett, the Executive Director of the Tasmanian Small Business Council, in his 17 June 2010 statement, said:
Small business owners know their staff very well and don’t need this contrived mechanism to ensure that their pregnant staff are more connected with the business.
Mr Mallett added:
It is the owner and their family who will visit the mother and baby in hospital, it is the owner and family who will provide presents for them and it is the owner and their family who will watch their staff members family grow up.
Employees in small business are not numbers, they are people yet the Government can’t seem to grasp this basic concept.
Even more remarkable is the ACTU claim that relieving employers of the red tape cost and compliance burden of the PPL pay clerk role will somehow ‘weaken women’s connection to the workplace’. What a nonsense argument. Nebulous Gillard Labor government attempts to frame PPL payments in some kind of way that ignores workplace reality is no justification for the very real and costly red tape burdens and compliance obligations this government seeks to impose on employers.
The Productivity Commission’s analysis and cautious on-balance conclusion that the government seeks to rely upon for support is framed in a ‘staying close’ and ‘signalling benefits’ argument which has been hotly contested by employer groups in the commission’s final report. The government has not even included any compensation for employers doing the government’s job that is a feature of some of the schemes that were referred to as case studies. Only Labor would think a compliance burden, costly red tape and needless bureaucratic distractions would be more likely to bring an employee with a newborn closer to their workplace than messages of congratulations, bouquets and gift baby baskets from employers and colleagues.
Without the common good sense that this bill seeks to inject, the government’s administrative arrangements for this system show Labor spin triumphing over substantive concerns. Even Centrelink’s own employer implementation consultations appear to have given up trying to argue that this burden is not substantial. Now it seeks to argue that there will not be too many employers affected by it and that somehow this makes it okay. Well, it does not. Allowing the government to develop payment and administrative arrangements that drop small business right into the paid parental leave obligations and duties simply sets up the machinery to fit up small business to pay the cost of fixing the shortcomings of Labor’s flawed scheme. This is a downstream risk for employers carrying out this PPL paymaster role.
The bill that the coalition provides was originally agreed to by the Senate and was part of the coalition’s small business election policy. The government refused to accept the Senate’s mind and will, imposing its own bullying tactics to ram through this system under the threat of the whole PPL scheme not progressing unless the government got its way. The only certain way of reducing the compliance burden pay clerk costs and the risks of additional payroll related expenses is for the parliament to pass the coalition’s bill.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY BILL 2010
2159
Bills
R4481
Consideration resumed from 25 October.
Second Reading
2159
2159
10:56:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This
bill
concerns the largest infrastructure investment in our nation’s history—$43 billion, 3¼ per cent of GDP. It beggars belief that a government could be so reckless as to allow such a massive investment to proceed without the publication of a business case, without the ongoing scrutiny of a parliamentary committee and, above all, without a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Again and again, this government has stated the vital importance of major projects being the subject of a cost-benefit analysis. In the words of its leading economic adviser, the Treasury Secretary, Dr Henry:
Any major infrastructure project must be subject to a rigorous cost benefit analysis and if it does not pass a rigorous cost benefit analysis then it necessarily detracts from Australia’s wellbeing.
This government even set up Infrastructure Australia for the express purpose of prioritising and analysing major infrastructure projects. An essential element in Infrastructure Australia’s process is a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of the projects being considered, but the largest infrastructure project will not be scrutinised by Infrastructure Australia or anybody else.
Everybody agrees on the core policy objective of universally available and affordable broadband. We believe that this should be achieved in a manner which delivers structural reform to the telecommunications sector and promotes greater competition which is fair to Telstra shareholders and, above all, which imposes the lowest cost on taxpayers. A prudent government would have sought an objective analysis of the various ways and means of achieving those objectives—but not this one. Some people have argued that while the NBN is surely the most expensive way of delivering universal broadband—and I would challenge honourable members to think of a more expensive way—it does at least achieve the objectives I have described. That, of course, is an argument that is only attractive to people to whom cost is no object and who fail to recognise that every billion dollars spent unnecessarily on this infrastructure project is a billion dollars that cannot be spent wisely on an infrastructure project that is of greater real need—be it a road, a school, a hospital, a railway line or a water project. But even the assumption that the NBN achieves those objectives is questionable. How do we deliver a more competitive telecom sector by establishing a gigantic government owned, fixed-line monopoly with which owners of other fixed-line networks will be prevented from competing? Let us not forget this: under the NBN scheme, Telstra will not be permitted to compete for broadband or voice services over its HFC network, which passes 30 per cent of Australian households. That vital piece of competitive infrastructure, which could be deployed to keep prices low from the NBN, will be eliminated purely to support the economics of this government owned monopoly.
Already the NBN is under fire from other telco companies and, most significantly the Western Australian, South Australian and Tasmanian governments for its plan of limiting the points of interconnect to its network to as few as 14—all in capital cities—overbuilding billions of dollars of fibre backhaul infrastructure and essentially rendering it worthless and, as a consequence, reducing the amount of competition in those regional areas which were supposed to be the primary beneficiaries. You do not have to take the opposition’s word for this. This is the Tasmanian Labor government, the South Australian Labor government and, of course, the coalition government in Western Australia making precisely these points, as do a range of other telco companies.
Why do we imagine a new monopoly network costing $43 billion will not seek to recover a return on its investment by using its monopoly power to increase internet access costs? We know they have been coming down year on year for well over a decade, but the McKinsey implementation study states that internet access costs under the NBN will increase in real terms year after year. So we are spending $43 billion of taxpayers’ money to provide universal broadband which will be more expensive than it is today.
This issue of affordability is a critical one. One would have thought that the members on the government side of the chamber would be more alert to this. Only 43 per cent of households with incomes less than $40,000 use the internet at home, according to the latest ABS numbers. There is the digital divide. It is based on income, it is based on affordability, it is based on poverty. Yet the government is proposing to create a government owned monopoly which will be massively capitalised and which will actually increase the cost of internet services, thereby worsening the digital divide and reducing the affordability of internet access to Australian households. I might say that households with incomes of $120,000 a year or more have about 95 per cent internet access at home. There is a massive gulf in terms of income and that is the single biggest fault line in the digital divide in internet access. This government’s plan is going to make that worse.
Only yesterday the OECD expressed its real concern about the way in which the NBN will close out facilities based competition in fixed-line broadband services. Their report states:
Multiple empirical studies have stressed the value of competition … Moreover, such a monopolistic incumbent—
such as the NBN—
could forestall the development of, as yet unknown, superior technological alternatives.
The OECD expressly recommends that competition between technologies be maintained, not suppressed, as is the plan with the NBN. The OECD also criticises the government for its failure to conduct a cost-benefit analysis and expressly recommends that the planning and coordination of public infrastructure be improved by independent, rigorous published cost-benefit analyses.
What is the argument against the cost-benefit analysis that we are seeking, through this bill, to have conducted by the Productivity Commission? What is the objection that Senator Conroy provides? He says that cost-benefit analyses are subjective. If that is a fatal flaw, why does the government advocate their use for all other infrastructure projects? Put another way, if the government believes a cost-benefit analysis is needed for $100 million worth of road infrastructure, why is it not needed for a $43 billion NBN? He says it will be expensive. The most expensive study done by the Productivity Commission last year cost $2 million. It has a $36 million budget. It can well accommodate this study within that budget and yet this minister, Senator Conroy, spent $25 million of taxpayers’ money not doing a cost-benefit analysis with McKinsey. It was something so extraordinary that McKinsey actually flagged in the opening paragraphs of their report that it was not a cost-benefit analysis. Of course, this is a $43 billion project.
He says it will hold things up—absolutely untrue. The Productivity Commission’s work would continue while the building of the network in its experimental demonstration sites goes on. He points to the importance of ending the vertical integration of Telstra’s customer access network with its retail business. That is one of the outcomes of the NBN, but surely this is the most expensive way of achieving it. If vertical integration is the problem, then separation—be it functional or structural—is the answer and it is plain that you do not need to trash the existing customer access network and build a completely new one to deliver that.
Finally, he points to other studies which have extolled the virtues of universal broadband. We all agree with that, but that is like pointing to the general virtues of better public transport as a means to justify any particular investment that has anything to do with public transport. But the case he is putting privately to Independent members is a very different one. He is saying that the Productivity Commission will not give the NBN a tick. He says that he knows the NBN does not stack up economically and that it will fail the Productivity Commission’s test. There is a vital interest in us having real accountability on this project and that is why the objects of this bill—a business case, a Productivity Commission cost-benefit analysis and ongoing parliamentary scrutiny—are absolutely critical if this House is to fulfil its duty of safeguarding the interests of the taxpayers of Australia.
2162
11:06:00
Rowland, Michelle, MP
159771
Greenway
ALP
0
0
Ms ROWLAND
—Let us be clear about one thing. This
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
is not about accountability. The opposition cannot come into this House and say they support universal broadband, that they support equality of opportunity, when all that is being done here is simply a deliberate attempt to make sure that the NBN is not delivered to people in Riverstone in my electorate, is not delivered to people who have never had any proper access to internet in their own homes. You cannot come into this place and say that you support these objectives but you do not support the NBN. Why is that? Let us look at the other countries in the world and in our region who are doing this, let us look at how ICT is transforming people’s lives and their economies. I will talk in a few minutes about examples such as Korea. This is the model, this is the 21st century solution—not some 20th century solution for a problem that has not been fixed after 18 attempts by the opposition when in government. I also point out that the member for Wentworth mentioned the OECD report. The day that I take advice from an OECD report that tells us we should increase the GST will be a long day indeed. I also note that during the commentary on this debate we have had a lot of agreement with people like Carlos Slim. We had the richest telco bloke in the world come out and tell us he could build it for a lot less. I am not about to take advice from Carlos Slim, who ran Telmex, which is the only case that went to the WTO for anticompetitive conduct. I am not about to take advice on this point from either the OECD, which advises we increase the GST, or from people who have form in delivering anticompetitive conduct.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—What about Ken Henry? Put the boot into Ken!
159771
Rowland, Michelle, MP
Ms ROWLAND
—The member for Wentworth interjects. He talked about the affordability gulf. I will tell you what that affordability gulf is. For the regional members here, let us talk about your gulf. Look at the electoral divisions ranked by the proportion of households with a broadband internet connection. I know I have brought this up before, but for the benefit of the member for Cowper, he is still the 20th worst since we were last here. You talk about the affordability gulf. Why is that? It is because the regulatory system in Australia is busted, and it is not going to get better unless we develop a wholesale only, access network—surprise!—which is what the NBN will be. It will be delivering competitive retail prices on a real level playing field that has only been talked about but never done before. This is what will destroy the affordability gulf. This is what will make sure that the member for Lyne does not have the 18th worst electoral division ranking for broadband internet connection. It will make sure that the member for New England does not have the 13th worst. The member for Wentworth has number 144 out of 150. That is one thing I can definitely see—he would certainly be an expert on this because he is the sixth best. We also have the member for Bradfield, who will contribute here; he is, as I have said previously, the best of all.
We come here today talking about what belief we have. The member for Wentworth says that we all believe in the same thing. I do not think we do. I believe in something that those opposite do not. I believe in the transformational power of ICT to drive total factor productivity, to increase educational opportunities and jobs and to actually benefit the lives of individuals. That is the reality of the information age. ICT around the world is driving growth. ICT capital has seven times the impact on productivity than non-ICT capital in nations with lower levels of ICT usage and around three times more in other nations. ICT leads to jobs growth. Firms in low- and middle-income countries that use more ICT have faster sales and jobs growth as well as higher productivity growth. Most telling of all is that, of all telecommunications infrastructures, broadband has the highest impact on economic growth. Where does that leave us? Where is Australia standing today? We are in the bottom half of the OECD countries in terms of broadband take-up. We are paying more for broadband than most OECD countries. We are 35th for quality of competition in internet service provision. We have to do better.
What is the option? The option is to do nothing, according to the opposition. It is a do nothing option. We have not seen any other constructive analysis or constructive plans from the opposition about what they would do to remedy this. I will address at this point the fact that the member for Wentworth talks about the amount of investment. Let us look at the amount of investment in a few comparative telco infrastructure developments in Australia. The estimated cost to the public purse in today’s dollars of the 1870 Overland Telegraph is $0.9 billion. What does that equate to? It actually equates to $5,365 per person. In 1950, the customer access network, the CAN, was built. The estimated cost today of that is $10 billion. The estimated cost per head of population in today’s figures is $1,222. In 2010 the estimated cost to the public purse of the NBN in today’s dollars is $27 billion. That is the public contribution. With an Australian population of 22.4 million, guess what it comes out as? The estimated cost per head of population is actually the lowest—$1,204 per person. So how anyone can come in here and say that this is the biggest expenditure and yet we are not going to get a return on it, simply defies belief. What has been so disappointing in this debate is the campaign of uninformed armchair commentary that we have had about this. No answers and limited analysis. I will point out this: I went to the Liberal Party website today to see whether they had any plan, just to see whether they were going to come out with something new this week in their debate. But no, we still have the same policy—the coalition will cancel the NBN regardless of what happens in any cost-benefit analysis, regardless of what happens with any study. These people will oppose it. It simply will not happen under these people.
This is not about transparency. The opposition has no right to come in here and take the high moral ground. I think it is the ultimate insult to the Australian people, and to future Australians who are going to read these proceedings and write theses on this issue, that this debate about the most significant infrastructure project in Australia’s history has been so lacking and so fixated on 12 megabits per second. The commentary is so fixated on people being asked whether they want faster email or faster YouTube downloads. During the break there was a significant announcement on e-health about technologies and how this government is going to be utilising the NBN to drive the treatment of diseases in people’s homes. They are actually going to be able to deliver health services that simply cannot be delivered any other way. Does this appear on anyone’s radar here? No, it does not.
I also ask those opposite this: how much have they been speaking and listening to young people in their electorates? Well, during the break I did, and I will give one example. I went to St Joseph’s Primary School in Schofields during the break. I went and talked to years 5 and 6. They asked me about the NBN more than any other series of questions. They asked when they were going to get it at home, because they know that Riverstone is the site of the first rollout. They were full of questions about download speeds and how much better it is going to be when they get the NBN. I even had someone ask a question on net neutrality, which is one of the most complex regulatory issues that every regulator in the world is dealing with. I was asked about net neutrality by these young people.
L6B
Fletcher, Paul, MP
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
159771
Rowland, Michelle, MP
Ms ROWLAND
—Now if the member for Bradfield does not listen to young people, that is fine, but I have been listening to these people and I can go back to my electorate and look these people in the eye and say: ‘Yes, I do want to get this delivered for you. Yes, I do believe that you have a right to have the highest quality broadband services.’ I will also point out the importance of broadband for inclusion and the importance of broadband, through a ubiquitous network such as the NBN, for people with a disability. I quote Kip Meek of the Broadband Stakeholder Group in the UK—and anyone who has met Kip Meek would know of his intelligence in this area—who says that next generation broadband would improve the potential for videocommunication to compensate for reduced mobility and enhance communication for those who are deaf or hard of hearing by providing facial cues and sign language which require high definition and high frame rates. These are things which can only be delivered through a ubiquitous fibre broadband network. For those opposite who think that wireless is the solution, I say it is Physics 101 that nothing is faster than the speed of light and the only thing that is going to carry that is a fibre network. Wireless networks, by contrast, are shared resources with shared spectrum. You will never be able to deliver through wireless the benefits that you will be able to deliver through the NBN. To those who come here and say that this is about transparency and holding the government to account, I say it is not about that at all. If you support jobs, if you support productivity and if you support a 21st century solution for problems that will not go away, then you will reject this bill and let the NBN proceed.
2164
11:16:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. It is necessary for the coalition to introduce this private member’s bill because the government is refusing to subject the National Broadband Network project to independent scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. One would have to ask the members opposite why they fear scrutiny so much. If this project is going to stand up they should be welcoming scrutiny and they should be welcoming oversight but, in fact, we get the members opposite carping about the technological benefits without reference to the actual cost and the return that would be made.
It was interesting to see the member for Greenway talking about the required contribution by the government and the presumed contribution that was going to be made by the private sector. That certainly anticipates that there will be substantial revenues generated sufficiently to warrant private sector investment. Well, let me tell you that the private sector is not going to invest unless the project stacks up. If I were a major private sector investor, I would want to have the comfort of a Productivity Commission inquiry, of a proper analysis of the revenues that this project would deliver and the risks that it would subject my investment to. But this government rejects that notion.
The legislation is not an attempt to delay the NBN. Faster and more reliable broadband has the support of both sides of parliament. It is clear in my electorate and others across regional Australia that better broadband services are needed to improve investment and to lower the digital divide between cities and regional areas. This bill is an attempt by the coalition to ensure that the scheme is financially accountable and targeted to those areas desperately in need of improved broadband. In its first term, the Rudd-Gillard government wasted record amounts of taxpayers’ money. For the home insulation debacle and the BER scheme they have a gold medal in waste and we want to ensure that they do not go for a further gold medal in relation to the NBN project. These programs followed a common theme. They were rushed through without scrutiny and without ongoing oversight of spending.
The recent Australian National Audit Office report into the home insulation scheme issued a warning about how this government spends money and certainly cast very great aspersions on the government’s ability to manage programs. It is vitally important that the NBN program be appropriately managed. But the Rudd-Gillard government has form in mismanagement and has form in waste. Despite the project’s budget and despite the importance of broadband services, the government is refusing to release a business plan, is refusing to do a cost-benefit analysis and is refusing to allow parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, the government has expressly sought to avoid any inquiries into the NBN through the Public Works Committee. Through regulations registered in July, no aspect of the NBN can come before this committee. The explanatory memorandum to those regulations suggests that an inquiry would place NBN Co. at a competitive disadvantage because its plans would be publicly scrutinised. This excuse is nothing more than a smokescreen. NBN Co. is constructing a wholesale monopoly and is systematically removing any competitive threats. There are no competition reasons preventing the government from conducting the NBN rollout transparently and with full scrutiny. In contrast, competition in the industry would benefit from more details of the NBN to ensure regulatory certainty on the telecommunications playing field. The only possible reason for avoiding scrutiny must be, quite clearly, that Labor has something to hide. Perhaps this is why the government is removing potential competition to the NBN, because it knows that the business plan is unviable in a competitive environment.
The OECD reported yesterday, in their economic surveys of Australia, that ‘such a monopolistic incumbent’—that is, NBN Co.—‘could forestall the development of, as yet unknown, superior technological alternatives’. The report went on to say that, given the cost and impact on competition, ‘additional efforts for rigour and transparency would be welcome’. That is the OECD being very concerned about the restrictions that this government is placing on competition in the market. We know that competition will be a major driver of lower prices and improved services, not the creation of a protected government monopoly delivered at great cost to the taxpayer with benefits yet to be determined.
(Time expired)
2165
11:21:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—Today I speak against the coalition’s proposal, the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. I have here a map of the member for Wentworth’s electorate showing that so many of the people who live in his electorate live within two kilometres of an exchange. I also have here a map of central Ipswich. Its people cannot get access to the kind of broadband we need. I represent the rural and regional parts of Ipswich as well as the area of Somerset, and I know that is why we need the National Broadband Network.
Before the 2007 election I got Geoscience Australia to provide me with a map which showed the consequences of the failure of the coalition with respect to the broadband plans they took to the 2007 election. Great swathes of my electorate were not covered by their proposals; yet here, with Labor’s proposal in Springfield Lakes in my electorate—and of course in the member for Oxley’s electorate—we will see the National Broadband Network rolled out into that area next year.
But some country towns in my electorate would not get coverage under the opposition’s proposals—places like Coominya, Fernvale, Esk, Toogoolawah, Kilcoy, Lowood. They had 19 failed plans—not interested in the National Broadband Network, always opposed to it. This bill and the member for Wentworth’s other motion in the last couple of weeks are all about his own relevance. He is here to do a job on the National Broadband Network—always opposed to it; that is what this is about. Yet in those country towns and in Ipswich in my electorate, small businesses, farmers, schoolkids and those people that need and deserve a broadband network will get it. The coalition has always been opposed to it.
We had the member for Cowper saying, ‘We’re not trying to delay it.’ It is just nonsense. They are opposed to it. It is in their DNA. It is almost like their opposition to our fair work reforms and trade union. It is like Work Choices. Their opposition to the National Broadband Network is in their DNA. I cannot understand why they are so opposed to it.
We are talking about 25,000 jobs. We are talking about my electorate and electorates across the country being covered by the kind of fibre-to-the-premises that we need. We know we are lagging behind. Those people who have got broadband pay too much for it. Not enough people have coverage. It is too slow. Go to Korea. Go to places like that. You will see how fast the downloads are and how broad the coverage is. Yet in our country, one of the richest countries in the world, the coalition in this place is rolling out what they knew very well was a failed policy of $6.3 billion.
They know this is all about politics. This is not about economic development productivity. This is not about helping regional and rural Australia. This is about making the member for Wentworth relevant. This is about the coalition posing, preening and posturing to help small business. This is about their facade of economic responsibility when in fact they have been economically irresponsible. They parade themselves as the bastions and supporters of small business when they know very well that small businesses will benefit greatly from the National Broadband Network.
What about e-health? Their policy was to scrap e-health. E-health is so integrated with the National Broadband Network and so vital for regional and rural South-East Queensland and across the country, yet the coalition comes in here and opposes it.
Paul Heymans is a businessman in the Somerset region. He has made it very clear—and so have all the councils—in an article he wrote in the
Somerset
newspaper about why the Somerset region, my electorate, needs a national broadband network. The catchment is simply so important. The local economy and small businesses simply need to be able to compete nationally. Whether you are living in Toogoolawah or Toorak, you need the National Broadband Network because it is vital in helping you to compete. We have got all the councils: the Lockyer Valley Regional Council and the Scenic Rim Council in the electorate of Wright, the Ipswich City Council, and the Somerset Regional Council—all in South-East Queensland—urging the National Broadband Network into their area; demanding we bring it in, yet the coalition simply opposes it. This is not about looking for better costings and value for money; this is about opposition for opposition’s sake. (Time expired)
2167
11:26:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
0
0
Mrs GASH
—Firstly, I would like to commend my colleague the member for Wentworth for his determination in bringing the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
before the House. The NBN, even from its inception, which I suspect was first scribbled on the back of a serviette as a big ticket item for Labor’s 2007 election campaign, has a paucity of detail. For three years, this government and its minister have nailed the lid shut on a project that is said will cost the Australian taxpayer in the vicinity of $43 billion and take a decade to implement. So far all we have is no more than a mud map.
This bill seeks to unlock the book on what started off as a proposition in 2007 that would only cost $4.7 billion. Is NBN destined to go down the same path as the pink batts fiasco, the gross overspending on school halls and libraries, cleverly yet misleadingly described as Building the Education Revolution or BER? Peter Reuhl, writing in the
Financial Review
on Remembrance Day, said this of the BER:
The
BER has been one of those dogs
that just won’t hunt but still needs to be fed.
Will the NBN add to the pack? The cost of the NBN is equivalent to half the debt they generated when previously in government. That is one concern. Of greater concern is allowing this government to exploit their role to create a monopoly which they will be in control of. While this government, straight-faced, rails against the oligopoly of the big four banks and the need for greater competition, they are working hard to create their very own monopoly—a monopoly that will control one of the most vital arteries in the nation’s communication network. Yet Labor, in their campaign manifesto, published in March 2007, which they took to the people, and got elected on the strength of their promises, said this—and I quote directly from the policy document:
A Rudd Labor Government will;
Partner with the private sector to deliver the national broad band network over 5 years.
Undertake a competitive assessment of proposals from the private sector to build the network
Ensure competition in the sector through an open access network that provides equivalence of access charges and scope for access seekers to differentiate their product offerings
Put in place regulatory reforms to ensure certainty for investment; and
Make public equity investment of up to $4.7 billion.
The document goes on to say:
… this commitment will be financed from existing government investment in communications, including the $2 billion Communications Fund and through the Future Fund’s 17% share in Telstra, which will earn dividends and be sold down to normal market level after November 2008.
What started off as a ‘you beaut’ idea, the best thing since sliced bread, is now being marketed as something that may turn out to be considerably less than what was first described. The first revelation that greeted us was that not everyone is going to get it. Any community with less than 1,000 is disqualified. That is a real concern to me because, when that little snippet was revealed, I found Gilmore had about 22 little towns and villages that would be left behind. The latest revelation is that rather than being free, the NBN is going to cost each household that gets it somewhere between several hundred and several thousand dollars per household.
They have also refused to refer the NBN to their own, newly created specialist infrastructure agency, Infrastructure Australia. The biggest infrastructure investment in our nation’s history is not being scrutinized by this body. Why is that? The Governor-General signed a decree that exempted the NBN from being overseen by the Public Works Committee. Why is that?
Residents, organisations and businesses alike want a fast, reliable and competitive broadband service. While I am happy for the 74 per cent of homes in Kiama Downs and Minnamurra in the electorate of Gilmore to be among the first to be signed up to the National Broadband Network, there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. As a start point, how much is it going to cost each household? By comparison, broadband upgrade in America will cost the government $7 billion. Why does our scheme have to cost so much more?
In Tasmania, where the government’s NBN scheme was trialled, there has been a low take-up rate. NBN’s response to the Tasmanian experience was that NBN advocated compulsory connection, whether the consumer wanted it or not, and forced people to pay for a product they did not want or did not need. Yesterday’s
Sun Herald
reported that three towns in Tasmania had a take-up rate of only 11 per cent.
Mike Quigley, CEO of NBN Co., claimed in Senate estimates that the rollout of the NBN in Tasmania was on time and on budget. Yet, when quizzed what the cost had been, Quigley would not reveal any facts. The transition of this bill will allow the whole NBN proposal to be analysed and dissected—factually, objectively, openly and honestly. Let it be said on the record that I welcome the coalition’s push to have a joint standing committee oversee the rollout of the NBN and would certainly put my hand up to be a part of it.
I remind the House again that this government does not have a good track record when it comes to developing good policy or rolling it out. The coalition will not delay the construction of the NBN but simply seeks to ensure this enormous endeavour is carried out with the rigorous analysis it deserves. I commend the bill to the House.
2168
11:31:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
1
0
Ms BIRD
—I do not support the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. I notice my colleague the member for Gilmore says that something factual and logical in this debate would progress the issue. I welcome that from the other side for once. The argument in this bill is all about a cost-benefit analysis. We know full well the context in which this legislation is being put forward: that the member for Wentworth’s riding instructions on taking on his shadow portfolio were ‘go out and destroy the NBN’. That is the context within which this bill sits.
The reality is that in some seats, as my colleague indicated before, we are constantly contacted by people frustrated and annoyed because they cannot get access to broadband. The fact is that those opposite when in government had 18 attempts to get this right and they failed. I profoundly believe that the ubiquitous rollout of fibre across the nation is the most effective way to go and competition between service providers to provide access to that is the most effective way to go. One of the reasons I believe this is due to the fact that I had a trip to Silicon Valley with a parliamentary committee last year and we met with people at Cisco and Google, and the message we got at that time was that this was definitely the way to go. Why? Because the experience in America with competition on the infrastructure side of the rollout of broadband was that it became a dog’s breakfast. Companies would provide infrastructure in particular areas and it would not be compatible with infrastructure in other areas. What was supposed to be competition on the retail side to provide services was being limited because whoever put in your infrastructure had designed it in such a way that you had to use their retail services.
In time, people will look back at this debate—and I think people like the member for Wentworth know this—and say: ‘What on earth were they thinking? How short-sighted were they being?’ My colleague the member for Greenway outlined the rollout of telegraphic services and telephony services in this country as an example. We would never have seen that happen if the sorts of arguments being put forward now by those opposite had been made at the time. We would all be sitting here without a telephone, without the capacity to telegraph each other, if the short-sighted views on the rollout of transformative infrastructure of those opposite had been in place at that point in time. Sometimes we have to look to the future in a significant way and we have to do it in a way that allows a role for government in laying down the foundations for transformative infrastructure. That is what the National Broadband Network is about.
Only a couple of weeks ago I spoke in this parliament about a local company in my area—an international stock exchange company that operates from a home based business with offices in both North America and Europe. The gentleman who runs the company had spoken to the local paper about his frustration with existing broadband services. He provided a simple example—a telephone hook-up for all his offices around the world. He had all the offices lined up, everybody was in place for the hook-up—you can imagine the challenge with the different time zones—and he had to upload a document for them all to work off. The line kept cutting out and shutting down, and in the end they abandoned the attempt to have a telephone hook-up. Businesses in Australia that want to connect to world trade know that the rollout of a fibre network is critically important. It has the capacity to transform our economies, and no more so than in the regions.
In an area like my electorate, one of the biggest challenges is transport infrastructure, partly because we have one of the biggest commuter bases in New South Wales. My colleague from the Central Coast would have a similar story to tell. Approximately 20,000 people a day commute from the Illawarra to Sydney and to Western Sydney for work. A lot of those are back-office jobs—finance jobs and HR jobs. If those people could get secure, fast network access from home, the reality could well be a transformation in the way they work. They could actually work from home two or three days a week. The National Broadband Network has the capacity to transform the way we live. I think the member for Wentworth knows that and this is his cheap option to attack under instruction.
(Time expired)
2169
11:36:00
Fletcher, Paul, MP
L6B
Bradfield
LP
1
0
Mr FLETCHER
—Today’s debate is not, as those opposite would have us believe, about whether an improved broadband infrastructure for Australia is a good thing. Of course an improved broadband infrastructure for Australia is a good thing. Today’s debate is precisely about this question: is it a good idea, in advance of committing $43 billion of taxpayers’ money, to require a business case which meets normal commercial standards and to require a cost-benefit study to be conducted by the well-respected organisation the Productivity Commission? That is the question before the House, and I want to make three points in the brief time available to me.
Firstly, to conduct a cost-benefit study is a manifestly sensible thing that should be done with this regulatory initiative as it should be done with every substantial regulatory initiative. Secondly, it is not true that the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
will involve any slowdown in the building of the National Broadband Network. Thirdly, a circumstance as we have here—where the executive government has manifestly failed to live up to reasonable standards of transparent decision making; where it has manifestly failed to live up to its own standards as to how the case for an enormous project of this kind ought to be made—is surely precisely the kind of instance where the parliament should step in to insist on a higher standard of scrutiny. If the new paradigm means anything, it means that these are circumstances in which the parliament should step in to require that a cost-benefit study be conducted.
My first point is that it is widely accepted that a cost-benefit study is a good discipline to undertake before any major regulatory initiative. I quote the Commonwealth government’s
Best Practice Regulation Handbook, which says:
The Australian Government is committed to the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to assess regulatory proposals to encourage better decision making.
The second point I make is that this is not about delay. Let us be clear. To date, 4,000 premises have been passed by the network in Tasmania. A further 10,000 will be passed by mid-July next year. These are tiny fractions of the proposed complete network build of 10 million premises, and on the mainland much less has been done than in Tasmania. So there would be no prospect of this bill materially slowing down the build of the network even if it were the case—as it is not—that this bill in any way required that the build be suspended while the cost-benefit analysis went on. It does not. Simply, this bill is designed to ask: is the way that we are proceeding the most sensible way to build a broadband network? For example, clause 5(2)(b) requires:
… a consideration of the different options by which broadband services of particular speeds could be made available to all Australians …
and—
an estimate of the likely time frame and cost of each option;
In other words, the outcome of this work will not be a simple yes or no. If it finds, for example, that the present model cannot be justified in terms of the benefits that are delivered for the costs, there may very well be other models which emerge. It is not at all the case that this is about stopping broadband; it is simply about saying, ‘Before we embark on this huge project let’s do some standard analysis to see whether the design of it is sensible.’
My third point is that this is precisely the kind of circumstance where a new paradigm parliament should step in to insist on a higher standard of scrutiny. I quote what the member for Lyne said on 7 September in talking about outcomes from negotiations he and other Independents had held with the Labor Party:
That is a good and big outcome from this process, and one that hopefully demonstrates this is not going to be a weak parliament, this is going to be a strong parliament.
Those are important sentiments. This should be a strong parliament. Ordinarily when an executive government had manifestly failed to live up to its own standards, to its own stated principles, as to how a project of this scale ought to be carried out there would be nothing this parliament could do. But these are not ordinary times. We do have a parliament which has the capacity to impose the proper discipline on this executive government to require that there be a cost-benefit study before this massive expenditure is committed to, and I commend the bill to the House for that reason.
2171
11:41:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
0
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—I rise to oppose the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. Madam Deputy Speaker, let us be fair dinkum in this debate: the coalition went to the last election saying they opposed an NBN and all their actions since then have been about trying to frame an argument around how they can demolish, how they can knock off, an NBN. They are very much on their own; they are very much isolated in the approach that they have taken.
We have just heard from the member for Bradfield that if we went through a Productivity Commission review we might actually come up with another model. That would make No. 19. We would have 19 different models if we had another one come from the coalition. They had 12 years in government and what was their solution? It was, ‘Let’s come up with another plan.’ Basically, there is another plan every half-year. They say: ‘Let’s try to put as many plans as we can in place. That will justify us doing nothing in relation to making sure we have fast broadband in Australia.’
The electorate that I represent, Dobell, is on the New South Wales Central Coast. It has over 35,000 people who commute to Sydney every day. We have higher unemployment on the Central Coast than in other areas of Australia. The reason people commute to Sydney is that it is where the jobs are, and one of the reasons the jobs are not on the Central Coast is that we do not have access to fast-speed broadband. One commentator on the Central Coast who is very much a friend of the Liberal Party is now actually leading a campaign to see the NBN rolled out on the Central Coast as fast as it possibly can be. Mr Edgar Adams writes for the
Central Coast Business Review—not a Labor-friendly magazine by any stretch of the imagination. His analysis of the difference between the parties is quite simple. He said:
There is no question that here on the Coast and across the nation the lack of policies and ignorance of the difference between fibre optic and wireless communications cost the Liberals government.
He is now leading a campaign to make sure that the Central Coast, like other areas of Australia, gets access through the NBN to fast broadband. The alternative we are given is to try to stop, to delay, to make sure that the NBN does not come about. Not only is it the coalition’s policy to oppose the NBN but also they have done everything they possibly can to stand in the way of Australians getting fast access to broadband. It may be all right if you live in the city where you have sufficient broadband access to conduct business, but certainly on the Central Coast—and I know that the member for Robertson, my colleague from the Central Coast, will also speak in this debate—we do not have access to fast broadband and that is affecting our economic development. Businesses avoid coming to the Central Coast because they cannot get broadband access there. The business park at Tuggerah has slow broadband. The answer is to make sure that we get the NBN in place and operational.
In calling for a cost-benefit analysis, the coalition do not come to this argument with clean hands. Where were they in relation to cost-benefit analysis when they were in government? Where were they in relation to the Adelaide-Darwin railway, the privatisation of Telstra or even the OPEL regional broadband plan? Where were their cost-benefit analyses then? The reason they did not do cost-benefit analyses then and the reason they are calling for one now is that their motive is not about a cost-benefit analysis. Their motive is only about delaying and stopping the rollout of the NBN. It was their policy at the last election. They said, ‘We are opposed to the NBN.’ They remain opposed to the NBN. The bill before parliament at the moment is a stunt, an exercise to make sure they can demolish the NBN and deny people from my region fast access to broadband, economic growth that will flow from broadband and jobs that will flow from broadband. The coalition is trying to strangle the Australian economy and the member for Wentworth should be ashamed that he is using this bill to promote his own self-interests when he knows, better than most, that the National Broadband Network is in Australia’s best interests. This bill must be opposed.
2172
11:47:00
Prentice, Jane, MP
217266
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mrs PRENTICE
—I speak in support of the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010.
It is about time the facts and fiction of broadband and NBN Co. were set out for the Australian people because the NBN Co. proposal is a charade borne out of politics and spin, borne out of a populist government determined to promise whatever it takes to hold on to power—a grand promise produced to generate votes, regardless of the real cost to the Australian people.
Fact: Australia will benefit from the provision of high-speed broadband across the nation. Nobody disputes this. We support it on our side of the House. That is the policy objective. Fiction: high-speed broadband can only be produced by an outdated monopoly telco model such as NBN Co.
Fact: high-speed broadband can be introduced to Australia’s major cities by private enterprise at little or no cost to the taxpayers of Australia. Just look at the current i3 project in Brisbane, with high-speed broadband up and down and, importantly, open access. And the Brisbane City Council rollout is at no cost to the ratepayers, but still what was Minister Conroy’s first comment? He wanted ‘to see a cost-benefit analysis’. Fiction: high-speed broadband can only be delivered to rural Australia as part of this national monopoly NBN Co.
Fact: the NBN Co. model will involve an increased charge on all city users to fund less profitable centres—cross subsidisation. Fact: responsible government should be prepared to subsidise the delivery of high-speed broadband to rural and regional Australia. We have no fear of supporting those great Australians in rural and regional Australia. They deserve it. It is simply a matter of being honest with Australians, not hiding this subsidy in the spin of promoting NBN Co. Fiction: only by exempting NBN Co. from the competition requirements of the Trade Practices Act can it succeed.
Fact: successive governments—Liberal and Labor—have acknowledged and supported the importance of encouraging competition. This is plain common sense and almost universally accepted, yet this government wants to take Australia back to the dead hand of government monopoly. It is the Gillard government who are the real Luddites in this debate—building an enormously expensive, outdated telco monopoly model that will lack the flexibility and management capacity to adapt to changing times and changing technologies. They do not care. Their eyes are wilfully closed to sensible market driven alternatives. Why? Because their politics get in the way.
This government is in crisis mode. As their promises are broken one by one, sheer obstinate pride prevents them from acknowledging that there are genuine alternatives that will work better and reduce the cost to Australia. This government says to the people of Australia, ‘Trust us,’ but their track record of financial disasters, from insulation to the BER, tells the Australian people that there are very good reasons to be very worried—not just alert but alarmed. When this government says ‘Trust us’ and there is taxpayers’ money involved, the Australian people know that there is something very wrong. The Australian people trusted the Labor government and they have been not just let down but betrayed in every instance—betrayed with waste on a gargantuan scale. And now the Australian people simply ask for, and deserve, some financial transparency. How better to do this than through the Labor government being required to publish a business case for the NBN, to refer the NBN to the Productivity Commission to produce a cost-benefit analysis and to see the establishment of a joint select committee to ensure there is at least some parliamentary scrutiny. Given the Gillard government’s track record, this is not unreasonable. But this arrogant, dangerously spendthrift, government say no! They have grand plans, with other people’s money. That sums up this Labor government.
So the coalition brings forward this simple bill. It does so to answer the very real concerns in the Australian community. It does so to address the very real concerns of the ICT community. It seeks sensible assessment of an extraordinary expenditure of $43 billion. If the Gillard Labor government are afraid of this proposal put forward by the member for Wentworth one can only wonder how bad the project must be. This bill provides for an independent review of one of the largest expenditures in our history against a background of real questions about the wisdom of this expenditure. What could be wrong with that?
2173
11:52:00
O’Neill, Deborah, MP
140651
Robertson
ALP
0
0
Ms O’NEILL
—It occurs to me that getting a bill from the member for Wentworth is something not many people would relish. I can understand why on a number of counts. Nevertheless I am glad to be able to join others today in speaking to this very craftily titled private member’s bill—the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. That sounds like something that would be hard to argue against, doesn’t it? How could anyone disagree with financial transparency? I am afraid I do, in this case, because what the member for Wentworth is actually trying to do is to build a straw man out of the NBN. He wants to define the success of the NBN in his own terms, terms that would be quite different to those defined by people who live in regional areas like mine—the people who are the big winners under the National Broadband Network.
In his bill, the member for Wentworth says, ‘Give us a business case with a 10-year forecast and give it to us by Friday.’ Then he wants the Productivity Commission to do a cost-benefit analysis and publish it by the end of May next year. It is all deceptively simple. Actually, it is simply deceptive. This is a cynical spoiling tactic designed to delay the rollout. Before you know it, the great hope of regional Australia, the great equaliser of opportunity and access, will have gone up in smoke. And gone with it will be the hopes and dreams of hundreds of thousands of regional Australians.
James Riley, writing for the iTWire website, has belled the cat. Last month after the member for Wentworth introduced his legislation, James wrote that the member for Wentworth:
… is disingenuous—disarmingly disingenuous—when he says he won’t stand in the way of the NBN if it is given a “big tick” by the Productivity Council through a cost-benefit analysis. He will stand in the way because he knows this is a rigged game. And because he opposes the NBN roll-out at the most fundamental philosophical level.
Hard-wired into the Turnbull DNA is the rock-solid, unshakeable belief that Government has no business getting directly involved in a broadband roll-out. That the delivery of such infrastructure is best left to the market, to the private sector …
I am certain this goes to the heart of the member for Wentworth’s problem with the NBN. He is ideologically opposed to the government funding NBN Co. That is despite the abject failure of the coalition’s 18 broadband policies, policies which have seen prolonged lack of access for regional customers in seats such as mine of Robertson. Still the member for Wentworth stubbornly clings to his belief that we are better off leaving things to the big end of town. I am certainly not ready to consign Australia to the digital dark ages by abandoning our future to the market. I am not surprised to hear free market fanaticism from the member for Wentworth or from the member for Bradfield, who, I believe, was a high flyer in the telco world before coming to this place.
But frankly I expect better from those on the other side who come from regional New South Wales. It shocks me to sit here and listen to the member for Gilmore and the member for Cowper parroting their colleagues’ petty quibbles. Why do they not get it? The NBN is the great equaliser. It is the rising tide that floats all the boats, the technological advance that will break down the tyranny of distance for people living in regional Australia. The NBN will finally allow regional Australia to fulfil its promise, to provide services on par to those provided to our metropolitan areas while offering the kind of lifestyle only our regions can.
Last week I caught up with one of the NBN’s biggest supporters on the Central Coast: the chair of Central Coast Youth Connections, Dave Abrahams. Dave and the publisher of the
Central Coast Business Review, Edgar Adams, who my fellow member from the Central Coast, the member for Dobell, has mentioned, are together making a comprehensive business case for the introduction of NBN to our region. I am really looking forward to their first business case event later this month. Surely and relentlessly, we are ready to push ahead.
So, what should happen with this bill? I think it is time for some plain speaking. This bill is just a tricky, self-serving bit of argument. It is put forward as a delaying tactic by an opposition that is bereft of vision and is still smarting from the NBN’s role in the formation of this Labor government. We know that the Leader of the Opposition gave the member for Wentworth the job of demolishing the NBN. This bill has nothing to do with public interest or financial transparency. It has everything to do with trying to bring down one of this country’s most significant pieces of nation-building infrastructure. This opposition has no plan and no policy other than to nitpick and find fault with Labor’s nation-building achievements. It does this without pausing for a moment to reflect on its lost decade in office, a decade in which it stunted our productivity growth through a miserly approach to infrastructure. I oppose the bill and encourage others to do the same.
(Time expired)
2174
11:57:00
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
SE4
Mackellar
LP
0
0
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—The
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
proposed by the member for Wentworth is eminently sensible. The sense of it is echoed in the voice of the OECD, which in turn is the voice of Treasury. The OECD says very simply that there should be an analysis of the NBN’s financial returns, as required under this bill proposed by the member for Wentworth.
The OECD says some very important things that are relevant to support of this bill. It says that the government:
… should not trigger a weakening of competition in wholesale broadband services to protect the viability of the government project. An alternative to this picking-the-winner strategy would be to let the market guide choices between the various Internet service options on the basis of prices that reflect costs, factoring in externalities that ought first to be evaluated. To that end, it would be desirable to maintain competition between technologies and, within each technology, between Internet service providers.
The question is not one of availability of high-speed broadband; it is a question of affordability. An analysis of published figures shows that, of those people earning less than $40,000 a year, only 43 per cent utilise the internet, while for those earning over $120,000 a year, there is 94 per cent utilisation. You can dangle the diamond standard before the people if you wish, but the poor will only be able to look, because they will not be able to afford this very expensive mechanism.
By passing this bill and putting its provisions into action, we would see that the government ought not to be creating a new monopoly and picking winners but allowing the market to operate. We would also see that the Productivity Commission has the wherewithal to be able to give guidance on this. This bill is not a delaying tactic; it is an eminently sensible way to proceed and I thoroughly support it.
If you look at the terms of reference for the Productivity Commission in the legislation, as outlined by the member for Wentworth, you can see that it includes things that one would think any sensible government would wish to look at. It includes an analysis of the availability of broadband services across Australia and the identification of those suburbs and regions where current services are of a lesser standard or provided at a higher price than the best services available in the city. The Productivity Commission would also consider the take-up rate, the economy wide benefits likely to flow and the different options by which broadband services of particular speed could be made available—all eminently sensible.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 12 noon, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
2175
Governor-General's Speech
Address-in-Reply
2175
Debate resumed from 28 October, on the proposed address-in-reply to the speech of Her Excellency the Governor-General—
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, express our loyalty to the Sovereign, and thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to the Parliament—
on motion byMs O’Neill:
That the Address be agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Before I call the honourable member for Hughes, I remind the House that this is his first speech. I therefore ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.
2175
12:00:00
Kelly, Craig, MP
99931
Hughes
LP
0
1
Mr CRAIG KELLY
—I rise as the 1,077th member of this House, as someone who is proud of his country, proud of its history and proud of its traditions. I also rise as someone who owes a debt of gratitude to past generations of Australians whose sacrifices and struggles have given us the freedoms and opportunities that we enjoy today. I also understand that I have an obligation—in fact, we all have an obligation—to pass this great nation onto our children and grandchildren in better shape and with greater freedoms and opportunities than we inherited.
My first duty in this House is to thank the electors of Hughes, who have given me the privilege and opportunity of being their representative. I am conscious of the trust they have placed in me and I will not let them down.
The electorate of Hughes is named after Billy Hughes, who served as Prime Minister from 1915 to 1923. Billy Hughes had a parliamentary career spanning 58 years, during which he changed parties no less than five times. Having started as a Labor member in 1901 he then, after 44 years, became a Liberal, completing his distinguished career as the member for Bradfield. Billy Hughes’s example reminds us that maybe—just maybe—there is still hope for those who sit opposite. But they are always welcome to come across and join us should they see the light.
The electorate of Hughes is a snapshot of modern Australia. Right across the electorate, families are paying the price for this government’s misguided policies. They are under pressure from surging electricity prices, rising mortgage repayments and some of the developed world’s fastest accelerating supermarket prices. Their quality of life is threatened by a mad and dangerous plan to cram over seven million people into Sydney, stacking them pallet-like in high-rise apartments, forcing parents to spend more and more time in gridlock traffic and reducing the time they spend with their families.
Hughes is also proud to be home of the defence personnel serving at Holsworthy Army base. Holsworthy has a long and proud tradition and I acknowledge its great contribution to the defence of our nation.
A little over one year ago I was not a member of any political party, and I never had been, but I was someone with a fundamental belief in our free enterprise system. I was just an average Australian, someone working ridiculously long hours in a small family business and trying to do the best for his family. But I became deeply troubled that Labor governments not only had lost their way but had completely lost the plot and at every turn were heading our nation in the wrong direction.
I owe my presence here today to the democratic traditions of the Liberal Party, a party that embraces all those who share its values and a party that gives opportunities to those who join later in life.
I come to Canberra keen to put almost 30 years of hands-on experience in manufacturing, wholesaling, international trade, retailing and franchising to good use. I am proud to say that in my career in the private sector I won export contracts in over 25 countries throughout the world and this has given me the unique opportunity to travel extensively and to learn from different cultures, including the way they approach business.
I was born in Sydney, the eldest of three brothers and one sister. We were all educated at the local state primary school and high school and I would like to pay tribute to the many wonderful and dedicated teachers that I encountered.
In winter, our front lawn at home was a football field and, in summer, a cricket pitch, with a garbage bin for a wicket, where I and my brothers and the other kids in the neighbourhood would play until it was too dark to see the ball. But I wonder if today our kids are really any better off when we pack them into housing where they no longer have the room nor the freedom to hit a real ball with a real bat in their own backyard but are restricted to playing simulated impersonal computer games.
My father was one of Sir Robert Menzies’ ‘forgotten people’—a small business man who grew his business by reason of dealing fairly and justly with his customers, suppliers and employees. He developed his business in the days when one’s handshake was one’s word and when the term ‘good faith’ was just the way business was conducted. I am proud that he is here in the gallery today with my mother Raima, who has always given us unconditional love and support.
Sport, especially team sport, is one of our greatest educators. I am thankful that our Australian way of life has provided me with the opportunity to participate in a wide range of team sports, including rugby union. Over the years I have packed my head into many a rugby scrum, although no doubt some would say ‘maybe one scrum too many’. In the early 1980s I had the opportunity to travel to Japan to play rugby and while at Tokyo airport I met a young Chinese student who upon learning that I was from Australia commented: ‘Ah, Australia. You are a wealthy country because you have treasure buried in the ground.’ But he was only partly right. The greatest source of our national wealth arises not from the coal seams that stretch down our eastern seaboard, nor from the iron ore deposits in our outback; our greatest source of national wealth arises from the entrepreneurial culture of our individual citizens, our Australian spirit of risk-taking, of ‘having a go’. But today, the very essence of our Australian entrepreneurial culture, the sacred principles of equality of competitive opportunity—that of the freedom and liberty for an individual to start their own business and to succeed or fail on merit, free from predatory and discriminatory practices, rights that our forefathers fought for and died to protect—are under threat from misguided competition policy: a flawed view that ‘big is better’.
Over the last few decades, due to government policy, either intentionally or unwittingly, many sectors of our economy formerly open and free to the small business person have degenerated into states of hyperconcentration, of duopoly and oligopoly, through a rising tide of market concentration. Today in our grocery sector just two players control 87 per cent of our nation’s full-line supermarkets, and the supermarket duopoly have extended their tentacles further and now control up to 50 per cent of liquor and petrol sales. Our hardware retailing sector is heading in the same direction.
This rising tide of concentration in our retail sector has led to further concentration at all levels throughout the production chain. Here are just a few examples. Today, of the milk we drink, more than 80 per cent is processed by just three corporations. Just two corporations brew 90 per cent of our beer. These levels of unprecedented market concentration that currently exist in Australia are more akin to those in former Eastern bloc countries than the free market system foreseen by the father of capitalism, Adam Smith.
While we talk of a free market, the reality is that the field of free and open business has become more and more restricted, as anticompetitive price discrimination has become rampant across the nation, destroying competitive opportunity. In America’s greatest days, the anticompetitive practice of price discrimination was considered such an evil, so dangerous to the free enterprise system, that it was made a criminal offence. And if our American friends are looking for the reason as to why their economy has gone pear-shaped I suggest they need to look no further than their failure to actively enforce their antitrust laws. Under the current legislative settings of competition policy in Australia, we are heading for a future where all the necessities of life will be controlled by a few giant corporations. This is not the future that I want to see for my Australia.
The friends of duopoly and oligopoly may argue that society operates more efficiently with a top-down, semi-authoritarian control, where vast sections of the economy are controlled in the hands of a few elites. Such an argument is seductively simple for those indoctrinated by theory but light on practical experience, for they do not understand the efficiency paradox. While economies of scale do exist, they have an evil twin: that of bureaucratic inefficiencies. When an organisation grows in size, although it may initially benefit from economies of scale, any gains quickly give way to a rising tide of bureaucratic inefficiency.
I believe that the greatest efficiency that any market has is that of entrepreneurial efficiencies, as shown by small business. This is why I am convinced that as a society we get the most efficient outcomes whenever the decision- making process is decentralised and decisions are made by the individuals working closest to the coalface. Therefore, where today we have two entities centrally controlling more than 2,000 retail outlets throughout the nation, I say that we would have a stronger economy, more vibrant local communities and lower prices if instead those 2,000 centrally owned stores were owned by 2,000 local independent business people, all in competition with each other.
Over 200 years ago, Adam Smith, the father of free market capitalism, warned us that the public ‘must always be against any narrowing of competition, as it will allow the dealers to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow citizens’. One only has to look at what has happened to supermarket prices in Australia to see the result of failing to heed Smith’s warning. As the market has degenerated in levels of hyperconcentration, prices in Australian supermarkets have shockingly risen faster than almost anywhere else in the developed world.
But the real danger to our economic prosperity from these levels of hyperconcentration is not just higher consumer prices. What should really concern us is the effect of monopsony, or buyer power. When one or two players control 50 per cent or more of a market, for a supplier to say no to any demand from a buyer with such dominance is to cut one’s throat. So when a market becomes overly concentrated, the so-called ‘invisible hand’ of the free market is replaced by the ‘visible fist’ of market power, and that is the type of market that many producers in Australia face today, especially our farmers. And this risks destroying the very productive resources that our economy relies upon to generate its wealth.
Our banking system provides another example of the risk to our economic prosperity from overly concentrated markets. Our banking system should be the oil that greases the wheel of the free enterprise system, not the other way around. If our banks are now ‘too big to fail’ and require government protection and taxpayer support, what sense does it make to allow even greater concentration in our banking sector? The danger of a highly concentrated banking system is not only that Australian consumers pay some of the highest bank fees and charges in the world; the real danger arises from reductions in opportunities for small business to obtain finance. So while the banks gorge themselves on the fees, charges and the excessive margins they charge to small business, they are in fact weakening the very foundations on which our economic prosperity is built.
In short, for those who believe the best path to our collective prosperity lies in the free enterprise system, for those who believe in equality of opportunity, for those who believe in the freedom of the individual, strong local communities and strong family values, the rising tide of market concentration is contrary to everything that we hold sacred.
I often hear the mantra that small business is the backbone of our economy, but it is not only that. It is also the backbone of our society and provides an immeasurable element of strength to our nation. To my new friends that sit with me on this side of the House, I say that when push comes to shove, if we as the natural friends of small business do not stand up for a fair go for small business people, then we risk them remaining the forgotten people. We must never overlook the fact that the free market—or, more accurately, the free enterprise system—does not arise naturally. It is a system, like our democracy, that must be protected by a set of rules and, also like our democracy, one that we must be ever vigilant to protect.
There is an unsung group of heroes working across Australia today, what we may well call our neglected people: our carers and children with disabilities. For parents caring for the physically or intellectually disabled child, it is a lifetime’s task. For most carers there are no days off. There is no sick pay. There is no holiday pay. There is no superannuation. And when carers grow old, they do so worrying about what will happen to their child when they are too old or frail to nurse them.
Carers may never hear their child say the words: ‘I love you’. So it is little surprise that when parents have a disabled child the statistics show that the chance of marriage breakdown almost triples. Yet as a society we ask our carers to provide over one billion hours of unpaid work a year which, if we the taxpayers had to pick up the tab, would cost well over $30 billion. Simply, as a society we are asking our carers to do more than their fair share of the heavy lifting.
To parents out there with a special needs child that believe that politicians do not know what it is like, I want you to know that you have someone who stands on the floor of this parliament that walks in your shoes. My son, Trent, was born 14 years ago with Down syndrome and autism. He has no speech. My wife and I will need to care for him our entire lives. I am proud to say that Trent is in the gallery today.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my debt of gratitude to all the teachers of our special needs children, such as the teachers at Bates Drive, who have cared for Trent and the other children as they would care for their own. The special experience I have had with Trent has made me a better person. It has made me fully appreciate that each individual has a real value of their own and that the dignity of every individual must be respected. But most importantly it has awakened me to the fact that as a nation we need to do more, much more, for our children with disabilities and their carers—something that people like Tony Stevens have been fighting for all their lives. We are a wealthy and compassionate country. We must find a way, without any of the old excuses, to provide a generous and practical response to the needs of people with severe disabilities and their carers. I pledge that during my time in parliament I will be fighting to ensure that our carers and our children with special needs are provided with the resources they rightly deserve and need.
At the end of the day we here in parliament are the spenders of ‘other people’s money’, and when the government of the day is running a deficit, the ‘other people’s money’ that we are spending is that of our children and grandchildren. But, regrettably, over the past few years government spending of ‘other people’s money’ has been characterised by palpable waste. As our recent experience clearly shows, we must always be on guard against a government, a big-spending government, brimming with expensive and grandiose plans to spend our children’s money, no matter how well-intentioned those plans may seem. And, as Adam Smith reminds us of such grand government spending plans, they:
… ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.
And whether we are spending $1 million or $43,000 million, to engage in the spending of ‘other people’s money’—that of our children—on the lick and a promise of a hastily cobbled together plan based on ideology and untested assumptions without a vigorous cost-benefit analysis is a reckless abrogation of our responsibilities.
I consider myself an environmentalist. As our cities and roads become more and more congested, I am concerned about the health effects from fine particulate matter in diesel exhaust, as studies in California show that diesel exhaust leads to 9,000 premature deaths annually. That is why I oppose Labor’s intermodal freight terminal at Moorebank.
In conclusion, we have many other great challenges ahead of us as a nation, including water and food security, national security, immigration, population and housing affordability. If we can get the policy settings right, if we can end the reckless spending and if we can free the hands of our small-business entrepreneurs with effective competition laws, our nation’s best days are ahead of us.
I believe that no-one could ever stand here without the support of a great team, and I am no exception. Firstly, a big thank you to my loving wife, Vicki. I understand the challenge that you face with having Trent, and I would not be here today without your support. Also, a special thank you to my daughter, Tara. I have seen you grow into a lovely young lady and I am very proud of all your achievements. I promise that over Christmas we will catch up on those 120 hours you need to get your L-plates.
To the Hon. Danna Vale, the previous member for Hughes, I thank you for your support and guidance. You have left me with big shoes to fill.
To the rest of my family—my brothers, Philip and Jason, and sister, Tracy—I thank you for your support over the years, and I do feel a tinge of guilt at leaving you with the fort to look after.
To Professor Frank Zumbo, the free enterprise system knows no greater friend, and I am proud to have you sitting in the gallery today. I would not be here without your friendship and advice.
To Malcolm Ky, you have survived and triumphed through the perils of the killing fields—perils that I cannot even begin to imagine. I am proud to call you my mate, and in this country we do not let our mates down.
To Paul Dracakis, Peter Polgar, and my other friends from the Warringah Club, I thank you for your support—as I do to Paul Signorelli.
To my campaign team: Chris Hall, Elizabeth Hughes, Simon Newport, Kate Schouten, Jon Childs, Geoff Grasso, Susan Kelly, Steve Iacono, Brett Thomas, Peter Colocino, Kent Johns and Naji Najjar, Gary Law, Coral Slattery, Russel Vickers, Daniel Mcilgorm, Jennifer Hunt, Doroles Gonsalves, Robert Leigo, Aaron Findlay, Magdi Mickail, Matthew Minehan, Jim Daniels, James Parrish, Ben and Rebecca Haack, Ned Marnoun, Paul Blizzard, Pat White, Steve Simpson, Jim and Eileen Gallagher, the Bowen, Busa, Di Mauro and Garland families, and the other 300-plus volunteers that so freely gave up their time to make sure that Hughes remained safely in Liberal hands, I say thank you. I owe you a debt that I will never be able to repay. To Alan Jones, Jason Morrison and Helen Wellings, thank you for giving me a chance to have my say on behalf of small business and consumers.
A special thank you goes to Tony Abbott for the tremendous faith and support you have given me throughout. Thanks also goes to the shadow ministers who assisted in Hughes: Julie Bishop, Bruce Billson, Joe Hockey, Scott Morrison, Ian Macfarlane, Sophie Mirabella and Senators Connie Fierravanti-Wells, Marise Payne, and Barnaby Joyce.
To Lee Evans, the next member for Heathcote; Melanie Gibbons, the next member for Menai; and Glen Brookes, the next member for East Hills—I say thank you. I look forward to sitting in the gallery of the New South Wales parliament when you all make your maiden speeches.
I thank you for the indulgence, Mr Speaker. I stand here ready to serve as part of a united team, determined to follow in our great Westminster tradition—and that is to hold the government of the day to account for poor policy, poor execution and maladministration. It is already self-evident that we will have much work to do. I thank the House.
2181
12:23:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
1
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—On indulgence: I believe that was the last first speech. I congratulate all members on their speeches.
NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY BILL 2010
2181
Bills
R4481
Referred to Main Committee
2181
Mr FITZGIBBON
(Hunter)
00:00:00
—I move:
That the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (STUDENT SERVICES AND AMENITIES) BILL 2010
2181
Bills
R4446
Report from Education and Employment Committee
2181
2181
12:24:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
0
Ms RISHWORTH
—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, I present the committee’s report entitled
Advisory Report on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010
together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
HWA
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
Ms RISHWORTH
—by leave—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, I rise today to present an advisory report on the
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010
together with a dissenting report.
This is the first bills inquiry to report back to the House under the new arrangements of the new parliament. The bill was one of the first to be referred by the Standing Committee on Selection under the new arrangements giving force to agreements between the government and non-aligned members. The committee was given until the end of the 2011 autumn sittings to report but we compressed the inquiry time frame because this proposal has already been the subject of extensive community and stakeholder consultation, including two inquiries by committees of the Senate. However, the current inquiry provided an additional opportunity for input and the inquiry received 35 submissions.
The bill empowers higher education institutions to charge a fee for the provision of student services and amenities, to be capped at $250 and indexed annually. Further, it puts in place a facility whereby students can access a loan to pay the fee and can access improved student representation and advocacy.
The importance of reporting back to the House in a timely fashion lies in providing adequate time for each chamber to consider and, if it so determines, pass the bill so that higher education institutions might implement these measures in the new academic year.
The urgency of providing higher education institutions with the opportunity to raise much needed additional funds was spelt out by the Minister School Education, Early Childhood and Youth in his second reading speech when he noted a $170 million shortfall in funding as a result of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Act 2005. Transition funding has been in place to support essential student services and amenities on regional campuses in the wake of the abolition of compulsory fees. This has now expired. This bill is vital to restoring some of the lost services and amenities to students, particularly those on regional campuses.
Every submission received from universities, and the majority of submissions from higher education stakeholders, referred to a decline in student services and amenities on their campuses since the introduction of voluntary student unionism in 2005. Those universities that had managed to maintain student services and amenities did so through redirecting funding away from research and teaching. This model is not sustainable even for larger metropolitan universities which have diverted money away from teaching and research into essential student services.
For universities in regional locations, the situation is even more grim. Griffith University, alone, estimated losses of $31.3 million in revenue since 2005. The university projects that without student fees it will need to redirect $10 million a year away from teaching and research to student support services and amenities,.
Southern Cross University welcomed the proposed bill to help restore and provide amenities on regional campuses. This proposal will revive student services and amenities on all campuses, but particularly regional campuses. The revenue raised from the fee will help restore amenities as well as jobs and services lost since 2005.
The revenue from the proposed fee will be used to help provide students with a more rounded education experience and a better quality of university life. Universities believe that good student services are vital for the effective participation, retention, and success of a larger and more diverse higher education student cohort. In the long term, these funds will contribute to the ability of the sector to produce graduates who are fit for life with a greater sense of community and active citizenship.
This bill has improved since a similar proposal was introduced and passed through the House in 2009. On that occasion the bill was denied a third reading as a result of a tied vote in the Senate. The government reintroduced the bill but it failed to pass the Senate before the end of the 42nd Parliament. The purposes to which revenue raised can be used have been tightened and spelled out in the proposed legislation itself, rather than included as a legislative instrument. The revenue raised will help fund student welfare and support services, helping students to develop academic and study skills and careers, provide child care, provide financial and legal advice, accommodation assistance, personal accident insurance for students, orientation support, library and reading rooms, support for student artistic activities, debating, and student media. These are all very important parts of university life. It will also be used to provide student representation and advocacy services, support clubs and sporting and recreational activities of students, and support international students.
A higher education provider may not spend revenue from this measure on any other purpose. They are expressly forbidden from financing any person or organisation that uses the funds to support a political party or a local, state or federal election. And the expenditure of funds raised by the fee is restricted to supporting organisations that either service students or are constituted by students.
Universities will also need to consult their students on how best to serve them in the administration and implementation of this fee. The Student Services, Amenities, Representation and Advocacy Guidelines will benchmark the minimum services required, but they will also allow flexibility in how to best meet the needs of students on each campus. The committee has recommended that the minister release the updated guidelines as soon as possible.
Each higher education provider will, through student consultation, decide what amenities and services will best meet the needs of those students. For example, Southern Cross University plans to consult students in tailoring student amenities and services for those students that come to their regional campuses but also for those students who need to access the university remotely. Some of their remote campuses under the current funding arrangements have had little in the way of student services or amenities and they are certainly looking at addressing that. They have asked for a period of grace in meeting the compliance section of the proposed legislation under the guidelines. They have also requested that a portion of the revenue raised from the fee be able to be accessed to cover the cost of setting up these services. The committee has recommended that the minister consider granting a period of grace to higher education providers in meeting the new compliance rules and that consideration be given to allowing providers to use a portion of the revenue raised to fund the set-up of the administrative requirements that will occur under this legislation.
A further issue of concern to the committee is the possibility for international students to be charged twice for the same service. In responding to this concern, the committee has reiterated the finding of the Senate inquiry in 2009 that looked at the bill and recommended that the minister encourage the itemisation of international student fees.
I would like to take this opportunity to, first of all, thank the minister at the table, the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare, for her work in the last parliament on this bill and also to thank the secretariat for their work in this inquiry. It was a very short inquiry and they worked very hard. In particular, I would like to thank Glenn Worthington and Becky Walker, who has only been in the job a month and was thrown in the deep end but did an absolutely fantastic job working with us.
There was overwhelming support for this bill from the major stakeholders, which highlights the importance of this proposed legislation. Universities believe that a well-rounded education better equips students to compete in the workforce and helps them to develop the skills, confidence and support networks that they will need throughout their lives. A well-supported campus is also more likely to encourage retention and engagement, and to raise completion rates. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the bill be passed, and I commend the report to the House.
2184
12:34:00
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
HWS
Grey
LP
0
0
Mr RAMSEY
—by leave—I rise as deputy chair of the committee that prepared this report to the House. It may come as no great surprise to the House that the coalition members elected to oppose this legislation have delivered a dissenting report. As the chair pointed out, it was a new experience for the committee under the new standing rules of the parliament for the legislation to be referred from the Selection Committee for us to review before it was placed before the House. The way it was rushed upon us came as a bit of a surprise. The coalition members believe that this inquiry was held with undue haste and that we have not had an opportunity to examine the full intent of the evidence and, in fact, feel as though some of those people who have contributed evidence were not given the opportunity to deliver the evidence face to face.
In particular, I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to standing order 143(b), which says that:
… a determination may be made by the Selection Committee as provided by standing order 222 to refer a bill to a committee for an advisory report.
Then standing order 222(a)(iii) says that:
… select bills that the committee regards as controversial or as requiring further consultation or debate for referral to the relevant standing or joint committee in accordance with standing order 143.
The standing orders are not prescriptive, but it would appear to me that the intent is that the committee should undertake some degree of scrutiny of the submissions.
Instead, the government used its majority on the committee to effectively guillotine the inquiry. We had seven days to receive submissions. In the end we received 36, but only 29 of those were lodged by closing time. Then we had less than a week to consider those submissions, with no chance to meet in person and no chance to enter into any one-on-one, face-to-face interviews. We believe that there was considerable interest shown in this inquiry, as evidenced by the number of submissions—and we may well have received more had we had more time—and so we decry the lack of process. It would seem that if we are to have any inquiries at all, they should be more diligent than this.
To come to the point of the submissions: there were 36 in total, placed predominantly into two groups. The first—the universities and union sector—encompassed 26 submissions, all but one of which supported the bill. I must point out that they were mostly dusted off submissions that had been delivered to the Senate inquiry in 2009. There is nothing particularly wrong with this, but they had an opportunity to present those submissions personally. Tellingly, of the group of 26 from the universities and union sector, almost all stand to gain financially from this legislation.
The six submissions in the second group were all opposed to the legislation and they all came from individuals. I point out that these individuals had no opportunity to present in person. Tellingly again, these are the people who will pay the bill. Those who will pay the bill have a completely different attitude to those who will receive the money. That is enough for us in the coalition to at least have great concerns whether the student population is indeed in favour of this compulsory levy at all.
It is not just a little amount of money. It is anticipated that this new tax will raise $143 million a year from struggling students. It is not just tintacks money; it is a substantial amount of money. In fact, one of the students who contacted us, and I think he spoke for many students who study externally, said, ‘It is not my intention to ever attend the UNE campus in Armidale.’ It does make you wonder why on earth this student should be charged a compulsory fee for a service that he will never wish, and is never likely, to access. As he said, he is never even likely to visit the campus. There are many students throughout Australia who are studying under external arrangements and most of them would probably concur with that evidence.
We also make the point that the bill sends a message to students that students are incapable of being able to determine what is in their best interests and that it is retrograde, condescending and fundamentally insulting to students that we think we know far better than them how to spend their money.
I also refer to the dissenting senators report in 2009, which drew particular attention to the clear Labor Party commitment prior to the 2007 election rejecting a compulsory amenities fee. This policy appears to have changed sometime before the 2010 election. Certainly the Labor Party made no issue of it during the election campaign. Most students in Australian universities at the moment are blissfully unaware of what awaits them next year should this legislation be passed.
We also believe that it is highly likely that the funds raised will be used for political campaigns outside the student unions’ direct interests and are, in fact, a return to compulsory student unionism. I understand the legislation does have bars on direct contributions to political campaigns, but we would be stretching credibility to think that some of these funds will not be used in campaigns that have a political intent.
In the end, we reject the majority view of the committee, and my recommendation to the House is that it rejects the legislation. But I would concur with the chair when she thanked the secretariat—Glenn Worthington and Becky Walker in particular. They were placed under a lot of pressure because of the time constraints, obviously to get all of the material together to convene the meeting, which was held by teleconference, and to deliver the report in what I think is an unrealistic time frame.
Ms RISHWORTH
(Kingston)
00:00:00
—I move:
That the House take note of the report.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Report from Education and Employment Committee
2185
Referred to Main Committee
2185
Ms RISHWORTH
(Kingston)
00:00:00
—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2010
2185
Bills
R4443
PROTECTION OF THE SEA LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
2185
Bills
R4426
Assent
2185
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
CARER RECOGNITION BILL 2010
2186
Bills
R4450
FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND AMENDMENT BILL 2010
2186
Bills
R4419
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2010
2186
Bills
R4437
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE (SAFETY LEVIES) AMENDMENT BILL 2010
2186
Bills
R4427
OZONE PROTECTION AND SYNTHETIC GREENHOUSE GAS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2010
2186
Bills
R4436
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (EXCISE) LEVIES AMENDMENT BILL 2010
2186
Bills
R4449
TRADEX SCHEME AMENDMENT BILL 2010
2186
Bills
R4445
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2010
2186
Bills
R4421
Returned from the Senate
2186
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2010
2186
Bills
R4465
First Reading
2186
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
LAW AND JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (IDENTITY CRIMES AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2010
2186
Bills
S761
First Reading
2186
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
COMMITTEES
2186
Committees
Gambling Reform Committee
2186
Reference
2186
10000
Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms S Bird)—I have received a message
from the Senate informing the House of a resolution agreed to by the Senate on 28 October 2010 relating to the inquiry into the prevalence of interactive and online gambling in Australia.
The message read as follows—
The Senate informs the House of Representatives of the following resolution agreed to by the Senate today:
That—
-
the inquiry into the prevalence of interactive and online gambling in Australia be withdrawn from the Community Affairs References Committee and be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform in line with the terms of reference of the committee; and
-
in conducting its inquiry, the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform have the power to consider and use the records of the Community Affairs References Committees appointed in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament relating to the inquiry.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2010 MEASURES NO. 4) BILL 2010
2186
Bills
R4460
Second Reading
2186
Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by
Mr Shorten:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2186
12:46:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women
1
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—For the information of honourable members I present a correction to the explanatory memorandum for the
Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010.
2187
12:46:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—It is a pleasure to speak on the
Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010. As with all tax law amendment bills, this bill has a number of schedules, in fact seven schedules in all, that make a variety of changes to the existing law, or clarify the law to correct errors or implement policy decisions. I will briefly run through each of those schedules.
The first schedule relates to the goods and services tax, specifically, to amend the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to ensure third-party payment adjustment provisions operate appropriately where there are third-party payments relating to a supply by a taxpayer that is not taxable or a supply or payment that is goods and services that is GST free, not connected with Australia or subject to a refund under the tourist refund scheme. That was outlined, as were all the other changes within this bill, within the explanatory memorandum. I note that the minister just seconds before the resumption of the debate tabled a correction to the explanatory memorandum. We will have a look at that, not having been provided with it prior to the commencement of the debate. We assume that it is minor in nature.
Whenever there is a tax law amendment bill that deals with GST issues it would be remiss of me not to remind those opposite, and indeed in this case the deputy chair, that it is good that the government is ensuring the integrity of the GST. It is a tax that they opposed vigorously back in 1999 and 2000. In fact it is now a little over 11 years and four months since former Prime Minister Mr Rudd declared in this House on 30 June 1999 that that day, because of the GST:
… will be recorded as a day of fundamental injustice—an injustice which is real, an injustice which is not simply conjured up by the fleeting rhetoric of politicians.
With each tax law amendment bill we see the integrity of the GST maintained, and it is good that we do see that. But it would be remiss of me not to point out the hypocrisy of those opposite.
Capital gains tax treatment of water entitlements and termination fees is dealt with in schedule 2 of the bill, as the explanatory memorandum points out. This schedule amends the income tax act of 1997 to provide for CGT rollover for taxpayers who replace an entitlement to water with one or more different entitlements, and some transitional measures associated with that.
The third schedule deals with two issues within three parts. Those two issues are: amendments to the taxation of financial arrangements provisions—part 1 of schedule 3 amends division 230 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the consequential transitional provisions inserted by the Tax Laws Amendment (Taxation of Financial Arrangements) Act 2009 to make minor policy refinements and technical amendments and corrections to the provisions. The second part of schedule 3 extends transitional arrangements relating to the application of the debt equity rules made by the New Business Tax System (Debt and Equity) Act 2001. The other area dealt with in schedule 3 is amendments to the foreign currency gains and losses provisions. As the explanatory memorandum outlines, part 3 of schedule 3 amends the foreign currency gains and losses provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to extend the scope of a number of compliance cost savings measures and to make technical amendments to ensure that the provisions operate as intended.
Schedule 4 deals with the issue of script for script alignment and, again, amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to make it easier for takeovers and mergers regulated by the Corporations Act 2001 to qualify for the CGT script for script rollover. In the explanatory memorandum we are told with respect to those first four schedules that the financial cost is nil, unquantifiable or expected to be very minimal indeed.
Schedule 5 deals with an increase in the medical expenses tax offset claim threshold, as announced in the budget earlier this year. Essentially this increases the threshold above which a taxpayer may claim the medical expenses tax offset and begins a process of indexation. The financial impact of this is a gain to the budget in 2011-12 of $95 million, rising to $115 million in 2012-13 and $140 million thereafter.
Schedule 6 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to update the list of deductible gift recipients. As I indicated at the start, this sort of schedule is quite typical within this kind of legislation. It updates the deductible gift recipient list to include One Laptop per Child Australia Ltd. Other organisations on the list will include the Xanana Vocational Education Trust and the Mary MacKillop Canonisation Gift Fund.
Schedule 7 extends gift deductibility to volunteer fire brigades. It adds three new deductible gift recipient categories to the Income Tax Assessment Act. This will widen accessibility of deductible donations to all entities providing volunteer based emergency services, including volunteer fire brigades, as the explanatory memorandum points out. It also extends DGR status to state and territory government bodies that coordinate volunteer fire brigades and SESs. With respect to schedules 6 and 7, there is a small financial impact going forward as a result of adding those organisations to the deductible gift recipient list.
The opposition is not opposing the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010, which has a number of important measures within it and corrects important areas of law. It is something that needs to be passed through this House. I give notice, though, that later in the debate the shadow Treasurer will be moving an amendment not to any of the seven schedules which I have outlined that the opposition is not opposing but to add a schedule 8 to the bill to deal with some important transparency measures on issues of tax and government expenditure. He will speak next in the debate from our side of the chamber and he will outline the detail of the amendment and the coalition’s approach.
2188
12:55:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—I take this opportunity to speak on the
Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010. As has already been stated, this bill contains seven schedules, and each schedule relates to a different aspect of tax law. I want to confine my remarks in this debate to schedules 6 and 7 of the bill. Schedule 6 adds the organisation One Laptop per Child to the list of eligible tax deductible gift recipients. The One Laptop per Child organisation was established in 2008 and aims to improve the lives of Indigenous children living in disadvantaged communities in remote and rural Australia by providing them with specially designed laptop computers. Schedule 6 also changes the name of the Clontarf Foundation Inc. to Clontarf Foundation. Clontarf Foundation dates back to the year 2000 and works to improve the health, education and employment and life skills of disadvantaged youth, predominantly Indigenous boys, through a number of Australian Rules football academies in Western Australia and now in other states.
Redressing Indigenous disadvantage in Australia has proven to be an extremely difficult goal for governments, both state and federal, over several decades. That, however, should in no way deter our determination to do so. I refer back to the apology given in this House by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on 13 February 2008, where not only did he apologise to the stolen generation but he also outlined much of the disadvantage that is faced by Indigenous people across this country. At that time he committed to providing parliament with an annual statement as to how this government was going to close the gap, as he put it—a strategy that was embarked on by the government to try and redress the disadvantage. I will come back later to some comments he made about the Clontarf Foundation.
Access to laptops for young people in remote areas will provide them with access to the rest of the world and the knowledge and opportunities that come with that. In remote areas, having access to the internet is in itself difficult enough. Having access to the kinds of computers that can be taken from one place to another and be used in those remote areas is also critical. That is what is special about this particular program—the computers have been specially designed and will be made available to young people, particularly Indigenous young people, in remote areas. Access to the internet will ensure that they become much more understanding of the world around them and more understanding of the opportunities and the options available to them. If they want to take advantage of those opportunities and options, it will give them access to the educational tools they will require in order to do so. It is fundamental and so important to providing them with the assistance that they need in order to change their life from one of disadvantage to one of advantage.
I believe every member in this House has at some stage or another talked about the importance of education and how education is the foundation of enabling a person to live a full and prosperous life. If we want our young people to be better educated, particularly Indigenous people, who are already struggling, then this is one of the programs that we should support, because it goes a long way in doing so. Providing the Clontarf Foundation with tax deduction eligibility will enable the foundation to raise additional revenue, which will in turn be used to provide those computers. However, this particular bill simply puts in place a change of name for this program. It is a program that I endorse and very much support.
The government has already invested over $2 billion in the school computer program and has committed $43 billion to the National Broadband Network, which I note was debated in this House again earlier today. Both the school computer program and the broader National Broadband Network are very critical to the future of this nation and for the Indigenous people in disadvantaged areas.
For disadvantaged young people in remote and rural Australia, even the investment into the National Broadband Network and the $2 billion plus investment into the school computer program will be of little benefit if they do not have access to a computer that is appropriate for their circumstances. That is the point that I made earlier today. One Laptop per Child Australia was founded in 2008. Since 2008, the organisation has delivered over 1,500 laptops to 20 disadvantaged schools in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland. It hopes to provide up to 20,000 laptops by 2012. The organisation will be in a significantly better position to attract private and corporate donors to raise critical funds to meet its 20,000 laptop objective by being granted deductible gift recipient status. The listing of One Laptop per Child is expected to cost the Australian government $2.4 million. In my view, that is a justifiable and very good use of public funds. The Commonwealth is also already investing $7 million over four years from 2009-10 on improving internet access in Indigenous communities through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Public Internet Access.
I said a moment ago that, when it comes to Indigenous disadvantage, we need to do a lot more to improve educational opportunities for Indigenous young people around the country. In 1995, the percentage of Indigenous young people who completed year 12 was 30.7 per cent. The figure at the moment is 46.5 per cent. It is still only just over half of what the national figure is for non-Indigenous young people in this country. We still have a long way to go. Any program or project that should assist us in getting there should be supported.
The Clontarf Foundation has been successful in changing the lives of Indigenous youth by combining their passion and ability to play Australian Rules Football with education, discipline, self-esteem and life skills training programs. The Clontarf program has partnered with schools in Western Australia, Northern Territory and Victoria, establishing over 30 academies across those states. I want to talk a little bit more about the Clontarf Foundation because it links very closely with the closing the gap statement made by the former Prime Minister in 2008 and when he gave his annual response to parliament on 11 February 2010. He said:
Overall, the programs have achieved an average attendance rate of 79 per cent, six percentage points above the average rate for all Indigenous students in the schools. So I am pleased to announce today that in 2010 an additional 17 sports academies will commence across Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Victoria. This will support about 1,000 students, and will bring the total number of students in the program to some 10,000. Ten of these new academies will be for girls.
That was former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in a statement in this House on 11 February 2010. He was talking specifically about the Clontarf Foundation. It is terrific that it now includes women as well as men. It has grown to 34 or 36 academies now around Australia. That highlights that it is working. If the foundation needs to be supported by giving it tax deductibility status, then we should give it that, because it is achieving the desired objectives. The former Prime Minister talked about the attendance rates of the students who participate at those academies being higher than for those students who do not. In other words, linking Australia Rules football training with education works and we should support it. I certainly do.
The new academies will be established in Broome, Fitzroy Crossing, Bunbury and North Albany in Western Australia; West Arnhem, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs in the Northern Territory; Mooroopna, Bendigo and Ballarat in Victoria; and Townsville in Queensland.
Schedule 7 extends access to tax deductible donations to all volunteer fire brigades. There are more than 6,200 volunteer fire brigades in Australia. Until recently they were all considered public benevolent institutions and therefore eligible for taxation deductibility for donations. Recently the Commissioner of Taxation ruled that most volunteer fire brigades do not strictly meet the public benevolent institutions criteria and therefore would not be eligible for taxation deductibility for donations. The amendment in schedule 7 enables volunteer fire brigades to continue to receive tax deductible donations.
All of us in this place know only too well about the invaluable service provided by our volunteer firefighters. We also know that they can always do with more resources, that they are not-for-profit organisations and that they embark on much of their own fundraising. I suspect that there would be few organisations that most Australians could confidently grant donations to knowing that the money would be used 100 per cent for the benefit of the community. That in itself is important, given some of the concerns that have been raised in recent times about charitable organisations. Funds raised by volunteer fire organisations are used entirely by those organisations and ultimately do benefit the community. As I said a moment ago, all of us in this place would be familiar with their work.
I take a moment to acknowledge the work of the two volunteer fire organisations in my own electorate of Makin. I refer to the Tea Tree Gully Country Fire Service and the Salisbury Country Fire Service. The Tea Tree Gully Country Fire Service was established in 1939. It has existed for over 70 years serving that community. Just looking at its last annual report, the service attended 238 community call-outs. Those call-outs would have included things like grass fires, vehicle accidents, car fires, animal rescues, community events and the like—probably the same as that which all similar organisations do around Australia. The Salisbury Country Fire Service was established in 1943—four years later. It attends something like 500 call-outs, on average, every year—again, similar types of call-outs. I am aware that both of those services also participated in fire operations interstate when the demand was there and their colleagues and mates interstate needed support. They both travelled, whether it was to Canberra during the Canberra bushfires or to Victoria last year, to assist with those fires. They are always ready and willing to support communities wherever the need arises. In fact, they would put in thousands of community volunteer hours per year.
Organisations like that are deserving of tax deductibility. For that reason again, I support the change, made in these amendments, to enable them to continue to receive deductions for any fundraising efforts that they enter into and therefore any funds that are provided to them as a result of those efforts. Their service to the communities, at both a local and a national level, is invaluable. Once again, I commend the work of the two organisations in my own electorate and, likewise, the work such organisations all do around Australia.
I said at the outset that I only wanted to speak about schedules 6 and 7. I have done so. I believe that these amendments simply restore changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act that were intended as a result of other acts of parliament. I commend the bill to the House.
2191
13:10:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My colleague the member for Casey has explained the key provisions of the
Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010, which we are debating today, so I will not go through the details again. Today I want to move an amendment with the insertion of a new schedule 8 providing tax receipts to individual taxpayers. The coalition went to the election with a full suite of policies to further improve our taxation system, and we intend to push for fairer, lower and simpler taxes. One element, which is key, is transparency. Australians work hard to pay their taxes. The coalition knows that every dollar collected in individual income tax is a dollar that a hardworking family cannot spend on other things, like housing, food, education and health. Tax reduces the welfare of the taxpayer when it is not put to good use. The coalition believes that it is individuals themselves who make the best decisions on the use of their money.
Having said that, Australians will willingly pay their taxes when they believe that the money will be well spent. They know that there is value to the community as a whole in having well-run public services. They know that there are needy people who deserve income support. They are willing to do their bit for the public good. But there is an implicit agreement with the government: taxpayers will say that they are willing to forgo some of their income for the public good, but they want to be assured that their money is being well spent. Taxpayers do not have a good appreciation of where the tax they pay is spent by the government. The information is publicly available in budget papers, but these are not easily accessed and not easily well understood. At budget time we see these pie charts indicating where money is spent, but they are talking in billions of dollars. Billions of dollars is a hell of a lot of money, and people really struggle to understand what it means in the total amount of tax they pay. How much of the $20,000 they may pay in annual income tax is actually going for social welfare? How much is actually going on Medicare? How much is actually going on education?
We believe that taxpayers should be better informed. We want to make it easier for people to access this sort of information. The intent of this amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act is to explicitly require the ATO to inform individual taxpayers where their tax paid during the year has been spent and to inform individual taxpayers of the total Commonwealth net debt in aggregate and their individual share. We believe that this greater transparency will improve accountability of government spending and debt. In short, we would be saying, ‘Firstly, thank you for paying this amount of tax’—be it $20,000—‘and, secondly, this is how the government has divided up your $20,000. A certain amount has gone in welfare and so on.’ It is not hard to do at all, because it is simply based on proportions. In that regard, the Taxation Office knows exactly how much people pay in income tax in net terms, and I do not think it is a bad thing to thank them for their contribution and then properly inform them of where that money went.
The amendment, which we may get the chance to talk about at the consideration in detail stage, gives quite a bit of detail and properly informs individuals of the challenges ahead. It is part of a deal that is so necessary to improve transparency and, at the end of the day, to properly inform Australians of how their tax would be better spent. When we go into consideration in detail I will formally move the motion, but it has been distributed in my name.
2192
13:14:00
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Trade
1
0
Mrs ELLIOT
—In relation to the
Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010
we have had some provisions outlined today. I would like to comment on some of the comments made earlier by the member for Makin, in particular the provisions of the tax laws amendments and the need to have those requirements in place and how important those particular amendments are. Without a doubt, the ones he mentioned and the applicability of those are very important. When we look at tax laws amendments and many that the government have put forward since being in government we have certainly seen some major advances in improving our tax system. We continue to do that by ensuring that we approach issues like economic prosperity and job security for people and by implementing cost-of-living measures. We certainly know how important tax laws amendments are, particularly for everyday Australians. The government have been very committed to ensuring that we have very good tax laws in place. I am happy to speak about many of the actions that the government have taken on tax amendments in terms of cost-of-living improvements for many Australians and about how we have been very committed to ensuring that people can access better cost-of-living initiatives by understanding the pressures that are on many Australians and the situations they face. We made that commitment and we will continue to do so, to ensure that Australians can access better initiatives in relation to their cost-of-living expenses. I reiterate the outstanding job the government have done since we have been in government.
HWB
Zappia, Tony, MP
Mr Zappia
—We certainly have.
DZW
Elliot, Justine, MP
Mrs ELLIOT
—We certainly have. I commend the bill to the House.
2193
13:17:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—I rise to speak in the debate on the
Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010. The
Daily Telegraph
features on the front page, as well as on two other pages, articles on ‘Selling the farm’. I am very familiar with the dairy industry. All five of the processors were Australian owned, prior to deregulation. Now only one of the five is Australian owned. I would say that, probably by Christmas—most certainly in the new year—two-thirds, maybe three-quarters, of the Australian sugar industry will be in foreign hands. Prior to deregulation the sugar industry was entirely owned by Australian corporations and Australian farmers. Here we have the sale of a large number of water rights—‘Murray-Darling water licences sold in 2008-09; $55 million worth of water rights are being sold’—in other words, Australian farmland on a massive scale is being sold as we talk at present. Forty per cent, arguably over 50 per cent, of our meat-processing industry was entirely Australian owned until about 20 years ago.
It amazes me that very few people in this parliament seem to appreciate that we actually have a trade surplus, which is quite remarkable because we have hardly ever had a trade surplus in the last 20 or 30 years since Mr Keating started this ridiculous marketism, which is fine if someone else in the world is doing it. But since nobody else is, it is the act of an imbecile. It was undertaken by the Keating government and then carried on by the Liberal-National Party government and is, again, being continued on by the current ALP government.
With respect to the burning question of minerals, all six of our major mining companies—and I personally come out of the mining industry, not out of the cattle industry—were Australian owned: Normandy, North, BHP, Western Mining Corporation and Mount Isa Mines. Now they are all foreign owned. They account for about 80 per cent of Australia’s entire mineral production.
10000
Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms S Bird)—Can I just ask the member for Kennedy to hold for a moment; I have waited a few minutes. Can you help me out by indicating how this links to the tax bill before the House.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr KATTER
—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today it is being made easier for people to sell their water rights in the main to the government. But one of the catchy pieces in this bill—and the minister can clarify it—is that it also makes it easier for foreign people to take that water. The most important aspect of this is that if the government buys—as it intends to and as the opposition intend to, if they go in there—15 per cent of Australia’s agricultural production, but four or five farms close down, as happened with our dairy factory, then the dairy factory will no longer be viable. There is not enough rice going through the rice factory, there is not enough cotton going through the cotton gin and there is not enough beef going through the meatworks to keep it open. So they close down. Then your cost structures become much higher because you have to send the product a lot further away because your local sugar mill has closed down.
The facilitating of the sale of the Murray-Darling water rights is further fuelling this movement. Farmers are going broke and they have no alternative but to sell. They do not want to sell, but they are watching five and six generations of their families going up in smoke. If you cannot make a quid you have to sell. That goes for water rights or anything else. What we are saying to you is: you do not realise that when you make these decisions you are putting another nail in the coffin of your country. We will just be a land of serfs working for foreign landlords. If the labour market is again deregulated we will be increasingly working for nothing.
If you cannot see that your dairy industry—the biggest of your agricultural industries—is now foreign owned, if you cannot see that your 15th biggest export item, sugar, is now foreign owned, that 66 per cent of your entire nation’s earnings are coming from your mining companies and 80 per cent of that is now foreign owned, and you are still doing nothing about it, and you are leaving Woolworths and Coles out there to screw the farmers down further, then they will sell off more and more and more. It will not only be their water licences but they will be selling their land and anything else that they can sell. This is the farming sector as well as other sectors of our economy.
Today I will, once again, be a minority of one, or two or three, but people in latter years will say, ‘Wasn’t he right?’ and ‘Who sat in this parliament and let the entire nation be sold off? Who did it?’ Did galahs out in Gunnedah do it; did they?
HWB
Zappia, Tony, MP
Mr Zappia interjecting—
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr KATTER
—You are doing it and you are most certainly continuing on exactly the same as your predecessors. Do you want to take any bets on whether the sugar applications for sale will be knocked back? Do you want to take a bet for a thousand bucks down on the table tomorrow? I would willingly part with it if I knew I could retain ownership in Australia of these assets.
To some degree you cannot maintain an asset if it is going broke. I have said again, again and again in this place that it is impossible for our farmers. They have to sell their water rights because they cannot make any money out of farming. Why can’t they? Because the only country without subsidies or tariffs in agriculture is Australia. Get your latest OECD report out—39 per cent OECD subsidy tariff level—and the subsidy tariff level in Australia is four per cent. If you think our farmers can run a 100-metre race and give their competitors a 30-metre start you do not know much about farming or any other damn thing in the competitive and economic world that is out there.
I most certainly feel very, very strongly in opposition to this bill. If the House does not divide in the vote on this bill I would like my opposition to be registered on it because I see it as another nail in the coffin of agriculture in Australia. Not only has this parliament sat idly by and watched this nation’s great assets, which were built up by our forebears, being flogged off overseas but they have watched agriculture sink to a point where within five years the nation will not be able to feed itself. Isn’t that something to be proud of as a nation—that we cannot even feed ourselves! I disagreed with the report last week that said that that is the situation now. I do not think it is. But within five years there is absolutely no doubt that it will be. That is what we have fallen to in Australia.
I have not done the figures recently and I do not know if the figures are available. Within two years of the dairy industry deregulation, arguably three years, this nation went to a farmer committing suicide every four days in this country. This is something for this parliament to be proud of! I am not. I am ashamed to have my name associated with this parliament over a period of 16 years. We sold off the farm. We sold off our mining industry. We closed down our manufacturing industry. We have oppressed our farmers to a point where one of them decided that it was better not to live in this world at all. The Australia that you have created is such a horrific place for farmers that one of them thought that he would be better out of it, and he exited in the most terrible way possible.
I conclude by saying that we are burying so many now in North Queensland. As the coffin is going down we play that magnificent and beautiful song written by our northern son, Graeme Connors. The song, which was sung at the Opera House to commemorate 200 years of Australia, is
Let the cane fields burn
and says:
Well let the cane fields burn
Let the flames rise
Let the politicians and the bankers in the city look up
In wonder at the glow in the skies
Let the cane fields burn—
as the bloke incinerates himself in the middle of his cane fields. I know two people who have done that.
Mr BRADBURY
(Lindsay
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)
00:00:00
—I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
2195
13:28:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—I am happy to debate what will be adjourned. This legislation has been on the
Notice Paper
for some period of time. We flagged in the election campaign that we wanted to have a receipt sent to taxpayers so that they would properly be informed, firstly, of how much tax they had paid, secondly, where that money had been allocated for particular purposes, such as health, or education or social security and so on and, thirdly, the amount of net debt that they as an individual taxpayer may be obliged to repay.
From our perspective it is all well and good to talk about transparency and accountability, but the two times we tried to have transparency and accountability in relation to the taxation system of Australia the Labor Party sought to close us down. The first time was when we sought the release of documentation on the Henry tax review. We flagged clearly during the election campaign that we wanted to see the release of all the information. The Secretary of the Treasury sought legal advice that said that this chamber did not have the power to order the release of information—a Solicitor-General opinion that is questionable at best but obviously bought the interests of some of the Independents, and they chose on that occasion to oppose letting the sunlight in.
We are not talking about letting the sunlight in on over $300 billion of revenue; we are talking about letting the sunlight in for individuals whether they pay $10,000, $20,000 or $30, 000, or whatever the case may be, of income tax a year. They have a right to know exactly to the dollar on a proportional basis how much tax they pay and where that tax goes—it is limited to personal income tax, I accept that. It is based on an allocation of the proportional nature of government expenditure as against income tax itself. It obviously does not take into account other taxes. But it is not about the total tax revenue; it is about where the money is spent.
It is all well and good for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to seek to adjourn a debate on a bill that has been sitting on the
Notice Paper.
This Labor Party says it wants to get on with the job of governing. For crying out loud, here is a chance to govern. Here is a chance to send every Australian taxpayer a receipt for the amount of money they pay in tax and explain to them, quite properly, where every dollar of tax will be going on individual programs. Normally, if someone sends you something, you send a thank-you note. Normally, if someone sends you a gift, you send a thank-you. Even though the payment of tax is required, it is a gift by individuals. Look at all the solemn faces of those from the ATO and from Treasury over in the officials’ box. I know you all work so hard, but let me say that the tax you administer is indeed a gift from the taxpayers and it is a damn good idea to say individually to taxpayers: ‘Thank you for sending me $20,000 of your hard-earned income. Thank you for working up to half the year—the first six months of a financial year—for the Australian government.’ That is roughly where it ends up when people have to pay nearly half their income in tax; they spend the first six months of the year working for the government.
A mate of mine has a date in his calendar—some time in December—where he says that from then on he can start working for himself and his family. I call it the ‘for me and my family day’—the day when I start earning money that goes to my family rather than to the Australian government. Kerry Packer said something like: ‘Of course, I’d minimise my tax. Why would I pay more tax than I should? Look at the way the buggers are spending it.’ You might remember that, Deputy Speaker, having been in the parliament at that time when Kerry Packer appeared before what would probably have been the communications committee of the House of Representatives. They still occasionally run that footage of Kerry Packer. He was right: why would you give the buggers anymore money than they quite properly deserve?
If we are going to let the sunlight in, if we are going to have proper processes in this House, why not give every Australian taxpayer a receipt? The receipt would start off, ‘Thank you for paying this much tax this year and, by the way, this is where we sent your tax.’ It would cover everything, including the different classes of pensions. I think a lot of Australians want to know that and they could rightly be pleased that a certain amount of their income tax had gone to pay for disability pensions, Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, defence to protect their families or education to help educate their children or someone else’s children. I think Australians want to know that, I really do. It is all part of transparency. In particular, it will make people appreciate that when government’s spend money, it is taxpayers’ money. It does not come from a money tree. I carry around in my wallet a $5 billion banknote issued by the central bank of Zimbabwe, who could teach the Americans, the British and the Europeans a bit about printing money. The Zimbabweans have been doing it for some period of time. What most concerns me is that that banknote is quite a modest sum, that $5 billion. One of my staff has hanging above her desk a $1 trillion banknote. The numbers are so large they are meaningless.
People want to know what they are contributing individually. When we talk in this place about billions and trillions, and any variations, Australians say, ‘That is a huge figure’—and it is—‘but it is hard to contextualise given that we have an economy of over $1.3 trillion.’ But people know what it means to them. Even today I was given information that suggests that, on average, if you took all bank fees paid in Australia and averaged them out across households, each household pays more than $5,000 in bank fees.
This is why this matter should not be adjourned, because this government have had it on the
Notice Paper—and we have flagged it—for some extended period of time. The government have formed a little war council here in the chamber, including the member for Hunter. I feel for the member for Hunter.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—The member for North Sydney should wind up as quickly as possible because, under the standing orders, this is not a matter which ought to have been permitted to be debated. I think the honourable member has—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—I was instructed that it was able to be debated.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The honourable member has already spoken. I was not in the chair at the time the honourable member was given the call, but if the honourable member could wind up as quickly as possible that would facilitate the business of the House.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—I feel for your position, Mr Deputy Speaker, although it is, I understand, a separate motion to the actual motion that was before the chair, which was the continuation of the debate.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The motion before the chair is that the debate be adjourned.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—Well there was a motion before that that I spoke on, so this is a separate motion and I have not previously spoken on the motion that the debate be adjourned.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—As I said, if the member for North Sydney could facilitate the business of the House and finish expeditiously—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—I am happy to facilitate, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it just illustrates the fact that the government does not know what it is doing. It did not have a second speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, in the chamber, had to get up and, indeed, she struggled to talk about a bill that she did not understand. I would welcome—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I think the honourable member for North Sydney has made his point and he should at this point resume his seat.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—On what basis, Mr Deputy Speaker?
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—On the basis that under the standing orders this debate ought not to be proceeding. This is not a matter upon which, under the standing orders, a debate is permitted.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Joe, this is a procedural matter. You can’t speak on it.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—If you could finish up expeditiously. I think you have made your point.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—I am happy to do so. I am disappointed that the debate is not proceeding. I say that again. It is embarrassing for the government that they have had to adjourn, but we look forward to expeditiously dealing with the tax receipt issue and pointing out the fact that this government should not be running away from greater transparency in the delivery of taxation services.
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Bradbury’s) be agreed to.
13:43:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
71
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Brodtmann, G.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Husic, E.
Jones, S.
Kelly, M.J.
King, C.F.
Leigh, A.
Livermore, K.F.
Lyons, G.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
Melham, D.
Mitchell, R.
Murphy, J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Neill, D.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Rowland, M.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Smyth, L.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, A.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Zappia, A.
70
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Alexander, J.
Andrews, K.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Christensen, G.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M. *
Crook, T.
Dutton, P.C.
Entsch, W.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Frydenberg, J.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Griggs, N.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, C.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
Matheson, R.
McCormack, M.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C.
O’Dowd, K.
O’Dwyer, K
Prentice, J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Roy, Wyatt
Ruddock, P.M.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Tehan, D.
Truss, W.E.
Tudge, A.
Turnbull, M.
Van Manen, B.
Vasta, R.
Washer, M.J.
Wyatt, K.
2
PAIRS
Plibersek, T.
Jones, E.
Shorten, W.R.
Schultz, A.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
2198
Statements by Members
Casey Electorate: Remembrance Day
2198
2198
13:50:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I rise today to pay tribute to the local RSLs, local community groups and local schools who participated in Remembrance Day ceremonies in my electorate of Casey last week. As we all know, Remembrance Day and Anzac Day services are special times to remember all of those who made sacrifices in all of the conflicts in our nation’s history. We all know that increasingly large numbers of Australians, particularly young Australians, are participating in these services, which is a wonderful thing.
I had the pleasure of attending the Croydon RSL Remembrance Day service in Civic Square, Croydon, last Thursday. I want to pay tribute to the six students who participated in that service. There were four students from Ruskin Park Primary School—James Dall, Stephanie Felsch, Emilee Egan, Alyssa Rushent—and two students from Croydon Secondary College—Danni Cornwell and Jack Shiels. All six students spoke very well, having researched various aspects of Australia’s military history. I commend them, their teachers and their schools in this House.
(Time expired)
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
2199
2199
13:51:00
Brodtmann, Gai, MP
30540
Canberra
ALP
1
0
Ms BRODTMANN
—I was delighted to hear on Saturday night that Aung San Suu Kyi appears to have been unconditionally released after spending 15 of the past 21 years under house arrest in Burma. I urge the Burmese regime to uphold her unconditional release. I would be deeply concerned if her future freedom of speech, movement or association is restricted as it has been in the past.
I welcome Aung San Suu Kyi’s commitment to dialogue and reconciliation in Burma. I hope that a conciliatory approach will inspire legitimate democracy in that country. Her release is an opportunity for Burmese authorities to engage with her and her party, the National League for Democracy. I also call on the Burmese regime to immediately and unconditionally release the more than 2,100 political prisoners held in Burma.
As members of this House would know, Aung San Suu Kyi is a remarkable woman. She is an icon of democracy in our region and her resilience is inspiring. She won the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize. She used her $1.3 million prize to establish a health and education trust for the Burmese people. Her sacrifices as a mother, grandmother and wife highlight her unwavering will and commitment to her country and democracy.
Flynn Electorate: Regional Communities
2199
2199
13:53:00
O’Dowd, Ken, MP
139441
Flynn
NATS
0
0
Mr O’DOWD
—I draw the attention of the House to the effect that fly-in fly-out workforces are having on our regional communities. Towns like Emerald, Moura, Blackwater and Gladstone are being threatened both socially and economically by this practice of large mining companies and their contractors. Last week a meeting in Moura, attended by 230 local residents, put a strong case to the state government to intervene to ensure that the mining companies and their contractors consider the wellbeing of local communities first and foremost.
The recent decision of the Queensland government to allow mining companies in Moranbah to allow 100 per cent of the workforce to be fly-in fly-out is a dangerous precedent. I am not saying that a component of fly-in fly-out workers is not warranted—it is—but workers must have the right to choose. Some have suggested that a 70 per cent fly-in fly-out component mixed with 30 per cent living in the community would at least give these communities a better chance of survival. The current roster system of allowing four days of work, one pyjama day and five days off means that workers will continue to treat regional towns as dormitory suburbs. Moura has 90 homes on the rental market for as little as $150 per week and the town generally lacks the confidence it needs to plan for the future.
Indonesia: Natural Disasters
2199
2199
13:54:00
Parke, Melissa, MP
HWR
Fremantle
ALP
1
0
Ms PARKE
—The tsunami in the Mentawai Islands in late October and concurrent eruption of Mount Merapi near Yogyakarta remind us all how people anywhere can suddenly be overtaken by events of such terrifying magnitude that we can scarcely comprehend them. Indonesians live in a naturally volatile place and their current sufferings follow hard on the Boxing Day tsunami and the earthquakes in Yogyakarta and Padang. Anak Krakatoa, the child of the 1883 cataclysm, has been unusually active, convulsing up to 700 times daily. Merapi volcano is one of the world’s most dangerous volcanoes, having been active for 10,000 years. Millions of ordinary people live near these phenomena but must go about their daily business knowing they are powerless to prevent them, relying often only on the prayers of spiritual guides like Mbah Marijan, who was himself killed by the recent eruption on the slopes of Merapi.
A member of my staff has studied in Yogyakarta and I know he is concerned for his friends there and in nearby Solo who have been living with uncertainty in a deluge of grey rain and ash. Hundreds of Indonesians have already perished in these events; more than 320,000 people are housed at evacuation centres. We hope they can be spared further tragedy. Australian agencies such as Save the Children and UnitingWorld are working closely with affected communities to provide emergency food, shelter and health services. It is important that Australians continue to be generous in assisting one of our closest neighbours in this difficult time.
Hume Electorate: Mr Daniel Rumsey
2200
2200
13:56:00
Schultz, Alby, MP
83Q
Hume
LP
0
0
Mr SCHULTZ
—I rise to acknowledge the wonderful achievements of one of the great champions of the Southern Highlands and the Hume electorate. I am pleased to inform the House that in October this year Daniel Rumsey of Bundanoon represented Australia in the 5th Down Syndrome Swimming World Championships in Taiwan. Daniel won 14 gold medals and, in true champion style, broke 13 world records during the meet. With the assistance of his father John, his mother Sue and his brother Andrew, together with a great coaching team from the Picton Swimming Club, Daniel showed his dominance in the pool and was rightly named the male world champion as well as swimmer of the meet.
I wish to congratulate Daniel on his tremendous efforts during the meet and acknowledge his dedication and commitment to achieving his dream. He has been duly and rightly rewarded for his efforts and, in the process, has made the people of Hume and Australia extremely proud of his achievements. Daniel is indeed a fine example of an individual rising above adversity to achieve.
Bass Electorate: Mr Oliver Vogel-Reed
2200
2200
13:57:00
Lyons, Geoff, MP
M38
Bass
ALP
1
0
Mr LYONS
—I would like to congratulate a very skilled and talented 13-year-old student in my electorate of Bass. His name is Oliver Vogel-Reed. Oliver is a grade 7 student at Riverside High School and his recent second place in the national Future Problem Solving Program International championship at the University of Melbourne against older competitors has earned him a trip, representing Australia, to the Future Problem Solving Program International world championships in the United States next June. Oliver was inspired by his teacher, Mr Briginshaw, who has coached him.
What I find particularly impressive is that Oliver has only been problem solving for about 6 months. The competition involves solving problems that are set in the future, requiring precise structure and excellent analytical skills. Oliver enjoys reading and science, is a member of the local scouts group and enjoys hanging out with his mates and riding his bike and scooter just like any other teenager. Yet his ability to solve complex problems is amazing. His quick thinking and imaginative skills are a major part of assisting Oliver to analyse future problems. And these problems are not your run-of-the-mill questions; they include food issues, poverty and global starvation. Congratulations again to Oliver Vogel-Reed. I would like to wish him well as he represents Australia at the world championships of Future Problem Solving Program International next year.
Gilmore Electorate: Ambulance Officers
2200
2200
13:58:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
0
0
Mrs GASH
—Last week, I was privileged to attend an awards ceremony to honour ambulance officers who attended the tragic crash at East Lynne where three members of one family and one other person lost their lives. The accident occurred on the Princes Highway and involved a petrol tanker and a family sedan. The only survivor was the mother and wife whose life has been forever shattered by the loss of her entire family and by her personal disfigurement.
I would like to acknowledge the role and professionalism of the ambulance officers from my electorate who attended and who were presented with the ambulance unit citation for courage: Wayne Dunlop, Wayne Flint, Lachlan McDonald, Matthew Potter, Peter Tyler, Ben Lynch, Steve Owen, Andrew Ryan and Louise Wareham. They are a credit to their profession and a credit to the community that they serve. I am proud and privileged to represent them in parliament. I am sure the House will support me in thanking these fine officers for the bravery and dedication to duty they showed on that day. I am also indebted to Mr Greg Rochford, CEO of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales, for allowing me to participate in saluting these loyal servants of the community.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
2201
Ministerial Arrangements
2201
14:00:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Ms GILLARD
—I inform the House that the Assistant Treasurer will be absent from question time today as he has been delayed due to an illness in his immediate family. The Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf.
DAW AUNG SAN SUU KYI
2201
Miscellaneous
2201
14:00:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Ms GILLARD
—On indulgence, Mr Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to make some statements about the release of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. I am sure many Australians, with a tear in their eye and a lump in their throat, have watched the remarkable vision of Aung San Suu Kyi being greeted by her supporters now that she has been finally freed in Burma. Our thoughts are with this remarkable and courageous woman at this time. She has been an amazing and resilient fighter for democracy in Burma, and I am sure every member of the House would want her to feel the sense of congratulation for her achievements, for her resilience, that I believe is shared by the Australian people. Ernest Hemingway famously said that courage was best defined as grace under pressure. If those words are true, then there is no better example of courage than Aung San Suu Kyi.
I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have had our ambassador in Burma give to Aung San Suu Kyi a message from me on behalf of the Australian people. I would like to take the opportunity to read that message:
The Australian people and government share a deep and abiding admiration for you.
Your steadfast commitment to democracy and to the welfare of the Burmese people is a source of inspiration for Australians.
Many here will be happy at the news of your release from house arrest but we are fully conscious that the struggle for true democracy in Burma is not at an end.
The Australian people and government fervently hope that you and the Burmese people will one day see realised the democracy and justice for which you have fought so hard.
As that message records, this is a time of celebration for Aung San Suu Kyi but it is also a moment to note that so much more needs to be done to achieve freedom and democracy in Burma. There are estimated to be around 2,000 other political prisoners who, like Aung San Suu Kyi, should be returned to freedom and particularly freedom of expression including political expression. We call again on the government of Burma to have free and fair elections to allow the Burmese people the simple right to select their representatives and government, and we call on them to engage in a genuine reconciliation process in Burma.
2202
14:03:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—Mr Speaker, also on indulgence, I echo the comments of the Prime Minister. Obviously this is a great day for Aung San Suu Kyi, but it is a great day for everyone who believes in democracy anywhere in our world. She has been a symbol of the struggle for democracy in her own country and right around the world. Her party won the 1990 elections in Burma but, instead of allowing her party to form a government, the military junta cancelled the elections and imprisoned her. She has remained imprisoned for the best part of the last two decades. In that time she has not seen her children, and she has never seen her grandchildren. Her husband died without the chance of being with his wife. It was an utterly unjustified, completely outrageous act by the Burmese junta which has been rightly condemned all around the world.
Again, I join with the Prime Minister. I echo her words. I express the hope on behalf of the coalition that the release of Aung San Suu Kyi is not just a cynical PR exercise but might be the beginning of wider liberalisation and democratisation in Burma.
2202
14:04:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—Mr Speaker, I have been approached by a number of members who would like to participate in this debate, and I am sure that would be the case on both sides of the House. For their benefit, I suggest it would be appropriate for the Selection Committee to consider allocating some private members’ business time next Monday, either in the House or in the Main Committee, for consideration of this matter.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
2202
14:05:00
Questions Without Notice
Gillard Government
2202
14:05:00
2202
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr ABBOTT
—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of her statement in June that the government had lost its way, and I ask the Prime Minister when does she expect to find her way by setting out some clear, direct, specific and deliverable policies to stop the tax rises, to stop the cost of living rises and, above all else, to stop the boats?
2202
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. You have to give the Leader of the Opposition this: once he is told a slogan by a focus group, he never deviates from it—not once, not ever. He is driven by focus groups every day of the week, with his three-word slogans. When he is not driven by focus groups, with his three-word slogans, he is trying to work out how to put the Liberal Party’s political interests in front of the national interest. He is trying to find out what he can wreck next. Since the election he has shown all of the political maturity of a two-year-old. It is about time he got over it and actually started contributing to national debates in a responsible way.
Whilst the Leader of the Opposition’s tantrum continues, on this side of the House we will continue to deliver responsible government. The Leader of the Opposition asked me what that is about, clearly having no idea himself what responsible government could possibly be about, having never acted in a responsible way when he was in government. Let me take this opportunity to explain it to him. It is about a strong economy. It is about giving Australians the benefits and dignity of work. I was very proud last week to see the unemployment statistics and to see that we have created 375,000 jobs. That is something that we celebrate on this side of the House. It is something that we on this side of the House contributed to with our timely economic stimulus package, while the Leader of the Opposition was content to see Australians thrown out of work and thrown out of their homes. We will bring the budget to surplus in 2012-13. We did not follow the Leader of the Opposition down the path of an $11 billion black hole—not for us that irresponsibility. We had our promises properly costed and we will bring the budget to surplus in 2012-13.
We are working on measures that will lift the productivity of our economy. Our economy has emerged strong from the global financial crisis but we need continuing reform, investment in skills, investment in infrastructure and moves to increase the participation rate so that we can absolutely maximise this opportunity we have now, coming so strongly out of the global financial crisis. We are readying our economy for the challenges of the future: building the National Broadband Network, dealing with pricing carbon and tackling climate change. At the same time, we are governing for all Australians. We do not want Australians left behind because they lack a quality education or quality health services. The reality is that we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition a health system groaning under the weight of his cuts, and we are now preparing it for the future. We inherited an education system presided over by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition where no-one cared about disadvantage and no-one cared about children being left behind, and we are systematically fixing that. At the same time, we continue to make sure that Australia’s voice is heard in the councils of the world. We continue to make sure that our nation is safe and strong, and there is no more important engagement in that than the successful prosecution of our mission in Afghanistan. The Leader of the Opposition asked me: ‘What does this government stand for?’ We stand for all of that. He stands for wrecking and three-word slogans.
2203
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
Mr ABBOTT
—Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Given the answer she has given, does the Prime Minister agree with former Labor minister Graham Richardson that the government has no agenda and no plan?
2203
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I do not know whether this will strike the Leader of the Opposition as a grand surprise but the answer is no, I do not agree with that critique from a private citizen whom, to the best of my recollection, I have met once in my life. It would seem to me very odd indeed that the Leader of the Opposition—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr Crean interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister will resume her seat. Minister, I was trying to get the House to come to order.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! A question has been asked, and the Prime Minister is responding to it. She will be heard in silence.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say in answer to the question from the Leader of the Opposition: would it not strike Australians as strange that, in a world where there are so many challenges—how do we keep our economy strong and how do we ready our economy for the future? How do we tackle climate change? How do we make sure that every child in this country gets a great quality education and how do we make sure we have the healthcare services that Australians deserve not only today but in 10, 20 and 30 years time as our society ages? How do we make sure that we have world-class infrastructure right around the country? How do we make sure that we have balanced growth in an economy where our resources sector is obviously going so strong but things like the high dollar are impacting on other industries and other parts of the country? How do we reconcile and improve the prospects and life expectancy of Indigenous Australians; how do we close the gap? How do we as a world deal with the challenges of food security, development and freer trade? In the face of all these challenges, that the Leader of the Opposition would come into this place and use the precious minutes of question time to yet again play politics—we do not expect anything more from a man whose entire philosophy can be reduced to a few three-word slogans. The truth is that the Leader of the Opposition has no plans for the economy and no plans to bring the budget to surplus.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The Prime Minister was not asked about the assessment of the Leader of the Opposition; she was asked about the assessment of Graham Richardson, former Labor powerbroker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister has the call and she is responding.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I do not agree with former Prime Minister John Howard about much but he was right about the member for Sturt, you have to give him that. The Leader of the Opposition comes in with this sort of cheap criticism because he is a man with no plan for the economy and no plan to bring the budget to surplus. His only plan for health has been cutbacks. He has never cared less about kids’ education—never made a substantive statement on the matter. He has no plan to tackle climate change, just cheap slogans. On every major public policy debate and challenge in this country he has already set his mind to wreck what he can, putting the political interests of the Liberal Party always in front of the national interest, each and every day.
G20 Meeting
2204
APEC Meeting
2204
2204
14:14:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
1
Ms LIVERMORE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the outcome of the recent meeting of the G20 summit in Korea and on the recent APEC leaders meeting in Japan?
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I simply say to the member for Canning, as I said to a former colleague from Western Australia: if he wants to be a commentator he can go and sit up beside me, preferably in the soundproof booths. The question was in order. The Prime Minister now has the call to respond to the question.
2204
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I am sure that, generally, members of the House are interested in the prospects of the global economy and actually understand that what happens in the global economy matters to Australians and matters to their jobs. It would seem to me a great pity indeed that there are members in this parliament who do not care less about that.
I have, of course, just returned from the meeting of the G20 in Korea and the meeting of APEC in Japan. These were important events globally and in our region for the future prospects of the Australian economy and for the jobs of Australians. At both meetings, the G20 and APEC, important steps were taken which will matter for Australians as the global economy recovers, even though that recovery is fragile. I was very pleased to see that at the G20, leaders yet again indicated that they would resist a slide into protectionism in what is a difficult period in the global economy—a difficult period for many economies that are experiencing high unemployment rates and sluggish growth and that are going through the painful work of fiscal consolidation. Even in these pressing and difficult circumstances for many economies, leaders were prepared to say that they would hold out against protectionism. Indeed, they went further and said that they wanted to inject a level of ambition into the Doha Round of trade talks and wanted 2011 to be the endgame and to have the Doha Round concluded. I believe this is an important statement from the G20, one that is very much in Australia’s national interest.
I was also pleased to see that the G20 did deliver on the stronger global financial system through the Basel III rules and stronger international financial institutions, most particularly the long-sought reform of the IMF—something that Australia played a big role in designing through co-chairing the working group with South Africa. Leaders also authorised a framework to consolidate global growth—to lift growth in all economies. We understood at the meeting that that would require the hard work of structural reform and it would require the world to address the imbalances in the current global system with some countries saving too much and some countries spending too much.
I was also pleased that this spirit of progress was there in the APEC meeting and in particular that leaders agreed on a free-trade area of the Asia-Pacific—once again a long sought after goal—and that practical work was done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and that President Obama, who will chair APEC next year in America, indicated that he wanted to see real progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership by the time of that meeting. That is once again a very good development for Australia. We are a great trading nation.
This is quintessentially multilateralism that is part of Labor’s heritage and Labor’s work as we go about our business in the world. We are proud to have been one of the founding nations of APEC. It was a great move by former Prime Minister Bob Hawke. It was a great move by former Prime Minister Keating to lift the meeting to leader level. I was pleased to see that within our region the spirit of free trade and economic liberalism is still very strongly alive and well. This is in Australia’s national interest. Trade means jobs.
Asylum Seekers
2205
2205
14:19:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the comments by former Labor minister, now citizen, Graham Richardson, about the Prime Minister’s failures, and I quote:
The announcement of the East Timor detention centre, which the government is clinging to despite it becoming increasingly ridiculous, springs to mind.
As the government has clearly lost its way on border protection, will the Prime Minister now abandon her three-word slogan of ‘regional processing centre’?
2205
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—They must have forgotten to have the tactics meeting today.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan interjecting—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I am being in a more generous spirit than the Treasurer. The Treasurer is probably right—they did have the tactics meeting today, and this is the product of it. Let me explain to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the government is committed to working on a comprehensive plan to address unauthorised arrivals. That is why we are working on a regional protection framework and a regional processing centre. I understand that the opposition thinks that it is smart to wander around with three-word slogans, no policy content, no idea about how these things would come to light and crazy statements like the Leader of the Opposition’s statement about boat phones—sitting in Kirribilli issuing orders to patrol boat commanders on the front line about what they should do the next when they see an unauthorised boat. This kind of puerile nonsense we will leave to the opposition, and whilst we leave it to the opposition we will be getting on with the hard work of dealing with these questions of unauthorised arrivals.
The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is doing that. He has already made comprehensive statements about the circumstances of children in detention. As I am aware, the opposition still cannot work out, given its internal divisions, whether it is in favour of that or against it, whether what the member for Cook says is going to be the same as what the member for Pearce says or whether they will continue to be absolutely different. They still are not able to put any content around what they would do if they were in government on the question of dealing with detention and unauthorised arrivals. They are full of statements but no details. We are getting on with the hard work. We will continue to do that. The minister has dealt with the question of children in detention; he has dealt with the question of our long-term detention strategy. We are in dialogue with our region about the regional protection framework and regional processing centre. We understand as we go about this hard work that the opposition will play cheap politics. That is what they do.
G20 Meeting
2206
2206
14:22:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
Mr CHAMPION
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Following the Prime Minister’s trip to the G20 summit last week, will the Prime Minister inform the House of both the Australian and the global outlook for employment?
2206
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question and thank him for his keen interest in jobs for Australians. As I was attending the G20 and APEC, what was at the forefront of my mind was the question of jobs for Australians. When I was there at those international meetings, the talk between leaders was about the circumstances of employment around the world. Here in Australia, of course, we have proudly created 375,000 jobs. Our unemployment rate is at 5.4 per cent. Our participation rate is going up as more people are seeking to move into our workforce so they too can experience the benefits and dignity of work.
When we look around the world, economies are in a very different circumstance. If we look at America, for example, unemployment is at more than nine per cent, pressing on so many Americans, pressing on them with the loss of dignity and independence that comes with the loss of work, pressing on them in a really practical way as mortgage foreclosures hit rates like eight per cent as Americans who lose jobs lose their homes. At the same time, governments in many of these economies with high unemployment and sluggish growth are needing to engage in fiscal consolidation. That means many cutbacks to services that citizens in those countries have come to rely on, and that is also creating a great deal of pressure for those economies and for the citizens within those economies.
At the global meetings, we talked frankly about the pressures on leaders in some of these economies—the pressures for protectionism. Once again I am pleased that those protectionist measures will be resisted. Here in Australia, through economic stimulus, we have worked hard to support Australian jobs and I am proud that we have done so. We have created 375,000 jobs and we look forward to creating more jobs. In order to do that, we do need to be involved with dialogue with our regional partners and more broadly about what needs to be done to keep lifting global growth. I am very pleased indeed that we have agreed on further measures that will facilitate trade. We are a great trading nation and trade equals jobs—jobs for Australians in so many sectors and so many parts of our country. So I thank the member for his question and I also thank the leaders with whom I met at both the G20 and APEC for their determination to keep focusing on global growth, keep focusing on freer trade and keep focusing therefore on jobs here and jobs around the world.
Asylum Seekers
2207
2207
14:25:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
Mr KEENAN
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the 47 boats and 2,362 boat people that have been intercepted offshore since June, when she indicated that the government had lost its way. Given that the East Timor solution is floundering and extra detention centres are being opened and expanded to meet growing demand for places, how is her government showing that it has found a way to protect Australia’s borders?
2207
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question, and it really does have a very simple answer. As a government, we tell people the truth; as an opposition, you engage in spin and slogans. In the spirit of telling people the truth, when I first spoke about this matter as Prime Minister at the Lowy Institute I made it abundantly clear that achieving my vision of a regional protection framework and regional processing centre would take some time. I was very frank with Australians about the sources of unauthorised arrivals. I was very frank with Australians about the number of arrivals. I was very frank with Australians about sharing and understanding their concerns. But I also said to Australians at the time, very clearly, very frankly, that there was no slogan that would fix this problem, that there was no one-word policy that would fix this problem, that it would take patient and methodical work, and we are engaged in that patient and methodical work as a government now, with the work that has been done by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
I understand that the opposition believes it has profited off the cheap politics it has played around the asylum seeker question, just as it sought to profit off this cheap politics when it was in government, causing fundamental divisions amongst its backbench because members like the former member for Kooyong stood up against it. I wait to see members on the back bench today who shared those concerns under the Howard government once again stand up against this cheap politics. Despite current signs, I am actually very confident that they will, because the complete inability of the opposition to deal comprehensively with the question of children in detention—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister is now ranging over the opposition’s policies from past governments and years. She was asked how she is going to find a way to protect Australia’s borders since she has been Prime Minister—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will relate her response directly to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—In conclusion, I will say that the opposition, divided on these questions, divided about the question of children in detention, will continue to try to profit off its cheap politics. What we will do is we will continue to patiently work through it, we will continue to deploy more assets to patrol our borders than have ever been deployed before and we will continue to tell Australians the truth about the issue of unauthorised arrivals and about how we are dealing with it.
G20 Meeting
2207
2207
14:29:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the outcomes from the G20 leaders meeting with regard to financial regulation and any implications for Australia?
2207
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for Dobell for his very important question, because the G20 endorsed the most comprehensive reforms to the global financial system in decades. These are very important reforms, because we have seen what a global financial crisis can do. It can produce a global recession, and nobody is immune from that. So reforming the international financial system is absolutely essential to prosperity, not just globally but in countries like Australia.
What we saw at the height of the global financial crisis was a dramatic impact on our financial system. But fortunately we were able to avoid the worst impacts of that global financial crisis and global recession. What the global financial crisis indicated was the importance of having a stable financial system globally, and the overriding objective of having that globally is so that we can secure jobs so that we avoid the destruction of capital and the destruction of lives that flowed from the global financial crisis and global recession.
The G20 endorsed the work of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision—very important reforms when it comes to capital adequacy for our banks nationally and for banks internationally—and endorsed the work of the Financial Stability Board. Of course, our banks will comply in full with these new international standards, but they will do it in a way which takes into account our unique circumstances, because we did not have the excesses in our banking system that we saw in the United States or that we have seen in Europe. We have certainly had a much more stable system and we have certainly had a better supervisory system in this country. So we did not see the risky behaviours that we have seen overseas.
But of course we were not immune and that is why we moved comprehensively and swiftly to put in place our bank guarantees for depositors and the guarantees for wholesale funding. And those guarantees for wholesale funding will bring to the Australian taxpayer $5 billion in revenue over time. The banks have paid for that wholesale funding guarantee, which was so important to the supply of credit to the Australian economy.
Of course, there will be some differences in the way in which these rules are implemented in Australia, and this is particularly the case when it comes to liquidity standards. In this country we simply do not have enough government debt to comply with those standards in the way in which they will be implemented in other countries, and the G20 has recognised that and will work with the Australian authorities to ensure that we do comply in a way which does not push up domestic costs. Why do I make that point? Because there will be absolutely no excuse for any Australian bank to force up its costs as a result of these important international rules.
So what our work to the G20 has done is bring further stability to our banking system, so important to the prosperity of our country and so important to the peace of mind of anyone in this country who has their money in a bank and is a depositor in a major financial institution. These reforms are absolutely critical to our future prosperity and they have been put in place with the very strong support of the Australian government.
Interest Rates
2208
2208
14:33:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
Mr ABBOTT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the 16 separate occasions on which she and the Treasurer have warned the banks about interest rate rises above the Reserve Bank’s increase since the government lost its way in June. I ask the Prime Minister: when will the government find its way by adopting the coalition’s policy on price signalling, which will actually help to prevent unjustifiable interest rate increases and actually help to solve the problem?
2208
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because it enables me to advise him that the member for Dunkley has, in the newspaper today, indicated his grand scepticism about the impact of the shadow Treasurer’s plans. So I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that perhaps the first thing he needs to do is call together the motley crew he refers to as his shadow ministry and see if they are able to articulate one position. Because there we have it on the pages of today’s
Financial Review,and they are all over the place.
Now, whilst the Leader of the Opposition spends his time trying to herd his shadow ministerial cats into one position, what we will do is continue to get on with the business of reforming banking to facilitate competition. What the Leader of the Opposition may not know, because we all know he is bored by economics—ask John Hewson, ask Peter Costello; I think it is very unlikely that he has followed any of these developments—is that the government has already acted to support competition in the banking sector. We acted as the global financial crisis hit to provide financial support in the billions of dollars to residential mortgage backed securities in order to support particularly second-tier lenders and to facilitate competition in the banking market.
We have acted as a government to crack down on unfair mortgage exit fees. These are the fees that stop people going to shop around. When people cannot shop around because the exit fee from their current product is so high, that obviously reduces competition. We are seeing, I believe, a change in the policy settings of some banks about mortgage exit fees because of this government action.
The government is committed to continuing to act to facilitate competition in banking. We are doing that in a methodical way. The Treasurer has been crystal clear about his intentions to do just that, including in his public statements in early October. What we have seen on the opposition side is the shadow Treasurer run out and call for a reregulation of interest rates, and every day since we have seen the shadow Treasurer trying to recover from that statement with increasingly desperate failing around about policy settings, which has drawn sharp criticism in his own shadow cabinet about his economic competence and ability—and actually the Leader of the Opposition on radio refused to back him in when asked. Well, we will leave that disarray for the opposition benches as we get on with the job of facilitating competition in banking.
Economy
2209
2209
14:37:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will you please update the House on the economic and fiscal outlook for Australia?
2209
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for Braddon for his question. The midyear update showed that the Australian economy continues to be well ahead of the pack. When many of our peers are suffering double-digit unemployment, job creation is strong. We have strong economic growth, forecast to be 3¼ per cent in 2010-11 and 3¾ per cent in 2011-12, but it is the job figures that are particularly important here. Australia has created since November 2007 over 650,000 jobs and in the next 18 months we are looking to the creation of something like 380,000 jobs—almost one million jobs. That is a stunning achievement for the Australian economy, a stunning achievement of the Australian people, and I would have thought that it is something that those on the other side of the House should be applauding. We have falling unemployment—down to 4½ per cent by mid-2012. The other thing we have is a very strong pipeline of investment. Private investment in major projects around this country continues to be strong and grows stronger almost by the week. Of course, the budget is coming back to surplus in three years—in 2012-13. As the Prime Minister was saying before, not only is that strong but we are delivering the fastest fiscal consolidation seen in this country since the 1960s—4½ per cent of GDP, a much quicker return to surplus because of the policies that this government is putting in place to return the budget to surplus. It is returning it to surplus because we have strict spending rules. We are holding real spending growth to two per cent and we are ensuring that every new dollar that is spent is offset. This is disciplined economic management which is producing results.
You can see this applauded in the OECD survey today, which points to the fact that the Australian economy is one of the strongest in the developed world. It says that the policies that were put in place during the global crisis in Australia were the most effective in the entire OECD. It goes on to talk about our disciplined fiscal exit strategy. I quote:
… limiting government spending rises to 2% per annum over an extended period is a relatively bold objective, especially as spending has grown on average by over 4% per annum since the early 1970s.
That includes during the period that those opposite were in government for 11 years. We are doing something that they could not dare contemplate. We are putting in place strict spending discipline and a range of policies to deal with mining boom mark 2, which are also applauded by the OECD today. What we see from the OECD is a resounding endorsement of the government’s economic strategy. What we see from the other side is continual carping, talking the economy down, refusing to recognise what the Australian economy is doing relative to our peers and refusing to recognise the successes of the Australian economy and the Australian workforce and business people.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, a point of order: the question was very short and it basically went to the current fiscal settings. It had nothing to do with the opposition’s position or policies. I would ask you to rule what he is saying out of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer will relate his response directly to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—We will continue to get on with the job of building a stronger economy and putting in place positive policies for the future to support jobs and future prosperity.
Banking
2210
2210
14:41:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Treasurer’s claim that he has been working on a second wave of banking reforms for some time but that he will not tell us what they are until after the parliament rises in December. Given that no-one knows what the first wave of banking reform was, and given that the government seems to have lost its way on banking with the four major banks implementing extraordinary interest rate rises above the RBA, why will the Prime Minister not release now her so-called longstanding plan for more banking competition?
2210
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. Presumably, at some point he will be explaining to the Australian people what he did or, rather, did not do when he was a minister in the Howard government with responsibility for financial services and consumer affairs. What he did not do would be a good explanation for the Australian people to hear, because it is only since he sat on the opposition front bench that he has cared for one minute about these matters. I use the terminology ‘cared for one minute’ deliberately, because it was only one minute’s consideration he gave until he ran out and blurted out his plan to reregulate interest rates and he has been back-pedalling to cover-up that brain explosion ever since.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister will return to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—In contrast, the government is facilitating competition in the banking sector. The member for North Sydney says he is not aware of what the government’s banking reforms to date have been. Let me go through them. The government acted to support small lenders by investing $16 billion in the residential mortgage backed securities market. That was done to help small lenders access more affordable funding at a very difficult time, as the world moved into a global economic shock with the global financial crisis. I know that before the member for North Sydney had his nine-point plan he had his four-point plan and he was calling for the abolition of this, but this is and has been very important to support small lenders. Then there has been the government’s financial claims scheme to protect the deposits of ordinary Australians.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—Which you couldn’t do in 12 years!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—The member for North Sydney could not do it in 12 years; that is true.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for North Sydney on a point of order—
A government member—What’s it for?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—It’s on relevance.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney waits like everybody else for the call at the dispatch box. He will now come to a point of order.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—I rise on a point of order on relevance. I ask the Prime Minister: why will the Prime Minister not release her longstanding plan now?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Nearly the full 45 seconds were used with other comments that cannot have been debate because they would have been out of order but they formed part of the question to which a response can be directly relevant. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Continuing to respond to the question I was asked about the government’s earlier wave of reforms, that wave of reforms also included the government’s financial claims scheme to protect the deposits of ordinary Australians, something that the Howard government failed to do over 12 long years. That earlier wave of reforms included the account-switching package that the government introduced in 2008 to help customers transfer their financial arrangements across banks. The government has also taken steps to develop a deeper and more liquid corporate bond market. That is going to help businesses to borrow from retail investors and reduce their reliance on borrowing from banks. The RBA introduced reforms in 2009 to make ATM fees more competitive and transparent, and fees such as those for using foreign ATMs have fallen significantly. Then of course there is the government’s work on unfair mortgage fees that keep people tied in to financial products that they no longer want when they decide to shop around. The government, having delivered these earlier reforms, will build on these reforms in a thoughtful way. I am not surprised that the member for North Sydney does not understand the government’s approach, because being thoughtful has never been his strong suit.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I will not call the member for La Trobe until the House comes to order. In calling the member for La Trobe, I apologise to her on behalf of the House that she is not getting the respect that she asked in her first speech that we all give each other.
Asylum Seekers
2212
2212
14:47:00
Smyth, Laura, MP
172770
La Trobe
ALP
0
Ms SMYTH
—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Will the minister outline to the House the implications of last week’s High Court decision on the processing of asylum seekers? How has this decision been received and what is the government’s response?
2212
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
McMahon
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Mr BOWEN
—I thank the honourable member for her question. Last Thursday the High Court delivered its decision on the challenge to refugee processing of offshore arrivals. It is very important to be clear about what this decision did and did not do. The court has found that the refugee status assessments and independent merits review is subject to judicial review in some circumstances relating to procedural fairness. Importantly, this decision has no impact on the government’s capacity to establish a regional processing centre which would be operated as part of an international framework. However, there are doubts and serious questions about whether decisions made by Australian government officials in third country processing would be subject to judicial review where they are not part of an international agreement and where they are not partnered with international organisations.
I note that the opposition have sought legal advice on the issue of whether the Nauru solution would be made impractical by the High Court’s decision. They got it from their preferred independent and impartial legal adviser, Senator Brandis. I am sure the House will be relieved to know that, after deep consideration in his chambers, Senator Brandis has given the opposition policy a big tick and cleared it on legal advice. But you do not always have to get legal advice from somebody who happens to be the shadow Attorney-General. There are other lawyers in Australia. For example, Julian Burnside QC was asked about this last Thursday. He was asked whether the opposition’s policy would stand up. He said, ‘I think there is a respectable—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will be heard in silence. It amazes me when people are interjecting on their own interjections, because they surely cannot hear the answer. I cannot hear it. The minister has the call. He should be heard in silence. I hope he is heard in silence.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—Mr Burnside QC said this—
Opposition members interjecting—
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—It is funny how Mr Burnside is apparently less impartial than Lord Brandis of Brisbane, according to those opposite!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will ignore the interjections, and interjecting will cease.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—Mr Burnside said, ‘I think there is a respectable argument that if officers of the Australian Commonwealth operating in Nauru make a life and death decision they also would be subject in the same way to review that the High Court has said today.’
It is important when considering implications of the High Court case that we base our policy responses on the consideration of the facts. I noticed on
Lateline
on Thursday night the member for Cook was asked to respond to my suggestion that the so-called Nauru solution might be caught up in the High Court case. The member for Cook said this:
Well, if Chris Bowen’s right, then that means the 47,000 applications that were made offshore for protections visas in Australian missions and with Australian officials around the world or the thousands of other applications that are made for skilled visas and others would all be reviewable by the High Court.
That is what the member for Cook said: ‘If Chris Bowen’s right, this would need to be true.’ Guess what? It is true. The honourable member for Cook appears to be unaware that those applications are subject to judicial review by Australian courts. It just goes to show that when it comes to policy it is important to be good at more than sound grabs. It is also important to be good at sound policy, which the honourable member for Cook and his colleagues appear not able to be. The government will continue to work through the implications of the High Court decision in a calm and methodical manner, and the opposition might care to do the same in relation to the High Court implications for their own policy.
Emissions Trading Scheme
2213
2213
14:53:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
Mr HUNT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to President Obama’s abandonment of a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme for the world’s largest economy. As the Prime Minister herself rejected an emissions trading scheme during the period of the Rudd government, which she said had lost its way, can she explain how increasing electricity prices for Australian consumers rather than cleaning up power stations is somehow the government finding its way?
2213
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question. As he would be aware if he had followed the commentary in the United States, President Obama has been in favour of a cap-and-trade scheme to price carbon in the American economy and, following the mid-term elections, has accepted that the reality of the congress that he faces is that he will not be able to legislate for it. He is experiencing obstruction in the congress for a proposal that he supports and consequently understands that he will not be able to get a scheme through. One should not interpret President Obama’s statement as him changing his mind about an emissions trading scheme. That is simply not true. He is accepting the domestic political realities that he faces.
As I said when I met with President Obama over the weekend, Australia and America are great mates. We are great mates and we will continue to be.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt is warned.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—But Australia is not an American state. We will make our own decisions in our national interest. The mid-term elections in America did not determine policy for us. We are Australians; we will make our own decisions. We will make our own decisions in this parliament, where the government has seized the opportunity presented by this parliament to see if we can work through for a parliamentary and community consensus on the most efficient way of dealing with carbon, and that is to put a price on it. The most efficient way of reducing carbon pollution is to put a price on carbon pollution. I am of that view; economists are of that view; President Obama is of that view. Right around the world nations are working through how best to deal with carbon, including pricing carbon.
If the member does want to slavishly follow American examples—and I believe we are Australians and we will make our own decisions—then perhaps he would want to look to the example of California. As he would well know, if California were a nation it would be sitting at the table of the G20. It has moved to price carbon in its economy. In this public policy challenge of pricing carbon, my invitation remains to those on the opposition benches to turn away from their strategy of wrecking and looking for popular slogans, and to work with the government to get a measure done in the nation’s interest. That is the approach we are taking, because I do not believe that it is in the interests of this nation to not deal with the challenge of pricing carbon, or to not deal with the transformation of our economy to a low-pollution economy. We are determined to deal with this challenge and to work our way through.
Members opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, have had every position possible on this, the Leader of the Opposition changing his mind every 24 hours—famously called a weather vane by the member for Wentworth. Now is the time to put those politics aside and to work with the government on something so clearly in our national interest. National interest before political interest: try it just once.
Climate Change
2214
2214
14:57:00
Brodtmann, Gai, MP
30540
Canberra
ALP
1
Ms BRODTMANN
—My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Minister, can you tell the House what implications the recent OECD survey of Australia has for climate change policy? What work is the government undertaking to examine action already taken globally on climate change?
2214
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
1
Mr COMBET
—I thank the member for Canberra for her question. In its latest economic survey of Australia, as has been reported today, the OECD had some very important things to say about climate change policy and how it should be applied within Australia. The OECD’s main message was that setting a carbon price sooner rather than later was the best option for cutting carbon pollution within our economy. The OECD went on to say that the investment uncertainty in the electricity sector in particular should be removed ‘by the adoption of market mechanisms to set a price on carbon, thereby reducing emissions in an effective way’.
The OECD, which is one of the premier international economic organisations, is clearly indicating what we already know—that is, that the best way of reducing carbon pollution and addressing the challenge of climate change is to set a carbon price via a market mechanism, and doing it sooner rather than later. The reality is that many countries around the world, including the United States and China, are already taking a comprehensive set of steps to reduce carbon pollution within their own economies and to tackle climate change. I am sure the House would be interested to learn that 85 countries that have committed themselves to the Copenhagen Accord, representing approximately 80 per cent of global emissions, have pledged targets and other actions to reduce pollution and to tackle climate change.
Also, and pursuant to the previous question to the Prime Minister, countries are doing this through a range of different measures. They may include carbon taxes, they may include emissions trading schemes, they are including renewable energy targets and they are including subsidies for low-emission technologies. Each one of these policy approaches puts an effective price on carbon, even if that carbon price is not as overtly stated as it is through some particular mechanisms.
With that in mind the government has asked the Productivity Commission to determine the carbon price that is already adopted or planned by a number of other nations with which we have important trading relationships, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, New Zealand, China, India, Japan and South Korea. The purpose of the Productivity Commission’s study will be to identify the effective carbon price in those important economies with which we have substantial trading relationships. This is extremely important, not only to understand the action that is being taken by our trading partners but also to properly assess the competitive arguments relating to the establishment of a carbon price in our own economy. The Productivity Commission will be due to report with that study by May of next year. It is a piece of work that was commissioned at the initial suggestion of the member for New England, and I thank him for that contribution.
The Prime Minister mentioned a moment ago the progress of the government’s multiparty climate change committee. There have been very constructive discussions which stand in total contrast with the approach taken by the Leader of the Opposition and those behind him on the opposition benches; it is also a position totally in contrast with the advice of the OECD.
National Curriculum
2215
2215
15:01:00
Fletcher, Paul, MP
L6B
Bradfield
LP
1
Mr FLETCHER
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the rejection on Friday of the national curriculum by the New South Wales Board of Studies, which means the curriculum will not start nationwide in January 2011. Given that the implementation of the national curriculum has lost its way, how does the minister for schools’ continuing to insist that the curriculum begins in January 2011, in spite of it not being ready, indicate that the government has found its way?
2215
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—Every factual assertion in that question is not right. The government will continue with the national curriculum.
Opposition members interjecting—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—As I just said, every factual assertion in that question is not right. The government will continue with the national curriculum. It really amazes me—though I do understand that the member asking this question is still relatively new to the parliament—that this question would be asked by the opposition, when over 12 long years, despite persistent calls for a national curriculum, absolutely nothing got done. Absolutely nothing, to the great disadvantage of the 80,000 school children who move interstate each year and to the great disadvantage of Defence Force families, who frequently move during their child’s education, and to the great disadvantage of a nation that rightly wants to be assured that a quality, modern, relevant curriculum is being taught in every school in the country to give every child a great education. So whilst the Howard government slept through 12 years doing nothing profound on education reform—including, instead, trying to tweak the politics of education to get sector fighting with sector and to try to periodically get a run in the newspaper by criticising others in education—we have got on with the job of reform in the interests of Australian students. And the thing that has been on our mind is not the politics of education; it is every child in every school, what they are learning and what opportunity that gives them in life. In pursuit of that vision of a great quality education for every child in every school we will continue with the national curriculum, which is part of a broad suite of education reform that is there to lift standards in every school, particularly to make a difference for those children most at risk of falling behind. I would have thought the member, and the members opposite, could at least try to share that vision of a great quality education for every child.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—But clearly the politics of wrecking even extends to that.
Broadband
2215
2215
15:04:00
Mitchell, Rob, MP
M3E
McEwen
ALP
1
Mr MITCHELL
—My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. What progress is being made to roll out the National Broadband Network, why is the timely rollout important to regional Australia and what impediments are there to this progress?
2216
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the member for McEwen for his question. Certainly, as he would be aware, it is the case that services are already live in Tasmania. Services will go live in five first-release sites on the mainland early next year: Willunga, Brunswick, Townsville, Minnamurra/Kiama Downs and Armidale. At the same time we will begin construction on 19 second-release sites on the mainland. Some eight months ago we began work laying 6,000 kilometres of optical fibre backbone in six priority areas that had been identified by the ACCC as having the least competitive backhaul across Australia: between Perth and Geraldton, in south-west Gippsland, between Victor Harbour and the Adelaide Hills, between Broken Hill and Mildura and between Darwin, Longreach, Emerald and Toowoomba. And of course the member for Kennedy would be conscious that it began going both ways from Mount Isa. Some 60 per cent of this fibre infrastructure rollout is now complete and the first links will be ready on time and on budget in March of next year.
We know that the opposition have had an alternative plan. They have had in fact 20 failed broadband plans. Under their 19th plan, they promised that funding would also occur for some regional back-haul infrastructure, with 100 per cent of it—just about—starting after June 2013. So, whilst we are getting on with the job of rolling out the National Broadband Network, creating some 25,000 direct jobs, delivering for regional Australia, those opposite simply want to delay. Those on this side of the House, and the Independents, understand that Australia simply cannot afford to delay universal high-speed and affordable broadband, particularly in regional Australia.
We will have a bit of a test this afternoon over whether those opposite stand for the national interest or for their own political interest, because the
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010
will be debated and determined in the parliament this afternoon. It supports a wholesale-only open-access NBN that will fundamentally transform competition in the sector. It is supported by industry, including Telstra, so it will be a real test this afternoon whether those opposite will vote for this legislation. They should support this legislation, as they should support what is the most important infrastructure project that we could possibly be proceeding with to bring Australia into the 21st century and to build productivity in this nation.
Mental Health
2216
2216
15:08:00
Wilkie, Andrew, MP
C2T
Denison
IND
0
Mr WILKIE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission recommends building early psychosis prevention and intervention centres, or EPPICs—which should not be confused with the quite separate headspace program. The government is contributing $25 million towards EPPIC, but this is only enough to build what Patrick McGorry describes as ‘a heavily diluted cardboard cut-out service lacking many of the core features of EPPIC’. Considering that only a third of mental health cases are treated in Australia currently and that most new cases appear before age 25, will you now commit to better fund the EPPIC program?
2216
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for Denison for his question and know that he, like many other Australians, is concerned about mental health questions and ensuring services are available and funded. Like the member for Denison, I am a big admirer of the work of Pat McGorry. He is actually a fair old legend in the part of the world that I come from, Melbourne’s west, where many of the services that he has become most famous for were first instigated and trialled. I am therefore well aware of the very good work done at EPPICs and the fact that the most critical burden of disease for the most profound mental illnesses impacts on our young people and that, if you are going to have one of these profound conditions, it is very likely to manifest when you are still in your teenage years or a young adult. So intervention at that stage does pay itself back over a lifetime. I am well aware of that, and the government is committed, with our new Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, to building on work done in the previous period of government to improve mental health services.
I agree that Australians are asking us to look again at this area and look at what more can be done. I want to say to the member that, as a government, we have almost tripled funding for mental health programs, to $1.4 billion over the next four years. That includes a $450 million new investment announced by the government over the course of this year. As part of our National Health and Hospitals Network package, the government has committed $25.5 million to expand the EPPIC model outside Victoria. We have also funded up to an additional 30 headspace youth-friendly services to support a further 20,000 young people. During the recent election campaign, we also promised an extra $274 million to redouble our efforts on suicide prevention. As the member may well be aware, we lose more Australians each year to suicide than we do through our road toll, so suicide prevention is a critical problem for Australia. But I do understand the member’s concern is genuine and, as a government, we do understand that in mental health we have got more work to do. Whilst I am not in a position to say to the member now that we are able to provide more funding at this stage for EPPICs, I can assure him that the minister for mental health is working on building on our earlier reforms and we are very open to ideas from the member for Denison as we do that.
Health Services
2217
2217
15:12:00
O’Neill, Deborah, MP
140651
Robertson
ALP
0
Ms O’NEILL
—My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister outline progress made on the GP superclinic program, including for the newly announced clinics?
2217
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Ms ROXON
—I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She has a keen interest, like many in this House, in news of the new 28 superclinics that were committed to during the election campaign. But I would like to give the House first an update, as I was asked to, on the first 36 superclinics. We are just over the halfway mark since the introduction of that program, a five-year program. We have seven operational superclinics across the country, we have eight that are operating early services, we have 17 that are under construction and we have more than a quarter of a million services that have been provided through the superclinics.
I will give you a couple of short examples. I recently visited the Geelong superclinic, which services the electorates of Corangamite and Corio. The Prime Minister also visited that superclinic, just before its formal opening on 30 August. That service now has seven GPs. It has practice nurses, a physiotherapist, an exercise physiologist and a podiatrist. It has students commencing next year who will be trained in the superclinic, as part of the academic year. I know that the new member for Solomon has been to the Palmerston superclinic. It opened on 4 October and has been providing after-hours services since December 2008. It now has GP services, practice nurses, physiotherapy, dietetics and a clinical psychologist. The member for Blair, I understand, visited his GP superclinic in Ipswich. Its first stage has been opened and has had a very good reaction from patients, staff and the community.
As well as talking about our existing program, I want to update the House on the process that has started for the new 28 clinics that are part of our $7.4 billion health reform plan. Many MPs in this House will know that I wrote to them some weeks ago seeking some further information, given that the opposition has opposed superclinics—
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—Playing politics is what you were doing.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—I gave members the courtesy of writing them a letter asking for their view. Contrary to the member for Dickson’s view, many of his colleagues answered those letters. Many of those colleagues will be pleased to know that we have paid attention to their views. Eleven of the clinics have gone straight to an invitation to apply process, including the ones in Blacktown, Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour and Nowra. I am sure that the members for Cowper and Gilmore will be pleased that those are going ahead.
But, following requests for further consultations in their electorates from a number of members, 13 clinics will have a consultation process begun before they go to the invitation to apply stage. This includes, for example, the electorate of Adelaide and the electorate of Bonner, where the Wyndham superclinic will have further consultations. Four further clinics for which the operators have already been identified, like in Jindabyne and Rockingham, will proceed immediately to negotiations with those identified operators.
This program is already delivering services to the community. More services are coming. More training is being provided. We are determined to make sure that if the community wants to see a GP they can access to one closer to their home and that students will be trained in their electorates. That is what this program is delivering.
Broadband
2218
2218
15:16:00
Tudge, Alan, MP
M2Y
Aston
LP
0
Mr TUDGE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to claims by NextGen Networks and Optus that struggling families and pensioners will have to pay an extra $30 per month for a standard phone service thanks to the NBN. Given that the government has lost its way with the NBN, when will the government find its way and guarantee that households will not pay a cent more for a basic phone service?
2218
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question. I agree with the member to this extent: there is a lot of misinformation out there about the NBN. A lot of misinformation is being used in fearmongering from the opposition. It happened before the election. Indeed, on the last day of the election campaign there was fearmongering about charges in relation to the NBN. The factual position is a very simple one: the government is working its way, through NBN Co., to rolling out around the country super fast broadband so that people can have the services that they need in the future. The Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has today taken the House through some of the details of that. It is also true that, as a result of the agreement that the government entered into with Telstra, we are looking forward to migrating customers from the old copper—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a very simple question about whether these households would pay a cent more for a basic phone service. If she does not know the answer, she should simply sit down and take it on notice.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I was talking about the agreement that we have entered into with Telstra to migrate customers from the current copper network to the NBN. That gives rise to the answer to the member’s question. He asked about telephone costs. On telephone costs, I refer him to statements made by the NBN Co. on this matter. They have said that the assertion that he has made in his question and other assertions that have been made in the public media about costs are not right and that they would not be recommending to shareholder ministers—obviously, the shareholder ministers are the ministers in the government with line responsibility and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation—a cost structure that would increase retail costs or costs paid by consumers for a telephone line. The NBN Co. has dealt with this matter. The member is responding to the fearmongering that is around. There is no need for him or any of his constituents to fear increased costs for having a telephone line in their home. It is simply not right. Look at what the NBN Co. has said. If you want to tell your constituents the truth, distribute that statement to them.
Paid Parental Leave
2219
2219
15:20:00
Vamvakinou, Maria, MP
00AMT
Calwell
ALP
1
Ms VAMVAKINOU
—My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the implementation and importance of the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme?
2219
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms MACKLIN
—I thank the member for Calwell for her question and for her commitment to Australia’s first national Paid Parental Leave scheme. On 1 January next year, in just over six weeks, Australia will finally catch up with the rest of the developed world and see the implementation of our national Paid Parental Leave scheme. This will be such a significant day for thousands of mums and dads around the country who will be able to get that extra assistance that they need to help their newborn babies. After waiting for decades, Australia will finally get a national Paid Parental Leave scheme, and it is this federal Labor government that is delivering it. We know how important it is. That is why have taken the advice and are delivering up to 18 weeks of paid parental leave paid at the federal minimum wage, which is around $570 a week before tax.
We estimate that around 148,000 parents will be eligible for paid parental leave. I can inform the House that parents are now ringing the Family Assistance Office or going online and registering for paid parental leave. They are getting their applications in for babies who are expected to be born in January and February next year. So far, more than 1,500 parents have registered for paid parental leave. Parents can now register up to three months in advance of the expected date of their baby’s birth. That of course means that they can get all that paperwork done before their baby comes along.
I am also very pleased to be able to inform the House that we have a number of employers who are also already registered to deliver paid parental leave on behalf of the government. We have more than 450 employers already registered to play their part in the government’s scheme to deliver paid parental leave to their long-term employees. We are very pleased with the way in which employers are responding. They understand just how important it is for women to stay connected to the workforce, and we expect that this will improve the participation of women in the workforce. It demonstrates that these employers understand that paid parental leave is both good for their employees and good for their businesses.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson
—What garbage! You fitted them up with a job you should have been doing.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—We are starting to hear interjections from those opposite, who for 12 years refused to deliver paid parental leave. We know that the Leader of the Opposition famously said that paid parental leave would be introduced over his dead body. It is this government that is delivering paid parental leave, and on 1 January it will start.
Cleaner Car Rebate Scheme
2220
2220
15:24:00
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
0
Mrs MIRABELLA
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the comments of the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research regarding the cash-for-clunkers program that the government cannot guarantee when the cash-for-clunkers program will start and has not sorted out the design and delivery method. When will the Prime Minister admit that this program has lost its way and dump a program that is unaffordable, unworkable and undeliverable?
2220
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for her question about the cleaner car rebate. I refer the member to the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which makes it clear that the start date of the program has been moved to 1 July next year and that it is in a consultation phase with industry. We want to make sure that we get the design of it right. As members would be aware, our transport system—the use of cars—is a very considerable contributor to greenhouse gases. We want to make a difference to that. The cleaner car rebate is one way of making a difference. Our mandatory standards for light vehicles are another way of making a difference.
00AMU
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I know, of course, that the member for Indi does not believe in climate change, does not believe in acting on it, is very keen to wreck everything in this area and certainly played a role in making the Leader of the Opposition the leader so he could—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister will resume her place.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked a question about the cash-for-clunkers scheme. She is now just engaging in an old-fashioned slag and bag, and you should sit her down.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! We will not debate a point of order. I got the point of order. The member for Sturt needs to be a little careful with his descriptive use of language that is misinterpreted by some listeners or viewers. I just give him that hint. On the point of order, I simply say to the member for Sturt that what he had some trouble with was a result of the person who had asked the question continually interjecting throughout the answer. That does not necessarily mean that those interjections should be responded to, but quite often they are—and I understand why they are. It would helpful if there were fewer interjections and if ministers, in answering questions, would ignore the interjections. The Prime Minister is answering the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—In conclusion, this is one way of tackling climate change. We will get on with the job of doing it.
00AMU
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Indi!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—The opposition will continue with its wrecking strategy and with trying to paper over its current divisions on the question.
00AMU
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Indi is warned, and the warning is a precursor to naming.
Taxation
2221
2221
15:28:00
Jones, Stephen, MP
A9B
Throsby
ALP
1
Mr STEPHEN JONES
—My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the Policy Transition Group in progressing the government’s reforms to the taxation of resources?
2221
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I am pleased to advise the House that the work of the Policy Transition Group, which is jointly chaired by Don Argus and me, is progressing well. Face-to-face consultations have been held in five states to date, namely Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. We have also ensured that industry representatives from other states and territories have had ample opportunity to express their views to the Policy Transition Group. The last face-to-face consultation will be held in Melbourne this Friday and will be totally focused on the all important issue of exploration.
I also note that there have been detailed submissions from a range of interested parties and they will, in due course, be given proper consideration by the Policy Transition Group. In this context, I note that the OECD economic survey of Australia, which was released yesterday, also supported the concept of a resources rent tax. In fact, the report emphasises the importance of getting the detail right, as we are seeking to do through the Policy Transition Group. The report states:
As proposed by the government, a tax on resources rents is in principle highly efficient, since it has no impact on investment and production decisions if properly designed and administered.
Clearly, that is the objective of the Policy Transition Group and it is intended that we present our report to the Treasurer prior to Christmas. I also inform the House that, following our report to the Treasurer, the government will release an exposure draft in the new year, which will give industry yet a further opportunity to actually comment on the government’s intention with respect to where we go on this particular tax. Perhaps more importantly, the House should be advised that since our announcements on 2 July there have been a series of major announcements with respect to a pipeline of ongoing investment decisions in Australia. I can refer to, for example, the announcement by British Gas, of 1 November this year, of a $15 billion investment in a new industry in Australia: the coal seam methane export opportunity out of Gladstone in Queensland. Interestingly, there have also been a range of similar announcements—for example, Rio Tinto Iron Ore in Western Australia, an upgrade of their Cape Lambert export opportunities, with an investment of US$3.1 billion; BHP Billiton, with its coal opportunities at Mount Arthur in New South Wales, an investment of $784 million; and Xstrata with respect to its Ulan coal opportunities, an investment of US$1.1 billion. There have been many other announcements going to the issue of certainty of investment in terms of our announcements of 2 July.
In conclusion, I simply say that, from the government’s point of view, the Policy Transition Group process is actually going well. Industry understands the nature of the taxation arrangements which we announced on 2 July. I can also assure the House there is no intention by the government to change those announcements from what was agreed with industry. That, in turn, has created certainty which has enabled investment to continue since 2 July this year. The government will put in place a new tax system which will ensure that the Australian community gets a fair return for the development of its national resources, based on the principles of equity, efficiency and investment neutrality.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the
Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
2222
Questions to the Speaker
Parliament House: Water Features
2222
2222
15:32:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
0
Mr RANDALL
—Mr Speaker, the first question is very simple. The water features around Parliament House are covered in shadecloth et cetera. Given the fact that, as I understand it, Canberra is no longer drought declared, can we look forward to these water features being reinstated?
2222
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Canning for his question. I wish the Presiding Officers’ policy on this matter was well understood, but I am not quite sure that it is. Separate to the state of the dams around Canberra, there has been work to reinstate four or five of the water features using water that is being harvested out of the air-conditioning towers, with some basic engineering that has been used in other places. Investigation is ongoing about whether we will go forward on the basis of the state of the dams at the moment. It is a matter that I know many members would like to see us address and we are attempting to work out ways in which we can do it in a sustainable way.
Parliamentary Library
2222
2222
15:33:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
0
Mr RANDALL
—Mr Speaker, my second question is in relation to resourcing the Parliamentary Library. Over the last few days I have endeavoured to get a
Bills Digest
on the bill that is being debated today, the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010. When making inquiries of the library, they pointed out to me that, because of the amount of private members’ business and the position of the Independent members of the House, they believed they had insufficient resources to cover all of the
Bills Digests. Could you look to see whether they are sufficiently well resourced to provide the full service to the members of this House?
2222
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—As part of at least one, if not a number, of the agreements that were entered into before parliament resumed, a proper study of the resourcing of the library and of the committee system was agreed to. Those matters are in hand. It is true that, because of the state of the numbers in the House, with regard to a number of things that the House does it is stretching the resources. Preliminary bids have been made about that additional resourcing. Both the President and I are keeping an eye on this. But the final answer about the library is that, because of the agreement and a proper study of resourcing, that will be done.
Parliament House: Noise
2222
2222
15:35:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—Mr Speaker, I am reluctant to raise this, but I have raised this matter previously with Parliament House departmental officials. Early in the morning on sitting days there is a tendency for lawnmowers and air blowers to be used outside offices during radio interviews. On one occasion I actually had to stop the interview—I know it is hard to believe, Mr Speaker—until the noise had passed. Given that there is a considerable amount of time when parliament is not sitting and that we do not sit on Fridays, I again request that we do not have the extraordinary noise from lawnmowers and various other machinery being used outside our office windows between 7 am and 9 am.
2222
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I will take up the matter raised by the member for North Sydney with appropriate members of the Department of Parliamentary Services.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
2222
Miscellaneous
2222
15:36:00
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
HWS
Grey
LP
0
0
Mr RAMSEY
—Mr Speaker, in the way of a personal explanation, I owe an apology. I inadvertently left an electronic device turned on during question time. I apologise to you and the House.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Grey for taking that action on his own initiative. I would hope that all members see the distraction of live phones, although that was a pretty ordinary ring. It was not creative. But they are a distraction and I thank the member for Grey for the action that he has taken. I, on behalf of the House, accept his apology.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
2223
Questions to the Speaker
Chamber Clock
2223
2223
15:37:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
Mr IRONS
—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. I noticed that when the member for Indi came up to the dispatch box today the clock had started well before she was there and, by the time she got there, there were only 40 seconds left for her question.
Government member interjecting—
HYM
Irons, Steve, MP
Mr IRONS
—Well, it is part of your new paradigm. Mr Speaker, could you please tell us what the procedure is for that?
2223
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—We will have a look at it. I can assure you that nothing is being done in a deliberate fashion. If we talk about that dreadful expression ‘the new paradigm’, it is all our business. If there are still training wheels on, that is regrettable, but I think that everybody in the circumstances is trying to make sure that things are done. I believe the member for Indi managed to get her question well within—if it was only 40 seconds—the 40 seconds.
00AMU
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
9K6
Gambaro, Teresa, MP
Ms Gambaro
—She struggled!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I doubt whether the member for Indi would struggle on matters like that. I know that she would get it.
DOCUMENTS
2223
Documents
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
00:00:00
—Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
Votes and Proceedings
and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Telecommunications reports for 2008-09—Report 1: Telecommunications competitive safeguards; Report 2: Changes in the prices paid for telecommunications services in Australia.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority—Report for 2009-10.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority—Report for 2009-10.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship—Report for 2009-10.
Finance—Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook for 2010-11.
Future Fund—Report for 2009-10.
Ministerial statements—Financial market regulation—An independent office of best practice regulation—Senator Wong, Minister for Finance and Deregulation, 28 October 2010.
NBN Co Limited—Report for 2009-10.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.
BUSINESS
2223
Business
Days and Hours of Meeting
2223
2223
15:39:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—by leave—I move:
That the time and order of business for the sitting tomorrow, 16 November 2010, be as follows, unless otherwise ordered:
-
the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 11 am;
-
government business have priority from 11 am until 2 pm; and
-
during the period from 11 am until 2 pm any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance.
I will speak briefly to this resolution on behalf of the government. I thank the opposition for their cooperation in this matter. We are moving these extra three hours of sitting in the main parliamentary chamber to enable additional speakers who have not yet had the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Afghanistan to do so. It is intended that this will be the only matter of business before the parliament before 2 pm tomorrow. The Afghanistan motion will then be referred to the Main Committee. This will ensure that the Afghanistan debate in the House of Representatives is able to be concluded prior to the important meeting that will take place in Lisbon surrounding these matters. People would be aware that the defence minister leaves for Lisbon on Wednesday and the Prime Minister on Thursday. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his cooperation in this matter.
Question agreed to.
ELECTION PETITIONS
2224
Miscellaneous
Court of Disputed Returns
2224
10000
The CLERK
The Clerk
—I present copies of the following petitions filed in the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns: Freemantle v O’Neill & Ors, in respect of the election of a member of the House for the division of Robertson; Green v Bradbury & Ors, in respect of the election of a member of the House for the division of Lindsay; and Briscoe-Hough v Melham & Ors, in respect of the election of a member of the House for the division of Banks.
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (2010 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2010
2224
Bills
R4480
Second Reading
2224
Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by
Mr Garrett:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2224
15:42:00
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
0
0
Mr PYNE
—I rise to speak on the
Higher Education Support Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010. The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to allow revised funding amounts for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, for Commonwealth scholarships and for other Commonwealth grants. It also provides for future funding to move toward a student demand driven system of Commonwealth supported university places. This marks the transition from a system where student places at universities are capped to a system where the government will fund a place for every eligible undergraduate student accepted into an eligible course. This measure was announced in the 2010-11 budget and reflects the recommendation by the Bradley review into higher education, which was delivered to the government in late 2008.
Specifically, this bill, by taking the first step toward a student demand driven system, will assist in meeting the government’s objective for 40 per cent of Australians between the ages of 25 and 34 to have at least a bachelor level degree by 2025. This begins with lifting the cap on enrolments from 2010 and 2011 from five to 10 per cent, with the transition to a student centred funding system from 2012.
This bill itself has no financial impact for the implementation of the transition toward a student demand driven system. Rather, from 2012 there will no longer be a maximum amount in table A, but its practical effect will result in future higher expenditure. Maximum funding amounts at section 30-5, section 41-45 and section 46-40 of the act will also be amended to account for indexation. I note that this is to be based on the present safety net adjustment, introduced in 1997 by the Howard government, which comprises 75 per cent of the current index.
The coalition is committed to the principle of the continuation of indexation for higher education and, by implication, the current arrangements regarding indexation as they stand in this bill. Indexation arrangements will change, of course, following the new arrangements to be introduced from 2012. The government have elected to use the professional, scientific and technical services labour price index reduced by 10 per cent to replace the safety net adjustment, after a period of significant consultation with the sector. The bill also reduces funding to the Graduate Skills Assessment program by $2.4 million across the years 2010-11 to 2013-14 in line with a diminishing public interest in the program.
But there is also another amendment to the Higher Education Support Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010 upon which I would like to comment. The bill seeks to reduce funding to the Australian Technical and Learning Council by $18.4 million, reflecting the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency and the fact that part of the agency’s budget will be allocated indirectly towards the council. While the opposition does not consider this redirection of funds to be controversial, the role and structure of the future Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency may certainly have the potential to be. Already we see that even before TEQSA is created there is growing debate about just exactly how the government should go about bringing change to monitor and assure standards. I have previously stated that, while the coalition supports in principle the development of a national regulatory agency, we hope to consult carefully about the details of the governance and powers of TEQSA in the months ahead. We need to give the most careful consideration to the new standards that will be used to judge our institutions and other important aspects of regulatory regimes. The coalition will continue to monitor future activity and advocate for a higher education system that is flexible and responsive. We recognise that not all higher education providers are alike and we will not let the sector be burdened unnecessarily without justification.
While the coalition welcomed the Bradley review when it was released and many of the recommendations in it, including the recommendation that has translated to this bill, I take the opportunity to reflect on where we go from here. Unlike the government, we believe that the Bradley review is not merely a list of boxes to tick off over time. It is much more. The reforms stemming from the Bradley review should be considered the beginning of ongoing debate and reform in the higher education sector. We appreciate the move towards a student demand driven system proposed by Professor Bradley and endorsed by the government. The measure in this bill is a start, but I also believe there is much more scope to meet the ambitious target set by the government of 40 per cent of Australians between the ages of 25 and 34 years having at least a bachelor level degree by 2025. For example, when we look overseas for potential solutions we find that there are some countries like Norway that have already met this target. Universities cannot be held to account to meet this target alone, though having the freedom to offer a sufficient number of places to students to meet demand is certain to assist in reaching these ambitious targets.
We also need to think about new and innovative ways to modify existing educational structures to facilitate progress from one stage of education to the next. We do need fewer ports of entry into education to make choices and pathways easier and clearer for potential students. The coalition is also deeply concerned about the direction and future of the new national curriculum, for a quality curriculum needs to be carefully designed to meet the future challenges in Australia and the labour market. Though this government has taken some steps to improve coordination between schools, private enterprise and post-secondary education, I believe that we could still do much more. We are concerned in the coalition that, if a national curriculum is introduced that is rushed, poorly implemented, not well thought out, badly funded and teachers are not given the training they need to ensure the national curriculum is what students need and what schools want, the pathway to higher education will be made that much harder as universities look to their own enrolment tests rather than relying on the year 12 marks that schools currently undertake.
And we most definitely need a much easier recruitment and pathway process to higher education for vocational education and training, which leads me to comment on the dramatic change between the previous government and this government in relation to the responsibilities for education. Education in the previous government was found in the same portfolio as universities, training, apprenticeships and so on with respect to the pathway through education in most people’s lives. Since the election of this government the portfolio has been divided between the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Evans, the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, Simon Crean, and of course the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Peter Garrett. The purpose for this division of responsibilities can only be to make the scrutiny of education less able for the opposition and is probably a response to the very effective breaking down of the government’s facade in education in the last three years when the current Prime Minister, as Minister for Education, presided over what can only be described as another Labor mess—whether it was the national curriculum, the My School website or, most importantly, the school hall stimulus debacle.
Many of the aspects of education under Minister Gillard proved to be failures, and when she was asked before the election for her list of achievements as Minister for Education the only one she could name in an entire portfolio covering everything from universities, apprenticeships and training to schools, education and child care was the setting up of the My School website. So a website was the No. 1 achievement of the Prime Minister when she was the Minister for Education and one can only assume that the responsibilities for education have been so disbursed in order to make it harder for the public to be aware of the ongoing failures of the government in relation to education. But I can ensure the House that we, from the opposition side, will continue to monitor the ongoing failures of the government in education. The one that is looming largest is the national curriculum, which was designed to be in place by January 2011 and most clearly will not meet that deadline. Only last Friday, the New South Wales Board of Deputies, which is responsible for schools education in New South Wales, wrote to the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training, Verity Firth, indicating that they would not be implementing the national curriculum in January 2011.
Other state jurisdictions will follow and we are seeing the unravelling of the national curriculum for a number of reasons. We have a minister, in the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, who is quite incapable of delivering a program. He was the same minister who presided over the solar panels debacle, the Green Loans scheme and the tragic home insulation scheme. He has now been given the hospital pass of the Prime Minister’s national curriculum to introduce, and of course he cannot recognise that this is going the same way as the other programs that he has presided over as minister. The courageous thing to do, which the government will not do, is to announce that the national curriculum will not be introduced from January 2011 and accept the opposition’s proposal, which is given generously and without any hooks or barbs, that we will allow them to delay the curriculum until January 2012 without us trying to score any political points, because we would prefer students got a better curriculum that was ready to be introduced in 2012 rather than a rushed curriculum, poorly implemented, cumbersome and facing criticism from all sides.
We also need continued efforts in youth programs, to encourage those youth who are neither undergoing education nor employed, who are at risk or from disadvantaged backgrounds, to access appropriate support services. All of these are policy areas that can and should be considered by the government as it works towards its set target of 40 per cent of youth having at least a bachelor level degree by 2025. Moving to a student demand driven system is one measure, but we must not forget the other elements that I have touched on as we work toward this goal. Nevertheless, in spite of some of the criticisms that we have made, the coalition is pleased that Labor has at least undertaken the uncapping of student places in the bill, and for this reason we support the legislation as drafted.
2227
15:54:00
O’Neill, Deborah, MP
140651
Robertson
ALP
0
0
Ms O’NEILL
—I am pleased to be able to speak today on this bill, the
Higher Education Support Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010. What is the purpose of this bill? It is very clearly an indication of this government’s commitment to education, particularly to higher education, which is in such need of renewal. There are three key points that this bill seeks to address: to increase funding to eligible providers for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme in 2010 and 2011, to increase funding to eligible providers for other grants for the years 2010 to 2013 and appropriate funding for these grants for 2014, and to increase the maximum payments for Commonwealth scholarships for the years 2010 to 2013 and appropriate funding for these scholarships for 2014.
Not that long ago—in fact, just before the federal election—I had a life as a university lecturer. The purpose of this legislation certainly meets with the demands in our local economy and our wider community and certainly with the needs of universities to be able to fund more places for students and to do it in a well-organised manner. Now I get to give a lecture to the Manager of Opposition Business, who has actually just left the chamber—he must have got wind of the comment that I am about to make—about his selective talk in this debate about the government’s higher education agenda. I must admit it is quite a challenge for any teacher to give a good lecture, but I am certainly up for the challenge here this afternoon.
Let’s start with the basics of this bill, which amends the Higher Education Support Act to implement these 2010-11 budget measures. The bill provides for an increase in funding for the over-enrolment of Commonwealth supported places that occurred in 2009 and 2010 under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme and for the increases that will flow on into 2011 under that scheme. This is a parameter update to reflect new estimates of student demand for the government’s student centred funding system. Members may recall that we in the government introduced the student centred funding system in response to the review of higher education by Professor Denise Bradley. And what a relief it is to have students at the centre of the decision making in higher education. All too often processes and organisations dominate the discourse. We need to have students at the centre, and that is one of the critical dimensions of this bill that I am so positive about. The over-enrolment of Commonwealth supported places is allowed for under the cap on funding for places above agreed targets. The cap on over-enrolment was raised from five to 10 per cent in funding terms for 2010 and 2011, as part of the introduction of student centred funding from 2012.
I hope the opposition cannot put up the usual roadblocks to this non-controversial piece of legislation, which enables more learning for more people and correct funding for our universities. Already today in the House, from the member for Wentworth, we have seen the kind of obstructionist spoiling behaviour that is now the hallmark of the coalition under the current Leader of the Opposition. I am afraid to say that behaviour will probably be on display again later this week, when the coalition will try to block funding for Australian university students and the vital student support services they need. These blatant political delaying tactics are being employed by the coalition for no purpose other than to delay the implementation of good things for young Australian people in the context of the tertiary education sector. They plan to gum things up, to block and delay. This is not in the national interest. Labor, in contrast, is working to restore critical services including child care, counselling, health, and sport and fitness services to university campuses across Australia. The Liberal Party is determined to block and delay this vital reform.
The government introduced the
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010
in the first sitting week in a bid to provide a balanced, practical approach to funding campus services and amenities. It was introduced by the government as a priority in a bid to see it passed by Christmas so that the benefits would flow to students studying in 2011. Universities and students are united in their support for this measure, but the Liberal Party is determined to play a negative, blocking role. As a result of the previous coalition government’s decision to abolish student services and amenities fees, close to $170 million was ripped out of university funding. This had a dramatic impact, particularly on regional universities and regional and rural students. I can confirm from my own personal experience as a lecturer in education at the University of Newcastle’s Central Coast campus that this was certainly the case.
Our student body would grow and thrive if it had strong campus support services. It is critically important in regions such as my own to acknowledge the fact that many of our students are the first in their family to attempt tertiary study. When you are in such a position there are a number of practical challenges that you have to meet. Firstly, which university are you going to go to? That can be the first question. How am I going to find access? Am I eligible for access? Am I a person who can undertake this challenge? Am I a person who can lift outside of my own experience and undertake tertiary study? These are challenges that students face, and when they arrive they need support. They need to connect into a new community.
We have students on the Central Coast—and it is a similar situation in many regional areas—who come from all over the coast, and they meet with new people of a range of ages. Sport, for example, is a great way in which people can meet others in a teamwork situation, bringing the skills they already have in order to develop social networks. Such things underpin the success of all learners. We do not perform well in circumstances where we feel very vulnerable, and certainly when we are disconnected. Learning is a risk event—every day going to the edge of what you know and taking up the challenges of knowing more, understanding more and thinking more deeply. And at the end of the day that is the journey of a student—to be able to do new things. Students need to be supported in their university environment so that the money that is invested for our country’s future by the government is really invested well. Students are more likely to be successful if they have that sort of social support in their new learning environment.
There are other issues that are critical for new students in these areas and for which the funding has disappeared—such as students who need particular study skills. They should not be provided with a ‘sheep-dip opportunity’ where they get one token lecture on how to undertake their studies. There are students who hit the sixth week of a 13-week semester who have sincere practical difficulties in this area. They may have no skill base to balance their university work with their employment commitments and, perhaps, their family commitments. Trying to balance those things can be a very important management issue, and intervention with a student counsellor who has experience in these matters is vital for students to be able to manage that transition and to continue successfully in their journey to the end of the semester. Given the loss of $170 million over the last several years, we dare not count the cost of the numbers of students who have fallen out of universities through losing faith in themselves. They have lost hope of participation in tertiary education because they have not been able to feel like they belong to a university—and belonging is a vital part of learning.
The stories that I have just shared with you from my own experience are certainly borne out in last week’s survey by the National Union of Students on students’ perceptions of higher education quality. This poll, engaging more than 6,855 students from every public university in the country, was conducted earlier this year. It found—unsurprisingly to me, at least—that regional students and those at satellite sites attached to major university campuses faced difficulties and costs in accessing books from the main campus. And that is not the only cost that they incur; there is a whole dislocation that can happen in those sorts of contexts.
The organisation’s survey also revealed that nearly half of all respondents thought their university was not doing enough to bridge the cultural divide between domestic and international students. We are global citizens. We live in a globalised economy. The opportunity for conversations and cultural sharing of varieties of knowledge between students from a range of nations is something we should definitely be investing in and enabling. Those students who are unhappy about these things need look no further than to the other side of the chamber to point the finger of blame. I know firsthand how much importance students place on the quality of their educational experience. Issues such as the quality of teaching get much attention, but the real focus here, and that is why this particular piece of legislation is so good, is the focus on the student’s experience—in this case, the learning experience—and students’ capacity to access services on campus is vitally important for them to create an environment that enables them to learn.
Labor has a longstanding commitment to ensuring the quality of all education, but particularly at this time higher education. We have a 10-year reform agenda that places a clear focus on quality and this is supported in real terms by record investment. The new Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency is one element of these critical reforms. From 2012, universities that improve student satisfaction with teaching and learning and that increase the proportion of low socioeconomic status students will be rewarded. In my experience, students who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds have been marginalised for too long from participation, from a sense of high endeavour and from access to all of the professions. The NUS survey reminds us that all students from regional campuses are disadvantaged when it comes to accessing services that students in urban centres take for granted. The Gillard government wants to help redress that balance by restoring important student services.
The bill proposes two budget measures to cease funding for the Graduate Skills Assessment—the GSA program—from 30 June 2010. This will generate savings of $2.4 million over four years. According to information in the 2010-11 budget, these funds will be redirected to support other government priorities, and the My University website will incorporate the program. The GSA was a voluntary test introduced in 2000 and was designed to assess the generic skills of university graduates both at the point of entry to, and exit from, university but, not surprisingly, there has been a diminishing student interest in the GSA—which is something that they see generally as an administration event that does not enhance the quality of their experience.
The other budget measure which the bill proposes to implement is a 20 per cent reduction in funding of $18.4 million over three years from 2011-12 for the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. The ALTC receives approximately $27 million annually to support a range of programs designed to enhance and support the quality of teaching in Australian universities. This measure is a consequence of the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. The ALTC will receive funding from the TEQSA.
Another key initiative will be the additional funding under new mission based compacts. Australian universities will have up to $550 million in additional funding under new mission based compacts. The introduction of compacts and new arrangements for performance funding are part of the government’s commitment to investing in the future of higher education and ensuring Australia’s higher education system better meets Australia’s future needs. Universities will be eligible for $94.2 million in annual facilitation funding from 2011 and $136.6 million each year in reward funding from 2012. Over the three calendar years of the compacts, this amounts to $550 million.
Targets will be set in three key areas. I think that these are really important targets that note and guide us to the change in focus. The target areas are: participation and social inclusion, including the enrolment of more students of low socioeconomic status; the quality of student experience; and the quality of learning outcomes. The Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Evans, has said that the framework includes some interim indicators and plans to develop improved measures of performance over time. The government will negotiate with the universities in 2011 to develop this further. I commend the bill to the House.
2230
16:08:00
Frydenberg, Josh, MP
FKL
Kooyong
LP
0
0
Mr FRYDENBERG
—I rise to speak on the
Higher Education Support Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010, as presented by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The bill raises the funding cap on Commonwealth funding provided to Australian universities and assists universities during the transition to increased numbers of student centred places.
Under the 2009-10 budget, the government provided approximately $491 million over the forward estimates to fund 80,000 Commonwealth supported places and a transition for universities to incorporate over-enrolment. On an assessment of potential over-enrolments, under the government’s program, it is now estimated that there will be an additional 115,000 Commonwealth supported places over the period 2010 to 2013.
Those on this side of the chamber support this bill so long as it is closely monitored over the forward estimates, particularly in regard to universities self-funding over-enrolments through a reliance on the foreign student market. The increasing reliance by universities on fees from foreign students must be monitored as the economic reality today is that the high Australian dollar, difficult economic conditions abroad and a competitive international student market mean that the large number of foreign students that have been coming to our shores in recent years is not guaranteed to continue. I have seen this firsthand in my electorate of Kooyong at Swinburne University.
The coalition strongly supports an open and flexible higher education system. This bill is consistent with a student demand driven system as proposed by the Bradley review. Let us not forget that it was the Howard government that made the first moves towards a student demand driven system. In the last year of the Howard government a record 185,898 Australians were offered a university place. The $1.9 billion Realising Our Potential package introduced significant new funds into key areas and saw a dramatic increase in the level of Commonwealth scholarships that were designed to ensure that Australia’s best and brightest had every opportunity to reach their potential. In the same way, the Howard government increased the repayment threshold applying to student repayments on Commonwealth supported places, formerly known as HECS-HELP loans, to just short of $40,000, making a world’s best practice student contribution scheme even more accessible.
While the bill before the House proposes to increase funding for Commonwealth scholarships, funding for these scholarships has decreased since 2009, when the Higher Education Support Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Act redirected Commonwealth scholarships funding to support student income reform measures. It is high time that funding for Commonwealth scholarships be returned to previous levels. Between 1995 and 2006 there was a 23 per cent increase in the number of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds attending university. In this period we also saw a 15 per cent increase in students from rural areas, a 137 per cent rise in students with a disability and a 30 per cent growth in Indigenous students at our universities. In addition the Howard government also made a significant investment of more than $6 billion in the Higher Education Endowment Fund—a visionary plan to support the building of new university infrastructure. It is an indictment of those opposite that this initiative has not received the requisite political support.
Our universities are a critical component of Australia’s education system, integral as they are to our civil society and to our future prosperity. The coalition supports this bill, contributing as it does to the health of our tertiary sector.
2232
16:13:00
Leigh, Andrew, MP
BU8
Fraser
ALP
1
0
Dr LEIGH
—I rise today to speak on the
Higher Education Support Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010. This bill is about expanding universities and modernising Australia’s university system so that it is really fit for purpose to match the needs of the labour market of the next generation. Students graduating from Australian universities in 2010 are going to be entering a labour market which is fundamentally different from the labour market of their parents. It is important is that our universities provide them with the skills and opportunities necessary for this new and changing labour market.
There is a great Labor legacy of adapting the educational system to meet the needs of the Australian labour market. One of the key features of the first speeches on this side of the parliament has been the issue of education. Many, like myself, have spoken about the power of education to raise living standards throughout Australia. Many others have also spoken about the role that education plays in breaking the intergenerational poverty cycle. You need only to read a few autobiographies of kids from the wrong side of the tracks who have made it to see that consistent theme of a great education being Australia’s best leveller. I am proud today to rise in support of a bill which follows very much the education reforming legacies of the Chifley, Whitlam and Hawke governments, all of which brought about substantial expansions to Australia’s higher education system. The Rudd and Gillard governments have followed very much in that tradition.
I am very proud to have within my own electorate of Fraser a number of Australia’s great tertiary institutions. The Australian National University, the University of Canberra, the Australian Catholic University and UNSW at ADFA are just a few of the terrific institutions in my electorate. But it is important to remember, whenever we are talking about higher education, where we are today and where we could have been. In 1996 Australia ranked seventh out of OECD countries in terms of attainment of undergraduate or higher qualifications amongst 25- to 34-year-olds. By 2006 Australia had dropped to ninth position, according to the Bradley review. That is because other countries surpassed us in their share of young people who have attained a tertiary qualification. Countries such as Finland, Sweden and New Zealand have increasing tertiary participation at a faster rate than Australia and have set targets for tertiary participation of up to 50 per cent. The Bradley review noted that:
These policy decisions elsewhere place us at a great competitive disadvantage unless immediate action is taken.
One of the things that we saw under the former Howard government was an increase in student-staff ratios. Back in 1996 there were 15 students for every tertiary staff member. By 2006, which is the final year the Bradley review uses in its analysis, that number had risen to 20 to one. We saw a substantial increase in class sizes in universities over the period of the Howard government, and that is probably a contributor to low student satisfaction levels. According to the Bradley review, from 1996 to 2007 the levels of university graduates’ ‘satisfaction on the good teaching, appropriate workload, clear goals and standards, and learning community scales have remained either about or below 50 per cent for this whole period’. In other words, at least half of Australia’s university students were dissatisfied with the quality of teaching they received, with workload, with goals and standards, and with their institutions as learning communities.
The Bradley review noted:
Australia is falling behind other countries in performance and investment in higher education.
So what this legislation does today is bring about critical changes in indexation. I am pleased today to be following on this side of the House the member for Robertson, who, like me, has had substantial experience in seeing how Australian tertiary institutions struggled to cope in the old environment. I have seen firsthand, as a professor at the Australian National University, the tough decisions that have to be made when wages increase substantially faster than Commonwealth indexation. That gap between wage growth and Commonwealth indexation means that universities have to make tough choices. The more wages outstripped funding the more we had to cut positions, forcing young researchers who were doing terrific work at the frontiers of their fields to go and find jobs elsewhere. That was good perhaps for the institutions that snapped them up but bad in the long run for students and for the research being carried out by our Australian tertiary institutions.
The Bradley review noted that:
… Commonwealth funding per subsidised student in 2008 was about 10 per cent lower in real terms than it was in 1996 … This was the result of a combination of direct cuts, constrained indexation and shifting of the balance towards higher student contributions.
That steady reduction in real Commonwealth funding had dramatic and painful impacts on Australia’s tertiary institutions. I am pleased to note that the bill that we are speaking to today responds to a recommendation of the Bradley review. Specifically it responds to recommendation 27 by implementing a new indexation arrangement to ensure that universities’ revenue does not continually decline. As the Bradley review said, there are ‘increased sources of non-government revenues that universities have developed since 1996’ and ‘those sources of revenue cannot viably be increased at historical rates’. That is a recognition that some of those substantial shifts that we have seen in the tertiary education sector over the last 20 years are one-off shifts. It is not reasonable to assume that they are going to occur again.
So the indexation factor within this bill is going to be determined through a combination of two sources. Three-quarters of the indexation factor will be derived from the Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Labour Price Index, which will be discounted by 10 per cent, as recommended by the Bradley review, to ‘require higher education institutions to pursue ongoing productivity gains’. That is not putting in place an unreasonable funding gap but is recognising that a 10 per cent difference is something that can encourage productivity enhancements within higher education institutions. The other quarter of the indexation factor will derive from the CPI to account for the non-salary component of the higher education index factor. That reflects the fact that not all of tertiary education funding is going to staff; something in the order of a quarter is going to capital funding and so the CPI is an appropriate indexation for that portion. The university sector has welcomed the improved indexation formula. As a result, the indexation is going to increase funding for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, other grants and the Commonwealth scholarships.
The legislation that we are debating today is part of a long economic and educational legacy of successive reforming Labor administrations. One of the reforms of which I am most proud was the HECS reforms put in place in 1989 and now known as the HELP scheme. I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to my former colleague at the Australian National University Professor Bruce Chapman for his integral role in putting in place what I will probably always refer to as HECS.
The key to HECS was to recognise that a university education raises private incomes. My own work as an economist has looked at the quantum of that increase. It is in the order of a 50 per cent increase in take-home pay for a university graduate compared to somebody who has just finished high school with no further qualifications. It is fair, and it is in accordance with basic Australian principles of egalitarianism, that students who graduate from universities should make a contribution. But it is also critical to make sure that as students make that contribution it does not stop them attending university. They only make that contribution under the income contingent loan scheme when their earnings pass a certain threshold, set at around average earnings.
Recognising that a university education has a social benefit, the income contingent loan does not cover the full cost of tuition. We recognise that we as a society are better off from rising tertiary attendance rates and so we, in the form of the government, kick in a portion of the bill to allow students to attend university. There has been some careful research done on the impact of HECS on the socioeconomic mix of students who attend university. In particular, I am thinking here of a paper by Bruce Chapman and Chris Ryan which showed that the introduction of HECS in 1989 had no impact on the socioeconomic mix of university students. The number of low-SES students attending university increased because we saw, thanks to HECS, a substantial rise in the number of university students across Australia. But the share of university students who were from low SES backgrounds stayed unchanged. So I regard HECS in that sense as a pro-poor measure and a measure which increased equality of opportunity across Australia.
This next stage of reforms follows very much in the same tradition. Under the student centred funding system, the government will fund a Commonwealth supported place for every eligible university student accepted into an eligible course at a public university—a substantial shift in our higher education system and one that I am delighted to hear that those opposite support. They were not, alas, able to bring it home during their 11½ years in government, but I am glad to hear that they are supporting it now that a Labor government is putting it into place.
This will be a reform which recognises that the labour market of, say, 2050 is going to be one which increasingly requires high levels of abstract thinking skills and where we will naturally want to increase the number of young Australians who have a tertiary qualification. It is estimated, as the member for Kooyong has noted, that there will be an additional 115,000 Commonwealth supported places over the period 2010-2013. That is 115,000 young Australians who would not otherwise have got a chance to go to university but for this bill. That is a terrific thing and one of which all members of this House should be greatly proud.
Finally, I would like to use this moment to acknowledge Peter Davidson of the National Tertiary Education Union. Peter, a fierce advocate of better universities, alas passed away on 29 October of this year. I extend my condolences to his family and in particular to his widow, Tanya. I also use this opportunity to thank Emily Murray, a volunteer in my office, who has been a tremendous help in preparing my remarks today. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
2234
Personal Explanations
2234
16:26:00
Morrison, Scott, MP
E3L
Cook
LP
0
0
Mr MORRISON
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr MORRISON
—I do.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr MORRISON
—Today in question time the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship quoted me as saying that 47,000 applications for protection visas that were made offshore in Australian missions and with Australian officials around the world, or the tens of thousands of other applications that are made for skill visas and others, would not be reviewable by the High Court. The comments were made in relation to the decision by the High Court last week. The minister implied that this statement was untrue and that in fact applications made by people offshore for visas were reviewable by the High Court. I simply make this statement, by way of explanation—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member must show where he has personally been misrepresented.
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr MORRISON
—He has stated that that is an incorrect statement. He is wrong in doing so because there is no duty to exercise a power to grant a visa. The remedies mentioned in section 75 of the Constitution to the High Court for appeal do not apply in these cases.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I think the member for Cook has made his point.
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr MORRISON
—I have almost finished, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not detain the House any longer.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon
—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: he has demonstrated where he said he has been misrepresented. That is all he needs to do. He needs to sit down.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I am listening very closely. The member ought to be aware that he must show where he has personally been misrepresented. He cannot debate the topic, and I would ask him to bring his personal explanation to a conclusion expeditiously.
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr MORRISON
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I simply make the point that the minister represented my statements as being incorrect. I stand by those statements. They were correct because there is a discretionary power to grant visas and the minister clearly does not understand this.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The matter is now on the record.
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (2010 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2010
2235
Bills
R4480
Debate resumed.
2235
16:28:00
Tehan, Dan, MP
210911
Wannon
LP
0
0
Mr TEHAN
—I rise in support of the
Higher Education Support Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010
and, in doing so, I place on the record that I very much support it, especially the 115,000 extra places between 2010 and 2013 that it will lead to. But I note for the record that one of the things that we will need to closely monitor with regard to this bill is whether those places extend into regional universities and into regional university campuses as well as into the major universities in our capital cities. When we talk about tertiary participation we have to talk about tertiary participation across all of Australia, and that includes our regions and country areas. I particularly note that, in the electorate of Wannon, Deakin University has a very good regional campus in Warrnambool. We have had an overallocation of places at that university and I would hope that the 115,000 extra places will benefit Deakin University and in particular the campus at Warrnambool, which is a strong, thriving regional campus and should be supported by the Commonwealth government.
I would also like to take the opportunity to raise an issue that has not been raised in the debating of this bill, and that is to do with the independent youth allowance. While we are talking about tertiary participation, we need to talk about the decline in students from country areas who are accessing tertiary education. It is all very well to talk about tertiary participation and put a bill forward which encourages that, but then with one hand take away the ability for country students to access a tertiary education. That is exactly what the Rudd/Gillard government did in the last term. This House has spoken very clearly on the matter of the independent youth allowance. We had a motion about three weeks ago clearly stating that the government has got this policy wrong. So, while we can all stand here in agreement on this bill—and we are in agreement—unless we do something to reverse the decline in country students accessing a tertiary education, this bill will be meaningless to a lot of country students.
In my electorate of Wannon there are clear examples of this. For instance, if you grow up in Coleraine you can qualify for the independent youth allowance and it is easier for you to access a tertiary education. If you grow up in Hamilton, which is only 20 kilometres away, you do not get access to the independent youth allowance and therefore it is harder for you to go to the city, if that is where you want to get your tertiary education, and to access an affordable tertiary education. The same goes for Timboon and Cobden. There is 20 kilometres difference, and where you were born will determine whether you get help in accessing a tertiary education. The same goes for Halls Gap and Stawell. Once again there is only 20 kilometres difference, but where you were born, or you are residing, will make a huge difference to your ability to afford a tertiary education.
In this chamber three weeks ago there was a vote on this. The Independents sided, rightly, with the coalition to call the government to account and tell them to make changes again so that the independent youth allowance would be accessible to country students in regional areas. So far the government has not acted. If we are serious about this new paradigm, when the parliament votes and calls the government to account and says it has got it wrong on a matter, the government should listen and act. Otherwise, this so-called new paradigm is meaningless. We can vote in here on numerous bills but if the government will not listen when this chamber says it has got it wrong then everything we are doing is meaningless. I call on the Independents who, rightly, voted with the coalition on that bill to hold the government to account on that matter. It is all very well for us to sit here and vote, but if they will not follow that up with action, if they will not lobby the government to change its policy on this, what we are doing under this so-called new paradigm means nothing. I call on the independents to side with the coalition and put further pressure on the government to change its view on the independent youth allowance, because the statistics are damning. Country students are accessing tertiary education less and less because of the question of affordability. If we are to be serious about providing 115,000 extra university places over the next three years, we have to make sure that they are accessible in an equitable form to country students as well as their urban cousins.
We all know from our own careers and our own accessing of tertiary education that it is the great enabler. We have heard from the other side that it has the ability to increase your income when you access employment. If education is the great enabler, we have to ensure that it can be accessed across the board. So far, we have not heard this mentioned. I am hoping that in the further debate on this matter this issue will continue to be raised, because it is absolutely vital that all Australians, no matter where they live, get access to a good, healthy and decent tertiary education.
2237
16:35:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth
1
0
Mr GARRETT
—in reply—I rise to sum up the contributions that have been made in the House on the
Higher Education Support Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010. This bill reflects the government’s continued commitment to an unprecedented investment in our universities through the full funding of the student-centred funding system. The commitment will deliver a growing and sustainable higher education system. Under the student-centred funding system the government will fund a Commonwealth supported place for every eligible undergraduate student accepted into an eligible course at a public university. There is a transitional period in 2010 and 2011 during which the cap on overenrolment for Commonwealth supported places will be lifted from five per cent to 10 per cent in funding terms.
Australian universities are in a good position to deliver on the government’s higher education attainment ambition that, by 2025, 40 per cent of all 25- to 34-year-olds will hold a qualification at bachelor level or above, with an estimated additional 115,000 Commonwealth supported places over the period 2010-13. In the 2010-11 budget the government provided an additional $986 million over the four years to 2013-14 for anticipated growth in Commonwealth supported places and for overenrolments in 2009. This bill provides $681 million of that funding for 2010 and 2011 for additional Commonwealth supported places in those years and for the overenrolments in 2009.
Following the implementation of the student centred funding system in 2012, the Higher Education Support Act will no longer have maximum amounts for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, as there will be no overall limit on the number of students that table A higher education providers will be able to enrol. This means the bill does not provide an update for the additional funding for Commonwealth supported places in the years 2012 and onwards. Funding from 2012 will be based on enrolment numbers.
Revised indexation arrangements for 2012 for programs funded under the Higher Education Support Act 2003, already provided in the Higher Education Support Amendment (Indexation) Bill 2010, will promote improved quality by ensuring that funding for teaching and learning and research keeps pace with increasing costs. This will contribute towards the overall financial stability and viability of the higher education sector and will provide greater certainty for individual institutions when planning for future development. The new indexation funding will provide an additional $2.6 billion to the sector over the years 2011 to 2015.
This bill promotes a diverse, responsive and dynamic higher education sector that delivers benefits for universities, for their students and, in turn, for the wider Australian community. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
2237
Mr GARRETT
(Kingsford Smith
—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth)
00:00:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
(Quorum formed)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMPETITION AND CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS) BILL 2010
2238
Bills
R4479
Second Reading
2238
Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by
Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2238
16:43:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—At the outset, let me restate our position on the National Broadband Network, the construction of which is the context for almost all of the provisions in the
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010. The coalition is committed to making fast and affordable broadband available to all Australians, regardless of where they live. We believe that the achievement of this goal will be assisted by a competitive telecommunications sector and recognise that competition would be enhanced by the separation of Telstra’s customer access network from its retail business. Those apparently then are the objectives of all members. The challenge is to realise them in a way that minimises the expense to taxpayers and ensures Telstra shareholders are treated fairly and equitably.
This bill involves a number of changes to the legislation which are objectionable and a number of changes which are desirable. While there are many things in this bill that we agree with, it is, like the curate’s egg, good only in parts. The NBN scheme involves the overbuilding and dismantling of the entire Telstra customer copper access network. It involves $43 billion of taxpayers’ money being invested to create a government owned fixed line monopoly. This monopoly will be reinforced by contractual agreements that prevent Telstra from using its HFC network—that is its pay television network, which is not going to be decommissioned—in other voice and data services in competition with the NBN. So part of the deal is that, purely for the purpose of underpinning the already dodgy economics of the NBN, the government is entering into a contract with Telstra which will preclude Telstra from competing with the NBN using its HFC network. The government looks forward, we know—because it said so—to doing a similarly anticompetitive deal with Optus.
The objective is to not only create a government owned business monopoly but entrench it using the power of the parliament to eliminate and inhibit competition. That is turning back more than 20 years of economic reform in Australia. It is a reversion to the pattern of state governments in particular owning businesses and using their governmental and political muscle to protect those inefficient monopoly businesses. That is one of many reasons why this proposal needs to be carefully analysed and why it should, as we have recommended and indeed as the OECD has recommended, have a cost-benefit analysis of it undertaken by the Productivity Commission.
Telstra shareholders are going to get $11 billion of after tax value for this. As a consequence, the Telstra board supports the deal. But our responsibility here is to the taxpayers of Australia. I have said a number of times that in many respects this NBN proposal represents a conspiracy against the taxpayers. We have vendors that want to sell equipment. We have contractors who want to dig ditches and lay fibre. We have telcos—some of them, not all of them—who see this as a great business opportunity and certainly support the end to the vertical integration of Telstra. We have Telstra’s management seeing this as a home run for their shareholders. David Thodey, the chief executive of Telstra, sees Stephen Conroy as playing Alan Bond to Thodey’s Kerry Packer. It is an absolute home run for him. No doubt, he hopes that at some point the NBN will fail for whatever reason and he might be able to, like Kerry Packer, buy it back for a fraction of the price.
Our job here is to protect the interests of the taxpayers. The policy objective should be as follows: to deliver universal and affordable broadband across Australia. That is number one. We should do so in a way that imposes the lowest net cost to Australian taxpayers. We need to ensure that we have an industry that is truly competitive. Thus we need to end the vertical integration of Telstra, but we need to do so in a way that is fair to Telstra shareholders. The primary objective is for universal and affordable broadband and the other secondary objectives support the primary one.
The question is: is this the best way to achieve that objective? It is certainly the most expensive way. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a means to a policy objective that could be more burdensome on the taxpayer than the one proposed here with the NBN. A more prudent approach, and one that has been recognised as entirely feasible for many years, would be to see the Telstra customer access network transferred into a separate company owned initially perhaps by Telstra’s current shareholders.
This new network company would provide wholesale carriage services to all retail carriers on equal terms. Vertical integration would be at an end. This new network company would be a regulated utility with pricing guarantees that ensured that it received a reasonable return on its capital investment. It would know that as it invested more in its network it would receive an appropriate return. This is the model used for utilities used in other sectors such as water, gas and rail. This new network company would be mandated to rectify black spots in the cities and underserviced areas in regional and remote areas to ensure that all Australians had at least 12 megabits per second broadband. Schools and hospitals would be delivered faster broadband where it is not already available. As honourable members know, for the most part it is. Where this could not be done economically because of geography or historical network design choices, a transparent subsidy would be provided.
Such an approach would achieve all of the policy goals referred to earlier. It would minimise the financial burden on taxpayers. It would ensure that our existing network was upgraded and improved over time in line with the demand for faster broadband. It would ensure that all Australians had access to broadband at a speed that is more than capable of handling the available applications. The government will say that anything less than fibre-to-the-home at 100 megabits per second is inadequate. Picking technologies is hard enough if you are in business. If you a government, you are sure to fail. Our policy for universal and affordable broadband should be technology agnostic. As for higher speeds, where they can be provided, no doubt they will be. And they already are being provided by the market. There is no evidence that households will pay a significant or any premium for such higher speeds, however. That has been the experience of telecommunications companies here and around the world.
I note that in the United States the minimum broadband target is four megabits per second. We should never forget that speed is only of value to a customer to the extent that it enables that customer to use the particular applications that they want to. The 100 megabit per second fibre-to-the-home objective of the government has become little more than a religious devotion utterly unconnected from economics or market reality. To justify a $43 billion taxpayer investment, as the minister has done, on the basis that it will be used ‘in 20 years time for things that we do not know about’ is reckless in the extreme. In 20 years time most of the equipment in the NBN will have been replaced, some of it several times.
The refusal of the government to subject this NBN to a rigorous, independent cost-benefit analysis represents one of the most disgraceful abdications of fiscal responsibility in our nation’s history. Never has so much money been spent with so little scrutiny. I will not repeat to the House the many statements made by Labor ministers about the need for rigorous cost-benefit analysis of projects, but I remind the House that only two years ago the government established Infrastructure Australia with the express purpose of assessing major infrastructure projects. As part of that process of assessment, Infrastructure Australia stated in its 2009 guidelines for better infrastructure decision making:
… all initiatives proposed to Infrastructure Australia … should include a thorough and detailed economic cost-benefit analysis … In order to demonstrate that the Benefit Cost Analysis is indeed robust, full transparency of the assumptions, parameters and values which are used in each Benefit Cost Analysis is required.
Let me now turn to the detail of the legislation. As I said earlier, like the curate’s egg it is good in parts, but it also seeks to utterly subvert the normal operation of the Competition and Consumer Legislation Act, better known as the Trade Practices Act—the key national law protecting the interests of consumers with regard to this proposed $11 billion NBN-Telstra deal. It places a gun at the head of Telstra shareholders in the crudest possible fashion, with the government threatening to pull the trigger unless the firm separates the retail business and customer access network and migrates its customers to NBN Co. in the way the government has demanded. We oppose those measures. Therefore, we will be seeking to amend the bill in six areas, which I will discuss in greater detail shortly.
Firstly, there is the matter of the separation of Telstra. One of the key objectives of the bill is a proposal by the government to require Telstra to voluntarily bring forward to the ACCC a plan to structurally separate its network and retail businesses. If it does not, or if the structural separation undertaking is not accepted, the current form of the bill requires Telstra to functionally separate—that is, divide its network and retail business units so that they operate at arm’s length. The bill essentially provides ministerial discretion to prevent Telstra from bidding for next-generation 4G wireless spectrum via a disallowable instrument. It also provides ministerial discretion to compel Telstra to divest its HFC pay television cable network and/or 50 per cent interest in the Foxtel pay TV business. The gradual decommissioning of the Telstra copper customer access network and migration of Telstra customers to services provided over the NBN, contemplated in the agreement, would be accepted by the minister and the ACCC as a valid structural separation plan. The minister would have, under this legislation, the discretion to direct the ACCC as to the criteria to be used in deciding whether to accept a separation plan.
As we all understand, Telstra’s vertical integration has been a contentious issue since the 1990s. Various options for separating Telstra’s fixed line network from its retail and wireless businesses have been canvassed, and I discussed that earlier in my remarks. We support separation. We recognise that it would enhance competition. We have seen separation work effectively in other utility industries, such as energy and railways. We have also seen it improve telecommunications outcomes in other countries, including the UK and Sweden. Many people, both inside and outside Telstra, have argued for more than a decade that it was actually in the interests of Telstra shareholders to allow this to happen in order to promote greater shareholder value for Telstra. The decision of Telstra management over a long period of time to oppose this root and branch was, in the views of many, unwise. Given Telstra’s current share price, it is hard to argue that the existing approach or the previous approach has worked well for the company’s 1.4 million shareholders or for its thousands of employees and millions of customers.
So, as I said earlier, we welcome in principle Telstra separating into retail and network businesses. But we do not believe that such a separation should occur under duress or via a deal that is possibly in breach of the nation’s competition laws or via the creation of a new and vastly wasteful government monopoly. Any such restructuring should be on terms such as those I described earlier which are fair to Telstra shareholders and impose no greater costs on taxpayers than are necessary. The NBN policy of the government does achieve structural separation, but at enormous and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer and via the establishment of a new government owned fixed line monopoly with which there will be no competition. One of the paradoxes of the current debate is that this structural separation of Telstra’s network is cited by its competitors and the government as the greatest benefit of the NBN, yet there is absolutely no need to build a new network to achieve it. If vertical integration is the problem, then the NBN is using a sledgehammer—an extraordinarily expensive and elaborate sledgehammer at that, paid for by the taxpayer—to crack a nut.
The second key objective of the bill is to exempt the proposed NBN-Telstra agreement—and no doubt NBN deals with other carriers such as Optus—from the normal operation of the Competition and Consumer Act, formerly known as the Trade Practices Act. This statutory authorisation for what otherwise would very likely be viewed as an anticompetitive arrangement is based on the government’s argument that the proposed NBN-Telstra agreement is in the national interest. I say ‘anticompetitive’ because the deal envisages Telstra being contractually required to decommission its copper network, an asset that still has substantial if lessening economic value, as the NBN is rolled out to ensure that the latter enjoys a fixed line monopoly. It also envisages Telstra—and potentially Optus—being contractually forbidden from offering broadband and voice services over their pay TV networks, which pass about 30 per cent of Australian homes and could be tuned up to deliver speeds of over 100 megabits per second today—as, indeed, the HFC network of Telstra in Melbourne already has been tuned up to deliver.
I recognise that it will be argued that, as the fibre-to-the-home overbuild progresses, the economics of the copper network will deteriorate to the point where it makes more sense to decommission it. That may be so, but the HFC network will not be decommissioned and will continue to provide pay TV services for many, many years to come. There is absolutely no justification for the ban on competition from the HFC network, other than to protect the economics of the NBN fixed line monopoly. The government’s approach here is without precedent anywhere in the world.
I was reading today a discussion delivered by one of the telco partners of Gilbert and Tobin, Mr Pascoe, whom at least one honourable member would be familiar with. He said, ‘The reaction of other countries to the NBN proposal was one of raised eyebrows and growing concern.’
Indeed, only the other day one New Zealand businessman who is involved with that government’s fibre rollout, where the government is spending $1.5 billion in total to support a public-private partnership to deliver fibre around New Zealand, said to me that the big difference between New Zealand’s approach and Australia’s was that, in New Zealand, the business plan came before the investment, whereas we seem to have made the investment decision and still have not got the business plan together. It is really becoming quite an embarrassment. The strictures we saw in the OECD report just underline how unprecedented the government’s approach is. Nowhere else in the world is the government proposing to force a carrier to dismantle its copper network just to maximise revenues and eliminate competition for a government owned monopoly, regardless of the economic value of the existing network.
Nowhere else in the world is broadband over copper, such as ADSL or VDSL, effectively being banned, regardless of whether it provides service of a quality and price that customers want. Nowhere else in the world is competition for fibre from HFC being banished, again, simply to prop up a government owned monopoly. On the contrary, broadband and voice delivered over HFC cables is the main form of facility based competition for copper and optical fibre in most countries in the world. Why on earth would this parliament believe the Australian government has this right and every other country in the world has it wrong? The OECD, as I have noted, is also critical of the way in which the NBN will be structured so as to be the sole provider of fixed-line communications to Australian households. ‘Facilities based competition is of great value,’ the OECD writes in its economic survey of Australia, and I quote:
Multiple empirical studies have stressed the value of competition between technological platforms for the dissemination of broadband services …
And further:
Moreover, such a monopolistic incumbent—
such as the NBN—
could forestall the development of, as yet unknown, superior technological alternatives …
Passage of this bill is not essential to completion of the Telstra-NBN Co. deal. It is not essential to the completion of the NBN. In fact, there is no need to do a deal with Telstra to have the NBN. That was certainly the government’s policy and, indeed, what the McKinsey implementation study also claimed. Telstra clearly believes it has pulled off an excellent deal here on the effective sale of its customer access network to the government. But the competition laws are not about protecting the interests of Telstra’s shareholders or about maximising the revenues of the NBN Co.—a government owned monopoly—or about permitting the Labor Party to turn back more than 20 years of economic reform; they are about protecting consumers and promoting competition. This deal, and the competition laws, should be dealt with by the ACCC, just like any other. It is also important to bear in mind that, when we talk about universal affordable broadband, there is a digital divide in Australia. Overwhelmingly, that divide is marked by income. Forty-three per cent of households with an income under $40,000 a year have internet at home. That figure rises to 76 per cent in households with an income of between $40,000 and $80,000 a year. In households with an income of between $80,000 and $120,000, 89 per cent have the internet and, in households with an income over $120,000, 95 per cent have the internet.
The difference between the number of metro households and regional households having internet access at home is considerable—76 per cent in the cities, 64 per cent in the regions. But, overwhelmingly, the biggest marker of the digital divide is household income. The NBN will not bring down prices; it will put them up. It is going to be a massively overcapitalised, government owned monopoly with no competition. There will be an inevitable pressure on the management of the NBN to charge more. Indeed, notwithstanding that, over many years, we have seen prices of telecommunications come down again and again year after year, in the McKinsey study we see, as expected, that the wholesale price for access to the NBN will increase in real terms every year for the next decade.
That is a reversal. We have had telecommunications costs coming down, increased access to the internet but not enough to deliver anything near ubiquitous penetration among low-income households. So affordability is a big issue. What the government is doing is creating a scheme which will actually make the internet less affordable, so it is defeating one of the key objectives.
The reality is that if you have an investment of this kind you will get one of two things or, more likely, both. You will get an inadequate return to the shareholder—in this case, the Australian taxpayer—or you will get the monopoly extracting monopolistically high prices for its services as a means of recovering on the investment. The truth is that, given the scale of this investment and the nature of the monopoly, you will probably get a bit of both. It will be a classic lose, lose—a lose for taxpayers and a lose for consumers.
The third key area that the bill addresses is the regime governing competitive access to facilities such as Telstra’s customer access network. This is really designed to deal with the interim stage before the NBN is built. The existing telecommunications access regime is widely seen to have been only partly effective, since Telstra has frequently been able to use the negotiate-arbitrate framework to delay and, in some cases, frustrate seekers of access. Telstra’s board and management have responded to the regime in ways they believed maximised value to their shareholders, although in this regard I note and welcome the, if you like, less abrasive approach, the less confrontational approach of the current management. Telstra’s competitors have accused the company of gaming the access regulations and, as a result, have sought a more predictable and less contentious regime.
The bill amends the access regime included in the Competition and Consumer Act away from ‘negotiate/arbitrate’ as a model for declared services to a new one where the ACCC sets upfront price and non-price terms for declared services for periods of three to five years. This has been described as a ‘set and forget’ model to provide increased certainty for access seekers and carriers. But, in providing more certainty for Telstra’s competitors, we need to be careful not to tip the balance too far and unfairly limit the scope for the company to appeal if the ACCC gets it wrong. Therefore we will be moving amendments which would restore merit reviews of ACCC part XIC decisions and reinstate the ACCC’s procedural fairness obligations when issuing a competition notice under part XIB.
Finally, the bill reinforces the existing consumer protection safeguards in the industry, including the universal service obligation and the customer service guarantee. While these changes place an increased burden on carriers, the coalition supports them and will not be moving amendments in this area. In particular, we believe it is critical for consumer protections to be meticulously upheld in rural and regional areas, where, as we all know, access to reliable communications services is critical.
In summary, the coalition amendments would ensure that the normal operation of the Competition and Consumer Act, the key legislation in this country protecting the interests of consumers and promoting competition, applies to the NBN-Telstra deal. In other words, our amendments would ensure that this, the biggest merger in the telecommunications sector in our history—and the establishment of a government monopoly—is not excluded from consideration by the ACCC under its powers under section 51. We would ensure that the parliament is able to disallow ministerial directions to the ACCC regarding the NBN-Telstra deal. We would restore merit reviews to ACCC enforcement of the new access pricing regime. We would restore procedural fairness to the ACCC enforcement of the new access regime. We would remove the ‘gun at the head’ provisions which threaten Telstra with losing access to next-generation 4G wireless spectrum and remove the ‘gun at the head’ provisions of the bill which threaten Telstra with being forced to dispose of its HFC pay television cables and/or 50 per cent interest in Foxtel if it does not structurally separate in a way acceptable to the government. These last two amendments will be moved as a single group of changes.
The support for the coalition’s position in this matter is growing all the time. I have referred to the remarks of the OECD. They are worth dwelling on because the OECD’s report is normally—I think invariably—written with the closest possible collaboration with the Treasury. It is very unusual for an OECD report of this kind to be as critical of a government’s domestic policy as was the report published yesterday. It is quite common for the OECD to issue all sorts of exhortations to greater efforts in terms of economic reform, but to actually challenge a government policy is very rare. What the OECD has challenged most clearly and repeatedly is the way in which a monopoly is being created here. Its concern is considerable—and that, of course, is reflected in the advice the Treasury gave the incoming government in the red book, where it highlighted two major concerns. One was the obvious risk to the public balance sheet of investing $43 billion with no business case, no cost-benefit analysis and no attempt ever to ask, ‘What are we trying to achieve?’ and then, having defined that as universal and affordable broadband, ‘Is there a cheaper, speedier, more cost-effective way of achieving it, one that better promotes competition?’ Those questions have never been asked by the government because they fear that the answer will not be to their liking.
We have seen only today that the Alliance for Affordable Broadband, a group of leading competitive telcos including AAPT, PIPE Networks, Vocus, Ipera Communications and Allegro Networks—all leading players in the competitive telecommunications industry—have written an open letter to the Independent members of the House of Representatives which they have published. This is what they say, and it is a very pithy summary of the concerns that are being more and more shared across the country. The Alliance for Affordable Broadband write:
We recognise that as a nation we already have some catching up to do to bring broadband services to many areas of Australia, particularly regional and remote areas. But, policy of this magnitude which carries with it fundamental changes to the entire fabric of the national telecommunications landscape and re-creates a new government-owned monopoly requires Members of Parliament to ensure such a policy is the best policy for the future development of the country, and in particular the delivery of the most efficient investment by the Australian taxpayer. Past delays cannot justify panic or cut corners now. Mistakes we make in the design and/or policy settings for the proposed NBN, particularly in the areas of structure, affordability and accessibility, will not be easily fixed down the track and could be disastrous for our international competitiveness. You find yourselves in the position of being able to ensure the Government’s policy is sound and that taxpayers’ money is spent well and wisely.
The Productivity Commission is experienced in doing this kind of analysis. It is well respected and credible because it is independent and rigorous and conducts its review transparently. It will approach the question independently and dispassionately, and present the facts. Facts are what is missing from this debate.
This is a vast project that the government is undertaking. We support the objective of universal and affordable broadband, but we must achieve it in a way that protects and enhances competition and in a way that does not impose an utterly unnecessary burden on the Australian taxpayer and ultimately the households that will seek to access the internet through this network.
2245
17:13:00
Rowland, Michelle, MP
159771
Greenway
ALP
0
0
Ms ROWLAND
—I am very pleased to rise and speak in support of the
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010. I will address, firstly, some of the issues that have been raised by the member for Wentworth, who has come in here again and said that we all have the same objective. We do not, because on this side our objective is not a solution that would have been great in the year 2000, not 12 megabits per second. Our objective is universal, ubiquitous broadband that will last and that will drag us into the 21st century. I will say in relation to his notion that he has a new plan that it is very interesting. Yet again, I point out that this is the coalition’s policy—it is still on their website—and, if it is such a great idea to have the separate network company that he is proposing to set up, they had 12 years to do it. They had 12 years and they specifically dodged the issue, and all of a sudden it is a great idea.
I will address some of the other issues at a later time with respect to the amendments and I look forward to reviewing those proposed amendments very closely. But one thing that made my ears prick up first of all was some ideas of reinstatement of merits review. If I recall, in 2002 the removal of merits review from a number of aspects of the negotiate-arbitrate model was specifically Howard government policy, enacted and supported by this side, because of the continual gaming of the regulatory system, locking things up in merits review in the Competition Tribunal for years. For years, things were banked-up in the Competition Tribunal. We never had lower prices. At times they should have been delivered because of this level of gaming, and yet we hear about merits review being reinstated.
On the issue of the United States and some of the other countries that the member for Wentworth has mentioned, the last country I am going to take advice from on this point is the US. Here is a country with a minimum broadband target of four megabits per second and they have a regulator that has stepped back from wholesale regulation. When the rest of the world is pursuing wholesale regulation to ensure a competitive level playing field, the FCC is stepping back. It is a basket case in terms of competition. You go to regions in the US and you find they have no competition in broadband whatsoever. They have got a USO system that went bankrupt. The last people that I am going to take advice from is them—or maybe the second last, because New Zealand is a country that only a couple of years ago finally established telco-specific competition law. Do you know what they used to do when they had disputes? They used to go to the Privy Council—the Privy Council for God’s sake! So the last people I am going to take advice from are these countries that the member for Wentworth has mentioned.
He talks about what technology is going to be here in 20 years time. Well, unless someone wants to prove me wrong, in 20 years time, nothing is going to get faster than the speed of light. Once you lay the fibre networks the only things you need to replace are the electronics on the end. You have the backbone there that will last far more than 20 years, far more than this mishmash of a bit of wi-fi, a bit of copper. It is still copper—you can keep upgrading it but it is still copper.
The member for Wentworth talks about facilities based competition. Hasn’t that worked in Australia! The market really has delivered on that point. The member for Bradfield came in here the other week and said that the market should be able to deliver competition. Note to self: it has not. If you look at any report in Australia about the state of competition, facilities based competition has been nonexistent for years. Yet he comes into this place and says that the market will deliver and that, yes, we have a digital divide. We do have a digital divide but, yet again, what did the opposition do when they were in government to address it? Enlighten me. I wish to be enlightened because I know the answer is sweet nothing. I say to members opposite: do not come in here and preach to me about affordability; do not come in here and preach to me when we have got whole areas of the Blacktown local government area that are white on maps of internet penetration—where there is simply no internet. That is what was delivered under the previous government. The way that you deal with this is through retail competition delivered only through a wholesale open-access model, delivering pricing that actually drives competition at the retail level.
As a former practitioner in this area, I was involved in countless inquiries into how the regulatory system in Australia works, countless inquiries into parts XIB and XIC of the Trade Practices Act. At the end of it, even after all the reforms that occurred since 1991, the thing that we have to deal with is that it is still an inadequate system to deal with a broadband future. ICT, being the driver of total factor productivity, needs fundamental reform of the telco sector in order to work. This is an historic piece of legislation that addresses some of the fundamental problems that have plagued the telco sector since liberalisation of the industry commenced in 1991. There are many parts to this bill, and I will provide some context, but in the time I have I will concentrate on some specific aspects.
In 2001, the Productivity Commission released its report into telco-specific competition law. It investigated the need to establish a regulatory regime that would be relevant and robust for the future telecommunications environment and that would enhance overall community welfare. This was a two-year, very wide-ranging process and, as members would be aware, this led to the implementation of the Telecommunications Competition Bill 2002. Although the Productivity Commission recommendations and the subsequent legislative changes were significant, one cannot help but lament that this was a lost opportunity to implement reforms that would have led to the structural separation of Telstra’s wholesale and retail sectors. At the time, I did indeed lament that this was a lost opportunity.
As I noted in 2004 when I discussed ICT policy in Australia—A failure to converge, a failure to recognise convergence or a failure to care?—following on the conference of the World Summit on the Information Society, which was held in Geneva in late 2003, I questioned whether Australia actually had an ICT policy that was comparable with the WSIS outcomes. It led me to the conclusion that Australia did not have an ICT strategy at all at a federal level. I concluded by arguing that Australia’s failure to adopt a coherent ICT strategy resulted in ICT policy settings that were inappropriate and unsustainable. I was proved right that these were wasted years. These were years when we should have been laying the policy ground work for a high-speed broadband network to actually make sure that Australia did not fall behind other countries in our region.
I mentioned that the opposition, when in government, specifically dodged the issue of structural separation. Do not take it from me, take it from the Productivity Commission’s terms of reference. The terms of reference specified that, in line with government policy, the inquiry would not encompass the structural separation of Telstra. So the Howard government failed to enact, failed to even look at, a much needed microeconomic reform that would have laid the foundation for the rollout of a national broadband network. That is just one example of the total disregard for broadband by the government of that time. They did not believe in it then, they do not believe it now and their failure to act on regulatory reform and broadband policy has hurt Australia’s global performance. Do not take it from me, take it from the facts. The member for Wentworth talks about the OECD. We are ranked 17th out of 31 OECD countries in terms of fixed broadband uptake; we are ranked 50th for broadband speeds. We do not even have one city in all of Australia in the top 100 in the world for broadband speeds. Unless we build the NBN, there is absolutely no way we will be able to increase our international competitiveness. We will just keep falling behind. Only recently a broadband quality survey saw Australia fall from 18th to 21st in the world broadband rankings.
As I said, what we really need to do is to understand what the NBN is: a fibre network which, once laid, will enable smart electronics at each end to use those pipes in a way that we cannot predict. We have not even imagined yet what those things will be able to do, but the most important thing is that the backbone will be there so that when these applications are invented you can use the pipes for whatever purpose you seek. When we talk about being technically agnostic, I agree we should be talking about being technically agnostic—at the ends. Who am I to argue with the physics of the speed of light, of an electromagnetic pulse going down this conduit?
What frustrates me, and what I know frustrates people all over my electorate—and I know so many people who have been following this debate—is how Australia is constantly not held up as one of the countries that can boast about what it has done in broadband. I refer to a report in the
Sydney Morning Herald
last Wednesday, 10 November, which talked about Korea. Korea, of course, has been in the news, and I think this is an excellent article. As it says:
We can learn a lot about broadband networks from this Asian powerhouse …
…
…
…
While Australia debates the merits of the broadband network, South Korea resolved to provide widespread high-speed internet more than a decade ago and now tops the world in broadband access. Just like education or high-speed rail, broadband is viewed as another type of infrastructure that gives the economy an edge.
It gives the economy an edge. It is not good enough for a modern, innovative and competitive economy that Australia is doing so badly.
Essentially, we got liberalisation right in the late eighties and early nineties. We had an independent regulator. We set up the current policy settings to be able to have different pieces of legislation to enable competition, to let in new players and to ensure that in the end we had an open carrier model here in Australia. But one thing we did not get right was that, from the mid-nineties onwards, it was as though convergence never happened. It is as though we did not end up thinking we needed an ICT policy. This progress that we see in our region is not going to happen in Australia of its own accord. We need to execute fundamental reform, and that is why this legislation is so important. It is overdue. It has been discussed for nearly two decades, but this is reform that will transfer Australia from the deficiencies of the 20th century regulatory structure to a regulatory structure for the 21st century. It will create much-needed infrastructure competition in the telco sector—infrastructure competition that simply has not happened and will not happen. It is reform that ensures we do not commit the mistakes of the past when it comes to the regulation of telecommunications in Australia.
This bill will be part of shaping the regulatory regime that will be applied to the NBN. By implementing structural separation of Telstra, this legislation deals with the greatest outstanding reform of our telco sector whilst providing the basis for the NBN to operate as an open access model. The open access model is essential for the delivery of faster, more affordable broadband services. I do not just speak as a former practitioner in this area. I also speak as an effective representative of my residents, and I would like to mention Mr Glen Meeves, who lives in Kings Park in my electorate of Greenway. He is well aware of the benefits of the NBN. In a letter recently published in the
Sydney Morning Herald, he noted:
… lightning-fast broadband … is also a matter of social justice and equity. We cannot build the finest educational and medical facilities in every population centre, but world’s best practice in internet makes the physical absence irrelevant.
I totally agree with that.
I would also like to talk about the inability of the previous government to keep up with what has been needed for so long by new residents in greenfields estates. I have recently received this email from a resident who has moved into a new development in the north of my electorate called The Ponds. She wrote:
We are new residents in the new development of The Ponds and have been told by Telstra, Optus, iiNet and TPG that we cannot get broadband internet at all … It also baffles me that my house has been built next to a house in Kellyville Ridge which has been there for 5 years now, yet I cannot get broadband internet even though I am literally next door!
It is a disgrace that, as with so many forms of critical infrastructure that have bypassed greenfield developments in the past, policymakers in Australia have to date failed to undertake proper planning for the future communications needs of residents in our growth suburbs. What did those opposite do to address this when in government? What forward planning did they do? Again, it was sweet nothing. There was no ICT policy. It was 12 years in the digital backwaters. The convergence debate came and went and we just watched it go by.
I also note that the reforms in this bill are supported by Telstra. I refer the House to a media release issued by Telstra’s CEO, David Thodey, in which he states:
… we support the passage of the Bill …
We believe the interests of Telstra shareholders would be best served by the Bill being passed this year so that a definitive agreement on our involvement in the NBN can be reached quickly.
I am happy to take that on board as well. It is certainty that the sector needs. Indeed, this is the level of certainty that the sector needs in order to ensure that we have broadband delivered in a ubiquitous manner on a level playing field.
In the time allotted to me, I cannot go into all the details of many of the other very important elements of this bill such as reforms to the USO, the CSG or the infringement penalty regime. Certainly they are very important. I have been in touch with consumer groups on many occasions on these points. They should be very well received and I commend the bill to the House.
2249
17:28:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010. This bill has three aspects to it. Firstly, its provisions will allow the structural separation of Telstra by providing for the legislative changes required to allow the separation. The bill also details how the government will impose sanctions against Telstra if it fails to voluntarily structurally separate. Secondly, the legislation makes a number of provisions in the Competition and Consumer Act which relate to the telecommunications access regime. In particular, the ACCC will be provided with the power to declare minimum prices and non-price terms in access agreements, which the parties may fall back on until the parties to an access agreement can negotiate different terms.
The third aspect of the bill relates to the consumer protection regulation. Given that Telstra are migrating their fixed line customers to the NBN, there will be a transitional period with regard to the universal service obligation. The government will create a new service corporation called USO Co. to deliver the universal service obligation. This bill provides that the USO provider must supply, on request, standard telephone services with characteristics and to performance standards determined by the minister. These performance standards are intended to include maximum periods for new connections, fault rectification and reliability standards. However, like the majority of telecommunications legislation introduced by this government, the minister is given excessive freedom to implement standards without the scrutiny of parliament.
This legislation was first introduced in the last parliament and sought to force the structural separation of Telstra by denying it from acquiring specific bands of spectrum and requiring Telstra to divest itself of its HFC cable network and its interest in Foxtel. That bill demonstrated the extent to which the government is willing to disrupt the telecommunications industry in order to force through its National Broadband Network. Labor was willing to use strongarm tactics against one of the largest companies in Australia in order to push through its flawed broadband policies. Telstra is now a publicly listed company. It has 1.4 million shareholders, 30,000 employees and 9 million customers. Attempts by the government to pressure Telstra were nothing more than an attack on the interests of those Australians who have invested in or purchased Telstra services in good faith. Against this backdrop, and with a gun to their head, Telstra negotiated an $11 billion deal with the government that will see Telstra’s fixed line customers migrate to the NBN and will provide NBN Co. with access to Telstra’s passive infrastructure such as pits, ducts and backhaul fibre.
The agreement will eliminate Telstra as a fixed line wholesale competitor to the NBN. As such, this bill has been modified to allow the voluntary separation of Telstra’s wholesale interests to proceed after shareholder approval. The bill still allows the minister to deny spectrum to Telstra if the proposed $11 billion agreement is not finalised. If the agreement fails, Telstra will be forced to functionally separate by conducting its network operations and wholesale functions at arm’s length from the rest of Telstra under threat of loss of access to 4G spectrum.
The coalition recognises that Telstra is now committed to the migration of fixed line customers, which amounts to a structural separation for the purposes of this bill. However, we do not agree with the government’s use of strongarm tactics against Telstra in order to force structural separation. Any separation must occur on terms that balance the interests of Telstra’s shareholders with the public interest. The willingness of Labor to completely remove competition to the NBN and to avoid scrutiny of the NBN’s operations is a dangerous approach to the industry that will not result in the most efficient services for broadband users. After more than a decade of government policy encouraging infrastructure based competition, the Gillard government is systematically preventing any competitive threats to NBN Co.’s wholesale network. The industry recognises that Labor is setting up a monopoly and that this will destroy competition in the wholesale fixed line market.
In its submission to the ACCC on NBN Co.’s points of interconnect proposals, Optus said:
It will not be economically viable for alternate last mile fibre based networks to be deployed in competition to the NBN … policy settings are likely to need to be re-set to discourage alternate investments in last mile fixed fibre access. This fact is implicitly recognised in the recent Telstra/NBN Co heads of Agreement which effectively removes the opportunity for Telstra to compete with the NBN either on its HFC or copper networks.
The current copper network is able to provide broadband speeds of up to 24 megabits per second to around 93 per cent of the population. Telstra’s HFC cables can provide speeds of up to 100 megabits per second. The majority of regular households in Australia only require a fraction of those speeds. NBN Co.’s first release sites in Tasmania are only experiencing an 11 per cent take-up of speeds of higher than 25 megabits per second. Labor’s solution to decommission or effectively prevent alternative broadband infrastructure from competing with fibre is simply unbelievable and flies in the face of the principle that competition is a key driver for better services and lower prices.
Both sides of the House recognise that broadband services need to be improved in regional and rural areas in Australia. However, only the coalition believes that instead of ripping up existing networks across Australia we should be targeting those regional areas first and improving their services first. We should be hitting the black spots in those areas where broadband is delivered at high cost to consumers. If Labor continued the coalition’s OPEL scheme when the government took office, those regional areas would currently be serviced by broadband speeds comparable with the rest of Australia. It is the Labor government who has delayed improved broadband services for regional Australia through its communications policy failures and still they have not been able to find a solution that is acceptable to the market, which will be left with a wholesale company far more monopolised than Telstra’s copper network.
In its report on Australia issued yesterday, the OECD was very critical regarding the market impacts of the NBN. The OECD said that the heads of agreement signed with Telstra eliminated competition between the new fibre optic network and the existing technological platforms, and that this:
… implies a de facto restoration of a public monopoly over the supply of access to wholesale internet services.
The OECD report goes on to say that:
… such a monopolistic incumbent could forestall the development of, as yet unknown, superior technological alternatives.
These comments are similar to those made by the company rolling out the government’s backhaul black spots program—Nextgen Networks—in response to the government’s plans on locating NBN points of interconnect only in the capital cities. Nextgen told the ACCC last week:
-
In the short term, competition will be impacted immediately.
RSPs are already reassessing their business models and deciding whether to operate within cost structures based on maintaining network assets or adopting a resale only model where they rely entirely on the NBNCo facilities.
…
…
…
In the long term, competition will be structurally and irreversibly undermined.
I will repeat that: ‘structurally and irreversibly undermined’.
The explanatory memorandum for this bill argues that Telstra has been the main impediment against the competitive telecommunications sector. The memorandum states that:
… Telstra has been able to maintain a dominant position in virtually all aspects of the market, despite more than 10 years of open competition. It is the Government’s view that Telstra’s high level of integration has hindered the development of effective competition in the sector.
Given these concerns, it is worrying that the government’s solution is to create a monopoly with far more market power in the fixed line wholesale sector than Telstra currently enjoys. As Telstra pointed out to the ACCC last week:
… access seekers, in effect, swap Telstra as the sole supplier of backhaul for NBN Co as the sole supplier of backhaul. As limited as the prospects might seem today, access seekers also forfeit future competition because NBN Co’s bundling of its monopoly access product with the backhaul will foreclose any future competition.
Surely a better approach would be to encourage the structural separation of Telstra in order to improve competition, rather than creating a new monopoly shielded from market forces.
This is why the coalition believes that all aspects of the NBN must be scrutinised by independent experts and by parliament. In its pattern of avoiding scrutiny, the government has excluded the $11 billion deal between Telstra and NBN Co. from investigation by the ACCC. This comes after Labor’s exclusion of the NBN from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and its refusal to complete a cost-benefit analysis. The coalition is currently attempting to ensure that the rollout is overseen by a joint standing committee of parliament. Refusing to allow the ACCC to examine Telstra’s deal will prevent an informed debate around the future competitive environment of broadband and allow the industry to raise any concerns about the deal.
Importantly, the parliament needs a better understanding of what the deal will mean for competition and broadband services in rural and regional areas. If we are serious about improving services in regional areas, the coalition believes that NBN Co. must provide as much detail about how it is rolling out its regional services as possible and what that rollout means for regional markets. As we all know, the Rudd-Gillard government has a long list of failed interventions in markets. Given its history, how can anyone trust how this government will spend $43 billion on a national broadband network? After so many failures, Labor is so worried about the NBN’s viability that it is removing competitive threats and refusing independent and parliamentary scrutiny. The forced migration of Telstra’s copper network contained in this bill, the blackmail against Telstra and the exemption of Telstra’s agreement with NBN Co. are further examples of this government’s efforts to shield the NBN from competition. Therefore, the coalition will move a number of amendments in an attempt to ensure that the migration of Telstra’s copper network to NBN Co. proceeds in a responsible and fair manner. These amendments build on the constructive approach the coalition is taking on the NBN. We have also introduced legislation and moved a motion to provide parliamentary scrutiny about the NBN’s rollout and to ensure that an independent cost-benefit analysis is completed with a business plan.
The amendments to be moved by the coalition aims to improve four areas of the legislation. Firstly, we will ensure that the Competition and Consumer Act applies to the proposed deal between NBN Co. and Telstra. Secondly, we will ensure that parliament is able to disallow any ministerial directions to the ACCC regarding the NBN Co. and Telstra deal. Thirdly, merit reviews and procedural fairness will be restored to the ACCC enforcement of the new access-pricing regime. Finally, the coalition will remove the ‘gun to the head’ provisions of this bill which threaten Telstra with losing access to 4G wireless spectrum, as well as its interests in the HFC television cables and Foxtel. The coalition strongly believes that this transparency can help ensure the NBN rollout targets regional areas first and ensures that services are improved in these areas first.
As I have outlined, it is critical for the industry and taxpayers that the sector benefits from the efficiency that maximum competition provides. Ensuring ACCC oversight of the Telstra deal will improve transparency. Parliament must also be able to disallow ministerial directions given to the ACCC with regard to this deal. The powers being given to the minister on communications policy by this government are extraordinary and parliament must exercise some oversight. Attempts to structurally separate Telstra must proceed with fairness to its shareholders, employees and customers. This is why the coalition will remove the provisions which place a gun to the head of Telstra unless it structurally separates.
As with the coalition’s other attempts to improve the NBN rollout process, we believe that broadband is too important to Australia, and to regional areas in particular, for it to be left in the hands of this Labor executive that has rolled out programs so poorly in its first term. The whole NBN process has been one of the government’s avoiding scrutiny at all costs. The disastrous policy failures of this government’s first term demonstrate the need for as much scrutiny as possible. Our amendments to this bill will improve scrutiny by protecting the role of the ACCC and will ensure that Telstra’s structural separation is not left in the hands of this Labor government. I urge the Senate to accept the coalition’s amendments and improve this legislation to encourage a fairer and more transparent NBN rollout in which the Australian people can have confidence.
2252
17:42:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—My poor old heart bleeds for poor old Telstra. Poor old coalition: too little for too long and now it is too late. This feigned interest by the coalition in bringing us to scrutiny, in having the parliament as the chamber of expertise to look through every clause and subclause of this legislation, beggars belief. I think those opposite are on to telecommunications plan No. 20, and that tells a story of its own. We on this side have a plan and we are actually getting on with it. Believe it or not, even Telstra believes that this is the way to go. It finally understands that this is the way to go if it is to have a future.
Twelve months ago I rose in this place to speak on the previous version of the
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010. A lot has changed on the issue in that time, except of course the negativity of those opposite towards our vision of the fibre future, a vision shared by many thousands of Australians. Indeed, this negativity has intensified with the member for Wentworth being specifically assigned with the job of ‘destroying the NBN’. That is the coalition’s idea of policy development. At the time, I said this was about the ability of people, businesses and institutions of all sorts to have universal and comprehensive access to 21st century communications systems—and that remains unchanged. In that year we also saw some tremendous progress on the ground, particularly in my electorate, with the rollout of the first stage of the National Broadband Network, starting as it did at Smithton in the Circular Head region. Let me remind those opposite that this was the pioneering of the rollout. People do indeed have contractual obligations to other providers, but I remind those opposite that people are interested in signing up for the NBN and, as it rolls out, it will gather its own momentum.
Equally important was the landmark heads of agreement between Telstra and the NBN Co. made in June this year, which will encourage a much more cooperative approach to the future of telecommunications in Australia. Indeed, this legislation is specifically designed to allow this to happen. Another factor is that with the return of the Gillard Labor government comes the continued resolution to roll out its visionary NBN plan. It is worth reiterating this at this stage because its characteristics are at the heart of the legislation.
First and foremost, the NBN is a fibre-to-the-premises network. The Australian government has established a government business enterprise—NBN Co. Ltd—to design, build and operate an open access network, providing download speeds of up to one gigabit per second to 93 per cent of Australian homes and businesses, for which it is offering to contribute an initial cash injection of up to $43 billion. The remaining homes and businesses will be supplied using wireless and satellite technologies.
The National Broadband Network will be built with the following characteristics. The network is to be operational progressively over eight years as a government business enterprise. It must be able to provide high-quality voice data and video services, including symmetric services such as high-definition video conferencing. The network is expected to cost about $26 billion, with the government issuing infrastructure bonds to allow private investment in the network. This will be capped at 49 per cent. The network is to be open access and have a uniform pricing structure regardless of customer location. The Australian government will hold a 51 per cent share and will operate the network for at least 10 years once completed before selling down their stake, although there is debate about whether the network should be sold. It is estimated that it will create 47,000 new jobs over the next eight years and will support 25,000 jobs every year until completed. The NBN will be the largest single infrastructure investment in Australia’s history.
Work on the rollout in my home state began in July 2009 and the first services went live on 1 July 2010. Indeed, the Circular Head Christian School in my electorate was part of the very first transmission. Crucially, on 20 June 2010 Telstra signed a non-binding agreement to participate in the National Broadband Network rollout, and the revamped legislation before us gives effect to this.
As I say, the National Broadband Network will be the largest single infrastructure investment in Australia’s history, with enormous potential benefits for the nation. Better, faster and cheaper internet services will allow Australia to be at the forefront of the digital economy in the digital world. The new network will have a profound importance for Australia’s productivity and the ability of Australian businesses to thrive in a fiercely competitive world. It will help transform the way governments and non-government agencies deliver services, especially in health and education, and the way we communicate and entertain ourselves in our personal lives.
I am excited about its potential, for example, for families with autistic children. Burnie in my electorate is one of six sites chosen throughout the nation to network intensive autistic
services in Tasmania and is already underway in doing so. The NBN will allow families to video access the centre from their own living rooms and hence access early, intensive therapy and services so vital in giving autistic children the start they need to tackle their individual needs. The NBN can also eliminate the communications disadvantages of country and regional areas and render them more attractive as business and employment locations.
However, as this legislation bears out, it is imperative that Australia get it right and get it right from the start. Getting it right is not just about getting the best technology, as important as that is; the real challenge will be in putting in place the right rules to govern how the network will operate. Those rules must ensure the network is run in a way that encourages competition and innovation in the downstream services provided by communications retailers.
I mentioned earlier that the NBN is opposed by the coalition. A week prior to the 2010 Australian federal election, the coalition released a $6.25 billion alternative policy, relying on a combination of public and private funding to build a primarily wireless network delivering a minimum peak speed of 12 megabits per second to 97 per cent of the Australian population. The plan included $3.5 billion to be spent developing an open access, optical fibre backhaul network. It was not long before the so-called alternative policy was criticised by the general telecommunications industry, with executives describing it as one that ‘harked back to an earlier era’, ‘lacked vision’ and was ‘muddy and unclear’. As one ISP CEO put it, ‘What policy?’
After the 2010 election, the member for Wentworth was appointed opposition communications spokesman, with the mission ‘to destroy the NBN’. I notice too that the opposition’s spokesperson on telecommunications was promptly sacked after the election and plonked on the back bench. That is how much integrity those opposite placed on their policy during the last election. The Australian people woke up to it, particularly further south and in rural and regional Australia.
Apart from the opposition and some naysayers in the conservative commentariat, there is overwhelming support for Labor’s NBN policy across a whole array of sectors and the Australian population. David Thodey, for example, the CEO of Telstra, was reported in the
Australian
on 20 October as saying:
We believe the interests of Telstra shareholders would be best served by the bill being passed this year so that a definitive agreement on our involvement in the NBN can be reached quickly.
On 19 August 2010, the Australian Internet Industry Association issued a statement supporting the NBN, outlining the problems of a proposed alternative based on wireless networks and
criticising
the comparative speed of broadband in Australia, saying it is:
… not a ‘nice to have’, it’s an essential part of a modern economy.
I do not need to remind this House, as I have at other times, about our poor record on internet services, delivery, speeds and expansiveness, or lack of it, compared to our overseas competitors.
In the past decade Australia’s internet use has grown by a staggering 12,000 per cent, with the rate quickly accelerating. Yet despite this, as the association pointed out, Australia is ranked 50th in the world for our average broadband speeds. I noticed on 21 September this year that Telstra announced that it was signing on to be a provider of services under the NBN, launching a trial in Tasmania to test the compatibility of its broadband service and digital products with the NBN.
Within this parliament itself, the NBN has the support of the Greens and a number of the Independents. Indeed, the members for Lyne and New England cited the NBN as one of the key reasons they decided to back the Gillard government. I remind those listening to this debate that on 7 September during negotiations concerning who might form a minority government, the member for New England, Tony Windsor, said of the NBN, ‘You do it once, you do it right and you do it with fibre.’ The member for Kennedy, the Independent Mr Bob Katter, was similarly reported as agreeing that the national grid and NBN ‘are a good thing for this country, a great thing for this country’. And support is also relatively strong amongst the technology sector.
Optus has viewed Labor’s win at the last election as an endorsement for the long-term NBN solution, as well as endorsement for the need for an overhaul of the current regulatory structure in Australia. Optus supports the legislation before us. Indeed, as Optus’s Director of Government and Corporate Affairs, Mr Krishnapillai, asserts:
We believe that the telco reform bill—including the structural separation of Telstra and the greater power for the ACCC to enforce a level playing field in the fixed line market—must be a priority for the new government.
Hence this legislation before the House. In an interview with the radio station 2UE in Sydney on 13 October, Mr Krishnapillai made it very clear that the NBN would be affordable to customers, saying:
We have done a lot of modelling on this, we’ve been through NBN Mark 1, we’ve been through years of modelling and work on this with the government and we know that the NBN, as it is characterised now, is commercially viable.
He went on to say:
… in the longer term the NBN is the right solution for the sector, it’s the right solution to deliver broadband and transform, if you like, how communications are delivered to customers and businesses.
I think Google Engineering’s Alan Noble put it best when he wrote
Opportunities of the NBN
for the ABC on 18 October 2010. He said:
The National Broadband Network will be the digital equivalent of the Trans-Australian Railway: linking towns small and large, bringing new life and new opportunities to our economy and our communities.
He further said:
… so too will a super-fast broadband network bring a freight train of innovation to our shores.
The legislation before us seeks to overcome the restrictions created by the dominance of one player in the telecommunications market. If passed, this will represent the most significant reform of the telecommunications regime since open competition was introduced in 1997. I know everyone in this House fully understands the need for that change.
Structural reform is clearly in the national interest. The bill includes provisions to authorise, for the purposes of section 51 of the Competition and Consumer Act, conduct by Telstra and NBN Co. relating to Telstra’s structural separation undertaking. However, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will make the final decision on acceptance of Telstra’s undertaking to structurally separate. Amongst other provisions the bill provides for Telstra’s structural separation undertaking to include a migration plan. There will be significant consultation on the migration plan, which will deal with the processes and timing of migrating Telstra’s customers from its copper network to the NBN. The bill now provides more legislative certainty for Telstra in the transition to a retail company.
(Time expired)
2256
17:57:00
Fletcher, Paul, MP
L6B
Bradfield
LP
1
0
Mr FLETCHER
—I rise to speak on the
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010
and I do so with a great deal of interest, having been fortunate to work in the field of communications policy since the mid-nineties, starting with a number of years working for the Howard government’s first communications minister, Senator Richard Alston. I well remember the furious round of work involved in passing the 1997 legislation. The bill that is before the House today seeks to in some ways continue the theme of reform which underpinned the 1997 legislation, but in other ways regrettably very much reverses that direction of reform.
This bill is a mix of good and bad. I want to make three key points in the time that is available to me. The part of this bill that deals with changes to the current arrangements for setting wholesale access prices in the telecommunications sector is, in my view, sensible. The approach that it takes is one that I support and I will talk about that at more length.
The second area of this bill grants in effect a legislative authorisation of the proposed deal between Telstra and NBN Co. The bill includes the powers under which the minister can visit a whole series of undesirable consequences upon Telstra if that deal is not given effect to. I am somewhat curious to wonder why those provisions are actually included when you look at the triumphant press release issued by the minister earlier this year giving the impression that a deal had been done and all was agreed. It does rather raise the question why this set of draconian powers is required. What is particularly troubling is the strong impression which is given that Minister Conroy has an Orwellian belief that competition is so precious that we must destroy it, because that is the clear impression that emerges when you consider what is contemplated.
The third set of comments I wish to make concerns the provisions I have mentioned that give the minister the power to visit some very detrimental consequences upon Telstra if it does not voluntarily put forward a structural separation undertaking. I put to the House that this is a clumsy, thuggish and unnecessary tool to achieve the stated objectives of the Labor government’s telecommunications policy.
I will start with the changes that this bill includes to current price regulation in the telecommunications sector. I bring to my appraisal of these provisions the experience of having spent eight years on the senior leadership team at Optus. Optus is the largest purchaser of services from Telstra, spending over $1 billion a year on such services as PSTN originating and terminating access, mobile terminating access, local carriage service and the unconditioned local loop service. It formed part of my responsibilities at Optus to manage the process by which we sought to negotiate with Telstra and, then, should the negotiations fail, go to the ACCC to seek to have the matter arbitrated. This is what is referred to as the negotiate/arbitrate model. There is a fundamental problem with the negotiate/arbitrate model, which is that Telstra does not like selling these services. The company takes the view, I think correctly, that its market position would be considerably stronger if it were not required to sell these services and it therefore drags its feet at every opportunity.
I would like to share with the House a quote from Dr Phil Burgess, the former American senior regulatory executive, who blazed across the telecommunications night sky like a comet—a comet which fortunately has now blazed all the way back to the United States of America. While he was here throwing out provocative quotations in every direction, he had this to say:
If McDonald’s … has to go to a regulator before it goes into business and declare what it’s going to do on its ovens … and Hungry Jacks comes across the street and says, “I want to buy those fish sandwiches, by the way, at a discounted price, and, by the way, I get the first batch. I’m going to sell a lot of them and if you want more, you’ve got to build another oven. By the way, you build the oven at your own expense. By the way, the cost of the air-conditioning and the gas and the electricity and the lights, those don’t go into the price.”
I have not captured the fierce intensity, the passion, with which Dr Phil Burgess expressed the intense dislike of Telstra for the access provisions. But the fact is the company strongly disliked those provisions and the economic reality is, I believe, that it did so because it considered that those provisions weakened its market power. And of course those provisions were expressly designed to weaken its market power.
I had this to say when I wrote a book about this topic, called
Wired Brown Land:
The 1997 laws were fine in theory. Subjecting Telstra to an access regime was a good idea. But in practice there was a very big problem: the laws were simply not tough enough in the way that they dealt with the giant of the sector, Telstra.
The laws established a process for Telstra’s competitors to use Telstra’s network, but the process is fundamentally flawed. It assumes—incorrectly—goodwill and a willingness to negotiate on the part of both parties.
But Telstra has no such willingness. Its interest is best served by charging the highest possible prices for access, by denying access wherever possible and by delaying for as long as possible the agreement of terms on which access will be provided.
That is my considered view, having worked for eight years as the executive at Optus—the largest customer of Telstra—responsible for exercising the rights of that company under the access regime to purchase services from Telstra.
I have mentioned that I was working for the Howard government when those laws were introduced and I simply say that all of us have learnt from experience. The laws were introduced with very good intentions and I certainly believe that the 1997 legislation moved the position forward considerably. But experience showed us that those price-setting provisions in the 1997 legislation were not sufficient. What was in fact required, we learnt over time, was a capacity for the regulator to set prices upfront—what is known in other markets as a reference interconnect offer. I have no hesitation in congratulating the present government on including within this legislation provisions that will now give the regulator that power. I believe they will significantly advance the cause of telecommunications competition.
Turning to the second area that I want to address, unfortunately, what I cannot congratulate this government on is the deeply regrettable parliamentary tactic of linking the provisions about which I have just spoken—the provisions that will modernise and reform the price-setting process—to a set of wholly unrelated provisions. The unrelated provisions are aimed at implementing and legalising Labor’s deeply flawed vision of establishing a new government owned monopoly network, forcing Telstra to exit the field, destroying its existing network and establishing a legally binding contract between Telstra and NBN under which this will happen. That legally binding contract, extraordinarily, would be illegal under the Trade Practices Act were it not for the fact that the government proposes to specifically authorise it under the piece of legislation that is now before this House. For example, section 45 of the Trade Practices Act says:
-
A corporation shall not:
-
make a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, if:
…
…
…
-
a provision of the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding has the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition; …
And that is precisely the likely effect of the deal that the Labor Party is proposing in the broadband sphere. It is a deal under which a new entrant into this sector, funded by the government, funded by taxpayers, the National Broadband Network Company, is going to build a new access network and at the same time do a deal with the owner of the existing ubiquitous access network, Telstra, under which Telstra will decommission its existing network—Telstra will trash its existing access network. That existing access network will no longer be available as a vehicle over which competitive services are delivered.
Labor does not want to put this grubby deal to the normal scrutiny which would be required, of having the ACCC consider it and determine whether it is compliant with the Trade Practices Act. Why is that? Because this government knows full well that it would not be compliant. We have the extraordinary scenario in which this government is abandoning the direction of policy of the last two decades in telecommunications, abandoning two decades of commitment to increasing competition and instead is establishing the National Broadband Network Co. as a monopolist and thereby doing fundamental damage to competition, all so it can preserve its stated policy that the National Broadband Network Co. will generate a positive financial return.
The third area of this bill I want to address is the provisions which encourage Telstra to come forward with a structural separation undertaking. These provisions are troubling on many fronts. They are troubling because of the duplicity we have seen from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, who in May 2009 said to a Senate estimates committee that he had never advocated the structural separation of Telstra. Senator Conroy said:
I have certainly never advocated structural separation, I do not believe.
Yet suddenly late last year provisions appeared in the legislation which were designed to elicit structural separation. I am on the record as being a supporter of structural separation. The Prime Minister has seen fit to quote extracts from a work I wrote about this very topic. She failed, I might add, to quote later parts of the very same book in which I suggested:
The third option is to stop negotiating and to exercise the government’s legislative powers. Under this option the government would pass legislation to separate Telstra into two companies.
There is no mention of $43 billion, no mention of the grubby deals under which legislation is required to give this new government-owned company a special free pass protecting it from competition. Let me be perfectly clear: I am certainly a supporter of structural separation, but, as Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, the shadow minister for communications, has repeatedly made the point, there is no reason to spend $43 billion if your objective is to secure the outcome that you prevent vertical integration by separating Telstra into two entities under different ownership.
What we have here is a set of provisions which are designed in a thuggish way to force Telstra into agreeing to structural separation arrangements and at the same time to pay $11 billion of taxpayers’ money to give Telstra incentive to do that. We have the remarkable spectacle of a minister for broadband and communications rejoicing in the fact that he is going to have a monopoly. In Senate estimates just the other week, what did Senator Conroy say? He said:
We will, as I have said—particularly following the heads of agreement with Telstra—ultimately have the overwhelming majority of if not the monopoly on the supply of the wholesale network within the fibre footprint, unless people decide they do not want a fixed line.
What a tragic outcome for telecommunications competition in Australia this is, that after two decades of bipartisan work towards greater competition in telecommunications, which has delivered manifest benefits in mobile communications, which has delivered significant, albeit lesser, benefits in fixed-line communications, we now have a minister for communications in this country who has reversed that direction and who is positively rejoicing, positively rubbing his hands in glee, at the prospect that he is going to be the controlling shareholder of a monopoly, a company which has, by force of legislative power, the right to exclude any competitor. My prediction is this: based upon all the experience of a wholly owned government monopolist in telecommunications that Australia has had, this flawed scheme will serve Australian consumers very, very badly.
This bill is a mix of the good and the bad. It has provisions which markedly improve the telecommunications wholesale price-setting provisions, and they have my firm support based upon 15 years of experience in this sector. But those are what is required. To combine them with this grubby deal creating a monopoly broadband company and squandering $43 billion of taxpayers’ money is a truly bad mistake.
(Time expired)
2259
18:12:00
Symon, Mike, MP
HW8
Deakin
ALP
1
0
Mr SYMON
—I speak in support of the
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010. This bill will enhance competition in the Australian telecommunications industry and strengthen consumer safeguards. The Australian telecommunications market is characterised by a very strong and highly integrated incumbent, Telstra. That is no accident. That has happened over many years. Prior to it being Telstra, it was Telecom. Prior to that, it was the PMG. It was a monopoly service. In many ways, a lot of that has stayed. If you have a look at a suburban street or a suburban office block or shop and see how the phone cable actually gets into the business or the home, there is only one way and there is only one cable. It will come down the street either on poles or underneath the footpath, maybe in a conduit, through a few pits, maybe from a local exchange; but it all comes back to one point, and that point is Telstra.
Competition is hard when you cannot use the infrastructure. We have seen it over many years when phone companies have sprung up and tried to do things. Optus did do some things. They installed their HFC and they were able to do some local phone hook-ups. It is still not easy for competitors to break into that market. When we talk about competition in telecommunications, we really need to have a good look at the way that Australia has done it, because it has not worked. We have some of the most expensive communications in the world. There is no need for it to be so expensive. What we are talking about with this bill will start to change that so that we are up there with the world—and not only in terms of cost but also in terms of speed and availability of access.
Telstra owns the only copper network, connecting almost every house; it owns the largest HFC cable and mobile networks; and it owns a 50 per cent stake in Foxtel, which is Australia’s largest subscription television provider. The Australian telecommunications market is unique in its structure and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has a role of investigating the state of the market. In its recent reports into the telecommunication industry of 2007 and 2008, the ACCC noted:
The competitive markets anticipated in 1997 do not appear to be emerging. The major downstream services continue to exhibit high levels of concentration, regulatory mechanisms are still heavily relied upon for promoting and maintaining competitive outcomes and the levels of consumer complaints about the industry reached new heights in 2007-08.
The report continued, noting ‘the industry continues to have an extremely high level of disputation and litigation’. In 2007-08, the ACCC was notified of 28 new access disputes and had 18 of its arbitral determinations subject to judicial review by the Federal Court. The ACCC report continued:
… the level of disputation and litigation in the telecommunications sector far outstrips that in any other regulated sector and is contributing to some frustration of competitive outcomes.
Separate to the official reports, the Chairman of the ACCC, Graeme Samuel, has made his views on the separation of Telstra well known. In a recent statement he said:
We have been debating this issue for years and years and years. The ACCC, the National Competition Council and many experts in the area have said the only way to infuse true competition into Australian telecommunications is to remove that vertically integrated structure existing with Telstra, and to structurally separate.
It is obvious from the ACCC reports that Australia’s telecommunications market is not functioning as well as it could.
Telstra’s level of horizontal integration across the different delivery platforms—HFC, copper, cable and mobile—is in contrast to many countries, where there are restrictions on incumbents owning both cable and traditional fixed-line telephone networks. Telstra’s horizontal integration has significantly contributed to Telstra’s ongoing dominance in the Australian telecommunications market. Since 1997 Telstra has continued to hold a significant share of the telecommunications market and has been able to block new entrants and competitors from gaining traction in the market.
And what has been the impact of this type of market here in Australia? As I mentioned before, it means higher prices for consumers. It means less choice. In many cases, it means lower speeds. Australia currently has the 5th most expensive broadband charges amongst OECD countries. It is estimated that Telstra enjoys profit margins of about 60 per cent on fixed line services—that is according to analysts at JP Morgan. And Australians face the world’s highest prices for sending a text message. You would not think so with the amount of text messaging that goes on now. But competition in this area is still not what it should be.
This bill is about breaking open the telecommunications market and enabling real competition to deliver lower prices and better services for all Australians. This bill will force Telstra to voluntarily separate its businesses by denying the company its ability to bid for valuable future spectrum if it does not undertake that separation. It is envisaged that Telstra will negotiate a transfer of its fixed line assets to the new National Broadband Network. On 20 June this year Telstra and the NBN Co. announced that they had entered into a financial heads of agreement to move its fixed-line asset to the new National Broadband Network. The agreement will deliver structural separation by providing for the progressive migration of customer services from Telstra’s copper and pay TV cable networks to the new wholesale only network to be built and operated by the NBN Co. Such an approach will ultimately lead to a national outcome where there is a wholesale only network not controlled by any retail company. This is critical to fostering greater competition in the telecommunications market. Again, it is about choice. This company, NBN Co., will on-sell its capacity to all competitors in the market. This type of competition is currently not possible as the holder of the majority of the fixed line assets, Telstra, is a profit-making competitor to the companies to whom it is selling capacity.
The way things are going at the moment is just not working. The government’s key objective is to promote an open, competitive telecommunications market to provide Australian consumers with access to innovative and affordable services. This legislation will amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to clarify the role of the ACCC in determining the price that competitors will pay to access the NBN. Under the proposed changes to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the ACCC will set price and non-price terms of access for declared services in an access determination to apply to all parties. The bill will also remove the right to seek merits reviews of the ACCC’s regulatory decisions. The removal of this right to review is due to an excessive amount of disputes and litigation, which has had the effect of delaying and suppressing competition in the telecommunications market.
In addition to seeking the separation of Telstra’s business and generating a changed market for telecommunications, this bill will enhance and strengthen Australia’s consumer protection legislation. The bill strengthens existing legislative requirements to better protect consumers, address falling service quality and ensure continued access to basic voice services in the lead-up to the NBN. There are measures to improve the effectiveness of the regulating body, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, through enhanced regulatory powers. And this bill amends the Consumer Protection Act to include new requirements for the customer service guarantee. That covers the universal service provider and ensures that they supply on request standard telephone services with characteristics and to performance standards determined by the minister. It is intended that performance standards will include maximum periods of time for new connections and fault rectification and reliability standards.
We, as members of this place, all hear stories about our constituents having to wait extended periods of time to have faults fixed, to get new services installed or, even worse, to request a broadband connection to a suburban house and find out that, for whatever reason, they are not allowed to have broadband even though their neighbours may well have it.
The universal service obligation will include the provision of payphone services. There will also be public consultation and notification of proposals to remove payphones. That is another ongoing problem that many members of this place have spent a lot of time dealing with. Payphones are a simple issue and one that many people regard as a community asset anyway—even if it is at the local railway station. It is always in use but, in recent years, has always been under threat of removal because a profit motive is put behind it.
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
HW8
Symon, Mike, MP
Mr SYMON
—Those on the other side may actually not know how to use a payphone, but many of us on this side have spent years and years having to use such devices and having to catch the train to and from work.
ACMA will have new powers to direct the universal service provider not to remove payphones. Under this bill, new requirements will be imposed on service providers to ensure that statutory performance benchmarks are met. If they are not, the service provider will be subject to civil penalties. These enhanced penalties and the broad powers that this bill grants ACMA to issue infringement notices or on-the-spot fines for breaches of the civil penalty provisions will help ACMA effectively enforce this consumer safeguard.
This bill is about delivering for Australia an important reform in the telecommunications industry. Telecommunications, as we know, are central to an innovative and modern economy. Communications such as high-speed broadband can generate economic growth and create jobs. The current market, as we know, is dominated by Telstra, which has consistently protected its market share at the expense of new entrants.
This reform is supported by the Chairman of the ACCC and many informed experts. Reforming markets can make a substantial difference to quality and pricing. You only need to look at the changes in the airline industry with the dismantling of the previous oligopoly, the substantial drop in pricing and the rise in use of airline travel. The benefits that flowed to regional tourism as a result of that move are huge. The same can happen in telecommunications—especially for those on the other side who do not like to use payphones. This bill will enhance competitive outcomes in the Australian telecommunications industry and strengthen consumer safeguards. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
2262
Distinguished Visitors
2262
18:25:00
Georganas, Steve (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas)
—Before I call the member for Moncrieff, I draw members’ attention to the presence in the gallery of the Australian Golf Industry Council, in particular Stuart Appleby, the Australian Masters Champion, and Rachel Hetherington, one of Australia’s leading female golf professionals.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMPETITION AND CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS) BILL 2010
2262
Bills
R4479
Second Reading
2262
Debate resumed.
2262
18:25:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
0
Mr CIOBO
—I am pleased to rise to speak on the
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010. This is an interesting debate about how this nation addresses telecommunications issues. This has been an industry with perhaps the most rapid convergence and evolution of telecommunications, digital media, entertainment and various components that, in an increasing fashion, are coming together through a variety of mediums and through a variety of technologies. What we see in telecommunications is a difficulty from a policymaking perspective—and this applies both to coalition members and to members of the Labor Party in government—about the framework that we put in place to best deal with the issues and the policy responses required to do effectively two things. The first is to ensure that safeguards are in place—that there is a framework that enables a competitive environment across a range of currently separate but related industries. For example, pay television was once the domain of easily definable television operators and broadcasters but is now increasingly also the domain of mobile telephony and of fixed line broadcasting over, for example, pay TV. Increasingly, there is the ability to use the internet—in particular, high-speed bandwidth—to access, on demand, the kinds of media that people would like to watch on their computer screens or through streaming on their television screens.
Likewise, take radio: only a matter of a decade or so ago radio was discrete. It was something that could be pointed at, something transmitted wirelessly, by broadcasters. In our respective electorates across Australia, we had radio stations that we could listen to. But, increasingly, with the convergence of technology and the convergence of media, we see that radio can now be accessed both wirelessly—in the traditional sense of the word ‘wireless’—and over the internet. It is possible with a few simple clicks to start listening to a radio station effectively anywhere around the world.
This is an exciting period of time. Part of what this bill is directed towards is the grappling with a policy challenge that all parliamentarians face about the way in which we establish the framework that enables the ongoing convergence, development and deployment of new technology—the ongoing investment in research and technology and the ongoing commercial imperative that will drive what is required from the marketplace as we trial and error new technologies, new broadcasters, new approaches and new policy frameworks. By the same token, we also need to be mindful that there are at stake some legacy issues. That is the second limb that I referred to earlier. We know that Telstra—Telecom, as it was—was the monopoly supplier of telecommunications in this country. We know that Telstra was the behemoth of the Australian government that over the years has been increasingly subjected to a competitive tempo and to different competitors entering the marketplace.
With the convergence of technology, there is no doubt that Telstra’s competitors are now many more in number and also, in the delivery mechanism, quite profoundly different to what they were, for example, only 10 years ago. Part of the bill that is before the House today is the government’s attempted policy response to dealing with this convergence issue and to a rapidly evolving marketplace.
The coalition has some concerns about this bill. Although we are supportive, subject to the amendments that we have moved, the coalition’s concerns come down to several key factors, which in essence can be summarised by the fact that for all intents and purposes it would appear the government is holding a gun at the head of Telstra—and, in particular, through Telstra Telstra’s shareholders—with the bill that is currently before the House. The coalition has in the past opposed this bill. We now look at supporting the bill, subject to the amendments that I mentioned, because we recognise that the government has made changes which have improved the bill and has incorporated some of the concerns that the coalition has raised. But we still have amendments that, frankly, the government should look at adopting if it does not want to be political about this matter.
I have the privilege of representing around 100,000 people, many of whom are retirees, both self-funded and pensioners. A large number of these retirees, and people more broadly across my community in Moncrieff, are Telstra shareholders. They may have purchased Telstra shares in the first, second or third tranche of the sale of Telstra and they are looking for a return on the capital that they have invested in that company. Many of them have contacted me, concerned about this government’s plans to erode the market value of the asset that they used their hard-earned money to purchase when Telstra was privatised. That is the reason that, in some respects, the coalition sought to force the government to make changes, because we did not like their approach.
We know that intimidation is a stock standard operating process for many of the trade union movements in this country. We know that there are even elements of that intimidation that flow in the Australian Labor Party today. But, frankly, we should not accept the same kind of intimidation when it comes to one of Australia’s corporate players and to this government’s approach in dealing with what is a very important company, and one of the most widely held companies, in Australia today. That is why the coalition resolutely and steadfastly adopted the view that we would not kowtow to this government’s attempts to intimidate Telstra with respect to its structural separation.
I believe as a matter of economic policy that there are benefits to structural separation; I have always held that view. But the question, as always, is how, once the egg is scrambled, you then go back to making changes. When it comes to the wholesale retail network of Telstra, and when it comes to a rapidly evolving marketplace with myriad technologies and, importantly, myriad delivery mechanisms, it is crucial that the mechanism and the policy approach that government adopts are the correct ones.
There are a number of aspects to this bill that I believe do not achieve the outcomes that are sought. Streamlining access and anticompetitive provisions in the Competition and Consumer Act to promote competition in the telecommunications industry is a noble goal, one I am supportive of, but the amendments that we seek to make will improve the bill. It is up to the Labor government to recognise that we are not overreaching with the changes that we are asking for. We are not overreaching in any way, shape or form and, in fact, the amendments that the coalition is moving in this particular piece of legislation will help to enhance the competitive framework that will apply to Telstra in the retail separation from the wholesale which is sought. While the Labor government insists that the Telstra and NBN Co. arrangement is subject to review by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, a central component of this piece of legislation, the coalition remains concerned that the bill, and in particular section 577BA, explicitly excludes the deal that the government is attempting to achieve from the usual scrutiny of the Competition and Consumer Act. What is more, the bill allows for ministerial interference in the ACCC’s handling of the deal, which in my view further undermines the integrity of the process.
The government claims that this bill will provide Telstra with access to the wireless spectrum required for the next generation of wireless systems but does so only if the separation of Telstra is done to the absolute satisfaction of government. This goes to the very matter that I raised at the outset of my speech—that is, that it is, effectively, akin to the government holding a gun to the head of Telstra and, I believe more importantly, to the shareholders and owners of Telstra, many of whom live on the Gold Coast in my electorate of Moncrieff.
We have proposed four amendments which we believe, effectively, guarantee the integrity of the separation process by reducing opportunities for government interference in the decision-making processes of the ACCC. Subject to approval by Telstra shareholders, the proposed separation should be delivered in a manner that is cost effective, promotes competition and imposes no greater cost on taxpayers than is absolutely necessary. That is a relatively straightforward proposal which is worthy of support in this chamber. Telstra, like other regulated utilities such as gas, electricity and water, should of course be left free to charge prices that deliver a reasonable rate of return on its assets. This can be achieved through the amendments that have been put forward, which will place taxpayer interests ahead of those of Telstra, NBN Co. and the government.
We know that this government is obsessed with the need to roll out its NBN Co. It is a linchpin for this government, whose members wander round Australia trumpeting NBN Co. as the great new, almost Soviet-era style project of this government, promising rapid broadband to everyone, with no mention of the asterisks and all the associated costs and no mention of the debt that this government has racked up as part of its grand vision for broadband in this country. That is why we say, through the amendments that we have put forward: let us put the interests of taxpayers first and foremost.
The amendments will explicitly ensure that the Competition and Consumer Act applies to the NBN Co. and Telstra deal. The amendments will allow parliament to disallow ministerial directions to the ACCC regarding the NBN Co. and Telstra deal. The amendments will remove the threat of cable television sell-off or limited access to wireless spectrum should Telstra not separate in a way that the government approves, which goes back to the issue about there being a gun at the head of Telstra management and, importantly, Telstra shareholders. And the amendments will restore merit reviews and procedural fairness to the ACCC’s enforcement of the new access pricing regime.
These amendments ought to be supported by the government. They are amendments that place taxpayers’ interests at No. 1 on the list. They are amendments that protect the capital that has been invested by those million-plus shareholders across Australia and, importantly, they dilute this government’s complete absorption when it comes to the political pursuit of its NBN Co. at basically any cost. It should be watered down. It should be diluted. And it should be replaced by a primary interest that is more concerned with taxpayers’ outcomes and shareholders’ outcomes over and above the political outcomes sought by government. I certainly urge the House to support the amendments to this bill that the coalition will put forward.
2265
18:38:00
Jones, Stephen, MP
A9B
Throsby
ALP
1
0
Mr STEPHEN JONES
—The primary aims of the
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010
are, firstly, to tackle long-overdue industry reform by providing a legislative framework for Telstra to voluntarily structurally separate by migrating its customers to the National Broadband Network, as agreed in the financial heads of agreement between Telstra and NBN Co.; secondly, to strengthen the telecommunications-specific access regime to provide more certain and quicker outcomes for telecommunications companies; thirdly, to streamline the anticompetitive conduct regime by removing procedural impediments that in the past have restricted the effective operation of the telecommunications-specific competition regime in this country; and, finally, to significantly strengthen consumer safeguards.
The bill deals with the issue of structural separation by setting out a legislative framework for Telstra to voluntarily structurally separate by migrating its customers to the NBN. The bill will finally deliver what is long overdue for Australia’s telecommunications industry—that is, competition. That is because the fundamental structural impediments to competition that have existed in this country since the transition of Telstra from a fully government owned telecommunications company to a fully privatised company are dealt with once and for all in this bill.
The bill recognises that, despite nearly two decades of deregulation in the telecommunications industry, which has delivered some benefits in the rollout of infrastructure, mainly in mobile and radio based technology, competition in infrastructure has not occurred in the fixed line network. The market, quite simply, has failed to deliver real competition in the provision of this infrastructure. There is a very simple reason for this: it is massively expensive and the returns on investment are very low outside the major capital cities and the significant trunk routes down the east coast of Australia.
There is no doubt that Telstra has rolled out broadband services in the past decade in a highly selective manner, focusing primarily on the profitable urban markets and neglecting the rest of Australia. Who could blame it? There was very little incentive to do otherwise. Telstra continued to cut back its capital investment in the fixed line network and, as a result, investment in the Telstra Customer Access Network stagnated. The result was that Telstra’s degraded network was wholly unsuited to the provision of anything but the most basic broadband services. The near-monopoly of Telstra in the fixed line market meant that the company had no incentive to invest in upgrading its network to provide services until it was forced to do so. This meant that Australians were held back from access to decent broadband services for too long.
The structural separation measures in this bill are understandably welcomed by Telstra’s competitors—and indeed by Telstra itself since the financial heads of agreement between Telstra and the Australian government were signed in June this year. And the really big winners from this legislation will be the Australian consumers, who will finally be on their way to getting cheaper and faster broadband services.
The NBN will be Australia’s first truly national wholesale-only network. No retail company will be able to control the network in its own interests. This is important for consumers and the prices they will pay because the discipline of genuine competition and competitive pressures in the market drive lower prices, innovation and greater choice of different services and price points.
The lack of competition has held Australia back from moving into a broadband future. It is no wonder that the structural separation of Telstra has been described as a ‘landmark change’ by Australia’s second and third largest telcos, Optus and iiNet. Until the advent of the Gillard government’s policy to create a National Broadband Network, competition in the fixed line network was, in effect, stymied. It was frustrating for government, frustrating for Telstra’s competitors and frustrating for consumers. It was even frustrating for Telstra as the company struggled under the heavy hand of government regulation that vainly attempted to provide competition in the fixed line retail telephone services in the face of these structural issues. And it was not their fault that they did not succeed in this regard. They were battling real structural issues.
It is disappointing that the member for Wentworth is still clinging to the idea that these structural issues can be dealt with through a functional separation of Telstra, with both the wholesale and retail networks still owned by the one company, Telstra. Let me assure him—as he enters the chamber—and members opposite that this approach has been tried and has failed. He needs just to ask former ministers for communications Senator Alston and Senator Coonan. It was clear to all that the coalition government was hopelessly compromised as it tried to both maximise the sale price as part of Telstra’s privatisation and at the same time deal with the difficult competition issues raised by such a large incumbent company that was both vertically and horizontally integrated.
So instead of clinging to the failed policy positions of the past decade, the shadow minister would be better to get on board with the NBN and to stop throwing up spurious diversions to detract from the progression of this important project. This legislative framework will provide some measure of certainty for Telstra going forward into the NBN era. That is good news for all. Given all of this, you would think that those opposite would welcome the government’s plan for a national broadband network and the opportunity for Australians to move forward into a digital economy without any impediments such as those that I have just described.
I turn now to the regulatory reforms in the bill. The government has considered the important regulatory measures that will be necessary during the transition to the NBN to ensure that the consumer service regime is maintained. The government has rightly taken this opportunity to examine the current regulatory framework as a result of representations, mainly from Telstra’s competitors, that the current regime is inadequate. Changes to part XIC of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 mean that the ACCC will have an enhanced and streamlined role, allowing it to set price and non-price terms for access to declared services in access determinations to apply to all parties. This will put Telstra and its competitors on a level playing field for the first time.
There is no doubt that this regulatory review was much needed. The extremely high number of telecommunications access disputes that have been notified since the commencement of the regime in 1997 point to a failing system. Telstra’s highly litigious approach might have been good for its lawyers, but it was not good for other telecommunications companies struggling to compete in such an uncertain and frustrating regulatory environment.
Another important measure in this regard is that this bill will remove the right to seek merits review of ACCC regulatory decisions. This approach is being pursued because Telstra has continually used every regulatory and legal avenue available to frustrate regulatory outcomes and cause uncertainty for its competitors. By providing the ACCC with the power to issue binding rules of conduct, the ACCC will be able to take action immediately to address problems relating to the supply of declared services. The telecommunications industry will at last have a greater degree of certainty in relation to regulatory outcomes and this certainty will encourage investment.
I turn now to the consumer protection measures contained within the bill. The big winners from this bill will be consumers. That is because the measures in this bill are focused on retaining and strengthening existing regulation to better protect consumers’ access to, and the reliability of, basic telephone services and to address concerns with the removal of payphones.
The measures in this bill reflect the government’s decision to retain the existing universal service obligation on Telstra for voice telephony and payphones in the lead-up to the NBN and the new universal service obligation company, and to require improvements to service quality by introducing new minimum performance benchmarks in meeting the customer service guarantee. The new universal service arrangements will make explicit, for consumers and for Telstra, the services—both voice telephony and payphone—Telstra must supply in fulfilment of the universal service obligation. This provision is incredibly important for consumers in regional Australia, including those in my electorate of Throsby where we still rely on the important services provided by payphones. It is incredibly important to ensure that people of low socioeconomic background have access to those payphone services.
So Telstra must supply the services, which include reliability standards and repair requirements, specified in the new universal service arrangements to fulfil its universal service obligation—this is instead of leaving these decisions to the sole discretion of Telstra. This measure will address the concerns raised in the report of the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee—that the universal service obligation arrangements are both vague and difficult to enforce.
In conclusion, the measures in this bill are a landmark for the Australian telecommunications industry. After nearly 20 years of reform to this sector, this Gillard Labor government is finally getting the measures right to ensure that we have genuine competition within the industry, not only in mobile telecommunications services—critical services for households and for industry—but in fixed-line services and in fast, reliable, affordable, high-speed broadband services. The bill also provides enhanced consumer protections. Given this, it is hard to comprehend why the opposition cannot bring themselves to support it. They are out of touch with their own electorates—this is particularly so for those members opposite who represent regional electorates—and with the national interest on this. I commend the bill to the House.
2268
18:51:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—in reply—I thank members for their significant contributions to the debate on the
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010,
which is so important to Australia’s current and future economic prosperity. Measures put forward in this bill were originally debated in the previous parliament. It is fair to say that they have been the subject of considerable discussion over the past year. The government has taken note of the many constructive comments provided and changes have been made to the legislation to address those of them that were worthy of support.
The NBN is a historic nation-building investment which will help transform the Australian economy and create the new businesses and jobs of the 21st century. This is a view shared by the OECD. The OECD concludes in its recently released economic survey of Australia that the NBN has the potential to yield substantial benefits, especially in terms of productivity, and that it will improve internet services for the entire Australian population. It also concludes that it will promote fairer competition between private firms on retail services.
Through the NBN the Gillard government is ensuring that every Australian, no matter where they live, has access to affordable high-speed broadband. The NBN will be a wholesale-only, open access network. It will introduce competition to the telecommunications market, and this will open up genuine choice of services and drive highly competitive prices for consumers, whether they live in a capital city or in rural and regional areas. This acknowledges that Australia has fallen further and further behind the rest of the world since the Liberals and their National coalition colleagues voted to privatise Telstra without any review and without ever putting in place the arrangements to properly protect competition and services in regional areas. It also acknowledges that current infrastructure based competition in Australia has failed. This is in light of the most recent OECD statistics which show that Australia is now ranked 17th out of 31 countries for fixed-broadband subscribers. Australians also pay more for broadband than most OECD countries. For average subscription prices, Australia is the fifth most expensive overall.
People across the country are crying out for faster, more affordable broadband and the Gillard Labor government is getting on with the process of delivering it. The rollout in Tasmania is progressing on time and under budget. On the mainland, in four of the first release sites NBN Co. has received requests to connect on average about 75 per cent of premises with a fibre connection. The government does not require a cost-benefit analysis to know that this is a piece of infrastructure that Australia needs. To do a formal cost-benefit analysis of the NBN would take many years, require many heroic assumptions and would tell us something we already know—that Australia needs greater investment in high-speed broadband infrastructure.
The implementation study confirms the NBN can be built on a financially viable basis with affordable prices for consumers. The government released this study in full on 6 May 2010. After eight months of detailed analysis, the implementation study confirmed that under a range of realistic scenarios NBN Co. will have a strong and viable business case. It also confirmed that the project can be expected to generate a return of six to seven per cent, and that the government could expect to generate a return on its investment to cover its cost of funds.
That said, during the rollout the existing telecommunications regulatory regime will remain important for delivering services in the interests of Australian consumers and businesses. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 is designed to reshape that regime. The measures proposed will streamline the regulatory framework to enhance competition and better protect consumers. Structural reform of the industry will be implemented with the transition to the NBN in line with the government’s vision for a wholesale-only, open access network. Incentives will be created for Telstra and other telecommunications operators to transform the way they do business and to become more innovative and customer focused. These changes to the telecommunications access regime will underpin greater investment by giving all parties regulatory certainty. The bill will also safeguard consumers by strengthening the current universal service obligation, customer service guarantee and priority assistance arrangements.
On 20 June 2010 Telstra and NBN Co. announced that they had entered into a financial heads of agreement. That agreement provides for the progressive migration of customers from Telstra’s copper and pay TV cable networks to NBN Co’s new wholesale-only, fibre network as it is rolled out. This will deliver the ultimate structural reform of the telecommunications sector. This legislation will create a framework to deliver this important reform.
The coalition are putting forward a number of amendments to the legislation. It follows, of course, the 20 different broadband plans that they have had. First, they want to remove the provisions designed to exempt any agreement between Telstra and NBN Co. from the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act on the grounds that they might allow anticompetitive outcomes. First and foremost, the opposition fail to acknowledge that the structural reform to be delivered is in the national interest. However, the ACCC will consider the competitive impacts of any agreement between Telstra and NBN Co. as part of its scrutiny of Telstra’s structural separation undertaking, or SSU. Any agreement will need to be reviewed in the context of considering the SSU that Telstra lodges with the ACCC in order for the SSU to be approved and the arrangements authorised. Once approval is given the agreement and associated conduct will be authorised for the purposes of trade practices law. This removes any need for separate authorisation inquiry, while still ensuring appropriate scrutiny of the arrangements. The bill relies on the authorisation provisions in section 51 of the Competition and Consumer Act. This is a well-established mechanism which has been used extensively by Australian governments. The ACCC website currently lists 80 separate pieces of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation where section 51 authorisations are in use.
Secondly, the opposition proposes that certain ministerial instruments be subject to disallowance by parliament. The government’s strong view is that these instruments should not be disallowable as the risk of disallowance would cause uncertainty for Telstra. The bill requires that certain instruments must be in place to permit Telstra to lodge its SSU with the ACCC. Disallowance would threaten this outcome and could have the perverse effect of forcing Telstra to undertake functional separation even when its preferred option is structural separation.
Thirdly, the opposition calls for the removal of the so-called guns to Telstra’s head by denying it wireless spectrum and forcing it to divest its interests in Foxtel unless it voluntarily agrees to separate. These so-called provisions have been removed. There is no longer an automatic prohibition on the acquisition of spectrum if Telstra does not structurally separate and divest its interests in its cable network and Foxtel. The bill has been amended to give Telstra sufficient regulatory certainty to take a firm proposal to its shareholders to structurally separate by allowing Telstra to acquire specified bands of spectrum, unless the minister determines otherwise in a legislative instrument. The bill does not require Telstra to divest its interests in Foxtel but still provides a framework for Telstra to voluntarily divest its interests in Foxtel and its hybrid fibre-coaxial cable network. In the event that Telstra does not proceed with structural separation, the minister could take into account Telstra’s ownership of Foxtel and its cable network in determining whether to use the powers in the bill to prevent Telstra from acquiring certain spectrum to address Telstra’s power in telecommunications markets.
Fourthly, the opposition want to subject ACCC decisions to merits review. This is despite the fact that in 2002, when they were in government, they repealed merits review for ACCC arbitration determinations because it was hindering the development of competition. It is the government’s view that the notional accountability benefits of merits review within the current system are strongly outweighed by the delays, the regulatory uncertainty and the outright gaming that have occurred. Furthermore, it is an inappropriate provision. Under paragraph 4.53 of the Administrative Review Council guidelines about what kinds of administrative decisions are suitable for merits review, decisions which involve extensive public inquiries or consultations are not suitable for merits review. ACCC access determinations which involve extensive public consultation fall into this category. Omitting merits review from the proposed arrangements reflects a majority of industry submissions on how best to improve the telecommunications access regime, and this aspect was almost universally welcomed by non-Telstra industry participants when the original bill was introduced last year. If the ACCC makes an error of law or process when it makes an access determination, any party affected by the decision will be able to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision just as they can now.
Finally, the opposition want to restore the requirement for procedural fairness. The requirement for the ACCC to accord procedural fairness will apply to all of the ACCC’s regulatory decisions under part XIC, except in relation to interim access determinations and binding rules of conduct. The salient point of introducing binding rules of conduct is to allow swift regulatory responses to urgent matters that may arise. According procedural fairness would inevitably delay such actions—hardly a desirable outcome in matters where speed is of the essence. In reality, procedural fairness will not be absent for long in this circumstance. Within 30 days after making binding rules of conduct, the ACCC will have to commence a public inquiry to vary the access determination or make a new access determination. Parties will be accorded procedural fairness in the public inquiry process. The opposition amendments are unnecessary and would serve only to complicate the proposed streamlining of the regulatory framework.
In conclusion, I once again thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. These wide-ranging reforms address problems across the whole Australian telecommunications sector and represent the most significant reforms to the telecommunications legislative framework since 1997. The task of undertaking such difficult but necessary reform in an industry that is fundamental to Australia’s long-term national interests is one which this government embraces wholeheartedly and one which the government encourages the parliament to embrace. The series of amendments put up by the opposition are once again an attempt by them to delay reform; it is to delay what is required to build a truly national broadband network that is suitable for the 21st century. We know that the National Broadband Network is absolutely vital to Australia’s economic future but also in providing social equity due to the revolution that can occur through access to telecommunications. The NBN is indeed a historic nation-building investment. I commend this bill to the House and urge the parliament to reject the amendments that have been put forward.
10000
Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr KJ Thomson)—The question is that this bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133(b) the division is deferred until 8 pm.
Debate adjourned.
TERRITORIES LAW REFORM BILL 2010
2271
Bills
R4461
Second Reading
2271
Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by
Mr Crean:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2271
19:05:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
0
Mr KEENAN
—I rise to talk on the
Territories Law Reform Bill 2010. This bill in the main relates to Norfolk Island, which is a unique and integral part of Australia. In addition to being one of Australia’s most geographically isolated communities—indeed, probably one of the world’s most isolated communities—it is also one of Australia’s oldest territories, having been settled in conjunction with Australia’s founding settlement at Sydney in New South Wales. The island has a unique history which is separate from Australia, although obviously clearly linked to Australia. At various times in its history, the island formed part of the colonies of Van Diemen’s Land, now Tasmania, and New South Wales. Norfolk Island’s convict history and the heritage and traditions of its residents, particularly those of Pitcairn descent, remain an important part of Australia’s natural heritage and culture.
Mr Christian-Bailey, a former member of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, described the island culture in an article published in 2006, when he said:
The Norfolk Island Community has an incredibly proud history. We were arguably the first people in the Commonwealth to have a free and compulsory vote for everyone over 18, including women. This was enshrined in our own laws as early as 1838. We have always been proud of our self-reliance, our resourcefulness and of our strong community spirit. We have our own language, which we still love to use with one another, and our cultural traditions are strong and distinct from those of Australia.
I think that is an important point. The people of Norfolk Island see themselves obviously as Australians but as people with a separate culture from Australia and it is one that we should do our best to respect.
Going back further to 1879, Joseph Campbell wrote an account about Norfolk Island and its inhabitants. Campbell describes the small and exceptionally beautiful place inhabited by some 400 people—about 250 who reside in the town, the rest in small farms in various parts of the island. There were excellent roads built by convicts, first-rate soils, thousands of lemon and guava trees, native flowers and the Norfolk Island pines. In those days a chief magistrate and jury ran the island. Islanders had no taxes to pay but gave one week’s labour out of every seven months to any public work that needed to be done. Before a person could settle on Norfolk they needed to obtain the votes of two-thirds of everybody over 20 who could read and write. The inhabitants were described as very jealous of admitting people as members of their community.
Times have changed somewhat and now you need a six-month residency before you can apply to stay on Norfolk Island permanently, although the island comes under the Australian Citizenship Act more broadly. Visitors to Norfolk and the islanders themselves often describe the island as one of the most beautiful and unspoilt places on earth. Sadly, I have not had the opportunity to travel to Norfolk Island in my capacity as the shadow minister responsible for external territories, although I have had discussions with many members of the coalition and outside of the coalition who have been to the island. They have reinforced to me that the island has its own culture, traditions and values. I am keen to go and see this for myself at some stage in the future. But I have had a chance to meet with the Norfolk Islander legislators when they have been in Canberra and I have consulted with them over the telephone. I acknowledge the efforts that they have made in contacting me to let me know their thoughts about this bill which, of course, will radically change the way Norfolk Island is governed.
Successive Australian governments have acknowledged the importance of Norfolk Island to Australia’s national heritage and the value of the traditions and culture of the Pitcairn descendants as part of a wider multicultural Australia. However, while the Norfolk Island community is unique in many ways, many of the issues that confront the people on Norfolk Island are similar to those that occur in regional towns of a similar size. Norfolk is relatively small, being inhabited by some 1,500 residents. The community is physically removed from the centre of power in Australia, geographically and also emotionally. The people of Norfolk are very far removed from Canberra. I feel some sympathy toward the people in relation to this. However, I understand that there are many on Norfolk Island who also yearn to have the same privileges and rights that all other Australians have. As the former Western Australian senator, the Hon. Ian Campbell, said when he was Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads in 2004:
… it is very important that people in a place like Norfolk Island who do not necessarily agree with that sort of received wisdom feel that they have got the right to pursue a different way of doing things.
In considering the need for electoral reform, it is important to bear in mind that the Australian parliament has the overarching responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens wherever they may live in the Federation—and, of course, that includes in our external territories. Indeed, this parliament has an obligation to ensure that all laws in Australian jurisdictions are consistent with the national obligations under international law. As has been previously noted about Norfolk Island, the constitutional status of the island is complex and unusual.
After the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, Norfolk Island was placed under the authority of the new Commonwealth government to be administered as an external territory. During World War II the island became a key air base in refuelling depots between Australia and New Zealand and between New Zealand and the Solomon Islands. Since Norfolk Island fell within New Zealand’s area of responsibility, it was garrisoned by a New Zealand army unit known as N Force at a large army camp that had the capacity to house 1,500 people. N Force relieved a company of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force which allowed them to go and campaign elsewhere. But the island proved to be too remote to come under attack during the war and N Force, the New Zealand garrison, left the island in February 1944.
In 1979 Norfolk Island was granted limited self-government by Australia under what they consider to be a proxy constitution where the island elects a government that runs most of the island’s affairs. As such, residents of Norfolk Island are not represented in the Commonwealth parliament, making them the only group of residents in an Australian state or territory not represented here. This bill makes radical changes to what had been put in place in 1979. The Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 will change radically the governance, electoral and financial administration of Norfolk Island. The changes are substantial and the way the island is governed will not be the same again if this bill is passed in its present form.
The bill in schedules 2 and 3 also revises a vesting section of the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955. The bill makes significant changes to the governance, electoral and financial mechanisms for Norfolk Island. More specifically, these changes would allow the Governor-General and the responsible Commonwealth minister to take a more active role in the introduction and passage of Norfolk Island legislation, including provision for the Commonwealth minister to give directions in schedule 2 matters and to reserve schedule 2 matters for the Governor-General’s consideration. It also provides for the selection and prescribes the roles of the Chief Minister and other ministers, including by limiting the number of ministers that might be appointed, by allowing the removal of the Chief Minister by the Administrator in exceptional circumstances and by limiting the power to allocate ministerial portfolios to the Chief Minister.
The bill allows regulations to be made for a code of conduct for members of the Norfolk Island Public Service. Clearly, with a population of 1,500, the Norfolk Island Public Service is not an extensive organisation, and I will get to that a little later on. This bill also provides that regulations can be made for changes to the process for the election of the Legislative Assembly, provides for minimum and maximum fixed terms of the Legislative Assembly, and implements a contemporary financial management framework, including provision for contemporary guidelines for financial reporting, budgeting and auditing of the administration’s financial statements by the Commonwealth Auditor-General. It also allows for the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to operate on Norfolk Island and provide for merits review of decisions made by the Norfolk Island administration. Finally, it applies the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1988 to information held by the Norfolk Island government and its administration.
Schedules 2 and 3 amend the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955. These amendments provide a vesting mechanism for powers and functions under Western Australian laws applied to those territories—powers and functions under Western Australian officers and authorities where an agreement with the Australian government exists for those officers and authorities to act in the territories.
Although the coalition supports this bill in principle, we do have some reservations, and of course the Norfolk Island government has previously expressed significant reservations about this bill. We in the opposition are specifically concerned about the increased bureaucratic processes that this bill entails, and we believe they will place in some circumstances an undue burden on Norfolk Island’s limited public service. I will detail these amendments shortly.
I want to go to the concerns that the Norfolk Island government have in the past expressed in relation to this bill. I do acknowledge—and I am sure the government will point this out when the minister makes his contribution—that the Norfolk Island government’s position has changed significantly since this bill was introduced. They did come and see us in Canberra and they expressed significant concerns about the bill taking away what they believed was their right to self-government. That situation has changed, but it has changed in conjunction with the fact that Norfolk Island has some significant financial difficulties and as a result the Commonwealth has them somewhat—to use the phrase—over a barrel, and they do now support the bill. This has been reiterated to me by the Norfolk Island government. They do now support this bill in its current form.
Notwithstanding that, the opposition still believe that it makes very little sense for us to inflict the full horror of Australian bureaucracy on an island of 1,500 people and we will seek to move what we believe are sensible amendments to at least allow the Norfolk Island administration to attempt to do some of the things in a way that might be more appropriate for an island of their size; specifically we would like to do that in relation to privacy provisions and the freedom of information regime.
Before going specifically to that I do want to acknowledge that, regardless of the fact that the Norfolk Island government have now changed their position, they did have some concerns with this bill in the past. Those concerns have been expressed very stridently to the joint standing committee which had a look into this legislation. Their concerns can be detailed in six different parts. The concerns were legitimate. We in the opposition did not support them all but it is important as a parliament that we acknowledge and give due respect to the Norfolk Island government by detailing the concerns that they have expressed in the past about this legislation.
Firstly, they believed that the legislation was going to lead to the erosion of their ability to self-govern. That is a right that they guard very jealously. The Norfolk Island government argued that their ability to manage schedule 2 matters was a fundamental part of their ability to self-govern. According to the Norfolk Island government, schedule 2 matters affect the internal machinery of their own government. Matters under schedule 2 include but are not limited to roads, street lighting, electricity supply, quarrying, tourism, firearms, housing, community and cultural affairs as well as matters incidental to or consequent on the examination of executive authority. In a previous letter the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island, Mr Buffett, noted that the addition of a veto power for matters pertaining to schedule 2 undermines the very principle that underlies the democratic rights of Norfolk Islander voters to govern themselves in relation to matters that are specific to Norfolk Island. The second concern that the Norfolk Island government had expressed was the ability for the Commonwealth to remove the Legislative Assembly. The Norfolk Island government argued that, to provide fair and equitable government, the ability to dissolve the assembly should only be available to the Governor-General, who would be able to, on advice from the administrator, appoint a caretaker government, as is the convention here in Australia.
The third issue they had raised as a concern was the issue of elections. The Norfolk Island government had previously agreed with the recommendation of the joint standing committee that this part of the bill be removed and further discussion and consultation be entered into. The fourth concern of the Norfolk Island administration in relation to this bill was that they largely did not agree with the financial proposals that are contained within it. They have expressed the view that these proposals would result in direct interference with the operation of the Norfolk Island government and they were particularly concerned with the obligations on employees of the Norfolk Island government to provide information not necessarily agreed to or vetted by the Norfolk Island government. They have expressed this in the past and they believed that this allowed the Commonwealth government to bypass the elected representatives of Norfolk Island and treats employees of the Norfolk Island government as if they were employees of the Commonwealth government.
The fifth issue that was raised relates to accountability processes. The island government had reservations about the method of implementation proposed by the bill for the Administrative Appeals Tribunals for privacy conditions and for the freedom of information provisions. As I mentioned previously, the coalition also believes that transposing the full bureaucratic Australian model, designed to cover our 22 million people, onto the people of Norfolk Island, which has a population of 1,500 people, really is taking the desire to standardise our laws to a ludicrous extreme. The Norfolk Island government had expressed their desire to implement a different model—and this is what the opposition continues to support—in relation to how they dealt with the Commonwealth Ombudsman being allowed to have an involvement in Norfolk Island matters, and that is that they would work with the Commonwealth on providing a model that was more appropriate for Norfolk Island—and in the past they had hoped that the Commonwealth would do that.
I had some discussions with the Australian government prior to the election. The Labor government did not seem to have any particular objections to this and, indeed, I did hope that we might be able to work with them on making these amendments. Clearly since the election they have changed their view and now they do not want to enter into those discussions and they insist that this bill be passed in its wholesale form, which I think is a shame because we might have been able to come to a different arrangement and so make these amendments redundant. But the government are not interested in doing that.
Finally, the sixth area of concern to the Norfolk Island government relates to the treatment of Norfolk Island deputies. The Norfolk Island government had concerns over the ability under the proposed bill for the responsible minister to appoint numerous deputies to the Administrator, and the Chief Minister had expressed the view directly that it had been identified that these deputies would be utilised in times of emergency, when the Administrator and the Official Secretary, who normally holds a dormant deputy commission, were not available. If this in fact was the case, the Norfolk Island government wanted this to be reflected in the bill to provide clarification of the deputies’ role.
Whilst acknowledging Norfolk Island’s traditions and culture as well as the concern felt by some islanders that these reforms did threaten the current government situation on Norfolk Island, both the Norfolk Island government and the islanders recognise, at least in principle, the need for reform. Of course now they support this bill in a different way, but that really relates specifically to the changed financial circumstances on the island whereby they are requiring Commonwealth assistance and, of course, the Commonwealth has said, ‘We’re happy to assist but only if this bill is supported’ and so that is now the position of the Norfolk Island government. But I do not think that we should have ever doubted that they had good intentions as to reforming the way that they govern Norfolk Island and that they were keen to work with the Commonwealth to find arrangements that they believed might have been more suitable for the way that Norfolk Island is governed.
We still believe that there is a chance for this parliament to ease some of the bureaucratic weight that this legislation entails and we will be moving amendments, as I foreshadowed, to the way that freedom of information applies to Norfolk Island and the way that the Norfolk Island public sector agencies will be required to adhere to information privacy principles. We will be doing this because freedom of information as it relates to the Commonwealth of Australia and privacy as it relates to the Commonwealth of Australia involves incredibly extensive legislation. It would place very significant burdens on the very limited administration of Norfolk Island and we do not believe that there is necessarily a case for such a small administration to be exposed to the full weight of this enormous bureaucratic undertaking, which I think would be the best way of putting it.
This bill does not need to extend the full gamut of Commonwealth FOI and privacy laws to Norfolk Island. No rationale has been supplied to this parliament as to why we should do that. There are the concerns of the Norfolk Island administration who, after all, are probably best placed to say what they believe is in Norfolk Island’s interests and they should not be brushed aside or ignored. We believe that the concerns that they have had in the past in relation to the ability of the island’s administration to be able to deal with such an enormous bureaucratic undertaking still stand and the opposition is going to move amendments that will allow the islanders to maintain flexibility in determining what they believe is an appropriate level of added bureaucracy for their island.
The amendments would allow the Norfolk Island government to legislate their own freedom of information and privacy principles and would give them the freedom of scope to decide what model best suits their needs. This is the approach that the Norfolk Island government have taken in their dealings with the Commonwealth in the past and it has been successful. Surely that is a better way rather than having the Commonwealth coming in and overriding the wishes of the Norfolk Island government, who were elected by the people of Norfolk Island to speak on their behalf. Surely it is better for the Commonwealth to sit down and try to work out a regime that best suits the island’s needs rather than for the Commonwealth to come out with this ‘one size fits all’ approach that says, ‘We’re going to override the wishes of the local community and we’re going to impose this enormous bureaucracy on Norfolk Island regardless of the wishes of its local community.’
We would prefer to see a much more pragmatic approach from this parliament. We believe that approach would be in the best interests of Norfolk Islanders themselves. So we do support the thrust of this bill, as has the government of Norfolk Island, but we do not believe that we should necessarily be imposing the full gamut of freedom of information legislation and privacy legislation. So we would urge this parliament to explore a way with the government of Norfolk Island by which we can find mechanisms that are more suitable for a territory of their size and population with obviously a limited administrative capacity for an administration that governs only 1,500 people. We think that is a sensible approach and I would commend that to the House.
2277
19:29:00
Brodtmann, Gai, MP
30540
Canberra
ALP
1
0
Ms BRODTMANN
—It has been most interesting listening to the member for Stirling on this issue and it is a great pleasure to speak today in support of the
Territories Law Reform Bill 2010. It is also a great pleasure to speak about reform to the most remote part of my electorate, which is Norfolk Island. While this bill also addresses the way Western Australian laws apply to the Indian Ocean Territories, its main feature is Norfolk Island. As I said in my first speech, most people are aware of Norfolk Island’s rich history and language. They are also aware that Colleen McCullough lives there, that interesting pine trees grow there, that you need a passport to get there—which is quite amusing and I think Kate Lundy and I are probably the only people who actually need a passport to go to part of our electorate—and that it is also a great place for a holiday.
For most Australians, their knowledge of Norfolk Island would pretty much begin and end there. So they would not be aware that the island is in need of reform, and that is what this bill does. And they would not be aware that, even though Norfolk Island is part of the Commonwealth, part of Australia, its people do not enjoy the same privileges that most Australians now take for granted. This bill, which has been a long time in the making and long overdue, provides that. Norfolk Island has been the subject of many reviews over many years and this bill is the culmination of all that work. The bill amends the Norfolk Island Act 1979 to strengthen the island’s electoral, financial, governance and administration framework to ensure a more transparent, equitable and economically stable future for Norfolk Island. This is particularly important. Despite what was said before, the changes are not radical and they are supported by the Norfolk Island government, as the member of Stirling has pointed out to us just now. They also do not erode the Norfolk Island government’s ability to self-govern. Those powers are still there. What it does is strengthen a range of economic, financial and governance elements to ensure the future of Norfolk Island.
The bill provides a clearer approach for Norfolk Island’s administration. The bill provides a clearer understanding of Norfolk Island’s financial position. The bill articulates conventions and clarifies roles and responsibilities. The bill allows for greater Commonwealth oversight of Norfolk Island legislation to ensure compliance with our international obligations and other areas of national interest. The bill modernises Norfolk Island’s governance and harmonises it with the rest of Australia. The global financial crisis underscored the need for greater transparency in matters financial and regulatory and this bill brings a modern framework to the island—a modern framework that has been operating on mainland Australia for years, if not decades.
I have only been to Norfolk Island once and my visit was brief. It was earlier this year. But in that short time and since my election I have managed to get a very broad overview of the issues that are confronting the island and understand the need for reform. There needs to be reform in a number of areas. I am looking forward to going back there in December to attend a women’s forum with my colleague Senator Kate Lundy. The women on the island have a strong tradition of being opinionated and strong and I am really looking forward to getting the opportunity to meet with a number of them and talking to them about a range of social policy issues. I am sure the reform issue will also be discussed in those meetings. While Norfolk Island has had self-government for decades, these reforms will close the gap between the conditions we enjoy on mainland Australia—that we take for granted—and those experienced on the island.
For the benefit of the House I would like to take a moment to outline the complex and fascinating governance road that has led us to this point. Norfolk Island was not occupied when it was mapped by Captain Cook in 1774, although there was evidence of early Polynesian settlement. Between 1788 and 1814, and again between 1824 and 1855, the British used the island as a penal colony. In 1856, the descendants of the
Bounty
mutineers—the history is just fascinating—who had married Polynesian islanders agreed with the British government to move from Pitcairn Island to Norfolk Island, and the descendants of those seven families are still there today. Meeting them you really do feel as if you are touching the past—it is quite extraordinary. Going to the graveyards down on the beach where the penal colony used to be is also quite extraordinary, reaching back into history and having descendants of those people actually telling you about the history of their families.
Between 1856 and 1897, Norfolk Island was a separate British colony with its own governor, who also happened to be the Governor of New South Wales. In 1897, the Crown transferred administrative responsibility of the island to the colony of New South Wales and on 1 July 1914 the island became Australia’s second external territory under the authority of the Commonwealth of Australia. But it was not until the mid-1970s, and following a royal commission into the future status of the island, that the Fraser government passed the quasi-constitutional Norfolk Island Act in 1979 and committed to self-government. The act enabled the territory to be self-governed and administered by an administrator with three essential functions. These are to represent the Crown, similar to a state Governor-General’s role; to represent the Commonwealth on the island and communicate between the federal government and the government of Norfolk Island; and to act in any specified statutory capacity as conferred by either the Norfolk Island government or the Commonwealth.
The act also establishes the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island and grants them powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the island, including laws to raise taxes and impose charges. It is an old hangover, but one of the reasons you need a passport is the old Customs Act. What we are suggesting here with the reforms is not in any way imposing on these powers; it is just reform and good governance. This means the assembly has the capacity to legislate for all things except coinage, the raising of a defence force, the acquisition of property on other than just terms and euthanasia.
Once the assembly enacts a law, the Norfolk Island government is equipped with broad executive powers and responsibilities to administer and enforce that law. That said, there have been several reviews and reports into the governance of Norfolk Island over recent years, arising from concerns that the island was falling behind the modern frameworks that apply on the mainland; hence this bill. Probably the most significant was the 2003 report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. As I said, this reform is long overdue and has been a long time in the making. It was seven years ago and we are just finally talking about this and hopefully getting it through now seven years later. The recommendations of this report were delayed by the Howard Government, and I welcome the Gillard Government’s commitment to progressing reform. Labor has a strong tradition of reform and this is just another one. What the report suggested was not a dramatic, radical, revolutionary change, as has been suggested, to the way things are done in Norfolk Island. Instead, the review advocated greater financial transparency. What is so radical about that— reform to the electoral system, improved auditing and reporting, and an extension of basic administrative rights, fundamental and tested aspects of good governance?
The bill largely relies on the joint committee’s recommendations and it will reform four key areas. The first is in the electoral sphere. The bill will create greater electoral stability, aid in the implementation of legislation and bring the Norfolk Island system more into line with the Westminster system. The bill introduces changes that will give greater certainty about when elections are held, with set minimum and maximum fixed terms; more clearly outline the roles, titles and responsibilities of elected representatives—for instance, executive members will now be called ministers; prescribe a process for selecting and dismissing a Chief Minister and ministers; entrench the separation of executive and non-executive positions by providing for a maximum number of ministers to ensure effective backbench scrutiny; and codify current practices. Just read this. This is really radical! The bill will also establish a no-confidence motion process for the Chief Minister and enable the making of regulations for changes to the electoral system.
The second key reform is in the area of financial management. The bill establishes a tailored financial framework to ensure responsible management of public money and property, preparation of budgets, financial reporting, annual reports and procurement. It appoints a Commonwealth Financial Officer for Norfolk Island to manage this framework. It clarifies the definitions of public money and public property of the territory—modelled on the FMA Act that applies here—and establishes a territory authority to provide a complete picture of the island’s financial position. It ensures the Norfolk Island finance minister prepares annual financial statements—a significant plank in any efficient and effective financial management—and it ensures the Commonwealth Auditor-General now conducts audits of Norfolk Island’s financial statements, which must be tabled in the Norfolk Island assembly.
The third key reform is in the area of governance. The bill allows the Norfolk Island Administrator to access a greater range of advice when presented with bills for assent to ensure consistency of compliance and it allows the Governor-General and the federal minister responsible for territories to take a more active role in the introduction and passage of Norfolk Island legislation.
The final reform is in the critical area of administration. The bill applies the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to Norfolk Island to ensure a high-quality, independent merit review process. It applies the Freedom of Information Act to Norfolk Island, so now the people of Norfolk Island can enjoy the same right to access information that has applied here for decades. It ensures the Commonwealth Ombudsman assumes the function of the Norfolk Island Ombudsman under Norfolk Island legislation. It requires Norfolk Island public sector agencies to adhere to the information privacy principles in the same way as Australian government public sector agencies. It ensures Norfolk Island public servants adhere to a set of values. It has been suggested that a community of 1,500 will find this onerous to manage. There are government agencies that have only 1,500—small government agencies that are applying not just the FMA Act but a whole raft of Commonwealth legislation. They have not crumbled under the weight of that, so I find that whole notion hard to understand.
I welcome the Gillard government’s reforms to the governance, financial and electoral management and administration of Norfolk Island outlined in this bill, and I would like to thank the various members of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories that have reviewed Norfolk Island issues over the years—particularly for their patience in waiting all this time. These reforms continue the agenda that Labor has been rolling out in infrastructure, health, education, the economy and climate change. I would particularly like to thank the committee for consulting with the Norfolk Island community to inform their recommendations in a rigorous yet inclusive way. I know that some think the reforms go too far and others think they do not go far enough. Whatever the view, I am pleased the community has had a chance to have its say. I would also like to acknowledge my fellow Canberran Senator Kate Lundy for the great work she has done as a former chair of the committee. She did great work on this issue for a long time.
The Commonwealth has an ongoing responsibility to the Australian citizens of Norfolk Island. This bill is an important step in strengthening transparency and accountability to ensure the future good governance of Norfolk Island and continues the tradition of reform of Labor governments. I am particularly pleased that the Norfolk Island government recently came out in support of the passage of the bill. I congratulate Chief Minister David Buffett and the Norfolk Island government for recognising the need for reform. The government came out recently and supported the bill in toto. There were no particular elements that they said would be all too hard. This is an important step in ensuring Norfolk Island is a sustainable, just and equal part of Australia into the 21st century and I support this bill.
2280
19:42:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—I certainly welcome this opportunity to make comments on the
Territories Law Reform Bill 2010. It was a long time ago, back in 1979, that I travelled to and visited Norfolk Island. I think it was for around about 10 days. This is without doubt one of the most spectacular and beautiful places in Australia. It has at times rugged countryside but there is also the greenery and the norfolk pines. It is a spectacular place—a real oasis, in many ways, not too far from the middle of the Pacific Ocean. It is a long way from Australia. The beauty that is Norfolk Island belies the past and the white history of places like Kingston, where the penal colony was established. Although there is nothing more than cattle grazing there now, it is certainly the case that these places saw some of the great excesses of convict habitation and convict work. Back in 1979 on a school excursion we stayed not very far from Burnt Pine. One of the great joys of visiting Norfolk Island was just how friendly people were. As part of this school excursion we hired pushbikes for the whole time we were there and every time you went anywhere, if you were at the bottom of a hill, someone would stop and ask you whether you wanted to throw your bike in the back of the ute and carry on with a lift up the hill. It is a very nice place, a beautiful place with very nice and accommodating people. As I said, it is a real oasis.
It is also interesting to reflect a little on the history of Norfolk Island. Apart from the convict colony, they also had a terrible experience with the introduction of rabbits. Someone came up with the good idea, over 150 years ago, that if you introduced rabbits to a place called Phillip Island not far off the coast of Norfolk Island then that would be a great place to go hunting. Unfortunately, rabbits being rabbits they overtook the place. So now if you look out across the water across Kingston you can see a very brown and barren island. That was certainly my recollection of Phillip Island from those days.
But I do welcome this opportunity to talk on the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 which, in the main, amends the Norfolk Island Act 1979 in order to implement significant reforms aimed at improving governance structures and strengthening the accountability mechanisms for Norfolk Island. And I welcome this opportunity as I have recently become the deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. Given that the vast majority of this bill concerns the external territory of Norfolk Island, I will contain my comments to the changes that this act will effect to that territory rather than comment on the more routine changes that the bill will enact with regard to Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
I sought a position on the joint committee because I have a longstanding interest in the territories, having lived in Canberra for around six years of my life when I was in the Army and before that with the Australian Federal Police. As I said, in 1979 I was part of a high school excursion that visited Norfolk Island, and I certainly look forward to returning to Norfolk and visiting the other external territories if the business of the committee should require it in this the 43rd Parliament. In the short term, however, after beginning to read into the work of the committee of the 42nd Parliament and being aware of issues in the past regarding governance of Norfolk Island, I appreciate the need for amending the Norfolk Island Act—although, as has been foreshadowed by the shadow minister, there is the need for minor amendments, which I wholeheartedly support.
Before speaking briefly on the bill itself, I would say, in support of the coalition’s amendments, that if we speak of governance and accountability, such a debate must include the extension of Freedom of Information Act application to Norfolk Island. That being said, a model that reflects the scale of the administration is more appropriately required. In the same way that the role of Commonwealth Ombudsman was embraced in their own legislation, Norfolk Island should seek and legislate for a model of freedom of information and privacy that does reflect the size of the island and the administration so that the bureaucracy is not vastly increased, and this is the point made in paragraph 1.3 of the committee’s recent report into the proposed legislation.
In terms of this bill itself I would like to address the proposed amendments that the bill foreshadows. In reading the 2010 committee report it is clear that there were significant concerns raised by observers and local people about the way in which the island was being governed, as well as concern about the power and influence being exerted at the time submissions were being received and evidence was being taken. Indeed, at footnote 17 in chapter 2 there is mention of fear and apprehension holding back residents who wanted to make submissions. The committee found:
It has become increasingly clear that beneath the surface, informal mechanisms are being allowed to operate with impunity. The Committee is aware of growing community concern over the activities of these elements.
The committee also expressed concern about such a negative culture—one that has been referred to as ‘the Norfolk way’—which is equated as similar to ‘the Pacific way’. We need to be very careful that a particular way by which things are done locally should not constitute an excuse for corrupt practices, favouritism and nepotism.
It is good to see this bill come before the House. Clearly the joint standing committee in its report also saw the need for significant governance, financial and administrative reforms, and this bill now brings those amendments to this parliament.
I will now take the opportunity to speak of the amendments that relate to schedule 1 of the bill. Firstly, under clause 14 of the bill, the matter of termination of the position of Chief Minister and other ministers is covered. In particular, clause 14A states that the Administrator can dismiss the Chief Minister if, in the Administrator’s opinion, there are exceptional circumstances that justify that action. That power is pretty similar to the existing powers of the Governor-General for the national government. I have read the submission by the Norfolk Island government where they object to that change, yet it is really working to the same principles that the rest of Australia adheres to. But I also note that the bill provides for the ability of the responsible Commonwealth minister to appoint deputy administrators for Norfolk Island. Again, this is a change that I support, and it will provide the federal government, and specifically the responsible minister, with the ability to react to the needs of the population of this territory of Australia.
In reading through the bill I would particularly like to note the additions to the Norfolk Island Act that relate to division 2, regarding financial management and accountability. Clause 48A will require the appropriation of annual budgets by the island’s finance minister and they will need to be in accordance with the Commonwealth’s orders and regulations and provided to the responsible Commonwealth minister. Again, I fully support the amendment contained in the bill, even while I understand that the Norfolk Island government is not particularly happy about it.
Similarly, the other amendments include, under clause 48B, the need for financial statements; under clause 48C, the auditing of those statements; and other subclauses of clause 48 that will improve the accountability and the performance of the Norfolk Island government and administration. Indeed, even the section 51 amendments contained in this bill require the Commonwealth be kept informed and, from what I have read, these changes appear to be appropriate at this time. This clearly represents the establishment of a customised and proportionate financial framework which provides for the responsible management of public money and public property and for the preparation of budgets, financial reporting, annual reports and procurement. I should also mention that this includes the appointment by the Commonwealth of a Commonwealth financial officer for Norfolk Island should the position be required.
This bill will also allow the Norfolk Island Administrator to access a greater range of advice when presented with bills for assent under schedule 2 of the Norfolk Island Act. It will allow the Governor-General and the minister responsible for territories to take a more active role in the introduction and passage of Norfolk Island legislation. It will reform the voting system for the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and provide more certainty about when elections are to be held. It will also allow access, under certain situations, to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, which will confer on the AAT merit review jurisdiction for specified decisions under Norfolk Island legislation.
Before concluding I would like to speak about the freedom of information and privacy amendments to the bill proposed by the shadow minister, the member for Stirling. I support these amendments and note what the Norfolk Island government said in their first supplementary submission, submission 6.1, to the committee. The submission raises the issues of when and how the Norfolk Island public sector could cope with implementing an FOI system. What is therefore required is the ability to access documents and information that are in the public interest. The coalition’s amendments would enable the Norfolk Island government to determine in their own legislation the model which best suits their needs. Clearly, the Commonwealth must look at this in the future to ascertain that the system fits the needs of the population.
From what I have read of Norfolk Island’s governance, financial and overall administrative arrangements, there is a need for reform. It is clearly a widely held but not unanimous view that the existing arrangements are not serving the best interests of all residents of the island. It would appear that there are some people on the island who seek to preserve existing arrangements that favour a select few groups, rather than seeking to ensure that self-government arrangements are completely open, accountable and work for the whole population. Critics of the legislation suggest that it is an attack on self-government. I do not see that in the analysis. This legislation is about good and effective government which is in the interests of everyone on Norfolk Island. I support this bill with the amendments as stated by the member for Stirling. I also look forward to having an opportunity as part of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories to assess the implementation of these legislative changes, which, I am sure, will lead to much more effective government for Norfolk Island.
All laws are capable of being amended, and in the future Norfolk Island can expect visits by representatives of this government and this parliament, by ministers and, most certainly, by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. Fundamentally, the Commonwealth will want to be assured that Norfolk Island shares the same governance, financial, administrative and electoral standards as the rest of Australia. If that is the case, then the laws may not need to be amended in the future, but if it is not the case then maybe they will need to be amended.
In conclusion, from my limited visit to Norfolk Island of about 10 days back in 1979 and from what I have read, I see that there is a lot for the people of Norfolk Island to be very proud of. It is a beautiful island and a beautiful environment, but we, the Commonwealth parliament, need to be certain that the interests of all members of the Norfolk Island community are properly looked after and that there are accountability and governance that are working for the whole population and not for any special interest groups. In the future, we will have an opportunity to continue to look at Norfolk Island to make sure that what this legislation intends is achieved. I look forward to participating as the deputy chair of the committee and to working with my colleagues on both sides of parliament to make sure that Norfolk Island is as good as it can be.
2284
19:57:00
Gambaro, Teresa, MP
9K6
Brisbane
LP
0
0
Ms GAMBARO
—I also rise to speak on the
Territories Law Reform Bill 2010. Norfolk Island would have to be one of the most beautiful parts of the world. It is one of Australia’s most geographically isolated communities as well as being one of its oldest territories. It has an incredible history. We have heard various contributions today about the early days and the colonies of Van Diemen’s Land, now Tasmania, and New South Wales, and also of the very proud history of Norfolk Island, particularly that of the Pitcairn descendants. They form a very strong part of Australia’s heritage and culture.
Norfolk Island has had a very long history. It is very progressive: in 1838 it gave women over the age of 18 the vote. It has very strong cultural ties which are very distinct from Australia and has its own language. There has been a great deal of history, particularly its convict past. Many of the roads were built by convicts. There are thousands of native trees, as well as lemon and guava trees. In the old days there were a chief magistrate and jury running the island.
Islanders have also had a rather lackadaisical taxation system, one which would probably be the envy of most countries. They have to give one week’s labour out of seven months to any public works that need to be done. They also have a unique system of accepting anyone who becomes a permanent resident. They have to be pretty much prescribed by two-thirds of anyone over 20 who can read and write and have to be accepted by the whole community.
I have not had the opportunity to visit Norfolk Island, but from those whom I have spoken to about Norfolk Island there is one thing that is universally agreed upon: its beauty and its unspoilt nature. It is one of the most beautiful islands. I hope to some day get the opportunity to travel to Norfolk Island and meet with some of the locals but also to learn a little bit about this proud and wonderful history. I know that the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories has done so.
10000
Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms S Bird)—The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMPETITION AND CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS) BILL 2010
2284
Bills
R4479
Second Reading
2284
Debate resumed.
10000
Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms S Bird)—In accordance with standing order 133(b), I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed.
Question put:
That this bill be now read a second time.
20:05:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
75
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bandt, A.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Brodtmann, G.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Husic, E.
Jones, S.
Katter, R.C.
Kelly, M.J.
King, C.F.
Leigh, A.
Livermore, K.F.
Lyons, G.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
Melham, D.
Mitchell, R.
Murphy, J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Neill, D.
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Rowland, M.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Smyth, L.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, A.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Zappia, A.
72
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Alexander, J.
Andrews, K.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Buchholz, S.
Chester, D.
Christensen, G.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.*
Crook, T.
Dutton, P.C.
Entsch, W.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Frydenberg, J.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Griggs, N.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, C.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
Matheson, R.
McCormack, M.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C.
O’Dowd, K.
O’Dwyer, K
Prentice, J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Roy, Wyatt
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.
Tehan, D.
Truss, W.E.
Tudge, A.
Turnbull, M.
Van Manen, B.
Vasta, R.
Washer, M.J.
Wyatt, K.
1
PAIRS
Plibersek, T.
Jones, E.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
2285
20:11:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
1
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—Very briefly, on indulgence: Mr Speaker, I witnessed some confusion just before the unofficial dinner break about divisions. I do not raise this matter to in any way be discourteous to anyone, but I do remind all members of the House that while we have an unofficial dinner break—a period during which no divisions occur—it is still necessary for those seeking a division to call a division before that time arrives. So, for the clarification of members, I want them to understand that it is still necessary to call a division even though we might be going into the dinner break.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The point that the Chief Government Whip raises is well put. There is still an obligation to seek a division and then the division is deferred.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
2286
Private Members' Business
Same-Sex Marriage
2286
20:12:00
Bandt, Adam, MP
M3C
Melbourne
AG
0
0
Mr BANDT
—I ask leave of the House to amend the notice relating to same-sex marriage in the terms circulated to honourable members in the chamber.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is there any objection to leave being granted?
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr Ruddock
—I have not seen the amendment.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I will get a copy to you as soon as I can get you one. It is coming.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Could the Deputy Clerk stop the clock, please. We will do this correctly procedurally so that everybody can be happy. Is there any objection to leave being granted? I am in the position where the honourable member for Melbourne has sought leave to amend his motion and I am seeking an indication from the House whether leave is granted.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—There is much uncertainty in the chamber as to the nature of the change that the honourable member wishes to move. It does seem that the proposed amendment is quite different in substance from the original motion moved. That is the perception that is being discussed informally in the chamber. For clarification purposes, could you read out the original motion and then read out the proposed amendment so that the House can be informed.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The motion is as circulated in the
Notice Paper. The amended motion is now being circulated to honourable members in the chamber. There is a one-paragraph suggestion of an amendment. Is there any objection to leave being granted?
7K6
Entsch, Warren, MP
Mr Entsch
—As a point of clarification, given that this was basically put on just before we were expected to speak on it, the original motion in relation to (a) and (b) has now been removed from it. This now replaces the entire one and in effect it is No. 2. Can I seek clarification on that.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Without my getting into interpreting the motion, the original motion was in two parts. The second part was a call upon parliamentarians to gauge certain things. Basically, that is the amended motion that leave is sought for.
7K6
Entsch, Warren, MP
Mr Entsch
—Can I assume that No. 1 stands, or is No. 1 now deleted and No. 2 becomes the motion?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The original motion in totality had two parts. The amended motion, as circulated, is the whole motion, as I understand it. I will get clarification from the member for Melbourne that the one-paragraph motion is the proposed amended motion that he wishes to place before the House. It is a single one-paragraph motion and all the rest in the first part of the original motion is no longer what he is proposing. I am only allowing this because of the exceptional circumstances of this present parliament. This is not something that I will be in a position to allow in future. We must bring this aspect to a resolution. Is leave granted for the member for Melbourne to move the motion as he has proposed and circulated, which is a one-paragraph motion?
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—I have a point of order. The original motion—and the people who are listening to the broadcast are entitled to know—in part (b) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality. The proposed amendment says:
The House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same-sex couples, including marriage.
Which is a totally different concept from the one originally moved. Ordinary rules of debate tell me that it is a departure from the substantive motion as originally moved and therefore would be out of order. I ask, Mr Speaker, if you could rule on that, apart from the question of leave, because quite frankly this has been brought on at the last moment, when the issue had been canvassed before. There was no consultation and I feel that it is a difficulty in the circumstances for a proper decision on whether leave should be granted or not to be reached.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—To give certainty about what we are looking at I will rule on that point—and this is an advisory ruling—and say that if leave were granted for this proposed amended motion I would see it as being in order. Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
M3C
Bandt, Adam, MP
Mr BANDT
—I move the motion relating to same-sex marriage in the terms in which it appears on the
Notice Paper:
That this House:
-
notes that there is:
-
a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
-
widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
-
calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.
Love knows no boundaries. Love knows no limits. And love knows when it has found its partner. There have been many attempts through history to limit love. All have failed. As we move further into the 21st century, I am confident that attempts to limit love will fail again and that full marriage equality will become a reality. This motion before the parliament does not seek to overturn the Howard government’s change to the Marriage Act which sought to limit marriage to a few. My colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has a bill before parliament that, when passed, will amend the Marriage Act to enshrine the right for all Australians to marry regardless of their gender or sexuality. In time the Greens will move for that bill to be debated. But with this motion we seek to provide an opportunity for members of parliament, the media and, most importantly, the community to discuss the importance of marriage equality. The motion is not binding on members of parliament or the government. Its passage will not in itself legally endorse or ratify the right to marriage equality. Rather it will acknowledge the reality of community opinion in Australia, which has changed.
In moving this motion, the Greens want parliament to acknowledge that Australian public opinion is changing. We also want parliament to acknowledge that change is happening around the world. We want those who are still stuck in the old way of thinking to go out and engage with the people in their electorates to find out where they are now at. I welcome my colleagues who have chosen to participate in this debate today and I am encouraged by the fact that many more MPs would have spoken today if we had more time for speaking spots rather than the 10 we were able to allocate. I am also encouraged by the number of members of parliament, including ministers, who have indicated their support for marriage equality through the media. Some of them have raised the prospect of bringing forward their party conference to change policy. I am also encouraged by suggestions and support by various members for a friendship group that could progress these issues. This is all welcome. However, I would say that there is no need for such delay. If the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were willing to shift direction, we could change the law right now. It is especially disappointing that the Prime Minister and the government continue to hold on to 20th century thinking on matters of love when the community is so far ahead of them.
We know that the community has progressed. Recent polling shows that the majority of Australians support a move to full equality for marriage. When the Greens’ Marriage Equality Amendment Bill was considered by a Senate inquiry, over 25,000 submissions were received. We know that there are many small groups who are well organised and well resourced and that they will continue to speak out very loudly in favour of discrimination. But it is a mistake to think that, because they speak loudly, they speak for everyone. I would ask members concerned about those groups to have a look at today’s analysis of community attitudes appearing in the Fairfax press. What it suggests for those sitting in this House by virtue of a small margin is that the well-organised old-world lobby groups are not engaging the voters in your seats. Instead what you will find there, as Mark Davis writes, is that ‘perhaps the marginal seats are not as fussed by gay marriage as the politicians think’. That means the time is right to make this change.
There are now so many people wanting to marry but whose love the law says cannot be recognised, and there are their friends and family members. It is these people whom this debate is ultimately about—the many, many people who want to marry and cannot because their partner is of the same sex and the many, many people whose sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, grandmothers and grandfathers, friends and neighbours all know someone who wants to be married but cannot because of this archaic legal discrimination.
Today the online campaigning group GetUp! asked couples to submit their photos and their stories of why they want to be married. Tony Bannister wrote:
The attached photo is of my beautiful partner Paul Walters & I. We have been together as a couple for over 13 years. We are committed to each other, our families and our friends. We have busy, successful careers, have a number of properties which we co-jointly own and we live our lives, just like most other ‘married’ couples in harmony with each other in a caring and loving way.
What we don’t have is a recognition of our partnership in terms of legally or equality. Not only is this discriminating as to what this means to ours and others relationships but I strongly believe that this is at the root of discrimination in terms of educating our children that same sex partnership, marriage and unions are just as equal, loving and right as our parents and friends. Anyone we are connected to, from parents to friends to work colleagues, can see that what we have is no different from what they have yet agree that we should have the same rights and protections. Until this happens we are living in a world of ignorance and intolerance.
That is an important point. When one considers what the arguments against same-sex marriage are, it can only devolve to the basic proposition that there are two groups of people in Australia, one of which deserves more rights than others. When you have a young boy in a country town who is struggling with his sexuality, or a girl in a city school, for us in this parliament to be sending the message that there are two classes of people is completely unjustifiable and will not promote full equality in our community. The examples on the GetUp! website are just a few of the thousands of Australians who want to be married but are barred by the Howard government ban.
There have been times throughout history when the civil rights of the group of people have been violated, often with legal sanction. Many of those struggles continue. The struggle to end discrimination and for full equality for LGBTI people did not begin with marriage equality and it will not end when it is achieved, but it is an important turning point for that struggle. There is a famous aphorism ‘Love conquers all’. As I said in my opening remarks, love is a powerful force and it is a powerful force for good. It is the power of love that has brought us to this moment in the debate over marriage equality, and it is the power of love that will force this parliament and this country to face the reality of what marriage and love mean in the 21st century.
I know that some people have said that they do not need a motion to go and engage with their constituents and get their views. But what this motion does is ask members of this place to recognise that community attitudes have moved on. It is a call from those of us who believe in full equality to the rest of the members of this place to go and talk to the people in their communities and find out that their attitudes have changed. I commend this motion to the House. I know that this motion will not be the last step in the struggle for equality. This motion will not bind members to do certain things; this motion will not result in a change in the law. What it will do is take another important step in the struggle for what some senators and members on the government benches have acknowledged is inevitable law reform in this country. I comment this motion.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Is the motion seconded?
C2T
Wilkie, Andrew, MP
Mr Wilkie
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
2289
20:30:00
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
0
0
Mr RUDDOCK
—The motion that we have before us needs to be read with the remarks of the honourable member. It is quite clear that the honourable member is seeking support for fundamental change to the law of Australia in relation to marriage. The opposition has a clear position on that question, and that is that it believes that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that the opposition does not support any change to Commonwealth law that would diminish the institution of marriage and will continue to oppose any action that would alter that status.
Having said that, let me make it clear that over a period of time there has been consideration of this issue. There was consideration by the High Court of Australia. It looked at the question as to what we mean when we refer to marriage. The court opined—and I notice that people pay great respect to the views of our court—that marriage is between a man and a woman. In fact, in May 2004 when I was Attorney-General I introduced the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill to prevent any possible further court rulings allowing same-sex marriages. The law was amended accordingly and it put beyond doubt the definition: marriage is a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.
There have been other times when the matter has been the subject of discussion. The states have recognised that you can establish a basis for civil unions for same-sex couples in which there is a recognition of the union between people that is very similar to the union that many others make—that is, a de facto relationship, which does not involve a marriage but which does carry certain rights and responsibilities. A de facto relationship would to all intents and purposes be for a same-sex couple very similar in its genesis in terms of the rights and responsibilities.
I have often been asked why it is that there is so much emphasis upon a union being between a man and a woman. It is seen that marriage has been ordained over a long period of time as a basis for ensuring that a union that can give rise to the procreation of children is the subject of some regularity and order, particularly when the ongoing care of those children becomes relevant when there might be differences of view as to whether or not the relationship should continue. It is in that context that we have law dealing with marriage break-up and law which primarily has as its focus the issue of how children are dealt with.
There has been a view over a long period of time in this country that in relation to children, while it cannot always be the case—for example, if there has been a death or other similar circumstance—that it is desirable that children have the role model of both a father and a mother available to them and influencing their upbringing and that is the preferable model for this country. It is self-evident that same-sex couples are unlikely to have children other than by the adoption of a child of one of those people in the union by another party or, if adoption to a same-sex couple over a man and a woman was permitted, which would generally would be seen as being less desirable in the context of the law dealing with adoption, where there are so few children available. I make the point that there are arguments that have carried a great deal of weight over a period of time that marriage should be for a man and a woman only and it not be available to same-sex couples. But it should not be seen that the arguments that I put mean that I believe that there should be overt discrimination against same-sex couples.
In fact, I have overseen a great deal of the work that gave rise to the development of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Act 2008. A lot of that work was done initially under the Howard government when the Law Reform Commission was looking at these matters. The Howard government wanted to see how we could progress the elimination of all those forms of discrimination which had been in place over a long period of time. I ought to make it clear that I supported very strongly the relevant legislation that brought about those changes in 2008. It brought them about in a number of areas: taxation; superannuation; defined superannuation benefits; social security and family assistance; the PBS safety net and the Medicare safety net; aged care arrangements; child support, where that was relevant; citizenship and veterans’ affairs. Even in relation to immigration, I played a very early role in supporting measures that enabled same-sex partners to be reunited in Australia in circumstances where one partner was a resident and the other was not in Australia.
Those changes, while they were not recognised on the basis of marriage or a de facto relationship, were like for same-sex couples as for the others. So I make the point that this is not a suggestion that we should have discrimination against same-sex couples in the wide range of other areas. I thought it was important that we were able to reform private-sector superannuation arrangements to ensure that same-sex couples could receive reversionary benefits. Similarly, I thought that for defined superannuation benefits, death benefits should be able to be conferred on same-sex partners. I think it was appropriate in the public sector. The best known case was that of Justice Michael Kirby. Changes were made so that his partner was able to benefit from the judges’ pension arrangements.
Equally, in relation to social security and family assistance, reforms were initiated that ensured that same-sex couples were recognised as couples and consequently would receive benefits on the same basis that opposite-sex couples, as the explanatory memorandum referred to them, received them. Likewise, the PBS safety net and the Medicare safety net arrangements, whereby same-sex couples previously could not access Medicare or pharmaceutical benefits as a family, were amended.
So I want to put beyond doubt that this is a measure that, if opposed, accommodates a view that people are opposed to same-sex couples being able to access benefits and other programs in the same way as married or de facto couples do. This is a very narrow issue that relates to the way marriage is defined. It is not designed to stop those who are described as being in love from being in a de facto relationship in the same way as other de facto couples are. All it does is recognise that marriage has always been seen to be different and that that basis ought to be kept, primarily because marriage deals with issues that arise when children can possibly be conceived.
(Time expired)
2291
20:41:00
Jones, Stephen, MP
A9B
Throsby
ALP
1
0
Mr STEPHEN JONES
—I rise to move the following amendment to Mr Bandt’s motion on same-sex marriage:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.
I wish to make a few observations about the amendment. The first observation is that I do not pretend to be an early activist on this issue. When I think about the issues that I campaigned on this year, they were about dealing with youth unemployment, which stands at around 14 per cent in my area, reforming our economy to make it more sustainable and preserving our planet for future generations. It was about improving infrastructure and access to health and education services. Now, having focused on the issue and having applied the core Labor values of equality, fairness and dignity, I believe that there is a case for change. Indeed, it was these values that led Labor, in its first term, to conduct an exhaustive review of all Commonwealth laws to identify and remove all areas of discrimination against same-sex couples. In the last parliament the Labor government amended 86 separate pieces of legislation to this end.
The second observation is that if change is to occur it must be built on community consensus. If legislation is to be changed it will require consensus, which will require more votes than any single party can muster in this chamber. That will not be achieved by a heroic dash but by careful advocacy that respects different views, respectfully. On this issue there are different views. There are some who, on theological grounds, believe that to celebrate marriage of two men or two women is an affront to their religion. I have thought carefully about this objection, and I cannot help but draw the conclusion that the real objection here is not to the marriage but to the relationship.
We can be thankful that we live in a society in which those who hold this view are as free to hold it as I am to say, respectfully, that I do not agree. We on the Labor side are opposed to discrimination. This opposition is grounded in the value of fairness and equity, and we are opposed to treating people differently because of gender, race, religion or sexual preference.
There are others who argue that same-sex marriage is an affront to tradition. I have more sympathy for this argument because I am a great believer in the importance of tradition. It is often the stuff that binds us together, but it can also be the stuff that excludes and impedes genuine progress. We in this place must be very careful of mindless genuflection to tradition, because traditions change over time. There have been many matrimonial traditions which we now think of as absurd, if not abhorrent. Betrothal, dowry and a wife’s matrimonial vow of obedience to husband come to mind as examples.
The third observation I would make is that marriage is an important institution in our society. It is a special relationship where two people say to each other and to the rest of the world that they agree to be bound together in love, exclusive of all others, for life. I believe it would diminish us all as a society if we were to say that we may exclude gay and lesbian couples from this celebration. That marks them as somehow less worthy or even as biological oddities. I respect the right of religious organisations and others in our community to disagree with this view and to continue to practise in accordance with their beliefs. Indeed, no motion or act of this place can of itself change those beliefs. But it is an entirely different thing to ask of the state to enforce it.
Finally, I come to this place as a representative of my party and my electorate. I will advocate for change, but I will do that in my electorate and in accordance with the rules and processes of my party in this parliament.
(Time expired)
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Is the amendment seconded?
00AMP
Grierson, Sharon, MP
Ms Grierson
—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
2292
20:46:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
0
0
Mr BILLSON
—Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the debate tonight on the member for Melbourne’s private member’s motion. It originally sought to convey some current information about international trends and domestic opinions about same-sex marriage and it urges members to engage with constituents about community views. Email traffic that I have received, though, has interpreted the member’s motion as being more about moving forward with equal recognition for all couples and a call for marriage equality. Others included one sent to me and presented as being from the webeditor@greensmps.org.au and actually coming from me, which I found quite amusing. I got an email from myself, which I did not write, that claimed that this motion was a ‘dangerous proposal’ which would undermine society.
Clearly, what the motion says—and the manoeuvres on the amendments tonight are one thing—and what many people believe it is actually about vary greatly. Tonight the motion has been varied on the floor, and we are now discussing a different subject. But with the vast majority of the communications I have had on this motion being about the broader topic of same-sex marriage, this is where I will focus my remarks.
As I have previously stated, I do not support the definition of marriage being altered to include same-sex couples. I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and I do not support any change to Commonwealth law that could diminish the institution. I would be supportive of a national register of civil unions and relationships that clearly captures and conveys the dignified and honoured status of a committed and durable relationship between two adults that can be witnessed by family, friends and a broader community. Countries with civil unions and registered partnership legislation include Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and at least 10 states in the United States. This of course is an avenue open to Australia, and I urge its examination.
I encourage an examination of civil unions and registered partnerships as a pathway that would afford an opportunity for special and dignified status and state sanctioned honour in a manner that I believe would engender public support and confidence. In my view public support and confidence matters. As public attitudes evolve, support for the continuing evolution and nurturing of this public view is important if moves are to be supported by the public. A celebration or a public commitment in the form of a marriage is one form of expression of the form, character, quality and durability of a relationship. It is no impediment to having other relationships that are part of a public commitment and celebrated in another form, with another character, another quality and other durability.
But the important thing is that if we are to move forward with this recognition we cannot do so by diminishing the sense of right and designation that people who have married have chosen for themselves. It is quite ironic that this charge for rights is being pursued by diminishing the rights of those who have chosen to designate their relationship a traditional marriage. I do not understand that logic. People who have entered into a marriage as it is defined and recognised under the law, whether it be by way of tradition, custom, conservatism or religious orientation, have done so consciously, knowing that that is the designation they have sought, that that will be the designation they will secure and that the nature of the relationship they have entered into will be recognised as such by the broader community. We should not seek to remove that from people who have chosen that pathway and have operated within the current definition of marriage, which I agree with. What we should aim to do is offer another pathway, one that is a public commitment also, a celebration, an expression of the form, character, quality and durability of a same-sex relationship. But it does not need to appropriate the definition and the title of ‘marriage’. Let us call it something else. Let us grant the desire for recognition that some want.
In conversations with my friends and the local community, the gay community are not as one on this voice. Many convey to me a belief in the importance and the quality of the relationship, not the title or the moniker that it attracts. Those in a traditional marriage hold fast to that distinction because that is a definition they chose for themselves. A pathway forward should be able to accommodate both.
(Time expired)
2293
20:51:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
1
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I rise to speak on the private member’s motion put forward by the member for Melbourne and to support the amendment by the member for Throsby that ‘this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same-sex couples including marriage’. I personally welcome the specific inclusion of marriage in the amendment. That is where the debate is in our communities.
I want to speak on this motion for several reasons: first, to demonstrate that this is a mainstream issue which affects many people who live in my electorate and in every electorate across Australia. This is not an issue confined to same-sex couples or to any particular lifestyle or to any particular place of residence. This is an issue that goes to the core of the human experience: the need to be loved and to love and the need some people feel to have that bond formally recognised in a union called marriage. Although it is my personal view that marriage as a legal construct has some serious limitations, I understand that to many people it is an important milestone in their quest to form a partnership in life based on lasting love and commitment.
Second, it requires no elaboration other than to say that, amongst my wider family, friends, colleagues and community and within organisations that I deal with every day as an MP, there are many people in same-sex relationships who would like the right to marry. They would want me to put forward their view and oppose discrimination against them on the basis of their sexual preference and the nature of their relationships. I am pleased to do that tonight.
Third, as a heterosexual mother of two heterosexual daughters, I do not come to this debate because of any intimate experience. But I am a mother and I empathise with the mother who emailed me to say that she has two young adult children, one who is married to the person they love and the other who cannot marry the person they love because they are of the same sex. There was a certain poignancy and regret expressed that I would think all mothers and fathers can understand. We hope our children find a special partner in their lives to love and support them as we as parents loved and supported them before they gained their independence. To loving parents, the gender nature of that relationship is secondary, as it should be. And as parents we hope that our children will be able to celebrate that special relationship with their family and friends. For many, the most important part of that celebration is marriage.
Although the Constitution extends to us here the power to legislate on marriage and divorce, the first Marriage Bill introduced into the Commonwealth parliament in 1960 and reintroduced in 1961 did not define who could marry but made bigamy an offence. An attempt at the time to amend the legislation to define marriage as ‘a voluntary union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others’ was defeated 40 votes to eight—a more enlightened time, perhaps.
But in 2004 the Howard government introduced two bills which defined marriage as between a man and a woman and clarified that same-sex marriages entered into under the law of another country would not be recognised under Australian law. The then opposition, of which I was a member, supported those changes without division. As is the procedure within the Australian Labor Party, I spoke against that position in caucus but was bound by the caucus decision, based on ALP policy. Within the ALP we continue to apply that collective approach, but similarly I will continue to speak out to eliminate discrimination in all its forms.
Tonight’s motion is not to change the Marriage Act and it is not a debate to support or oppose same-sex marriage, but it supports honest dialogue in our communities and in our electorates about same-sex marriage, just like the debate that already is occurring. The recent
Australian Story
program
Mum’s the Word
provoked much debate; the churches are having this same debate; and our community are considering this issue as they confront the reality for their family members, friends and work mates. That is a good thing. To the many, many people—hundreds—from my electorate who have emailed me on this issue: thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. That is a good thing too.
I also speak tonight as a member of the Australian Labor Party, a party that historically has brought about equality of opportunity in this country. Labor governments championed opportunity for all and led the way in bringing about fairness and dignity in the workplace. Labor governments delivered strong economic and social reforms to deliver better standards of living in this nation. And it was a Labor government in 2008 that removed discrimination against same-sex couples in 100 Commonwealth laws. That was a phenomenal achievement, one which was overdue and had wide community support. But for same-sex couples the Marriage Act remains the last hurdle in granting them equal rights. So I encourage continued debate within the ALP and within our communities and I personally hope that honest dialogue free from prejudice and intolerance will lead to same-sex marriage being recognised in this country and legislated in this parliament.
(Time expired)
2295
20:56:00
Entsch, Warren, MP
7K6
Leichhardt
LP
0
0
Mr ENTSCH
—I am very well documented as an advocate for gay rights and the right to equality and I continue to support the cause wholeheartedly. I have many gay friends who have been adversely impacted upon by discrimination in our communities, and I believe that equality should not be determined by one’s sexuality under any circumstance. I am aware that there is a growing list of countries allowing same-sex couples to marry, and I agree that we need to gauge constituents’ views on the subject of gay marriage. While I support gays and lesbians in having their relationships recognised, I think there are much bigger issues at play that need to be dealt with as a matter of priority.
Just some of the issues that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are facing through federal government discrimination include where some individuals are unable to access the necessary Medicare rebate codes required to provide medical treatment because of the way the government sees their sex. For example, they may have legally changed their sex, in the case of a transgender person, or they may be legally recognised as a male but have physical attributes usually associated with a female, in the case of intersex people. In both cases, where Medicare provides rebates for only men or only women, sex and gender diverse people get caught up in the middle of the red tape. Government departments have refused to recognise that while you were born a man you now live the life of a woman, due to various legal and financial hurdles involved in meeting government requirements. In these cases government communication often still contains the prefix ‘Mr’ rather than ‘Mrs’ or ‘Miss’. For a transgender woman living in a rural town, this can cause enormous mental anguish as your neighbours find out about your past.
There are a range of other issues that face older gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in Australia. Many older people in this community currently accessing aged-care services have lived a lifetime of discrimination and they continue to remain in the closet in aged care, fearful of discrimination, and are therefore largely invisible in the aged-care sector. Because aged-care services have largely not recognised gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender clients, they are forced to return to their closet in old age in the fear of receiving lesser treatment by their aged-care service providers. The transfer of responsibility for aged care from states to the federal government as part of the health and hospitals reform provides a unique opportunity for the federal government to address this issue and ensure that culturally appropriate aged-care services cater for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender older Australians.
The definition of de facto spouse within the Sex Discrimination Act is the last remaining definition in federal legislation where there is a distinction between heterosexual de facto couples and same-sex couples. During the 2010 federal campaign it was the Liberal Party that was committed to protecting same-sex couples from discrimination by introducing protections on the grounds of relationship status. The change to include same-sex couples in the Sex Discrimination Act is a minor technical amendment that would bring the Sex Discrimination Act into line with the 2008 reforms passed by the parliament that enjoyed absolute bipartisan support. I might add it was a campaign that I initiated back in 2004 and during the next three years was able to convince both sides of parliament of the value of being able to proceed with the removal of this discrimination. The impact, however, of this amendment would ensure that the benchmark was set across Australia that same-sex de facto couples could not be discriminated against.
Another area that also needs to be addressed is that identified by ACON’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy that same-sex attracted young couples are at significantly higher risk of self-harm and suicidal behaviours, with many factors influencing behaviour. It is important that we deal with that. My point is that we are a long way from correcting much of the urgent issues facing this community before we tackle the recognition of gay unions. We need to get our priorities right. I am very keen to establish a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender parliamentary friendship group where gays and lesbians can have direct access to MPs to discuss issues of direct concern to them. This will help us to bring these issues out into the open and I believe it is an essential step in moving forward to greater equality. I am in the process now of establishing that as a cross-party parliamentary friendship group and I encourage all members to participate in that friendship group. It is a wonderful way of being able to get a greater understanding of these members of our community.
(Time expired)
2296
21:02:00
Wilkie, Andrew, MP
C2T
Denison
IND
0
0
Mr WILKIE
—I am very pleased to support the motion of the member for Melbourne calling on members to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality in Australia. My support for marriage equality is well known. However, for me, this important issue is not just to do with same-sex marriage. It is about equality: that everyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual preference or religion be treated the same under Australian law. In essence, I believe passionately that all people are equal and should be treated as such. The fact is that in Australia, if you are a man and a woman and not married to anyone else, you can go and get married, but if you are a man and a man you cannot. The same situation applies if you are a woman wanting to marry a woman. In other words, the law is not treating people equally. It is legislated discrimination that treats some lovers as second-class citizens simply because of the people they want to marry. And that is not fair.
Australia’s history has other examples of legislated discrimination. For instance, if you were living in Australia a little more than 100 years ago and you were a woman, you simply could not vote. It was less than 50 years ago that, if you were a woman working in the Public Service in Australia, when you got married you also signed up for unemployment and had to hand in your notice. Fast forward to 2010, with a woman as Governor-General and another as our first female Prime Minister, and these laws look archaic and unjust. A politician foolish enough to propose we ban women from voting, or demand that they quit work simply because they got married, would be derided and ridiculed as out of touch and sexist.
I note the government is still working to reduce most remaining areas of discrimination—for example, with a paid parental scheme to help reduce active discrimination against women in the workplace. It is also encouraging to see that the government is now taking the recognition of Indigenous rights to the next level, recently proposing a referendum to enable formal recognition in the Constitution. Yet here we are in 2010 when two out of three Australians are in favour of marriage equality but still we are discussing whether or not we should even canvass the issue of marriage equality. Remember that this motion is only to do with having a discussion in the community about marriage equality. It is not a motion to remove the discrimination in the law that states marriage must be between a man and a woman. Surely Australia, a nation that prides itself on giving everyone a fair go, is mature enough to have this discussion. Indeed, it is a discussion many of us have already had sitting around a dinner table, having a natter at a barbecue or on a Friday night over a drink.
It is beyond time that we as politicians listened to that discussion rather than bury our heads in the sand and leave it for our successors to sort out the mess—a tactic I am sure more than some members in this place would prefer. But to those members I say that events have overtaken you, the conversation has already begun and it is time we all joined in. If this motion fails to win support, I believe the parliament, already out of step with the community on this issue, will risk losing touch even more with the people it is supposed to represent—people who, according to the recent Galaxy poll, are two-thirds in favour of same-sex marriage. In other words, the majority of the Australian community is ready for a conscience vote on marriage equality, so let us at least agree to go so far as having a public discussion about the issue.
In closing, I need to remind members that this is not a debate about religion and who can get married in a church. Churches are private institutions and obviously it must remain up to them who they marry. All we are talking about here is the need for members to facilitate a discussion in their electorates about marriage equality. Doing so will reflect, I am sure, not only the breadth and strength of views in the community concerning marriage equality but also the fact that the majority of Australians favour marriage equality.
2297
21:06:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—It was 40 years ago this year that my father-in-law, the Hon. Tom Hughes QC, as Attorney-General, spoke to the Australian Council of Social Service on the subject of homosexual law reform. This was an age when a homosexual act was illegal. Homosexual men who engaged in homosexual activities were at risk of prosecution and imprisonment. It seems like a completely different world, but it was only 40 years ago. Tom Hughes said in that speech:
It is one thing to disapprove on moral grounds of homosexual connection in a private place between consenting adults. It is another thing to permit such disapproval to drive one to the conclusion that conduct of that description should be classified as criminal. In a pluralist society it is no part of the function of the law to uphold and preserve the Judaeo-Christian ethic simply because that ethic exists.
Tom Hughes was widely criticised at the time by many people across the board, but in the years that followed he was not the only member of the coalition to speak out in defence of equal rights for homosexual people. Shortly after his speech, the Liberal and Country League member Murray Hill introduced a private member’s bill into the South Australian legislative council to decriminalise homosexuality, and that occurred in 1975. In 1973 the former Liberal Prime Minister John Gorton sponsored a motion here in the federal parliament supporting homosexual law reform. That was passed by the House of Representatives, decriminalising homosexual acts in the territories.
As the former Attorney-General, the member for Berowra, noted earlier in this debate, in 2004 the Howard government made changes to superannuation law that introduced the concept of interdependency, giving same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. And in 2007 I announced on behalf of the government that death benefits would be extended to same-sex couples under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. So our side of politics has long supported a reasoned debate on this very important issue and has supported changes to the law in line with changes to community attitudes. We strongly supported the HREOC reforms that were passed by this parliament in 2008, and they were a watershed in terms of rights for same-sex couples, because they fairly comprehensively eliminated discrimination under federal law. The member for Leichhardt has quite fairly described some other matters of continuing discrimination and they should undoubtedly be addressed. His call for a friendship group for LGBTI issues and citizens is a very good one and I certainly join with him in encouraging honourable members to support that group.
I have for many years taken the view that, while advocating strongly for equal rights and the elimination of all discrimination for same-sex couples, nonetheless marriage is a permanent union between a man and a woman. That is the traditional view. The argument is put that tradition is not in and of itself a justification for discrimination, because plainly there are many traditions, particularly in the area of the rights of men and women, that have long passed quite rightly into history. It was not so long ago, as I have discussed, that homosexual acts were criminal in and of themselves. To go back a little further, to the 19th century, married women were not allowed to inherit property. So there have been many changes. I believe it is important for us always to remain in touch with our constituents on this issue, to be aware of changing attitudes, to recognise changes in our community and, at the same time as we support equal rights for all Australians, to listen carefully to our constituents. Having said that, this motion is, in the words of my father-in-law, with whom I began these remarks, ‘a penetrating glimpse of the obvious’. A motion calling on members of parliament to talk to their constituents is no more than asking us to do our jobs, and we do not need a motion to do that.
(Time expired)
2298
21:11:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—Like many in this place, I have relatives and numerous friends in same-sex relationships. Families come in many shapes and sizes, and love between consenting adults is to be cherished and honoured. I have always believed that we should end discrimination against same-sex couples. I have always taken the view in internal ALP fora that we need to end the egregious and outrageous discrimination in relation to taxation, social security, health, aged care, family law and employment. I do not believe that there is a community consensus on this issue of same-sex marriage and I do not believe many in our community are ready for same-sex marriage, for personal, religious, philosophical and traditional reasons. I was pleased when the previous Labor opposition adopted the attitude it did in relation to the amendments to the Marriage Act and supported the position that we took at the national conference in relation to marriage being between a man and a woman. That is based on the classic Hyde definition of the 19th century, which Justice Brennan of the High Court adopted and recognised in the case of the Queen v L. It is the position adopted in the Family Law Act as well.
That said, it took a Labor government, of which I am proud to be a member, to end more than 100 instances of discrimination against same-sex couples in federal law. It took a Labor government to go beyond the 58 instances which were identified in the June 2007 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s report
Same-sex: same entitlements. When it came to power, Labor identified more than 100 statutes and provisions which discriminated by using the term ‘member of the opposite sex’ in legislation relating to aged care, superannuation, child care, Medicare—including PBS—pensions et cetera. These are all basics that opposite gender couples are legally entitled to and take for granted. It was a Labor government which ended this outrageous and egregious discrimination against same-sex couples.
The federal Labor government does support a nationally consistent framework for relationship recognition to be implemented by the states and territories—again, a position adopted at the national conference of the ALP. Victoria, the ACT, New South Wales and Tasmania have established relationship recognition schemes, and relationships recognised under these schemes are now recognised in a wide range of Commonwealth laws. The federal Labor government will continue to encourage the states and territories to do this. We support also—and we took this to the last election—enactment of legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation or gender status and the removal of such discrimination from Commonwealth legislation. During the election, the Gillard Labor government confirmed it would be introducing legislation to protect against discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation or gender status as part of its review in consolidation of federal antidiscrimination laws into a single act. We will of course undertake consultation in relation to these matters with stakeholders on the proposed single antidiscrimination law.
I commend Attorney-General Robert McClelland, who carried a community consensus in relation to so many areas. These issues of discrimination persisted for a long time in areas of child support, family law, employment and taxation, making sure that same-sex couples felt less part of the Australian community. These forms of discrimination were done away with, making very clear that rights were being extended, including joint social security and veterans entitlements, child support, employment entitlements, superannuation, workers compensation, inheritance rights and the ability to file a joint tax return to gain the same tax rebates as married couples. These were important Labor reforms because it is Labor which has had a long history of ending discrimination. It took the election of a Labor government to do this. The coalition had not the wisdom nor the determination to end this discrimination against same-sex couples. I commend the member for Throsby’s amendment and commit myself to making sure that the gay and lesbian community in my electorate feel part of the electorate of Blair and that they always feel loved, cherished and honoured.
2299
21:17:00
Gambaro, Teresa, MP
9K6
Brisbane
LP
0
0
Ms GAMBARO
—I rise to speak on the motion from the member for Melbourne. The Liberal Party has had an unparalleled legacy of firsts in the recognition of female and Indigenous political representation and in real and practical outcomes that have focused on fairness and the merit of the individual. I want to comment on the words of the member for Blair on this subject and acknowledge the fantastic work that the member for Leichhardt did in 2004 to ensure that there were equal rights across a number of areas of federal legislation. We have also had a support base that respects our tradition of avoiding fleeting trends and pointless populism. As the Liberal Party, we pride ourselves on providing a genuine balance between liberal progression and conservative stability and we must bring such considerations to this important debate.
There is a very strong argument that legal rights and social acceptance of gays and lesbians must continue to progress. Same-sex couples rightfully demand the practical benefits and social respect that heterosexual couples enjoy and I believe that the majority of Australians generally support equal rights for same-sex couples. I believe that those in my electorate of Brisbane would demand that such equal rights are adhered to. And I support the views in the community in relation to any proposed changes to the specific definition of marriage.
There is some genuine division of opinion in the wider community. I have spoken with people of all ages and backgrounds and it is really important to note that there is even disagreement within the gay and wider community as to the best way forward. Our older generation have seen and lived through unprecedented change, and I would imagine many of them are appalled by what they perceive as disrespect for the traditions that have served them so well. They have seen great achievement and prosperity from the stable family traditions that they have known and respected. As such, there is an argument for giving serious consideration to the issue before we engage change in important traditions. If the argument is about preserving the historic designation of marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman then let us ensure that we fully consider the fact that we may be terminating a well-respected and definitive institution.
There are a whole range of issues that many speakers before me have canvassed, and they are equally important to the LGBT community, who often do not receive the same level of acknowledgement by members in this place or the media. Some of those issues are: the fear of discrimination by aged-care providers; access to sex-specific Medicare rebates for transgender or intersex people who may not have been recognised as that sex by Medicare—for example, prostate cancer for post-operative transgender women; and the inclusion of same-sex de facto relationships within marital or relationship status protection in federal antidiscrimination laws. There are already precedents internationally that suggest that same-sex civil unions are not equally recognised—for example, in the UK, where insurers have been found to charge higher premiums for same-sex civil union partners because such partners are only recognised as singles for insurance purposes.
There are many considerations in this important debate but fundamentally we must adhere to the philosophy of a fair go for all. It is in our national ethos, it is right, it is true and it is relevant to these considerations. But we must also respect our traditions and respect those who hold them dear. There are many considerations and I believe that they would coincide with the thoughts of the wider Brisbane community.
I have received many emails and phone calls from people from the Brisbane electorate regarding this motion. There are many differing opinions on this matter. I have heard directly from gays that there is even difference of opinion in the gay community for and against this issue, just as there are a range of opinions from heterosexuals. I have heard from straight people who have entered into civil unions who are quite content with the public affirmation that they have received from a civil union.
This motion specifically asks us to consult our constituents. I am happy to consult the people of Brisbane, as I have always been happy to consult my constituents and canvass their views on this issue.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—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. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
World Diabetes Day
2300
2300
21:21:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I move:
That this House:
-
notes that:
-
14 November 2010 is United Nations World Diabetes Day, with this year’s theme being diabetes education and prevention;
-
the symbol for World Diabetes Day is a blue ring which symbolises:
-
life;
-
health;
-
the sky that connects all nations; and
-
the unity of the global diabetes community in response to the diabetes pandemic; and
-
diabetes is Australia’s fastest growing chronic disease with up to 3.3 million people estimated to have diabetes or pre-diabetes, and one person in Australia diagnosed every seven minutes;
-
recognises that:
-
diabetes is a complex and chronic disease which affects the entire body and often lasts a lifetime;
-
Type 2 Diabetes is the most common form of diabetes accounting for 85-90 per cent of all cases and costs the economy up to $3 billion dollars every year;
-
a person with Type 2 Diabetes and no complications costs the community $9625 a year and a person with Type 2 Diabetes who has complications costs the community $15 850 per year; and
-
there is currently no cure for diabetes, but up to 60 per cent of cases of Type 2 Diabetes are preventable; and
-
supports:
-
diabetes awareness and education campaigns;
-
healthy lifestyles and other preventative measures; and
-
research for a cure.
I thank the House for the opportunity to bring this important event to the attention of the House and to seek its support, which I am sure everyone will give, for diabetes education, prevention and research. I would also like to acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues who are here to speak on the motion, but, unfortunately, I think time will not allow for that. They are the member for Pearce, who has a long history of being involved in the Parliamentary Friendship Group, the member for Shortland and the member for Riverina.
World Diabetes Day is held every year on 14 November to raise awareness about diabetes globally, with this year’s theme being diabetes prevention and education. More than 250 million people worldwide have diabetes, including 3.3 million in Australia who are estimated to have diabetes or pre-diabetes. In Australia, diabetes is also the fastest growing chronic disease, with one person diagnosed every seven minutes. The symbol for World Diabetes Day is a blue ring, which symbolises life, health, the sky that unites all nations, and the unity of the global diabetes community in responding to the global pandemic. Over the weekend, as World Diabetes Day took place all around the world, buildings were lit in blue as part of the day’s Monument Challenge, which helps to raise awareness for the cause. Ten significant buildings in Australia took part, including Old Parliament House, the National Library, the National Gallery and Black Mountain Tower as well as the Adelaide Entertainment Centre in my home state of South Australia.
I know that many members of this place have been active in their local communities in supporting diabetes education and research, including many of us who take part each year in the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation’s Walk to Cure Diabetes. I had the honour of officially opening this year’s JDRF Walk to Cure in my electorate at Glenelg. There I met with many of the constituents who I have gotten to know over the years who have diabetes themselves or who have a family member with the illness. The event was a six-kilometre walk from Wigley Reserve at Glenelg along the beachfront to Somerton Surf Life Saving Club and return. It was interesting whilst we were walking to see young children, some as young as four years old, stopping along the way to prick their fingers to check their blood glucose levels while they were walking. If their sugar levels were low they would munch on a chocolate as others kept on walking. It was really interesting. It describes the illness and the constant approach that someone has to take to it. In particular, I would like to mention Emma Russell from my electorate. She is an inspiring young person who is a youth ambassador for JDRF and who came to Canberra this year for the annual Kids in the House function. I have had the privilege of meeting Emma as a youth ambassador on several occasions, both in my electorate and here at Parliament House. She is an excellent advocate for the importance of diabetes education.
Many people are unaware that diabetes is a very complex and chronic disease which affects the whole body and often lasts a person’s lifetime. It comes in two forms: type 1, which is not preventable and for which there is no known cause, and type 2, which is much more common and is preventable in around 60 per cent of cases. Type 1 diabetes, which accounts for about 10 per cent of cases, occurs when the pancreas stops making insulin, the hormone which helps convert glucose into energy. Without insulin the body burns fat instead of sugar and this process releases dangerous toxins into the blood. To avoid this, type 1 diabetics have to inject themselves with insulin, in some cases up to four or five times a day. Many people who have type 1 diabetes get it when they are young and it stays with them for life, which is why supporting research for a cure is so important.
I have a very personal connection to type 1 diabetes: my father has had it for over 45 years. He injects himself several times a day and often says that if he did not have it, he would be dead because he would not have had the wake-up call to change his diet and start exercising 45 years ago, and would probably have suffered from some other kind of disease as a result. So there are positives to it. He is 82 years old and his routine to keep himself fit and healthy is to walk every day for an hour and to ride his bicycle for up to 16 kilometres two to three times a week. He has been living with diabetes, and injecting himself, for 45 years. He is a living example of how someone who has the right education and support can lead a full and active life and not be held back by having type 1 diabetes.
Type 2 diabetes is somewhat different. It is much more common than type 1, accounting for up to 90 per cent of all cases in Australia. Type 2 diabetes is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, but there are strong links between being overweight and being at risk of type 2 diabetes. That means that simply maintaining a healthy weight and doing regular physical activity can go a long way to preventing the onset of type 2 diabetes in the first place. A simple check can tell you if you are overweight—having a waist circumference of more than 80cm for women or 94cm for men is an indicator. It is important to tackle the issue of type 2 diabetes because of the high social and economic cost on the community and the fact that, unlike type 1 diabetes, it is largely preventable.
Type 2 diabetes costs the Australian economy around $3 billion per year. That is an enormous price to pay in healthcare and productivity costs as well as time and care given by family members—and, of course, the person who suffers the most is the person with diabetes. In outright dollar figures, it has been estimated that a person with type 2 diabetes and no complications could cost taxpayers up to $9,625 every year, while a person with complications could cost in the vicinity of $15,850. These are startling statistics and highlight the real need for events like the one that took place on the weekend, World Diabetes Day, which raise awareness of the illness and of the need to do all we can to prevent diabetes through living a healthy lifestyle and, most importantly, trying to get the message out about why prevention and education is so important.
I know that many members of this place have been longstanding supporters of diabetes organisations, and I would particularly like to congratulate the Parliamentary Friendship Group for Diabetes, which has held several successful events in recent years to help raise awareness. As I said earlier, the members for Pearce, Shortland and Riverina, who were to speak on this motion, have been active. I thank all members for their actions and hope that we can all continue to play a role in this place in getting that very important message out and ensuring that we do all we can to support people with diabetes right around Australia into the future, whether that be by simply stocking educational material in our electorate offices or by participating in related events.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
2303
Adjournment
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Family Relationship Centres
2303
2303
21:30:00
Robb, Andrew, MP
FU4
Goldstein
LP
0
0
Mr ROBB
—Tonight I rise to speak about the slashing of nearly $50 million from the family counselling and dispute resolution services of family relationship centres. This is a Labor Party cut described by the masters of spin as a rebalancing. These huge cuts to reduce funding for family relationship services, flagged in the 2010 budget, are causing both anxiety and bewilderment in this critically important sector. The Attorney-General’s Department is looking to cut $48.4 million over three years across the sector—a reduction of about 12 per cent. These cuts will take effect next year and there is considerable uncertainty about how they will be applied.
This rebalancing of the system is to help fund increases to community legal centres, legal aid and family violence legal services. The Labor Party is looking after its Labor mates within the legal system to the great detriment of families at a time of enormous emotional distress. This represents a deliberate shift back to a heavier reliance on a very adversarial legal approach in the resolution of family disputes, which can be extremely costly, traumatic and drag on and on. It was a system that failed. It was the reason for the creation of the family relationship centres in the first place.
Thirty-six million
dollars will be cut from family relationship centres. This will see a dramatic reduction of three free hours of family dispute resolution to just one free hour. Those on an income of $50,000 per annum will be charged $30 per hour for the additional third and fourth hour. Cuts of $4.5 million over three years are also planned in the family counselling area, resulting from increased efficiencies. There is, however, no explanation for how the figure was arrived at and no detail about how the cuts will be applied. It is also unclear as to whether this measure will apply across all family relationship centres or will vary according to demographics.
The Attorney-General’s Department has also advised that funding for research and development will also be ceased. It makes little sense eroding funding for family support. Demand for family counselling is higher than it has ever been and shows no sign of declining. Anecdotally, waiting times are currently as long as eight weeks. Counselling and dispute resolution not only can help keep families together but also, in the event of separation, can result in amicable and workable postseparation arrangements. The alternative is a highly destructive, adversarial legal approach.
The case for early intervention for couples who have only recently separated and who are finding it difficult to agree on arrangements for children is compelling. Early support of a non-litigious nature reduces problems down the track, which is supported by the fact that Family Court filings have been on the decrease since the introduction of family relationship centres and the free dispute resolution. Research released early this year from the Frankston Family Relationship Centre found there has been a cultural shift in regard to families seeking help when separation occurs. The research also found that 67 per cent of parents reported that, with the support of the centre, they had achieved new ways of viewing their relationships with their children, families and former partners.
The Frankston centre is operated by a wonderful organisation in Family Life, based in Sandringham in my electorate. Family Life chief executive Jo Cavanagh is a leading thinker and doer in the family support field. She makes this very valid point: ‘We are not in a position to determine whether increases in funding to legal services is warranted or not, but it is a mistake to treat family separation as a legal problem rather than a social problem and return to an overreliance on legal responses to family disputes.’ While families should of course have access to legal services, that should not come at the expense of the highly successful family relationship centres, which have achieved so much success in such a short period of time. This decision by the government to transfer nearly $50 million of funding from family relationship centres to funding Labor lawyers is a highly cynical and retrograde step. It confirms that Labor has truly lost its way.
Building the Education Revolution Program
2304
2304
21:35:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—In the last two weeks I have had the privilege of attending four openings under Building the Education Revolution. One was at Walloon State School, whose principal is Michael Josey. $2.125 million went into a wonderful facility there—a new, upgraded library and a multipurpose hall. I said to the young people there at Walloon State School that it was a slam dunk for Walloon. They got a wonderful basketball court. Walloon, in the country part of my electorate, has never received that sort of assistance for community infrastructure. The facility is used by the local community, not just the P&C, for a range of activities. I commend also the band and the dancers who were there, who were all girls from the school, for their wonderful contribution that day. It is to be celebrated. The BER was celebrated that day recently.
It was celebrated at Grandchester State School as well. Amanda Hines is the principal there. They got $300,000 from the Building the Education Revolution, Primary Schools for the 21st Century and National School Pride for a new multipurpose shed, a covered outdoor learning area and playground equipment that is fantastic for the senior primary school aged young people. A good ceremony took place that day. Interestingly enough, it was also attended by the LNP member for Lockyer, Mr Ian Rickuss, who was there rejoicing in the BER. I wish some of his colleagues opposite would rejoice in the BER. It was great to see Mr Rickuss there supporting an initiative of the federal Labor government.
Also I was privileged to attend St Brigid’s Catholic Primary School in Rosewood. Veronica Lawson is the retiring principal. She is going off to another Catholic school, in Goodna. Veronica spent a number of years at St Brigid’s Catholic Primary School. They named the big multipurpose hall ‘Mercy Place’ after the retiring Sisters of Mercy who had made a contribution for decades after decades to the spiritual, material and community welfare of the people of Rosewood in the rural parts of Ipswich. It is a great school. St Brigid’s Catholic Church is a wonderful church, the biggest wooden church structure in the Southern Hemisphere. Father John is a fantastic priest there. I congratulate the school community for getting behind the BER. Interestingly enough, Boss Constructions told me that about 40 people worked on that project; they would not have had jobs but for the BER. It is great to celebrate that, but also there were other upgraded community and school facilities there at Rosewood and St Brigid’s.
Last weekend I also had the opportunity to do a mobile office at Riverlink, the biggest shopping centre in Ipswich, and people were coming up to me commending us for what we are doing with the BER. The day before, I attended Bundamba State School. Marlene Eltham is the principal and she has turned the school right around. Together with the Queensland Labor government’s State Schools of Tomorrow program and the BER, that school has been rebuilt. Academic achievement is up; NAPLAN scores are much better; there is barely a piece of paper as litter on the ground; there is great school pride; the kids wear their school uniform—that is what the State Schools of Tomorrow program has done, together with the Building the Education Revolution, in Bundamba.
The numbers at Bundamba have increased from 480 children to 558 in the last few months. That is an indication of faith in the school, faith in the school community and faith in the principal. A sum of $3.2 million has been put into that school—a new multipurpose hall, a new science laboratory, a new music building, together with new prep classes and covered areas. These have made a big difference to this school.
This is what the Building the Education Revolution is about: creating jobs, creating vital community infrastructure; giving kids in rural parts of my electorate and working class kids in the areas around Bundamba and the eastern suburbs every opportunity to achieve everything they want in life. I commend the Gillard Labor government for the Building the Education Revolution. It is making a practical difference to the lives of young people and in the communities and families around Ipswich, particularly with the retention and supporting of jobs in this very difficult time.
Bushfires
2305
2305
21:39:00
Schultz, Alby, MP
83Q
Hume
LP
0
0
Mr SCHULTZ
—After almost 10 years of drought it is nothing short of a blessing to see the countryside green and lush from recent consistently heavy rains. It is a fundamental law of nature that we are subject to the elements. The weather is neither something that we can control nor something that we can accurately predict—except if you are in the Greens Party, where they profess to be able to predict ‘change to the climate’ in weather in 20 or 100 years time. But it is the very unpredictability of Mother Nature that does not allow us to leave to chance or dumb-luck the protection of our homes, livelihood and families from the ferocious destruction bushfires can wreak upon communities across Australia.
February 7, 2009 will go down in history as one of, if not the, worst natural disaster that has ever occurred in Australia. The morning dawned with a forecast of temperatures in the 40-degree-plus vicinity, very low humidity and winds that had the potential of reaching speeds well in excess of 100 kilometres per hour. There is a stinging similarity in this weather forecast to those given on several occasions over the last 60 or so years. The bushfires of 1939, the 1965 Chatsbury and Bungonia fires that ravaged villages north of Goulburn, the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983, the Sydney bushfires and the 2003 Canberra firestorm all come to mind, just to mention a few.
After the tragedy of a major bushfire event, there is inevitably a time when those people who have suffered the loss of loved ones and the loss of property and personal possessions go through a long period of grieving to try to come to terms with how they will cope with their loss and how they will eventually recover and rebuild their lives.
I have had personal experience with assisting people who have been victims of such a major tragedy. This experience fuelled my passion to become involved in the inquiry into the 2003 Canberra firestorm and I was a member of the House of Representatives Select Committee tasked with conducting that inquiry. The committee was tasked to identify measures that could be implemented by governments, industry and the community to minimise the incidence of bushfires and their impact on life, property and the environment. The terms of reference adequately covered these serious fire protection issues.
The select committee’s report, entitled
A nation charred: report on the inquiry into bushfires, was tabled in October 2003. It contained 59 recommendations which identified areas for possible action by the Australian and state and territory governments, the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, the insurance industry, Standards Australia and the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authorities Council. It is of significant importance at this stage to reveal that, to my knowledge, not one of the 59 recommendations of this inquiry has been implemented and the committee’s report continues to lie on a shelf gathering dust.
Sadly, history has shown that large fires which occur on a day when temperatures are in the high 30s and mid 40s and high winds are in existence have devastating consequences where fuel loads are allowed to build up to dangerous levels beneath the tree canopy. Several key concerns were consistently raised in evidence from fire affected areas. Local knowledge was either ignored or discarded; fuel loads—leaf litter, et cetera—were extremely high; a decline of fuel reduction programs on public and private lands; inadequate access to national parks; slowness of response and lack of aggression by management responsible for fire suppression activities; mismanagement of fire suppression operations; and failures of radio communication systems and equipment.
It is no secret that strategically planned and effectively implemented fuel reduction by burning is the primary means of risk reduction and more importantly it is by far the most effective means of protecting people, infrastructure and biodiversity. It is also no secret that pressure put on governments of all levels by green politics and environmental activists has led to the nonimplementation of fuel hazard reduction in bushfire prone areas of Australia, resulting in outcomes of massive long-term destruction of flora and fauna and tragic loss of human life. Governments at all levels cannot allow the chorus of the environmental lobby to dictate our fuel reduction policy. The safety of fellow Australians and the protection of property, livestock and biodiversity are, I believe, more important than marginal seat politics.
Common sense says we must get back to the basics of bushfire prevention, and that is the introduction and continuation of strategically planned and effectively implemented fuel reduction burns controlled by local rural fire brigades. These people are the best qualified to recognise the potential areas of hazard in their local area as well as the protection of human life and preservation of our unique landscape. Their record for aggressively attacking fires with all the resources at their disposal and putting fires out quickly is nothing short of legendary.
Multiculturalism
2307
2307
21:45:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—Australia is a diverse country filled with many people from every part of the world of different traditions and faiths who have made their home here in Australia. This is a highly significant element of Australia and what it means to be Australian. This is why Australia is known as the multicultural country.
The term multiculturalism means ‘numerous cultures’. It promotes a way of thinking that accepts and embraces everyone, the many Australians who have come from different parts of the world. This includes respecting people’s choices and practices regarding their religion and their social customs, as long as they are within the law. It means that all cultures are respected and no one is more important than another.
Multiculturalism also emphasises that, while we accept and recognise cultural diversity, all citizens identify one common law, democratic government and nation as our own, and that is Australia. Australia has had many waves of migrants over the last couple of hundred years. From the very first settlers and convicts who were brought here, through to the gold rush and then after the Second World War, Australia started receiving a large number of immigrants from countries all over the world. Australia’s population continued to gain complexity and our society developed further depth, contrast and interest. Each wave of migrants made significant contributions to society and upheld Australian laws as they built their lives in this wonderful land of ours. Many migrants and their families, particularly those who did not speak English, struggled to gain access to basic services critically important to the development of their lives in Australia—education and health care.
The introduction of the term ‘multiculturalism’ led to migrant associations and advisory boards looking more specifically and more closely at the issues of Australians of different cultures and backgrounds, and particularly those who spoke different languages. Tremendous work was done. Not only was there acceptance that the maintenance of difference was evidently possible but it could also be desirable. It was a showcase and continues to be so around the world.
We have had a divergence from this path. Over a number of years in the past decade or more, we have witnessed a partial withdrawal from the embrace of multiculturalism. Firstly, we had the sentiment raised and promoted over a number of years that was typified by the speech made in this place with the infamous reference to ghettos. That was a fearful, narrow view. We then had the sentiment raised and promoted that was typified by events of 2001—disaster perpetrated by some people against others, and the subsequent promotion of fear within the Australian community through the smearing of, at that time, women and children from a far-off land.
Difference was tolerated but certainly not embraced and not even really accepted. We just had to put up with people who were not like us. Multiculturalism as an approach to life in Australia suffered tremendously, and the Australian population was starting to tear. Intolerance was even becoming patriotic—and we saw the Cronulla riots. This I would like never to see again. It is an approach and a mindset that is separatist, spurns synergy, is inward looking, consuming and self-defeating. We have been so much more. The need to educate our citizens to celebrate, not fear, cultural and linguistic differences is now stronger than ever before. The need to support newly arrived and established communities to grow and succeed and become part of this wonderful nation of Australia has never been greater.
Having represented the federal seat of Hindmarsh I have seen first-hand how the families of more than 41 different cultural groups in my electorate have directly contributed to the community and benefited from the opportunities brought to them through our multicultural society. It has assisted to make them part of our community. What we are talking about here is simply a fair go, a fair go without the imprisonment of linguistic isolation or the loss of your own sense of self in a confusing and vastly different land.
Difficulties remain. There is a willingness of some members of our community to think that they are most hard done by—that their pension, recently increased, is only a fraction of what new arrivals receive. Most members would have seen the dreadful emails we have all been receiving referring to Centrelink payments of close to $60,000 per year. Regrettably, statements of fact do not change some people’s opinions or beliefs.
(Time expired)
Dawson Electorate: North Mackay State High School
2308
2308
21:50:00
Christensen, George, MP
230485
Dawson
NATS
0
0
Mr CHRISTENSEN
—I rise tonight in the House of Representatives to recognise an outstanding group of students from North Mackay State High School in my electorate of Dawson. The students took part in the school’s Lest We Forget project 2010 Anzac Commemorative Tour. I recently had the pleasure of attending the presentation evening that recognised their achievements.
The work the students, staff and parents have undertaken in this project to remember the sacrifice of servicemen and servicewomen from Mackay and the district is commendable. The North Mackay High School’s Lest We Forget project is an Australian wartime commemorative project that first began in 1998. The project came to prominence throughout the country when the first overseas tour in 1999 was the subject of ABC TV’s
Australian Story
program. The school’s Lest We Forget project involves students researching service records and speaking to family members of fallen servicemen and women from the Mackay district. The Anzac 2010 Commemorative Tour gave students the opportunity to visit the graves of the fallen soldiers that they had researched. It also allowed the students to lay a wreath, recite the ode and observe a minute’s silence alongside the graves of the fallen.
This is a very emotional time for many of the students because they have spent so much time researching the lives of the young fallen soldiers. As with many Australia towns and cities, some of Mackay’s streets bear the names of those fallen soldiers from the district. I would like to make mention of local Mackay historian Mrs Bernice Wright, who assisted the school students in researching the history of the soldiers and street names. I understand that students will provide residents of the streets with a brief history of the soldier that their street is named after. This will be a resource for local historians for many years to come.
The students visited Anzac Cove, Polygon Wood and Lone Pine in Gallipoli. They also toured the Burma railway, Hellfire Pass, Changi prison, the Australian war memorial in Belgium, the Somme, Villers-Bretonneux and Ypres. A special moment for one student, Miss Milly Beere, was being invited to read the ode at a service at Menin Gate at Ypres, the memorial to those killed in Ypres Salient in World War I and whose graves are unknown.
The coordinator of the Lest We Forget project at Mackay North State High School is senior history teacher Mr Mike Goodwin, who over the last decade has taken more than 100 students on commemorative tours to the battlefields of World War I and World War II. I wish tonight to pay tribute to the dedication of Mr Goodwin and the efforts that fellow staff at Mackay North State High School have put into this very important project to give local students the opportunity to research and recognise almost 500 local Mackay fallen soldiers. Mr Goodwin and his team are doing a magnificent job in ensuring that the history of the brave men and women from the Mackay district who answered the call is forever remembered. I could tell from attending the presentation evening that the efforts of the teachers were appreciated by the students.
I wish to personally congratulate those students who took part in this year’s commemorative tour, namely Laura Atkinson, Alison Beanland, Milly Beere, Camille Botto, Alex Byrne, Sarah Carvolth, David Chetcuti, Celia Cox, Samantha Cushing, Lauren Germanotta, Peta Germanotta, Mark Gordon, Faith Gray, Karlee Harvey, Elise Lambert, Rebecca McCormack, Taylah McCarthy, Simon Patton, Genevieve Richards, Kira Ryan, Ellie Rickman, Kirstie Sauer, Ryan Saunders, Brianna Spandley, Alice Tagney, Jessica Trott, Kate Turner, Ryan Webb, Elly Whittaker and Niki Wiperi. I am sure that being a part of the Lest We Forget project will have enriched their lives and understanding of the sacrifices made by our fallen soldiers.
Taking part in the tour will have given the students an insight into Australia’s wartime service and Mackay’s local history that the reading of a history textbook could never do. I want to place on record my most sincere congratulations to the staff and parents of North Mackay State High School for the success of the Lest We Forget project. I wish the students every success in their endeavours in the future and the school every success in the organisation of future tours. The project is delivering a great history education to North Mackay High students and at the same time preserving Mackay’s local history. The motto of the Lest We Forget project is ‘Securing our future by respecting our past’. They certainly have done that. I congratulate the North Mackay State High students who have respected our past by taking part in the Anzac commemorative tour in 2010.
Page Electorate
2309
2309
21:55:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—I want to talk about some of the events that I have attended in my electorate of Page over the last few days. The first one I want to talk about is a breakfast. The Uniting Church in Lismore runs four breakfasts a year to raise money to help with the welfare activities of the church. They are really well attended and they involve the elderly in our area, particularly from Caroona and other homes. The one this week was at the Caroona residential care home. It was packed. Breakfast started at eight o’clock and finished a bit after 9.30. The event managed to raise about $1,600 and we had lots of fun catching up with people. It is a tribute to the work that they do. Retired butcher Ray Ingram and his wife, Lola Ingram, organise, with a whole range of people, all the cooking. Everything is done with voluntary labour, of course.
The second event started at lunchtime, and it was called ‘In Good Company’. It was held at Lismore Turf Club and it went from 12 to 12. So many artists donated their time and their musical talents for free. I would like to thank Pip, Horace, Peter and a whole range of other people who donated their time. To pull all that together takes enormous effort. It was a major success. They are hoping that it is the start of something that will be an annual event. The money goes to the mental health support group and to the Lismore Soup Kitchen.
It is getting to the end of the year, and on Friday night I attended the end-of-year ball of the year 12 students at Trinity Catholic College. All the young women and men were dressed up so beautifully. And on Saturday night I attended the end-of-year ball of the year 12 students of Evans River Community School. They started theirs with something different. They had a parade of cars. There were old cars and souped-up cars. It was really interesting. We stood out the front of the RSL and watched all the cars parade by before we went in and had dinner. It was just lovely. It is so positive to see the kids there. A friend of mine was there to see her nephew graduate. She said he was only the second person ever, out of a big family, to get to year 12. It was lovely to hear that and to see what it meant to that family. She is someone I have known for a long time and she was so excited to tell me about that. The effort of going there is absolutely worth it when you hear comments like that from people. It is a shame that I cannot get to all of these events, but it is just not possible in my electorate. But I try to go to the ones that I can get to when I am at home.
The Macadamia Processing Company is the biggest processing company of its kind almost anywhere. It is in Lismore at Alphadale. I launched its project to make an organic processing and marketing service available to macadamia growers. Not all of them want to grow organic but there are some who do and they need advice and support and they need that facility there. That is what I was able to launch. It was very positive. You can see a macadamia on the market now that is sort of in transition, going from the traditional to the organic. That is available now.
(Time expired)
Cost of Living
2310
2310
22:00:00
Tudge, Alan, MP
M2Y
Aston
LP
0
0
Mr TUDGE
—As I travel around my electorate, one of the issues that increasingly gets raised is the soaring cost of living. The basic costs of everyday, non-discretionary goods like water, electricity, child care and groceries are all going up. And people are hurting. I hear this said at the retirement villages, at school fetes and at shops on the weekends. I hear it when constituents come to see me in my office. I hear it at the churches and hear about it from school leaders.
The difficulties that Aston residents are expressing to me are backed up by the official statistics. A couple of weeks ago, the ABS released the latest inflation figures. Over the last year, electricity prices have gone up 12.4 per cent—that is in one year; water and sewage have gone up 12.8 per cent; gas has gone up 9.8 per cent; childcare has gone up 7.2 per cent; and medical costs have gone up 7.2 per cent. These are hefty increases for Aston residents and other Australians to meet. Since Labor was elected in November 2007, water has gone up 46 per cent, electricity prices have gone up 42 per cent, gas has gone up 29 per cent and medical costs have gone up 20 per cent.
All of this has occurred since the election of the Labor government after they went to the people claiming that cost of living was the biggest issue for Australians. They went to the election promising to address cost-of-living pressures. But, instead of addressing cost-of-living pressures, the government has, alarmingly, made things worse and is planning on putting even more taxes on residents that will make things harder. They have cut back on childcare rebates. They have cut back on the private health insurance rebates. They have caused banking competition to be less. Most importantly, they have borrowed tens of billions of dollars, which puts upward pressure on inflation and interest rates. And they are still borrowing $100 million per day.
That is not all. The worst is yet to come. As people would be aware, the government is working with the Greens on introducing a carbon price in the form of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. Their own expert adviser on their climate change committee, Mr Rod Sims, has suggested that their carbon price will increase wholesale electricity prices by 60 per cent and retail electricity prices by 25 per cent. And this is on top of the 42 per cent increase that we have seen already since 2007.
Last week I sat in the small apartment of a constituent of mine in Waterford Park Retirement Village who spoke of the measures that he and his wife take to reduce their electricity bills. They have had the electrician in to adjust the lights so that only two lights come on when they switch the light switch rather than four lights. They have had solar installed. They switch off everything wherever possible in order to reduce their electricity consumption. Price hikes on essential items like electricity are hurting Aston residents, as they are hurting people across the country. The concept of an extra 25 per cent increase on the electricity price through a carbon tax, for no demonstrable benefit, is simply unacceptable.
I am concerned about Labor’s plans for the Murray-Darling, which will increase food and grocery prices. I am concerned about their mining tax, which will have a flow-on impact to every product that uses those materials, including electricity generation. The National Broadband Network will push up basic telephony charges, according to Optus. And the Prime Minister today in question time gave no guarantee that prices would not go up. And they are still considering a road congestion tax.
It is time that the government made some tough decisions. They need to stop borrowing $100 million per day, to drop their taxes and to do the hard work to reduce cost-of-living pressures. My constituents in Aston demand it. And so do families across Australia.
Adelaide Motorplex Facility
2311
2311
22:04:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—I rise to add my support to the campaign for the establishment of an Adelaide motorplex facility. There is a great tradition of motor sport in South Australia which has involved a range of disciplines, from street circuits featuring Formula 1 and V8 Supercars to drag racing, rally driving and speedway racing. The first time an Australian Grand Prix was part of the Formula One World Championship was the first Adelaide Grand Prix in 1985. The Adelaide Grand Prix was held 11 times in total around the streets of Adelaide until the race moved to Melbourne in 1996.
After the Grand Prix left Adelaide in 1996, the street circuit had its first V8 Supercar race in 1999. This race, known as the Clipsal 500, has been an outstanding success and has won numerous tourism and event awards. The 2010 race was watched by 278,000 spectators and the Clipsal 500 has led the way in helping touring car racing again gaining widespread popularity. Murray Walker—for many years the worldwide voice of Formula 1 and motor sport generally—described the Clipsal 500 as ‘the world’s best touring car race’.
Many of Adelaide’s older residents will have fond memories of speedway racing at Rowley Park in Adelaide’s north-western suburbs, which for 30 years, until its closure in 1979, was the heart of speedway in South Australia. It featured the best local speedway racers as well as guest competitors from Europe and North America. Fans of speedway would remember the various classes of cars involved, including sprint cars, speed cars, Formula 500s and Street Stocks. Many local automotive businesses—car dealers, components suppliers and mechanics—raced speedway in their spare time and their names became synonymous with the car industry in South Australia.
Speedway racing continues in South Australia today at Speedway City at Virginia and in regional centres such as Murray Bridge, Waikerie, Mount Gambier and Whyalla. Solo racing, which was a large part of Rowley Park, continues today at Virginia and on occasion at Wayville Showgrounds. We have also seen drag racing, touring cars and other types of racing at locations such as the Adelaide International Raceway and Mallala, which is in the electorate of the member for Wakefield, who is in the chamber tonight. Neither location now meets the requirements for a quality motor sport complex.
All of these various forms of racing involve people who are passionate about motor sport coming together in a relatively safe and controlled environment. There is always a risk involved, as there is with any activity, but it is best that these activities take place in a controlled environment where the risk is minimised and where medical personnel are on site. Motor racing can also be a very expensive hobby, but for both speedway and drag racing enthusiasts the hobby is relatively accessible as a form of motor sport. Many people do not have the financial resources to enter competitions such as touring car or open wheeler competitions, but they are still able, on a limited budget, to compete in some form of speedway racing or drag racing.
South Australia is the only state that does not have a quarter mile track and dedicated drag racing facilities. Both enthusiasts and spectators in Adelaide often have to travel interstate to compete in or to watch their chosen sport. In South Australia we celebrate cars and the people who make them. We are home to the National Motor Museum at Birdwood. We honour classic cars in events such as the Bay to Birdwood and the Classic Adelaide car rally, which is due to resume in 2011. We pioneer and develop world class events such as the Formula 1 Grand Prix and the Clipsal 500. It seems a contradiction that a city and a state with such a strong motor sports tradition does not have a dedicated motorplex facility.
My understanding is that the Adelaide Motorplex support group is privately funded by some automotive businesses in South Australia. They are asking the state government to make available to them a suitable piece of land, by either selling or leasing it to them. They have identified a site at Gillman which they believe suits their needs. I have discussed this site with Mayor Gary Johanson of the Port Adelaide Council, and I know that he strongly supports the development of such a facility on that site. I am also aware of discussions between the Coorong District Council and two motor sport bodies—Motorcycling South Australia and the Sporting Car Club of South Australia—to develop the old Mitsubishi test track at Tailem Bend for motor sport. This presents a significant development opportunity for the local community, although I accept that distance from Adelaide may be an issue for some motor sport enthusiasts.
South Australia, like all states, has issues with hoon driving and deaths from illegal street racing. In other parts of Australia it is often the view of police and the community that holding legal off-street drag racing events has reduced the amount of hoon driving and illegal street racing in those areas. I support the efforts of the Motorplex support group to have a motorplex facility established in Adelaide.
(Time expired)
Grey Electorate: Arkaroola
2313
2313
22:09:00
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
HWS
Grey
LP
0
0
Mr RAMSEY
—Last week I took the opportunity to visit Arkaroola, at the very northernmost point of the magnificent Flinders Ranges. It was far from my first visit, as I have camped there numerous times with my family and in the last three years in my capacity as the member for Grey have called to discuss local issues and the tourism industry with the owners, Doug and Marg Spriggs.
For the uninitiated, Arkaroola is one of the most rugged and beautiful mountain landscapes in Australia, situated 700 kilometres north of Adelaide and rising from what would normally be described as a desert plain. In one of nature’s little miracles, at the moment it is in fact a desert garden full of beautiful flowers and staging a staggering recovery of plant and animal species after years of elongated drought. The ruggedness cannot be communicated by words or pictures alone. Really, you have to go and have a look, and I can only recommend that people do just that. Arkaroola is a unique archaeological wonderland and has some of the oldest fossilised life forms on the planet. Because of the upheaval which has thrust up this spectacular mountain range, it provides a viewing peephole into our ancient geological history.
Arkaroola has come to some prominence in the past few years as a point of intersection between the mining industry and the environmental and tourism industries. I am an unashamed supporter of the mining industry. It is currently supporting growth and wealth for many in my district. There is a high likelihood of a spectacular expansion in the industry, generally in South Australia and particularly in the northern portion, notwithstanding moving government policies which threaten to derail some if not many of the mining projects.
But everyone has a threshold. For instance, Australians would never allow sections of Ayers Rock or the Olgas to be mined, or the area around the Three Sisters in the Blue Mountains, or the magnificent Wilpena Pound in the Flinders Ranges. My definite opinion is that neither should we mine in the Arkaroola wilderness sanctuary. It must be realised that, while very rugged, this is a fragile environment in that it has extremely low rainfall and that any physical scars take a very long time to recover. Much of the land is virtually inaccessible, and it is difficult to see how any mining venture could possibly economically construct the infrastructure needed to mine the site.
Marathon Resources has in the recent past held exploration licences for Arkaroola and has published results indicating that a significant uranium deposit may exist in the Mount Gee area. Mount Gee is a quartz crystal mountain and is kilometres from flat ground. As I said earlier, you really have to go there to see just how impossible it would be to access this area. Unfortunately, Marathon has not always displayed best practice and in fact had its licence suspended by the state government for illegal dumping of drilling samples. The state government is currently deciding whether to allow exploration to resume in the area. There may be legal reasons they would be reluctant to ban exploration. I am aware that the state Liberal Party recently said that, while they were not prepared to ban exploration, in government they would set environmental operating standards at a very high level. Presumably that would mean that a surface mining operation would never be likely to receive approval.
While any prohibition would impact on an individual licence holder, it is difficult to see that it would significantly impact on South Australia’s economy. Already the state has 36 per cent of the world’s proven uranium deposits, and there are strong prospects for much more to be found. The nearby Beverley mine, which is only about 20 kilometres from Arkaroola, is evidence of this. It is highly likely that there will be a string of further discoveries in the immediate area, all mined with the ultra low impact in situ acid leaching method and away from the mountain range on the desert flat.
While I know that there are many in the community who believe that we should exploit mineral wealth where it is found, for me Arkaroola is a bridge too far. Now is the time to take the opportunity to set a clear no-go zone and rate Arkaroola as a national monument of the standard of those I have mentioned earlier. There are some things of such value—not just to us, but to future generations—that we should make every effort to preserve them.
Anti-Semitism
2314
2314
22:14:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
0
Mr DANBY
—From 7 to 9 November I attended in Ottawa, Canada the second international conference on combating anti-Semitism. The conference brought together over 150 parliamentarians from 50 different countries. On the opening evening I spoke to 500 people at the gala dinner. It was a great honour to represent Australia, with Senator Scott Ryan from the other place, at this forum. I would like to thank the conference hosts, Minister Jason Kenney; Scott Reid, Chair of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism; and my good friend the former Attorney-General of Canada, Professor Irwin Cotler, who was the life force of the conference. The conference was addressed by the Canadian Prime Minister, who in a very moving speech to the delegates said:
History teaches us that anti-Semitism is a tenacious and particularly dangerous form of hatred. And recent events are demonstrating that this hatred is now in resurgence throughout the world. That is why the work of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism has never been so important or timely as it is now.
In Australia we like to think of ourselves as a relaxed, easygoing and tolerant people, free from the violent hatreds and quarrels of the Old World. To a large extent that self-image is an accurate one. However, Australia has a history of racism, with the forcible displacement of Indigenous people and the White Australia policy, which we remember ruled for 60 years from 1901 and excluded all non-Europeans. Deep hatreds that underlie this policy have not entirely disappeared, as I told the conference, although they are seldom expressed as openly. Australia has welcomed millions of migrants since 1945. Since the 1970s these immigrants have been selected on a non-racial basis. But there remains some ambivalence about foreigners which persists in some corners of Australian society, and occasionally we see that break out in debate here.
There was an influx of Jewish refugees to Australia both in the years before the Second World War, among them my own father, and more notably in the decade after the war. At the notorious Evian Conference on refugees in 1938 the Australian delegate was the most execrable when he observed:
Australia has no racial problem and has no desire to import one.
Nevertheless, in practice Australia was much more generous than its rhetoric and accepted some 8,000 refugees from Nazism prior to the war, and the post-war Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell, is still held in very high regard for his facilitation of Jewish migration to Australia. These days anti-Semitism is often disguised as anti-Zionism and it has contaminated some sections of the Australian Left, though fortunately not in my own party or in the mainstream trade union movement. I have made it my mission to criticise such excesses and have had some success, particularly recently on the internet, with Crikey and newmatilda. The Canadian Prime Minister added that this phenomenon harnesses:
… disparate anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Western ideologies, it targets the Jewish people by targeting the Jewish homeland, Israel, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world, and uses, perversely, the language of human rights to do so.
I gave the conference and the dinner an example of this when I cited the views of the former Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad, who has said that the Jews are responsible for the global financial crisis—a man who had banned
Schindler’s List
from screening in Kuala Lumpur and the New York Philharmonic from playing a Hebrew melody. It was very surprising to conference delegates to find that this kind of obsession and hatred had transformed itself from even the retired Prime Minister of Malaysia into the financing by the Malaysian Prime Minister and his friends of the MV Mavi Marmara flotilla, which was so controversial in trying to break the blockade of Gaza. What you have is a person who has very deep-seated views in a country where he has probably never met a Jewish person—there are no Jews—transferring that to an international situation. It is very regrettable. The same thing has happened recently with UNESCO classifying the tombs of the patriarchs as a Muslim holy site—but that is something I will speak about on another occasion.
(Time expired)
Canning Electorate: Volunteer Bushfire Brigades
2315
2315
22:19:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
0
0
Mr RANDALL
—Earlier today the
Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill
proceeded through this House. Schedule 7, which extends gift deductibility to volunteer fire brigades, is something that I wish to further endorse. Schedule 7 of the bill adds three new general deductible gift recipient categories into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The measure will enable tax deductible donations to all entities providing volunteer based emergency services, including volunteer fire brigades—in my electorate, volunteer bushfire brigades. This measure also extends deductible gift recipient status to all state and territory government bodies that coordinate volunteer fire brigades.
I support this bill because I believe the amendments in schedule 7 will encourage monetary donations to be provided to volunteer fire brigades. This provides an incentive for businesses and individuals to donate to a valuable cause, which is of course a really good thing. It will also relieve pressure on gaining funding through other avenues.
Within my electorate of Canning there are 23 volunteer fire brigades in total. There are three within the City of Armadale: Roleystone, which is headed by Robbie Van Uden; Bedfordale, which is headed by Gavin Fancote; and the WA Fire and Rescue Service in Armadale, headed by Brian Watkins.
There are six in the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale: Byford, which is headed by Terry Mallon; Jarrahdale, headed by Paul Brodie; Keysbrook, headed by Scott Hambley; Mundijong, headed by Barry Mort; Oakford, headed by Don Wright; and Serpentine, headed by Ray Elliott.
There is only one in the City of Mandurah, mainly because it is a city, and that is headed by Jeff Stewart.
There are four in the Shire of Waroona: Waroona, headed by John Twaddle; Lake Clifton, headed by Gareth Davies; Waroona West, headed by Greg Lewis; and Preston Beach, headed by Ian Boardman.
There are four in the Shire of Boddington: Boddington Bush Fire Brigade, headed by William Batt; Marradong, which is also headed by William Batt; Quindaring, which is headed by Wayne Littleton; and Crossman, which is headed by Peter Dawson.
There are five in the Shire of Murray: Coolup, which is headed by Jim Newman; Dwellingup, where I recently attended the opening of their brand-new facilities, headed by Councillor Tim Birmingham; North Dandalup, which is headed by Lorraine Webster and captained by Michael Webster; West Murray, headed by Shane Woods; and South Yunderup-Ravenswood, headed by Jamie McBride.
My electorate has many close-knit communities along with rural areas containing farms and a number of Bush Forever and environmental tourist sites, all of which are highly deserving of the best possible fire protection. In fact, the scarp surrounding the electorate of Canning has had a sad history, unfortunately, of many bushfires through the jarrah and marri forests, none worse than the fire which almost destroyed the town of Dwellingup some 20-odd years ago. Today, we now see the magnificent volunteers who, as I said, have been resurrected in a brand-new facility, with the Shire of Murray providing the infrastructure of water tankers, trucks and all the necessities to fight large-scale bushfires in that area.
More money for volunteer fire brigades quite simply equals more infrastructure, more facilities and better provision of services. In turn, this equals a safer community in bushfire-prone areas. I want to take my hat off to the many volunteer bushfire brigade people who give of their own time, many of them for years—in fact, recently at Dwellingup they gave out lifetime membership awards to those who had done 20 or more years in the service.
In very dry, drought-prone Western Australia, unlike the well-watered eastern states at the moment, we are expecting a very, very savage bushfire season. As I said, fire brigade volunteers are to be acknowledged and congratulated because their expertise to help their communities is something that should be applauded. They get paid nothing. They are volunteers for the cause, and I want to say that I applaud their efforts to make our community safer. This measure in this bill will allow greater moneys to flow to them for infrastructure and all they require to do their job properly.
Wakefield Electorate: Manufacturing
2316
2316
22:24:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
0
Mr CHAMPION
—It was a great pleasure to hear the member for Makin talking about speedway racing, particularly out in my electorate at Virginia. I have many fond memories of going there in my youth. I always behaved myself! I have very fond memories indeed of going out there. That is why with some pleasure I rise to also talk about a bit of good news in relation to cars in my electorate. On page 13 of the
Advertiser
today there is a headline ‘Holden Cruzes back into second shift’ and ‘Workers at Elizabeth plant rewarded for their patience’. The article basically tells the story that Holden’s second shift, its afternoon shift, is now back in operation.
Since May 2009, because of the impact of the global financial crisis, the afternoon shift was cut, and that resulted in a great deal of economic hardship. The 2,300 workers at that plant went on a one-week-on, one-week-off roster. Many afternoon shift workers had to do without their penalty rates as they went onto days, and there were also some consequential costs with their childcare arrangements and other things. So this is a very important day, when the second, the afternoon, shift has begun.
It means 50 new jobs at Holden. It means people like Mr Tom Weber, who is also featured in the article in the
Advertiser—he lives at Munno Para West, in my electorate—will start his job today on the assembly line. He was getting a bit of a hand from his girlfriend, Shari Bowley, to iron his uniform. It is great to see young people like that—he is 19 years old—getting their first job, getting their first start in Australian manufacturing.
We know that is because of the strong support the government has shown. We have invested $149 million over three years from the Green Car Innovation Fund to help build the four-cylinder Cruze. We got this new car during the depths of the international recession.
So there are an extra 50 staff at Holden. That can potentially grow to up to 150. People have been hired on 12-month contracts in the first instance. It is great to see a buzz in the plant. John Camillo, from the union there, was reporting that people are very confident now. Jon Gee, who is head of the Vehicle Division, is also a strong supporter, and Paul Brown is the head shop steward at Holden. All have played a really significant role, I think, in managing the workforce through this transition. It has not been easy. It has been pretty tough for a lot of people, but it just goes to show you that if we pull together, if we have the support of the industry, the employer, the union and the government, we can protect jobs and expand jobs in this country.
We have also seen a flow-on from Holden’s announcement in that the parts supplier Futuris has taken on 58 workers to meet the demand that is generated by that second shift. Futuris mainly make car seats. They are a very sophisticated manufacturer indeed.
I think this is testimony to the government’s policy. We know that the rest of the world has a significant unemployment problem. In the OECD, the average rate is 8.5 per cent. In the EU it is 9.6 per cent unemployment. In France it is 10 per cent, in Ireland it is 14.1 per cent and in the United States of America it is 9.6 per cent. So we know that there have been some very significant unemployment rates around the world, and behind every one of those statistics is a tragedy, the tragedy of people wanting work, wanting to seek work, but being unable to get it. Australia’s performance during this period is that, since November 2007, 650,000 jobs have been created, 375,000 in the last year, and almost three-quarters of those jobs have been full time in the last year. So we know that the government is doing a great deal that is right.
All I can say is that, when you look at our policies and you look at the Liberal Party’s policies, you know there is a big difference. In November 2008, Joe Hockey said:
I don’t know that it is necessarily the right thing to hand money immediately to the motor vehicle industry in Australia without knowing whether those key companies are going to be merging or … won’t even exist in 12 months’ time.
So what Joe Hockey would have done, what the shadow Treasurer would have done, what the member for North Sydney would have done, was to sit on his hands and let unemployment reign. He would have sat on his hands and let manufacturing workers in my electorate go to the wolves, go into the slaughterhouse of unemployment. It is not good enough, and we should not excuse such inaction.
Question agreed to.
2317
22:30:00
House adjourned at 10.30 pm
NOTICES
2318
Notices
The following
notices were
given:
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
to move:
That:
-
paragraph (2) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety be amended to read:
That the committee consist of 11 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators; and
-
a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
to move:
That:
-
paragraph (6) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library be amended to read:
That the committee shall elect 2 of its members to be joint chairs, 1 being a Senator or Member who is a member of the government party or parties, and 1 being a Senator or Member who is a member of the non-government parties, provided that the joint chairs may not be members of the same House. The joint chair nominated by the government party or parties shall chair meetings of the committee, and the joint chair nominated by the non-government parties shall take the chair whenever the other joint chair is not present; and
-
a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence.
8W5
Gray, Gary, MP
Mr Gray
to 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: Proposed fit‑out of new leased premises for Divisions of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research at Buildings 2 and 3, Precinct Corporate Centre, 105 Delhi Road, Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, NSW.
849
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
Mr Sidebottom
to move:
That this House:
-
acknowledges the Government’s recent increased commitment to the replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which
-
increased the previous commitment of $145 million in 2008‑10, to $210 million for the 2011-13 period;
-
recognised the importance of the Global Fund in the treatment and prevention of AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the three major infectious diseases;
-
acknowledges the Global Fund as a highly effective funding mechanism for promoting global health and preventing 5.7 million deaths from AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in some of the world poorest countries; and
-
recognises the need to better fund the work of the Global Fund to deliver increases in the provision of antiretroviral therapy, tuberculosis treatment, long lasting insecticidal nets to prevent malaria, and treatment of women for mother-to-child transmission of HIV; and
-
urges all aid donor countries in the world to fund their fair share of the global amount required by the Fund, which is estimated to be $20 billion over the next three years.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson
to present a bill for an act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related purposes.
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr Murphy
to move:
That this House acknowledges that climate change is:
-
real; and
-
human-induced.
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr Morrison
to move:
That this House:
-
notes that:
-
Australia has a long and proud record of resettling more than 700,000 refugees since the Second World War;
-
there are 10.4 million refugees around the world and less than 1 per cent will be offered a resettlement place;
-
Australia’s current refugee and humanitarian program is set at 13,750 with 6,000 of those places going to refugees mandated by the UNHCR and referred to Australia for resettlement;
-
the current Government has lost control of our borders with more than 9000 irregular maritime arrivals to Australia since August 2008;
-
as a result of the failure to protect our borders, places in the offshore Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) are being taken up by onshore protection visa applicants and their families; and
-
women who have been identified by the UNHCR as being in danger of victimisation, harassment or serious abuse have been rejected by Australia because there are no longer any places left in our offshore SHP; and
-
calls for the Government to:
-
give priority processing to the following visa applications within the SHP:
-
offshore applications for subclass 201—In Country Special Humanitarian Program Visa which offers resettlement to people who have suffered persecution in their country of nationality and who have not been able to leave that country;
-
offshore applications for subclass 202—Global Special Humanitarian Visa for those subject to substantial discrimination and human rights abuses in their home country and who are sponsored for entry by an Australian citizen or permanent resident who is not, and has never been, a subclass 866 visa holder;
-
offshore applications for subclass 203—Emergency Rescue Visa for people who are referred to Australia by the UNHCR and whose lives or freedom depend on urgent resettlement; and
-
offshore applications for subclass 204—Women at Risk Visa for women who are registered as being of concern to the UNHCR;
-
confine immediate family members of sub class 866 protection visas holders, that includes irregular maritime arrivals, to eligibility for sponsorship only through the primary visa holder as a secondary applicant for a sub class 866 protection visa; and
-
cap the number of visas available in the refugee and humanitarian program in the following ways:
-
6000 subclass 200 visas for people identified by the UNHCR and referred to the Australian Government as mandated refugees;
-
3750 subclass 866 protection visas for primary and secondary applicants, including irregular maritime arrivals and their immediate families; and
-
4000 subclass 201, 202, 203 and 204 visas.
2010-11-15
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)
took the chair at 10.30 am.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
2320
Constituency Statements
Bennelong Electorate: Rail Infrastructure
2320
2320
10:30:00
Alexander, John, MP
M3M
Bennelong
LP
0
0
Mr ALEXANDER
—I rise to address an increasing problem in my electorate of Bennelong: the inability of governments both state and federal to deliver genuine progress on the infrastructure needs of one of the fastest growing regions in our country. On 11 August this year the federal government made an election promise to contribute $2.1 billion—the largest financial commitment of the campaign—towards the construction of the Epping-Parramatta rail link. It took just 90 days for the ALP national secretary to label this election promise an election mistake. This admission may have shocked the National Press Club but the people of Bennelong were far from surprised. The Epping-Parramatta rail link has been promised by successive state and federal Labor governments for more than 12 years. This election promise was a cheap political stunt to win votes in a marginal seat. It is becoming increasingly clear that this was an empty promise that this government never had an intention of honouring. The former member for Bennelong, Maxine McKew, has noted this morning:
There was too great a gap between promises and delivery. People want to know … that you will do what you say you will do. There is no doubt that we crashed through a credibility barrier …
An infrastructure development like this needs detailed planning to get the construction right and to ensure that taxpayer money is spent as productively and efficiently as possible. Bennelong is part of the north-western region of Sydney, which is one of the fastest growing corridors in the nation, yet for too many years we have been subject to a litany of broken promises on the provision of crucial infrastructure services. As we wait, the roads become more clogged, commuters become more frustrated and the cost to business and the cost of living soar. Infrastructure has simply not kept pace. The Epping-Parramatta rail link is merely part 2 of the Chatswood-Parramatta rail link that was announced by the state Labor government in 1998. The other major transport development needed is the north-west rail link, which will provide essential rail infrastructure from Epping through to Rouse Hill, helping tens of thousands of people get off the roads.
Building both the Epping-Parramatta rail link and the north-west rail link will directly help the people of Bennelong to reclaim our streets. The price of not doing these projects is simply too high. Inaction will lead to widespread gridlock, resulting ultimately in the demise of our great city of Sydney through strangulation. We must work and fight to ensure that this does not happen. Both the Epping-Parramatta rail link and the north-west rail link must be planned and built now.
Corio Electorate: Geelong CBD
2320
2320
10:33:00
Marles, Richard, MP
HWQ
Corio
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs
1
0
Mr MARLES
—During the past week in Geelong we have seen the pages of our local paper, the
Geelong
Advertiser, filled with debate about the future of Geelong’s central business district. The decline of a once vibrant regional retail centre is a sorry sight that is not lost on anyone. The
Advertiser
has taken up the call to save our CBD. This discussion is great to see. Concern about the march of major retailers towards the waterfront and the empty shops left in their wake is, of course, not new. But sustained and thoughtful public discussion about what should be done to revive our ailing retail heart is new. I welcome that discussion wholeheartedly and congratulate the
Geelong
Advertiser
for its initiative and commitment.
I have voiced my concerns about this issue on many occasions, including several times in speeches delivered in the House. I passionately believe that Geelong could take its place among Australia’s best known heritage cities if we focused on reviving those buildings that have seen better days. Our built heritage could be a major drawcard enticing not just shoppers but also tourists to Ryrie and Moorabool streets. Just a few months ago I spoke about the importance of Ryrie Street, which, through its built heritage, plots the evolution of our city.
Geelong is not a boom city like Bendigo and Ballarat. We are a city that was settled early and grew strongly firstly through agriculture and then through industry. The buildings of Ryrie Street reflect that, spanning the decades from the mid-1800s onwards, representing not just one era but many eras. But the removal of verandas, unsightly signage and general neglect means most of us barely look twice at many of these historic gems.
The discussion over the past week has highlighted a few key issues: the costs and location of parking, how we can broaden the city’s appeal by encouraging more people to live there and making the streets more pedestrian friendly. We have heard from cities like Newcastle that have faced this challenge in the past and have taken a creative approach and reinvented themselves in the process. But to find a solution that suits Geelong we need to articulate that problem and that will not happen until our civic leadership puts our CBD on their agenda. So today I encourage the City of Greater Geelong, the Committee for Geelong and G21 to each place the fate of Geelong’s city centre on their well-published list of regional priorities.
We can talk all we like—and discussion is absolutely crucial—but until these leadership groups put the CBD onto their priority lists for negotiations with local, state and federal levels of government then we are not acting. I do not think that there is a person who lives in Geelong who would not like to see a revival of the city centre and I welcome the debate in the pages of the Geelong
Advertiser
and look forward to the ‘Addy’ keeping this debate alive for the long haul.
Solomon Electorate: Save Eaton Campaign
2321
2321
10:36:00
Griggs, Natasha, MP
220370
Solomon
CLP
0
0
Mrs GRIGGS
—I rise to ask a question for my electorate. Why is the Department of Defence destroying small business and education in the seat of Solomon? Are they happy now that the first of these businesses—the Winnellie newsagent—closes its doors at the end of the month? And will they be happy when the supermarket at the same location closes its doors, possibly before the end of the year?
The House has heard me talk about this issue before. I am referring to the Save Eaton campaign and the RAAF base houses in Winnellie. Last week I took Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Defence Force and Defence Support, Senator Ian Macdonald, for a tour of the houses so that he could see for himself the ridiculous situation that has unfolded. We then had a meeting with the Save Eaton campaign committee, which was formed by concerned community members. The newsagent, Andrew Snodgrass, and the supermarket owner, Allan Morris, both sit on the committee. Also present were Michael Purcell, the chairman of the Ludmilla Primary School, Mark Wynn, the local service station owner and Toni Vine Bromley from the Northern Territory Shelter as well as the Northern Territory Shadow Minister for Defence Liaison, Ross Bohlin MLA.
The issue is straightforward. The Department of Defence is relocating people out of Eaton and as a result over the next three to five years 400 houses will be either demolished or left vacant. Right now there are 125 houses sitting there vacant. I have written to all of the relevant government minister and not one has agreed to meet on the subject—including, would you believe, the Minister for Defence Personnel, the member for Lingiari and a fellow Territorian himself, the Hon. Warren Snowdon. I have, however, managed to get a meeting with two of the Independents of the six in this House and I am very grateful and thank them for that.
I want these houses made available to Territorians, including Defence Force families, or to other community members or other organisations. Until that occurs, the Defence department is killing small business and will kill off the school that has for several decades had at least a 25 per cent Defence family enrolment. In fact, they built a footbridge across the Bagot Road so that Defence children could walk safely to the Ludmilla Primary School. The coalition policy is to excise this land and assist in solving the appalling housing crisis in the seat of Solomon. Let me quote to you a text in the
Northern Territory News
on Saturday, 13 November 2010 so you can understand the desperation of these people in my electorate seeking affordable housing in Solomon: ‘Wondering if anyone knows of any cheap units to rent. It is silly that rent is going up all the time.’ It is signed: ‘Homeless single mum.’ Taxpayers fund the Department of Defence and they are appalled at the waste that is continuing right before their very eyes. It is time to end the waste and make these houses available to Territorians.
(Time expired)
Richmond Electorate: Murwillumbah Show
2322
2322
10:39:00
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Trade
1
0
Mrs ELLIOT
—I rise today to speak about a fantastic event in my electorate, the Murwillumbah Show, and to commend all of those involved with the show. On Saturday, 6 November, I had the pleasure of attending the 110th Murwillumbah Show with my family. This show is an iconic event for the area. It has been run by the Tweed River Agricultural Society since 1900. In fact, it is one of the oldest, continuous running agricultural shows in the country. One of the highlights of the show’s history was in 1977, when the official opening was performed by Prince Charles. The show is a highlight on the Murwillumbah social calendar, along with Speed on Tweed and the Tweed Valley Banana Festival. It really is a major part of Murwillumbah.
Murwillumbah is a beautiful town located in the Tweed Valley on the North Coast of New South Wales. It has the stunning Mount Warning as its backdrop. As always, this year’s show had an overwhelming array of activities and was attended by many locals and visitors. The main ring was a hive of activity with a comprehensive program of equestrian events, including showjumping and dressage, and fantastic livestock and trade displays where many great local products such as sugarcane were displayed. Another very exciting area was the woodchop arena, which had a very well-contested event program again this year. There are always many people involved in that. In the main pavilion there were many displays. Local schools had a number of displays and there were great examples of local produce—fruit and vegies and some floral displays. A local, Merilyn Gilmore, has been showing her floral creations at the show for the last 20 years and she has been the overall champion for the past three years. The highlight of the show is the grand parade in the main arena. It is no wonder the show has a reputation for having a terrific atmosphere. It really is a place where city and country come together to enjoy the very best our region has to offer.
I would like to acknowledge many of the generous sponsors of the show. Entry to the show remains free due to the support of the Tweed Shire Council and many local business sponsors. Whilst there are many people who contribute to the show, I would like to acknowledge the president, Jenny Glasby, and the secretary, Liz Chauvier. The most memorable event at the show was the presentation of life membership to Jenny and Barry Glasby, two outstanding and inspirational people who have dedicated so much of their lives to making the show the great success that it is today. I would also like to acknowledge all of the committee members who put in a huge amount of work all year in making the show a great success. It is due to the dedication of people like Jenny and Barry that the Murwillumbah Show continues its great tradition and continues to be, without a doubt, the very best agricultural show in the country.
Higgins Electorate: Economy
2323
2323
10:42:00
O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP
LKU
Higgins
LP
1
0
Ms O’DWYER
—Even the greatest spin merchants from the New South Wales Labor Party cannot spin this: the latest MYEFO released by the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, last week confirmed what Treasury and the Reserve Bank have been saying for a long time—that this Greens-Labor coalition government has neglected to take the tough decisions to rein in spending and is now threatening the long-run growth of the economy. Wayne Swan claims that spending growth is being constrained at two per cent, but this is after real spending increased by a massive 17 per cent over two years. You would have to go back two Labor governments, to the Hawke government in the 1980s, before you would see anything like that. There are two ways that the government can bridge this gap: the responsible way, to reduce spending, or what it has chosen to do, which is to increase taxes. Almost half of the $83 billion that the government has claimed to represent savings is merely due to increases in taxes. This of course is the big con—that the new mining tax will save the government $7.4 billion and that increases in tobacco excise will save the government $4.98 billion. This is Labor’s idea of saving, not cutting waste and rolling back a stimulus package that is no longer required but continuing to spend at exorbitant levels and increasing taxes. Higher taxes on mining, cars, crude oil, ethanol, alcopops and employees’ shares are all being used to prop up the budget.
The Reserve Bank has raised interest rates seven times in just over 12 months. According to the RBA governor’s own monetary statements, these increases are due in part to the continued reckless fiscal policy of this Labor-Greens government. Every interest rate rise directly hits the household budgets of Australian families, making it more difficult for families who are continuing to struggle with the cost of living. The Treasury have warned that the Australian economy is expected to grow above trend over the forecast horizon and, with an already tight labour market, reach capacity within the next year or two.
Treasury have also said that the Australian economy is growing solidly as a self-sustaining, private sector recovery takes hold. If the economy is so close to capacity and if the private sector has taken over, why does the government continue to roll out its stimulus? Why does it persist with expensive, ineffective and unpopular programs such as the cash-for-clunkers scheme? The government needs to provide a buffer against uncertain times. It cannot simply hope for the best or simply bet on China and the growth of commodity prices forever. In the MYEFO document Treasury says that as the global supply of iron ore and coal increases, the medium-term outlook is for Australia’s terms of trade to decline.
The coalition proved it could manage the economy responsibly by ensuring strong surpluses—
(Time expired)
Braddon Electorate: Enterprise Connect
2324
2324
10:45:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—I rise to speak about something real and positive. I want to recognise the successful setting up and implementation of a 2007 election commitment in Braddon which now has one of only a few select Enterprise Connect centres in the nation. Enterprise Connect is an Australian government initiative, in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, which offers comprehensive advice and support to eligible Australian small- and medium-sized enterprises to help them transform and reach their full potential.
The program’s core service offering is a free comprehensive business review, followed by the opportunity to access up to $20,000—that is dollar for dollar funding—to assist in implementing the recommendations of the review.
In Tasmania Enterprise Connect’s office is located in Burnie in my electorate, with three business advisers servicing the state. Enterprise Connect currently has 98 Tasmanian small- to medium-sized enterprises engaged in the program, predominantly from the manufacturing sectors, inclusive of engineering, textile, clothing and footwear, food processing and general manufacturing.
Tasmanian Enterprise Connect clients rank highly nationally with regard to the number of companies going on to access the funding support to implement business improvement. To date $1,372,543 has been spent on a variety of projects and $661,000 of that funding has been contributed by Enterprise Connect. Projects range from the implementation of lean manufacturing, marketing and strategic planning, enterprise resource planning, financial strategy, succession planning and management, and leadership development et cetera.
Enterprise Connect also has recently launched a continuous improvement program as part of its service offering. The program is called the Supplier Continuous Improvement Program and is based on a program well trialled in the aerospace sector in the United Kingdom.
Enterprise Connect Tasmania has successfully got one of the first Australian projects up and running, with eight Tasmanian SMEs who are linked into important local supply chains. This group of companies recently participated in a visit to Thales Australia’s defence protected mobility vehicle operations in Bendigo with an opportunity to present their capabilities to the company. This is the first time Thales has had this kind of exposure to the Tasmanian manufacturing sector.
Additionally, Enterprise Connect delivers a number of targeted support programs to address specific business and regional development needs. North-west and Northern Tasmania is one of 10 regions nationally to be part of Enterprise Connect’s innovative sections region.
I would like to acknowledge the work of Keith Calvert, Sarah Jones, Deanne Kapene, Adam Morton, Jack Van Tatenhove and all those who make Enterprise Connect Tasmania work so successfully.
(Time expired)
Agriculture
2325
2325
10:48:00
Coulton, Mark, MP
HWN
Parkes
NATS
0
0
Mr COULTON
—I rise to speak about a matter that has become topical in the press today but that has been a topic of conversation in regional Australia for some time—particularly in my electorate—and that is the issue of foreign ownership of agricultural land.
I should say at the outset that a large part of the agricultural sector of
Australia was pioneered by overseas investment. Indeed, some classic examples in my electorate would be the great work that Clyde Agricultural, a British owned company, has done and the presence that they still have, although they are in the process of selling in the western part of New South Wales.
10:49:43
The other one would be Auscott, the American owned company that largely pioneered cotton growing in Australia. Indeed, the expertise that was brought into the country by Auscott and the mentoring that they did of agronomists and the technical expertise that that allowed certainly enabled the industry to grow far beyond their influence.
We have a growing population in the world and a finite land resource. The need for food security across the world is becoming more and more prominent. I think that is what has led to an escalation of foreign ownership of agricultural land. With the Foreign Investment Review Board regulations requiring quite a large amount before it can undertake a review, a large part of agricultural land comes under the radar. We do need food security in this country. The other issue is the ownership of the food chain: processing and infrastructure. Indeed, many of the grain handling facilities and much of the supply chain is now in the hands of foreign companies. A classic example of that was with the deregulation of wheat and the removal of the single desk. It meant that wheat marketing, instead of being in the hands of growers, is now largely in the hands of overseas owned companies. I do not know that in the long term that will be to the benefit of wheat growers.
There have been calls from Senator Xenophon for a register. It is easy to find out who owns what. The real issue is what we going to do about it. While in the past I have actually sold livestock to a Japanese owned feedlot and got benefit from that, I think we need to look to the long-term interests of this country. Will our children thank us for selling off the farm and their future food security?
Adelaide Electorate: Ms Megan Payne
2325
2325
10:52:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women
1
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I rise today to congratulate a remarkable constituent from the electorate of Adelaide, Ms Megan Payne, who was one of the inaugural winners of the 2010 Prime Minister’s Australian Youth Forum Challenge. This challenge was a number of initiatives announced by our government to support action by young people for the priority areas identified in the first ever National Strategy for Young Australians. As a result of this there was a national competitive funding round. Ms Megan Payne was one of six young people awarded funding through the challenge to empower young people to be active change-makers within their own communities—for us to give the opportunity for young people themselves to change their own lives and to change the lives of those around them. Megan was awarded $15,000 for her project, which aims to support the engagement and inclusion of international students, migrants and new arrivals within our local community. There is something really refreshing at a time when so many choose to focus on that which divides us to see Megan putting her work into that which unites us and to making sure that there is an understanding, tolerance and a sense of community amongst all of those in our community from a range of different backgrounds.
With this funding, this Saturday Megan will be hosting the Youth Migrant Support and Celebration Day, where international students and migrants will be provided with a series of information sessions about services and customs in Australia. This will take place during the day. At night there will be a multicultural event of traditional food and dance to celebrate the diverse community which we are lucky enough to call home in Adelaide. We know that too often international students arrive in Australia with very little information or knowledge about our customs and culture and that this can lead them to feel isolated and to have a negative experience within Australia. We also know from the recent review into international students that there is exploitation in the workforce, safety concerns and a lack of access to support services. It is fantastic to see Megan’s work in empowering communities. Not only will this project benefit the many international students and migrants who attend on the day but Megan and her group, Uniting New Immigrants in Australia, are working to ensure that the aims of this project are sustainable in Adelaide, looking to make partnerships with other organisations to support international arrivals well into the future. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Megan as a young person who is passionate about our community and wish her all the best for a fantastic event on Saturday.
Gilmore Electorate: Ms Grace Kennedy
2326
2326
10:55:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
0
0
Mrs GASH
—From time to time it is my privilege to come across an individual in the community whose attitude to life and determination sets them apart from their peers. Through their approach, the strength of their personality and an ability to inspire others, they shine like a beacon in their community. I am sure other members of the House would share that sentiment, but, when it is a young teen struggling with a disability in the face of adversity, I am truly impressed.
It was my good fortune to recently meet a 16-year-old girl from Vincentia, which sits on the shores of Jervis Bay. Grace Kennedy has spina bifida and paraplegia, and this has not slowed her down. In fact, I believe it has made her even more determined not to be beaten. She is a true competitor in every sense of the word. Grace is a successful competitive swimmer with excellent upper-body strength and a high achiever scholastically who demonstrates some natural sailing skills and a very can-do attitude. She has a desire to compete in sport on equal terms with able bodies.
She is a member of Sailability Callala, a local sailing club, and has been invited to participate in the 303 doubles in Melbourne as a crew member of the club’s president, Malcolm Cameron. Malcolm identified her potential early and has undertaken to coach and mentor her in sailing. Grace’s parents are fully supportive, and I applaud Malcolm for his vision and his faith in Grace. Malcolm says he could see Grace competing at the 2011 nationals in a 2.3 single, and so can I.
Recently I was honoured to be invited to Sailability Callala’s season open day, where Grace delivered a speech. I would like to share her words with the House today. She said:
As a member of Sailability Callala I would like to express my thanks to a number of organisations who have generously contributed to our club.
On behalf of my fellow members we recognise and thank:
Culburra and District Community Health Services
Huskisson RSL
New South Wales Communities Sport and Recreation
And Callala Bay Community Association
The thing about sailing is that although the wind is free everything else costs money.
Without assistance we could not afford the boats and equipment that has made our club one of the best in country New South Wales.
Recently I spent a couple of days in Sydney learning the ropes of our new SKUD.
It looks fantastic and the design means it can be sailed by anyone.
I also met Dan Fitzgibbon the previous owner this boat who is an Australian Paralympian which was a real thrill.
Through Sailing, it was another chance to meet many people and make new friends.
Through Sailing I can enjoy a sport that may be a large part of my life.
Grace stands as an inspiration to other teens, regardless of whether or not they are able bodied. She is a courageous young woman and deserves the full support of the community. Grace says that sailing makes her feel ‘free and equal’ and that she ‘loves being splashed’. I can only begin to imagine the intensity of the emotion behind those words, but slowly I am beginning to appreciate that many of the bounds that hold us back are of our own making. I take my hat off to Grace, and I am very proud of her.
Bass Electorate: Building the Education Revolution Program
2327
2327
10:58:00
Lyons, Geoff, MP
M38
Bass
ALP
1
0
Mr LYONS
—Through the Building the Education Revolution program, the government has invested $16.2 billion in schools right across Australia for minor infrastructure and refurbishment projects, major new infrastructure in primary schools, and new science and language centres in secondary schools. In the past weeks I have had the very great pleasure of experiencing firsthand the benefits these projects bring to schools and their local communities in my electorate of Bass. It has been my privilege to attend the opening of these facilities and to meet the students and community members who are benefiting from this fantastic program.
The official openings of new multipurpose halls and classroom refurbishments at Ravenswood Heights Primary School and
Ringarooma Primary School
have been perfect examples of what Building the Education Revolution set out to achieve. These two projects employed 36 workers—the very essence of the economic stimulus plan—with funding of over $3 million producing first-class learning areas, administration and school amenities. It has been fantastic to see the principals, school staff, parents and tradespeople working together to deliver these important projects. I would like to recognise the hard work undertaken by the schools, the community and the Tasmanian Department of Education in delivering these important projects. Now that they are completed, teachers and students in these schools will be teaching and learning in the 21st century facilities that they so richly deserve.
The students used to walk through the doors at Ravenswood Heights Primary School that faced into a brick wall. They are now walking into an inviting space with light through to the other side of the building, and they have learning spaces that are bright and welcoming. At Ringarooma Primary School I was thrilled to see the transformation of an old building into a modern, multipurpose hall, and I watched the children in the new space enjoy a joyful musical performance.
It was tremendous enjoyment to celebrate the opening of these facilities and to witness the enjoyment that staff, students and parents all gained from the completion of these projects. The new halls and classrooms represent a great relationship between the federal government and local communities; a relationship that I will be striving to continue in the electorate of Bass. I congratulate the school communities involved and wish the schools and students all the best as they use their new 21st century facilities.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
2328
Private Members' Business
Asbestos
2328
Debate resumed, on motion by
Mr Murphy:
That this House:
-
notes that the Bernie Banton Foundation estimates that by 2020, some 40,000 Australians will have contracted asbestos related cancer;
-
recognises the role governments, the trade union movement and individuals, such as Bernie Banton, have played in raising awareness about the dangers of asbestos and in banning the sale and use of asbestos and asbestos products in Australia;
-
expresses concern that:
-
countries, such as Canada, continue to export asbestos to India and many other countries in South Asia; and
-
international efforts to list chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Treaty, which requires importing countries to be warned of the risks associated with hazardous substances and products, have been blocked by countries, such as Canada; and
-
leads international efforts to ban the sale, mining and use of all forms of asbestos, such as chrysotile asbestos, throughout the world.
2328
11:01:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Reid
ALP
1
0
Mr MURPHY
—I am very pleased to present this motion to the parliament. This motion is named in honour of the late Bernie Banton, the inspirational anti-asbestos campaigner who lost his battle to mesothelioma almost three years ago today. Despite his terminal illness, he fought so that the health disaster caused by asbestos was exposed and stopped. He fought for the rights and safety of his co-workers and their families and for justice to bring those responsible to account. I had the great honour of knowing Bernie and I know his courageous widow Karen, who continues Bernie’s fight against the devastating effects of asbestos related disease. I have witnessed a courageous Australian who believed in doing what is right and fighting not only for himself but for everyone affected by asbestos.
In this chamber we are all well aware of the David and Goliath style battle between James Hardie and victims of asbestos, including Bernie Banton. With the assistance of the unions, Bernie, Barry Robson, President of the Asbestos Disease Foundation of Australia, and other sufferers were successful in their fight for recognition, justice and compensation. Through their courage they helped raise awareness about the dangers of asbestos. Governments, trade unions and individuals such as Bernie Banton have all played important roles in raising awareness of asbestos and in banning the sale and use of asbestos and asbestos products in Australia.
Although Australia has banned asbestos, the very alarming fact is that, despite the evidence of the very adverse and lasting health effects of asbestos, it is estimated that the world production of asbestos is still more than two million tonnes a year. That is why, today, I have moved this motion and, most importantly, that this House express its concern about countries such as Canada that continue to export asbestos to countries such as India and many other countries in South Asia. Further, we express our concerns that efforts to list chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Treaty, which requires importing countries to be warned of the risks associated with hazardous substances and products, have been blocked by countries such as Canada.
Armed with our experience of asbestos, Australia should lead the international efforts to ban the sale, mining and use of all forms of asbestos throughout the world. Many medical and scientific articles highlight the severe risks posed by asbestos and should serve as a haunting example to the rest of the world. As I have stated before in this place, it may only take one asbestos fibre to cause an asbestos related disease, decades after initial exposure. The more one is exposed to asbestos particles, the greater the risk of developing and asbestos related disease in the future. The prognosis for mesothelioma is chilling. The average life expectancy from diagnosis to death is 152 days and treatment options are very limited.
The Bernie Banton Foundation estimates that by 2020 some 40,000 Australians will have contracted asbestos related cancer. Alarmingly, it has been reported that the national incidence rates for mesothelioma in Australia are the highest in the world. That is why I have worked with my community to raise awareness and improve the lives of those affected. In 2007 I joined Bernie Banton’s fight to get mesothelioma treatment, Alimta, listed under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. After a very successful campaign, which collected over a thousand signatures in my electorate alone, the former health minister approved Alimta under the PBS for all asbestos disease sufferers to help improve and prolong their lives.
My community also supports the campaign for an international ban on the mining, sale and use of asbestos—also through a petition. The local petition received overwhelming support with more than 1,000 signatures collected. Many petitions were returned with notes and letters containing personal stories of lives affected by asbestos and noting the need to stop this from ever happening again to innocent people.
The Bernie Banton Centre is located in the grounds of Concord Repatriation Hospital in my electorate of Reid. The federal government has provided significant funding for the establishment of the centre and I have the pleasure of knowing its Director, Professor Nico van Zandwijk. Important research is being conducted at the centre to discover treatments for asbestos related diseases and, one day, a cure.
Despite the ban on asbestos in Australia there is still great concern about the continued threat asbestos poses to all Australians. In an interview with Heath Gilmore, of the
Sydney Morning Herald, Professor van Zandwijk expressed his concern at the very real risk that Australians still face from environmental exposure to asbestos. Asbestos was historically a threat to those who had been exposed through their work; more recently, it has been a threat through the increase in the number of home renovations and demolitions being done without the necessary precautions. Professor van Zandwijk fears that future generations will have to deal with asbestos related diseases contracted from environmental exposure, including from contaminated landfill material being unearthed. He said:
We don’t know the level of potential exposure and we need to develop a greater understanding. It is a matter of increasing awareness and developing a register of where this is happening.
We have a duty to ensure that we are vigilant at every level of government to safely dispose of asbestos and prevent new generations from falling victim to such a deadly disease. If the effects of asbestos in Australia are not compelling enough, let us have a look around the world. An article published in the journal
Environmental Health Perspectives
in July this year states that an estimated 20,000 asbestos related lung cancers and 10,000 cases of mesothelioma occur annually across the populations of Western Europe, Scandinavia, North America, Japan and Australia. It is estimated that, in Britain alone, mesothelioma will claim 90,000 lives by 2050 and asbestos will account for more than half of all birth related cancer deaths.
Although 52 countries have banned all forms of asbestos, many more developing nations still import and use this deadly product. There is strong evidence that all forms of asbestos cause asbestosis, malignant mesothelioma, lung cancer and laryngeal cancer and may even cause ovarian and gastrointestinal cancer. Further, for more than 20 years asbestos has been declared a human carcinogen by respected health organisations such as the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Moreover, scientific communities overwhelmingly agree that there is no safe level of exposure to any form of asbestos and, therefore, no reason to exempt a type of asbestos from a worldwide ban.
The most important factor, I believe, in the call for an international ban is the fact that the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives is preventable. Safer alternative materials and products have replaced asbestos, so there is no need to continue using this deadly material. However, many believe that the political and economic influence of the mining and manufacturing industry has prevented a worldwide ban. Surely, preventable loss of life must take precedence over economic gain and Australia must continue to speak out on the danger of asbestos to the lives of others around the world. We know all too well the serious cost to the environment, our health system and our community of not speaking out against such a catastrophe occurring in other less developed nations. Sadly, countries such as Russia, China, Brazil, Canada and Zimbabwe continue to produce large amounts of asbestos. Countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa still use asbestos—including China, India, Thailand, Vietnam and the Ukraine—and will likely see a significant increase in the number of men, women and children affected by asbestos related diseases.
This could be prevented if all forms of asbestos were banned worldwide. The Rotterdam convention is an international agreement to help regulate global trade in hazardous chemicals that are either banned or severely restricted due to their serious effects on humans and the environment. The convention was established to help protect countries—in particular, developing countries—from importing such hazardous chemicals without prior informed consent. Effectively, prior informed consent is legally binding to ensure that governments are aware of the health and environmental risks before they import materials regulated under the convention. Under the conference regulations a hazardous material can be listed only if there is unanimous agreement of the 131 nations which are parties to the convention. At the 2008 conference an attempt to list chrysotile, the most prevalent type of asbestos, was opposed. I note that more than 100 countries tried to list chrysotile on the Rotterdam convention list. However, not surprisingly, the few countries opposed to listing chrysotile are the same countries that still use asbestos.
One former constituent, Mr Ralf Kluin, who has followed my anti-asbestos campaign, wrote to me and responded to my motion with the following:
Vested capitalist/industrial interests, dealing in dangerous material, for nothing other than for blatant self interest, exposing unwitting people, those with only their labour to sell, dangerously employed, with little or no compensation and looking at an early death; the communities living and playing in the vicinities of these asbestos mines; and the production of product from this poisonous asbestos material, scientifically proven to kill; the owners must be shut down and wherever possible, prosecuted.
We must challenge the countries and industries that support asbestos mining, production and use and call for an international ban, because that is what is right. We cannot allow a repeat of the reckless and irresponsible behaviour of companies like James Hardie here in Australia to be repeated around the world despite countless warnings. The World Trade Organisation called the so-called controlled use of asbestos a fallacy. The World Health Organisation stated that the only efficient way to eliminate asbestos disease is ‘to stop using all types of asbestos’. I stand here this morning with my parliamentary colleagues and thank them for their support as I continue my call in this place for Australia to lead international efforts to ban the sale, mining and use of all forms of asbestos, such as chrysotile, throughout the world.
(Time expired)
2331
11:11:00
Laming, Andrew, MP
E0H
Bowman
LP
0
0
Mr LAMING
—In supporting many elements of the motion today, it is probably important to look at the work that is occurring in Canada at the moment in addressing some of the issues in the export of asbestos to developing economies. That is the area that I will focus on this morning. In Quebec there are, I think, two small mines still exporting chrysotile to developing economies like India and parts of Africa. This is of great concern because a number of tactics have been used to try and bring that trade to an end and so far they have been unsuccessful.
A motion like this draws our minds to what we are doing in this country. The Australian Labor Party’s position on uranium is not so dissimilar to the debate we are having today about asbestos: the great tension about whether we can mine something and export it overseas even though we choose to not use it domestically. While I think it is great to bring a euphemistic motion before this chamber, it is important to remember that, if you take just a slightly different look at another mineral, in many cases you will find that the very movers of this motion are doing exactly the same thing with a different element. That said, we can look at Canada and understand that some very powerful coalitions are forming to pressure that country to revise its position on the export of—
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene and ask a question.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Is the member for Bowman willing to give way?
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr LAMING
—Yes.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
—My question to the member is: in relation to uranium and the argument that he is putting before the House, is he arguing that Australia should not export uranium? Also, is he arguing that the mining of uranium creates the same medical side effects that are caused by asbestos?
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr LAMING
—That is an excellent question which I will answer as I progress through the speech. What we have is tension between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec, who both find themselves tacitly supporting the continued export. The concern for many who are opposed to what is effectively the transfer of asbestos to developing economies—where the understanding, knowledge and regulation of the use of this product are fairly limited—is the responsibility a developed economy has to make sure that is done fairly and safely. The answer probably is, in current arrangements: very, very little.
Some have attempted to use the Rotterdam treaty, which focuses on pesticides, as a way of preventing the use of a product that, they would argue, can be used safely only in an almost theoretical sense. While the figures diverge, the Canadian-government-sponsored Chrysotile Institute will say that it is 99.8 per cent safe to use asbestos under certain conditions. I think everyone in this chamber would know that those conditions do not exist around the world.
The best figures we have about the number of deaths due to asbestos are, I think, even higher than those the member provided earlier. If you take all of the deaths in the developed world, it is in the order of 100,000 per year. We need to be balancing that morally against the economic impact for economies. Choosing Canada because it is a developed economy and the wealthiest of the asbestos exporters, let us consider the price that they would pay if they were to cease the export of asbestos. The answer is that there probably are 200 to 500 jobs in those mines. Some would argue that those mines are already economically barely above water. Many of them are still reliant on government sponsorship to survive. So this is a sector that is struggling.
We also know that there is direct support from the Canadian government. There is a very financially favourable loan to expand a new mine. But we also know that the Canadian government has a link with the Chrysotile Institute, which they support to prepare newsletters like this. I found this of enormous interest. This is a 12-page document that promotes the safe use of asbestos. It even includes beautifully illustrated headers showing smiling children from developing economies, who are obviously delighted that asbestos is arriving on their shores. On further reading, what it is effectively saying is that asbestos can be safely and responsibly used, under controlled circumstances. It then goes into significant detail to convince the world that there is no longer ‘any exposure’ theory—that it is no longer the case that any form of exposure can lead to cancer. While I regard that as being an intellectually fascinating detail in this document, in a practical sense it is a complete waste of space, time and taxpayers’ money, if I could make that observation from the other side of the Pacific.
The current Canadian government do not want to lose a couple of seats in Quebec. They do not want the backlash that could occur if there were to be some restrictions on the mining of asbestos. And, fundamentally, a developed economy does not really have any concern for how a product, once it leaves its shores, is used when it arrives in the market that has purchased it. This should be of enormous concern. It does sound a little bit like the tobacco industry, and, as I have said already, it sounds a little bit like the Australian’s Labor Party’s approach to uranium.
Let us be very clear about this: there have been and there will be extreme statements on both sides. I will just allude to a few of these. Firstly, we are seeing, particularly in Canada, very few politicians prepared to speak out about this topic. We are only just starting to see some cracks here, with the NDP and some federal Liberals—and, in Canada, unions, outside Quebec—starting to support the words of the previous speaker.
If you look a little closer at who graces the pages of these Canadian government funded newsletters, it is—yes, you guessed it—the union movement. Right at the top of it, you will be interested to read that the chrysotile asbestos labour unions from Quebec are on the front lines, fighting hard on this issue to continue the export of asbestos. I think it is just worth making sure that that is on the public record, because that is printed in a Canadian government funded newsletter from an institute which is itself run and owned by someone who previously owned an asbestos mine. So it does appear to get murkier.
While I cannot pretend to fully understand the ins and outs of asbestos in Canada, it is also interesting to see some of the rhetoric that is suffused through these Canadian government sponsored newsletters. One example is: ‘We have been vigilant and perseverant in defending the rights of workers.’ That certainly evokes the language of the front lines of the left, doesn’t it? These are the guys who are defending the jobs of the people who dig this stuff up. There are 200 to 300 of them, and probably another 500 who are indirectly associated with asbestos export. They are the very people who you would potentially put out of work—but to save the lives of 100,000 people. It has to start somewhere, doesn’t it?
If you bring a motion to this place, you need to realise that the case being made to continue the status quo is not always being made by powerful industry. It can sometimes be made by a labour union, and sometimes by a government that is defending its own economic interests. I just place that before the chamber: that newsletter, ‘for the safe and responsible use of chrysotile’. Of course, when they make their case, they leave the word ‘asbestos’ out, because that is a little bit distasteful these days, isn’t it? So instead, they use the chemical name to try and avoid any insensitivity.
In short, every health organisation you have ever heard of will talk about the dangers of asbestos and say that more needs to be done, and what we have here is one developed economy that certainly does not appear to be doing enough. You can call it indifference but you can also call it a focus on a domestic economy. Parts of Quebec are probably not doing that well at the moment and those few hundred jobs, let us be honest, support families who would be extremely disadvantaged were they to be transitioned into other forms of the economy. So we have to be looking for solutions to that if we are to aspire to those noble aspirations that were mentioned in the previous speaker’s motion.
I am not saying that any politician is an enthusiastic advocate of asbestos. Obviously they are not. But I think it is important to point out the tensions. The residence of the Canadian Prime Minister is currently having asbestos removed from it and the House of Commons in Canada in recent years has had the asbestos removed from it. So the argument is: can we really expect that it is completely fair to be exporting asbestos at exactly the same time? Both levels of government, Quebec and Canada itself, find themselves in a situation where it is only continued government support that keeps these mines up and running and they continue to export—and we hear of the dreadful morbidity.
(Time expired)
2333
11:21:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
1
0
Ms OWENS
—I am very pleased to support the member for Reid in asking the House to ensure that Australia takes a leading role in establishing a treaty to prevent the mining and export of asbestos worldwide. It is right that we do that because we in this country have lived through the development of the asbestos industry and the plague that it has perpetrated on the families and the workers involved.
Australia suffers one of the highest rates of incidence of mesothelioma in the world, with estimates of 13,000 cases by 2020 and a further 40,000 to 45,000 cases of asbestos related cancer. The dreadful statistics indicate that the rates of incidence of this awful disease are not expected to peak until 2017, even though asbestos manufacture and use as a new product in Australia ceased in 1983. Survival rates are extremely poor with only five per cent of patients alive five years after diagnosis. We as a country know the future of the workers and families in countries around the world where asbestos is now being used quite freely.
While Australia and many other developed nations have banned the use of asbestos many developing countries, including India and other countries in South Asia, are still employing the deadly product and countries like Canada are allowing the sale of this deadly substance to developing nations—knowing full well the risk it poses. We are well and truly watching history repeat itself. Let me take India as an example. It is a place many ‘Parramattians’ literally consider a part of the family. It is a place, for Parramatta, where many brothers, sisters, mums and dads still live. It disturbs me and many other people in Parramatta to know that since 1960 India has used seven million tonnes of asbestos and its usage is only intensifying. Over the last 30 years India’s usage of asbestos has increased by more than 300 per cent.
That this industry is allowed to flourish at a time when the occupational, environmental and domestic hazards of asbestos exposure are firmly established is quite scandalous. Dr Sanjay Chaturvedi said it well when he observed that historically the burden of industrial pollution reaches the developing world much faster than the fruits of industrial growth. In developed countries you cannot even give it away these days. There are laws that prevent society’s use of this poisonous substance. To absorb the fall in global demand, chrysotile asbestos-pushers have aggressively targeted consumers in countries with booming economies but developing health and regulatory frameworks. In India, asbestos producers have found a ready market for their goods and over the last decade India has overtaken all others as Canada’s most important chrysotile asbestos export destination. More than a quarter of Canada’s yearly asbestos exports are to India, raking in more than $50 million for Canadian exporters. Attempts to list chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Treaty in 2006 failed. Listing it under the treaty would require importing countries to be warned of risks associated with hazardous substances. The failure to list this deadly substance leaves many citizens of developing countries importing the product at grave risk.
I support the member for Reid in calling for further international efforts to have the mining and export of asbestos banned world wide. Western knowledge of the dangers of asbestos has been around for a long time. Pliny the Elder first noted many thousands of years ago that people who worked with asbestos displayed a sickness of the lungs, but the first death in modern times from asbestos exposure was recorded as early as 1899, which is nearly 40 years before James Hardie opened its plant at Camellia in my electorate. In 1900, a physician at London’s Charing Cross Hospital concluded that a 30-year-old man had died from an asbestos related disease. The French knew about the dangers of asbestos as early as 1906 and made recommendations that ventilation be increased in asbestos workplaces. In 1917 and 1918 several US studies showed that asbestos workers were dying unnaturally young. In 1916, just over 20 years before James Hardie opened its plant in Camellia, Presidential Life Insurance in the US started refusing to give life insurance to anybody who worked in an asbestos related industry. Yet nearly 100 years later this product is being sold to developing countries, and over the next 50 to 70 years those countries will pay the price for using this material. I commend the member for Reid for bringing this motion to the House, and I support it fully.
2335
11:26:00
Broadbent, Russell, MP
MT4
McMillan
LP
0
0
Mr BROADBENT
—I thank the member for Reid for bringing this very important issue to the notice of the House. I have just got off the phone to Vicki Hamilton, the CEO of GARDS, the Gippsland Asbestos Related Disease Support group. Vicki herself lost both her father and her grandfather to asbestos related diseases, and she raised a number of issues. It says in one of her notes about one of the people she supports:
Asbestos support groups are a very unique thing, not only do we have a common foe but the disease is incurable, so the people who come to our group find it difficult to go to other cancer support groups and sit with people who have breast cancer, because they have a hope of being cured, whereas those with an asbestos-related disease know there is no cure.
GARDS began in 1991 as an afternoon cup of tea to support the increasing number of widows in the Latrobe Valley, and eventually they started asking questions about the lack of services available. GARDS has spread asbestos awareness information throughout the area, supported families through support group meetings and free medical equipment to make life more bearable and kept those families connected with the information they need. GARDS has also advocated new drugs, conducted research and worked with the occupational health and safety regulations and awareness campaigns. Their lobbying brought a $21 million regional hospital to the Latrobe Valley in 2006. Up until then, 80 per cent of cancer patients at the Monash Medical Centre at Springvale in Melbourne were people commuting from the Latrobe Valley.
According to Vicki Hamilton, the power station in the Latrobe Valley was warned of the dangers of asbestos by the United Kingdom in the late thirties, yet the problem had manifested itself beyond control or care—it was everywhere. According to Vicki, ‘Any house built up until the late 1980s will have asbestos in it, whether it is under the eaves or floor or in textured paints and tiles et cetera.’ Vicki says that although asbestos is ‘a really wonderful product, it’s a pity it kills you’. With no cure and with limited knowledge of asbestos related diseases, Vicki says:
It doesn’t matter who you are, everyone will breathe into their lungs asbestos fibres, we will all breathe them in, they are in our environment, what triggers you to succumb to an asbestos disease nobody knows yet.’
There needs to be a lot more scientific research on that issue. A man walked into the Vicki’s office five years ago and said that, out of a group of 33 men who worked under the same conditions in the Latrobe Valley, he was the only one who was still alive and had no signs of an asbestos related disease. Elaine Callow was living the reality of the kind of devastation that the disease can wreak on people’s lives, and many others in the Latrobe Valley were suffering alongside her. People said to Elaine, ‘You poor thing.’ But Elaine said: ‘I don’t want that; I just want the word to be out there to stay away from it, keep away from this disease. It’s just hanging around, waiting to get the next person and there is nothing you can do about it.’
Vale to Elaine Callow. Elaine lost her battle with mesothelioma on 4 September 2010. Elaine was held in high esteem by the GARDS organisation and will be sadly missed. But she will not be forgotten. Her memory will live on in those who knew her well. She would want us to go on making a difference in the lives of others affected by this deadly carcinogen. She would want us to keep up the fight to rid Australia of this deadly material and to eventually eradicate it from our communities, where it is killing 3,000 people a year. We will miss you very much, Elaine; we enjoyed our visits with you in those last few months. Elaine was one of the GARDS treasures. Rest in peace, Elaine; your battle is now over—till we meet again, 1936 to 2010.
In my closing remarks I want to say what Vicki said to me on the phone. She said we need a whole-of-government approach with every area of government activity looking closely at this matter, and we need housing audits so that, if you go to buy a house, there has actually been an asbestos audit on that house and you know before you buy that house exactly what the asbestos situation is. She said this problem is not going away. Professor Julian Peto, an English professor, predicted that Australia would not peak in 2020 but rather the peak might not be until 2050.
Serious money needs to be thrown at this issue. They already have kits for removal of small areas of asbestos. Every one of us is guilty—I have been guilty in the past—of breaking up asbestos, throwing it in the trailer and taking it to the tip. In Vicki’s own words, a bit of money chucked their way to look after the families affected would not go astray. I say to the member for Reid and members of the government: if you would like to look closely at what this organisation is doing, it is on their website. I pay tribute not only to Vicki Hamilton but also to Brian Clegg, Dorothy Roberts, my old friend and political foe John Parker, secretary of the union down there, and members Marie Smith and Ann Clegg.
I commend this motion to the House and acknowledge that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
2336
11:31:00
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Werriwa
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services
1
0
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—It is predictable that I, along with the member for Reid and the member for Parramatta, would be involved in this debate on asbestos. As people would be aware, James Hardie’s main plant operation was at Camelia in Western Sydney. This touches us very directly. Coincidentally, this weekend I will be at a race meeting at Rosehill for the Asbestos Diseases Foundation. I know of many people who have died from this disease. Asbestosis was one of the contributing factors in my father’s death. Our area has been the location of much illegal dumping over the decades by James Hardie. I put on the record my commendation of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, journalist Matt Peacock, Bernie Banton and the others who have crusaded on this issue. I also express the hope that former management of James Hardie come clean at this late stage and reveal to the Australian public where this illegal dumping occurred in previous years.
I commend the member for Reid for raising this issue. It is just another example of an international problem. When contraceptives are banned in the First World because they are unsafe, they are still marketed in developing countries. We constantly see stories about the illegal export of chemical waste to West Africa—fraudulent paperwork through the shipping corporations and mangy European companies dumping stuff that they are not allowed to dump in Europe. This is just another example of the problem. The hypocrisy of Canada is rampant. We have a situation where that country is prioritising the removal of asbestosis in its own schools. We have a situation where its use is banned in that nation. Yet, the provincial government of Quebec, I am led to believe, can provide a $58 million line of credit to ensure that mines go ahead and that they export the product to other countries which have less control over it, which have less knowledge, which have less infrastructure and which have weaker medical systems.
Mention has been made of the Rotterdam convention of 1998, which seeks to promote cooperation between countries in the international trade of hazardous chemicals. Canada, once a reputable nation in environmental matters, has been in there with India, China and Kazakhstan in trying to ensure that measures are not taken on asbestos and that restrictions in this area are thwarted. Fifty-two countries have banned the mining of asbestos. That says something. First World nations have knowledge, which the member for Parramatta has just put forward, and we have had that knowledge for many decades. It is not debatable and it is not questionable—it is definite. Yet Canada is exporting this material. The ILO has joined with the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Cancer Society in condemning the action of the Canadian government in facilitating, supporting and promoting the continued export of asbestos for the dollar.
India is an expanding economy but there has been promotion of this product by reputable media there. They say it is very safe despite the fact that it is internationally known to be otherwise. The situation is that India will find it very difficult to deal with this product. Internationally 107,000 people die from asbestos related lung cancer each year. The building needs of India mean that there will be very wide usage of it.
India is also at the forefront in the dismantling of international vessels laden with asbestos. India not only imports asbestos for its building and construction industry but also has industries like this, which would not be allowed in the First World, where unskilled, illiterate Indian people are asked to dismantle these ships, thereby putting themselves in danger.
I am not just speaking about asbestos. I noted earlier the danger from other products—25 per cent of the worldwide use of pesticide occurs in the developing world but 99 per cent of acute poisoning deaths appear in those same countries. They do not have the infrastructure; they do not have the means of tackling and combating these problems. I commend the member for Reid for raising what is a very fundamental health issue, which Australia should also be raising in international forums.
2337
11:36:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—I would also like to commend the member for Reid for bringing forward this motion on the absolute need for action on asbestos—the exporting of asbestos and the need for further action across the world. It has certainly been the tragic experience of this country that no use of asbestos and no level of exposure to asbestos, in any form, is safe.
When talking about chrysotile, the white asbestos; crocidolite, the blue asbestos; or amosite, the brown asbestos, you hear the argument: ‘What about the blue and the brown? That’s the really dangerous staff. The chrysotile, the white asbestos, can be used safely.’ We have seen comments like this made in the Thai media and I even noticed recently on IslamOnline.net someone making the case for Zimbabwe’s export of white asbestos: ‘This is the safe stuff; this is the pure asbestos.’
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms Saffin
—There is no safe asbestos.
HWE
Simpkins, Luke, MP
Mr SIMPKINS
—That is exactly right. I note that there is never any form of safe asbestos in the world. You might refer to something as white or pure and that tends to create the image in a lot of people’s minds that it is somehow better. Others might say that this white asbestos breaks down a bit better, but the harsh reality is that so many people—some 100,000 people around the world per year—die from exposure to blue and brown asbestos and also, most definitely, from exposure to white asbestos. There is no such thing as safe asbestos and it is certainly good that since 2004 Australia has taken many steps forward to deal with asbestos.
Whilst we have members present here who have had personal experiences during the times of the worst excesses of James Hardie I will also make mention of the actions of that company. I would like to say that the behaviour of that company has always been a matter of great disgrace. It would be good if they were fully held to account for their terrible behaviour in Australia’s past—for their mining, their dumping, their obfuscation and their covering-up. That is certainly a matter of great distaste for all in this country who are aware of it.
Much of this motion relates to the exporting of asbestos from Canada. As I have said, Zimbabwe is also an exporter, as is Russia. As has been said by all other speakers, it comes down to when we ban things in the Western world. For example, Canada has banned the use of asbestos in its own country but somehow its industry still needs to go on so they are more than happy to export it to India. I wonder whether India itself could start making a little bit more effort and maybe talk about banning its own importation of asbestos to help protect its own people. Bangladesh is another country that suffers from the effects of asbestos because it still has a very dangerous ship-breaking industry, an activity which I think India is working towards banning. A lot of asbestos has been used in shipbuilding, and people in Bangladesh, particularly in Dhaka, are suffering greatly through the ship-breaking industry and exposure to asbestos.
In the limited time I have left, I certainly endorse the motion. Canada should stop this terrible export industry.
2338
11:41:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—I rise to support the motion that the honourable member for Reid has brought before the House and I thank him for so doing. It is one of those issues that must unite us all. A lot of countries have banned asbestos, both mining and imports and exports, but there is still some way to go. The motion that the honourable member for Reid has put before the House talks about international efforts to list chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Treaty. James Hardie had an asbestos mine in Baryulgil, which is in my seat of Page. I will talk a little bit about that and then I will talk about a town in Russia called Asbest that lives off the proceeds of asbestos mining.
In the period from 1945 to the 1970s Australia was a big consumer of asbestos products. The mine in Baryulgil was operated by an almost entirely Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce. James Hardie operated there without any regard at all for the workers. Many inquiries have been conducted, including the one in 1983-84 which concluded that James Hardie should have been aware of the dangers of asbestos long before Baryulgil opened and was under an obligation to protect the workforce. It also noted its own deliberations had been hindered by James Hardie’s refusal to provide medical records or to allow people to give evidence. I have friends who lived and worked at that mine in Baryulgil. One friend, who will not mind me mentioning her, Mrs Irene Harrington, used to wash her husband’s clothes sometimes 10 times a day, when he came out of the mine. The miners used to wear handkerchiefs and things around their faces. That was not very good protection from asbestos. It is one of those tragedies that we are still dealing with. The honourable member for Reid’s motion says:
… Bernie Banton Foundation estimates that by 2020, some 40,000 Australians will have contracted asbestos related cancer …
I suggest that may be a conservative estimate. Other diseases and illnesses that are caused include asbestosis, asthma, chronic respiratory disease and bronchitis.
I pay tribute to the journalist Matt Peacock for his related report which was first broadcast on the ABC program
Broadband
on 30 September 1977. Matt Peacock is still following this story today. He won a journalism award—as he should have done—for that particular report.
Also, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
said:
The history of the failure of responsible authorities to address this significant health risk to the Baryulgil community constitutes a … disregard for the human rights of the residents, including their right to equal protection of the law and equality and enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, including public health.
In the short time I have left I will turn my attention to the town of Asbest, a town that is 1,750 kilometres from Moscow, which boasts a quarry and processing plant that produces one-quarter of the world’s chrysotile asbestos, which is commonly known as mineral flax. The quarry and processing plant employ 8,500 people. Asbest is a town of 71,000 residents, so you can see that it survives on what I call a ‘death industry’. How tragic that is for the poor people who have to live and work in that area. Asbest’s involvement in asbestos mining goes back to the 18th century. Marie Jego, from the
Guardian Weekly, visited Asbest. She talked to a whole lot of workers and residents Sadly, some of them said the campaign against asbestos was a plot by Western countries to stop Russia from getting access to asbestos. But some local women said differently.
(Time expired)
2339
11:46:00
Van Manen, Bert, MP
188315
Forde
LP
0
0
Mr VAN MANEN
—I thank the honourable member for Reid for his motion. We in Australia have been well aware of the effects of asbestos on humans for a number of years. In large part, this has been brought to public knowledge through the work of the Bernie Banton Foundation. This foundation was founded by Bernie and Karen Banton to support and encourage sufferers of asbestos diseases and their carers and loved ones. The foundation estimates that by 2020 approximately 40,000 Australians will have contracted asbestos related cancer. In recent days a good friend of mine has been diagnosed. Foundations such as this, along with governments, the trade union movement and other individuals, have played a large role in raising awareness about the dangers of asbestos and in banning the sale and use of asbestos and asbestos related products in Australia.
Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was widely used between the 1940s and the late 1980s in Australia. It is valued for its durability, fire resistance and excellent insulating properties. Asbestos is extremely dangerous as its fibres are 50 to 200 times thinner than human hair and can float in the air for a long time. It is invisible to the naked eye and can be breathed into the lungs. In Australia, chrysotile asbestos was the most popular form of asbestos used in roofing materials, asbestos cement sheeting—also known as fibro—and pipes.
Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that is a known carcinogenic. Chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite were all used in the asbestos cement industry for insulation and lagging. Although the use of these substances has been prohibited and there are removal programs in place, considerable amounts of the material remain in some work and residential environments. There have been some recent articles about asbestos materials in school buildings and roofs in Queensland. That situation is creating considerable issues for those particular communities.
Asbestos can cause severe health problems if it is breathed in. Although most of the fibres are removed by the body’s natural defences, some fibres can remain in the lungs. Possible health effects of asbestos include: asbestosis; progressive and irreversible scarring of lung tissue, which impairs breathing; lung cancer; mesothelioma, which is a cancer of the lining around the lungs and abdomen; and benign pleural diseases, or non-cancerous diseases, that can affect the linings around the lungs and abdomen.
Asbestos related illnesses can take up to 50 years to develop in some cases, and, although there are some treatments available, there are currently no known cures. In my electorate of Forde, I have become aware of some cases of asbestosis caused by the presence of asbestos in residential and industrial areas. As I said earlier, a good friend of mine was recently diagnosed with asbestosis. Since December 2003, the use of all forms of asbestos in Australia has been banned. Prohibitions have been placed on the manufacture, supply, storage, transport, sale, use and re-use, installation and replacement of asbestos-containing material. At the same time, the Commonwealth implemented a ban on the import and export of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials. This ban does not apply to asbestos installed prior to December 2003.
The battle over the categorisation of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical under the terms of the Rotterdam convention is ongoing, as countries such as Canada continue to export asbestos to India and other countries in South Asia. On two occasions, Ottawa blocked consensus at the Rotterdam convention to place chrysotile asbestos, a known toxin, on its list of dangerous products. The sale, mining and use of all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos, should be banned globally.
2340
11:52:00
Jones, Stephen, MP
A9B
Throsby
ALP
1
0
Mr STEPHEN JONES
—I rise today to support the motion moved by the honourable member for Reid. I thank the member for Reid for once again bringing this issue before the parliament. The battle for justice for victims of asbestos diseases is very important to me and I have been engaged in it for many years. Like many Australians, I have lost friends to the horrible disease mesothelioma, and I have family members who suffer from asbestos related diseases. This is in no small part because the suburbs in my electorate of Throsby have used products containing asbestos as basic building materials for many, many years. Asbestos garages and sheds were used as cricket stumps and tennis nets in the backyards of my childhood. It may be that I or some of my school friends will one day be beneficiaries of the great work of the people in this place and the campaign that I will talk about.
In 2005 I had the great honour of going to work with the ACTU as part of the negotiating team on the James Hardie campaign, as it is well known. That team was led by the now member for Charlton, Mr Greg Combet, and the late Bernie Banton—a courageous man who is known to many in this place and whose battle has been taken on by his wife Karen. Campaigning for justice against James Hardie, a company that sought to abdicate both their responsibilities in relation to asbestos products and their social responsibilities, was a defining experience in my life. I take this opportunity to reply to some of the observations that were made earlier by the member for Bowman, who criticised some of the actions of unions in Canada in relation to the continued mining of asbestos in that country. In this country and around the world the union movement has not always got it right—at least not in the first instance—but I am absolutely certain that had it not been for the work of the trade union movement and the leadership shown by the ACTU and Unions New South Wales, working with the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia and the New South Wales government, James Hardie would never have been brought to book. We set up a compensation fund, the Asbestos Diseases Research Foundation—which has now given birth to research work in the hospital at Concord in the electorate of the member for Reid—and reformed the claims process.
Let us talk today about the important struggle that continues internationally. The terrible legacy of asbestos will live on in this country for many, many years to come as we deal with ways to eradicate it from our buildings, public and private. But we need to ensure that we do not visit that upon other nations in our region and around the world. As a nation that experienced rapid economic growth, especially during the boom years after the Second World War, we can understand the pressures that face developing nations, especially here in the Asia-Pacific. The attraction of strong, cheap, durable and heat-resistant building materials cannot be denied. However, those products that contain asbestos carry a hideous cost, often a cost which is visited upon the people who can least afford it.
So the actions of countries like Canada which continue to export asbestos and resist international efforts to list chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent is deplorable and should be strongly condemned in this place. As I said, they visit suffering and long-term health costs on the countries of our region and the people within those countries who are least able to deal with those health costs and the suffering that is likely to be visited on them over the long term. For these reasons I am proud to add my voice to this motion and urge all other members in this place to support it.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Neumann) adjourned.
Organ Donation
2341
Debate resumed, on motion by
Ms Brodtmann:
That this House:
-
notes that:
-
organ donor rates are showing slow and sustained improvement in 2010;
-
more than 98 per cent of Australians agree that organ and tissue donation have the potential to save and improve lives, yet less than 60 per cent of Australians accept the invitation for their loved ones to become organ donors when asked;
-
there are more than 1,700 Australians on the transplant waiting list at any time;
-
many more Australians cannot get into waiting lists as they are too sick or unlikely to receive a life saving transplant because there are not enough donors; and
-
the Government has invested more than $150 million over four years to establish a coordinated approach to organ donation, enabling all jurisdictions to work cooperatively to support sustained improvements in organ donation in Australia; and
-
acknowledges:
-
the selfless act of the 228 donor families who have already donated organs in 2010 (to 30 September), which has saved or improved the lives of at least 683 Australians;
-
the work undertaken across jurisdictions led by the National Medical Director of the Australian Organ and Tissue Authority, State and Territory Medical Directors and clinical groups to develop nationally consistent protocols and clinical triggers;
-
the support of community groups such as Gift of Life, Kidney Health Australia, Transplant Australia, the Organ Donation and Transplant Foundation of Western Australia and the David Hookes Foundation, which are integral in supporting the work of clinicians in improving organ donor rates; and
-
the importance of a steady and sustained improvement in organ donor rates to support Australia’s quest to become a world leader in organ and tissue donation and transplantation.
2342
11:57:00
Brodtmann, Gai, MP
30540
Canberra
ALP
1
0
Ms BRODTMANN
—Until recently, Australia’s organ donation rate languished near the bottom of the Western world’s league tables. Our annual rate stagnated at about 11 donors per million of population, or somewhere between 200 and 250 donors. By way of contrast, Spain has a donation rate of about 34 donors per million and is a world leader, the United States is at 21 donors per million, and the UK is at 15 donors per million. Our record in Australia was in spite of Australia being a world leader in transplantation surgery, with a record of stunning surgical outcomes and success. But, thanks to the reforms introduced by the Labor government in 2008, our performance in this area is starting to improve. This calendar year we have seen Australia’s first major improvement in organ donor rates in over 20 years, an improvement clearly linked to our reforms and our significant financial commitment to improving the lives of Australians.
In 2008 the Labor government announced a reform package worth more than $150 million to improve staff and resources for hospitals across the country. Prior, there was significant variation in organ donation management between jurisdictions. As a result of the reforms introduced by Labor, the states and territories have come together to provide a nationally consistent program.
There are more than 1,700 people on Australia’s waiting lists for transplants. Many more cannot get onto that list because they are either too sick or are unlikely to receive the transplant before death. The effect on them and their families is devastating and is the reason I rise on this issue today. Thanks to the Labor government, we have started on the long road to improvement. We now need to grow and sustain that improvement.
As a volunteer with Gift of Life I met many donor families, recipients and people awaiting a transplant who all want to improve Australia’s low organ donor rates. From my conversations with those people I also learned that you are more likely to need a transplant than to be an organ donor.
Let me tell you about Marjorie Taylor, who is the mother of the ACT’s first organ donor. Her daughter, Annette, died more than 30 years ago, in the very early days of this process. Fortunately, she had discussed organ donation with her mum before she died. In those days, it was a struggle to be an organ donor because systems just were not in place. It was thanks to the tenacity that is unique to a mother that meant that Annette’s wishes were respected and the lives of other Australians were saved. Thankfully, the struggle that Marjorie faced is now a distant memory. Systems are now in place and the focus is on ensuring that the wishes of our families are fulfilled.
The Labor government has introduced a range of reforms across every level of the health sector and also in the area of public awareness. It has established the Australian Organ and Tissue Authority to oversee the reform program. Its work is supported by a council of clinicians and community leaders. The DonateLife Network established by the authority in each jurisdiction is implementing the reform agenda. The national medical director, together with the state and territory medical directors, is leading the change management required at every level of the health system for sustained improvements in organ donation.
The reform program introduced through these multilevels of government and the health system is focused on two areas. The first is improving the capability and capacity of the health system to support an increase in organ and tissue donation—our greatest wish. Additional staff have now been appointed in intensive care units and emergency departments to ensure that all potential organ donors are identified. Most importantly, staff are also being trained to have the confidence to ask families for permission—which is very difficult to do—for their deceased loved ones to donate their organs. Just having gone through this process, with my mother-in-law recently dying, it is very difficult at that highly emotional time to seek permission, and these people are being trained to have the confidence to do that. In addition, new protocols have been developed to ensure that Australia is at the leading edge of organ retrieval. So, now, donation after cardiac death is a process across jurisdictions.
The second key reform relates to one of my passions and my former profession, which is increasing community awareness. We know that around 80 per cent of Australians support organ donation. However, at the time of request, less than 60 per cent accept that invitation. By contrast, in Spain there is an acceptance rate of about 80 per cent. The recent ‘OK’ campaign aimed to alert Australians to the importance of organ donation. That campaign focused on discovering the facts about organ donation, deciding what to do and discussing the decision with loved ones. This last step is the most critical because organ and tissue donation only occurs with the agreement of the next of kin. Advertising was run through the electronic, social and print media and the results speak for themselves, although I believe that further campaigns will be needed to sustain improvements in the rate of organ donation.
At the end of October this year, Australia had already exceeded the total number of organ donations achieved in 2009. This is a great outcome and suggests that we may reach 300 multi-organ donors by the end of the year. By ‘multi-organ donors’ I mean solid organs such as the heart, lungs, kidneys and liver. Tissue donation is just as important and includes corneas, heart valves and skin. One of the success stories in corneal transplantation is Felix Blumer, a resident of the ACT. Felix was about 14 when he started to go blind, which was overwhelming for both him and his family. He managed to receive a corneal graft and has now finished school and working hard for a living. The generosity of 258 organ donor families this year has resulted in 784 life-saving transplants, which equates to nearly 14 donors per million population. Record donations were achieved in May and October. In the ACT alone, we have already had nine multi-organ donors, equalling our best year. It is also heartening to see improvements in other jurisdictions that have traditionally not done so well in this area. We have seen improvements in New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. These results mimic what has been happening in the UK and Spain where, once reform was introduced, organ donation rates went up, so we are following that trend.
As someone who has worked in the volunteer area of this sector, I want to pay tribute to all the people who support organ donation. Many individuals and groups give their time and freely speak at community, academic and corporate events. They tell the story of what it is like to commit to organ donation, what it is like to be waiting for a transplant and what it is like to give organs to other families when someone dies. One of those groups includes Gift of Life, which until very recently was led by the formidable Anne Cahill Lambert, who is here today and is herself awaiting a lung transplant. I also welcome David O’Leary, who is also in Gift of Life. Gift of Life has organised national and local events to raise awareness and to encourage people to discover, decide and discuss.
Another group is Transplant Australia, which recently hosted the Transplant Games in Canberra. The games had recipients and their close supporters coming from all over Australia to celebrate the gradual improvements in the sector. I also want to acknowledge the Organ Donation and Transplant Foundation of Western Australia who are also working tirelessly to support organ donation. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Robyn Hookes and the David Hookes Foundation who have not only garnered support for organ donation and improved awareness about it but also garnered support from the cricketing community. We could not have made these improvements without the contribution of community partners. We also would not have been able to do it without the clinical leadership of the national medical director and the state and territory medical directors. The input of community leaders from the council through to the foot soldiers on the ground is valued and is playing a significant role in realising attitudinal change and raising awareness in the community.
Last Friday marked the 10th anniversary of the Australian Organ Donor Register, auspiced by Medicare. Over 5.7 million Australians have recorded their intentions on the register. It is important that every Australian on the register confirms their intentions in discussions with their loved ones so that they can be respected at the time of death. We know there is more work to do for Australia to be a world leader in organ and tissue donation rates. The Labor government’s reforms have underpinned the improvements of recent years, but further work is needed to enable all jurisdictions to develop and demonstrate world’s best practice. We need all of the brightest brains working on this: clinicians, the community and governments. We have arguably seen the best improvements in those jurisdictions when the community is embedded as partners with clinicians.
I want to tell you about a family in my electorate—Kit Crooke and Fiona West—whose three-year-old boy, Felix, is incredibly ill. He has not yet been listed for a liver transplant but he will need one soon. I would like to look that family in the eye very soon and tell them that he will get his transplant when he needs it. We do not want anyone, let alone a three-year old, lingering at death’s door with uncertainty while we hunt for a donor liver. I urge all members to consider what is happening in their own electorates on organ and tissue donation and to raise awareness. I personally record my appreciation to the clinicians and communities involved in supporting the steady improvement. I am proud of what we have achieved to date, but there is still more work to do. I would really like to be in the position where I can look Kit and Fiona in the eye and tell them that Felix is going to be okay. I encourage everyone to discuss this issue today.
(Time expired)
10000
Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr S Sidebottom)—I commend the member for Canberra for her motion and acknowledge the guests in the gallery.
2344
12:07:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
0
0
Mr BALDWIN
—I would like to start by thanking the member for Canberra for drawing the parliament’s attention to organ donation. It is an issue very close to my own heart. Just three weeks ago I wrote a column for one of my local newspapers urging people to become donors, so I value the opportunity to raise the issue here today in this parliament. For anyone listening to or reading this debate, I would like them to take away two key messages: firstly, that Australia’s organ donation rate is not high enough and we need to do more; secondly, that it is absolutely vital you talk to your family and friends about becoming a donor.
Organ and tissue donors save lives. One person’s organ can save up to 10 people, most of whom are extremely sick and have endured very long waiting lists. As the member for Canberra has already noted, there are approximately 1,700 Australians on waiting lists at any time. They range from children to the elderly. Sadly, despite the number of people waiting, we have one of the lowest organ donation rates in the developed world. Most families do not even know their loved ones’ wishes.
In 2005 the former coalition government established the Organ Donor Register so that people could make their intentions known by registering their consent or objection. Doctors can now access that information 24 hours a day. What is vital to note is that registering your intention is not legally binding. That means that, when you die, your next of kin still has the final decision on whether or not your organs can be taken. Therefore it is imperative to discuss your decision with your family and friends. Even better, discuss it, register online and then remind your loved ones about it every couple of years.
Donating organs is a chance to give the gift of life, and not just to one person. For example, last year alone 247 donors gave 799 Australians a new chance in life. Seven hundred and ninety-nine lives is an amazing figure, and I cannot possibly describe what an amazing gift those people and their families receive. However, we need to do better because we still have people dying on waiting lists.
In the Hunter we are fortunate to have had donors at both John Hunter Hospital and Newcastle Mater Hospital. Figures from the Australian and New Zealand Organ Donation Registry show that at the John Hunter Hospital there have been 158 donors in the past two decades between 1989 and 2009. At the Mater there have been two in the same period.
In 2006 alone, the John Hunter had eight multiple organ donors, the highest for any hospital in New South Wales. The success of John Hunter Hospital is due in part to its involvement in the national organ donation collaboration. Twenty-one other Australian hospitals also take part in order to increase donation rates by improving their systems and best practice, and providing families with information and support. I believe that providing accurate information to people is absolutely crucial and it is something that I want to focus on. Sadly, there are a number of misconceptions about organ donation which I have heard in my years as a local member. I do believe that these contribute to our modest donor rate. I would like to try to dispel some of those misconceptions.
First is the idea that a doctor will not work to save your life if you are a donor. Doctors work every day to save lives. Doctors will do everything in their power to save your life. According to our government’s Donate Life website, doctors are extremely unlikely even to know whether you are on the donor registry before you have been declared legally dead.
Second is the notion that the body will be disfigured from the collection of organs. According to the Donate Life website, surgeons only take what is needed, with the minimum number of incisions, and they will repair those incisions. Prostheses can also be used if bones are taken.
Third is the misconception that only people who make bad lifestyle choices need new organs. Those on transplant waiting lists include those who have inherited a genetic condition, many of whom are just children—those with cystic fibrosis or congenital heart defects or who have suffered from a severe infection. There are also approximately 9,000 Australians now on kidney dialysis. I vividly recall picking up the
Newcastle Herald
earlier this year and reading the story of one donor recipient from the Hunter region, Jesse Hirst. I would like to recount that article by Gabriel Wingate-Pearse here today because I think it shows what an amazing gift organ donation is. I quote:
Jesse Hirst calls it his “best Christmas present ever”, a double lung transplant on Christmas Day that has given the Charlestown 16-year-old a new chance of life.
Jesse, who needed new lungs in his battle against cystic fibrosis, said he hugged his father when he woke early on December 25 after three hours in surgery.
“I told him it was the best day of my life,” Jesse said.
The article goes on:
Jesse’s father Simon Hirst said his family was very grateful for his son’s chance at a better life.
“In the initial stages, when they first talked about putting Jesse on the organ donor list, we felt like we were actually waiting for someone else’s brother, or sister, or relative to pass away so that our son can live,” Mr Hirst said.
“We were looking for a happy Christmas where someone else was going to have their worst Christmas. But then you think their family would get at least some relief from the fact that someone benefited.”
Mr Hirst said he had always been a potential organ donor.
“Some people really wrestle with that thought but … it’s the best thing you can do,” he said.
Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease that affects various organs, but particularly the lungs, by clogging them with thick, sticky mucus.
Jesse, who had his first operation when he was eight hours old, was told weeks ago that his last hope was a lung transplant. He was put on a ventilator and transferred from John Hunter Hospital to St Vincent’s by helicopter.
Jesse said that as the days passed he began worrying that a transplant would never happen.
“After a few days I got a bit scared, because you start thinking, ‘I am not leaving until lungs come and I could be here for months’,” he said.
His spirits lifted when a nurse told him he had been through the same thing.
“He actually had [cystic fibrosis] just like me and he’d had a transplant 11 years ago,” Jesse said. “That made me feel really good, like if he can get to 11 years, I could get 20.”
But the teenager admitted he felt so ill in the lead-up to the surgery, “I really thought I was going to die”.
Then, at 3pm on Christmas Eve, a surgeon took Jesse’s mother Jackie aside and told her a set of lungs was on its way.
That story really touched my heart and it is just one of hundreds. Sadly, however, not all of these stories have a happy ending. That is what we need to fix. We need more happy endings. I call on the parliament to consider the importance of organ donation in its future decisions. I also call on everyone to sit down and talk to their families about organ and tissue donation.
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to say a sincere and heartfelt thank you to the families and friends of every single organ donor. I am so sorry for your loss and I am also grateful that you found it in yourself to give the ultimate gift to someone else. I hope that your gift of life sets an example that millions of Australians will follow.
I often think about my younger brother Bill. He is a type 2 diabetic and his kidneys have gone. How different his life would have been if he had been able to receive a kidney transplant years ago. The kidney disease that comes about with diabetes has led to further complications where he has now had both of his legs amputated and his eyesight is going, but he still retains his sense of humour. There are people who just want to live and who would rely on a generous gift, a generous donation, to enable them to live. Instead of being hooked up to a dialysis machine for around five hours every second day, Bill could have had a quality of life which would have made a substantial difference in the ability to work and to be out there in the community doing what he enjoyed doing. So I say to all Australians: please think about becoming an organ donor and let your loved ones know of your intentions. Again I congratulate the member for Canberra for bringing this motion before the House today.
2347
12:17:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Fowler
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I too congratulate the member for Canberra for bringing this matter to our attention. Organ donation truly is giving the gift of life and yet it is a gift that most people do not know how to give. According to a comprehensive survey undertaken last year by the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, one-third of Australians do not know that family consent is needed for organs to be donated when somebody dies. That is why I want to take the opportunity to encourage everybody—particularly those people in my electorate of Fowler—not only to sign up for the organ donor register but also to talk to their relatives and loved ones about what their wishes are. Thankfully, 93 per cent of people surveyed by the authority said that they would uphold the donation wishes of their loved ones. So long as people make it clear that they want to give the gift of life through organ donation, we should see a significant rise in our current donation rates.
One family who had these discussions was that of Debbie Roberts and her daughter Rebecca. In 2002 Rebecca tragically died at the age of 20. Before her death, Rebecca—a forthright young woman—spoke up and made her intentions about organ donation clear to her mother. Thankfully her mother, Debbie, the CEO of Youth Solutions, respected her daughter’s wishes. As a result of Rebecca’s donations four people were given the gift of life—two received kidneys and another two received her corneas. Debbie has graciously shared with me correspondence that she has received from those four recipients of Rebecca’s organs. It is very touching correspondence. The letters show just how people’s lives have been so profoundly affected and enriched and how life has been given through Rebecca’s selfless decision to donate her organs should she die. We owe Rebecca and many like her an enormous debt of gratitude for their decisions to donate organs.
Only two years ago I had the privilege to speak on the legislation which led to the establishment of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. I am happy to note that since the authority came into operation in 2009 there has been a steady increase in the number of donations in Australia. In fact, in 2009-10 there were 279 donations, the highest annual donation rate in a decade. That figure is to be celebrated, but it is also important to note that we have a heck of a long way to go. As we speak here today there are more than 1,000 people on organ donation waiting lists. Those people are living with the knowledge that a donor may not be found for them in time. At the same time we have a lot of people who are suitable donors dying without having registered their intention to donate. They never had the discussions with their loved ones or families.
On average, every deceased organ donor in Australia may contribute to between three and 10 transplants. Currently we have 11 in every one million people who have registered as organ donors. Simply imagine the number of people’s lives that could be saved if we had more people brave enough and with enough foresight to have that discussion with their loved ones as to their intention to provide the gift of life for their fellow man. I proudly carry with me a card which identifies me as a registered Australian organ donor. I encourage all Australians to do the same. It is a critical first step in being able to give somebody what can only be seen as the greatest gift that one human can give to another—that is, the gift of life.
2348
12:22:00
Gambaro, Teresa, MP
9K6
Brisbane
LP
0
0
Ms GAMBARO
—It gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion of the member for Canberra, which draws attention of the House to the rates, successes, challenges and other issues regarding the number of organ donations in Australia. I am sure that members of this place, like me, have supported many worthwhile causes in their collective times as MPs. As a busy local member I see the tireless efforts of so many who work to improve the lives of Australians. My shadow portfolio responsibilities also bring me in contact with those who support countless millions of those in need overseas.
There is perhaps no greater cause—indeed, no higher and more selfless act to improve the lives of fellow Australians—than to become an organ donor. We are an innovative country, with medical services and knowledge second to none. Australians are well educated. Our standard of living is high. We value the traditions of mateship, kindness, compassion and a fair go. So how can it be that in a country as great as ours we only had 247 organ donors in 2009, while over 5.7 million Australians are registered to donate?
The member for Canberra earlier spoke about the organ donation rates in Spain and the great success in the United States. I have been a registered organ donor for several years as have been my family members. I have discussed my wishes with my family members and my husband, and we have come together with an agreed decision. This is perhaps the most important and critical factor for organ donation to go ahead, and it is where we must focus all of our efforts.
As mentioned in the motion, more than 98 per cent of Australians agree that organ and tissue donation have the potential to save and improve lives, yet less than 60 per cent of Australians accept this invitation from their loved ones and become organ donors when asked. So despite the $150 million investment figure announced by Prime Minister Rudd in July 2008, we need to go some way. Despite the great efforts and work of the Gift of Life Australia, Kidney Health Australia, Transplant Australia, the Organ Donation and Transplant Foundation of Western Australia and the David Hookes Foundation in the lives of many Australians, and the work of many clinicians in improving organ donor rates, we still have some way to go. Those issues stem from communication problems with hospitals and very sensitive aspects that come up, particularly at that critical point.
I was really pleased and honoured in 2007 to be asked to be an organ donor ambassador for AMA Queensland, and I did a considerable amount of work in improving the profile of organ donation in our community. A particular area that I want to focus on today touches the lives of many in my suburbs, and that is chronic kidney disease. One in nine Australians over 25 years of age has one clinical sign of existing chronic kidney disease, such as reduced kidney function, or evidence of kidney damage. A total of 10,341 people were receiving dialysis treatment at the end of 2009. Unfortunately, in 2008, only six per cent of people on dialysis received a transplant—an increase of five per cent on 2007 and six per cent on 2006. Sadly, the average waiting time for a transplant is about four years, and waits of up to seven years are not uncommon.
These are remarkable figures, particularly when you look at the survival rate. Ninety-eight per cent of recipients are alive at one year and 88 per cent are alive at five years. They bear great testament to the remarkable achievement of our medical institutes and treating specialists across Brisbane and Australia. We have incredible success rates in Australia. Giving life after death is always going to be a very sensitive and emotional process for the donor’s family, their friends and medical professions. Education and coordination are keys to success, and it is very important that families get behind these incredible donation efforts.
The other day as I was preparing to speak, I saw a quote that perfectly crystallised how modern Brisbane and indeed modern Australia should approach organ donation. Social commentator Maya Angelou said:
I’ve learned that you shouldn’t go through life with catcher’s mitts on both hands. You need to be able to throw something back.
Australians need to throw something back, with the knowledge that their precious gift will be so valued.
2349
12:27:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I too rise in support of the private member’s motion on organ donation and would like to thank the member for Canberra for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. I am sure that all of us in this House, of all political persuasions, have the same wish, and that is the wish for the life-sustaining and life-enhancing gift through organ donation to increase to meet the ever present need that is required. Many, many thousands of lives could be renewed through the practice of organ donation and transplant, relieving the pain and suffering of those directly concerned and improving their place in the world, in the community and in our health and hospital system.
About two years ago we spoke in this place on a government bill, the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. That was a little over two years ago, and we spoke of the 30,000 Australians who had benefited from organ transplants over that time. But we also spoke of the longstanding shortage of donors and the number of organs for transplant stagnating at around 200 donors per annum, contributing approximately three times that number of organs to those who needed them most—200 people contributing some 600 to 700 transplants per year. The motion that we are debating here today mentions 228 donations having been made this year to date. This and the contributions of previous years are clearly a long way short of meeting the needs of the approximately 1,800 people who are awaiting an organ transplant at any one time.
Australia has not historically contributed towards successful transplants at anything like the rate of people within other developed countries, but we are improving. Earlier, we heard the member for Brisbane talk about Spain and that 35 Spanish people per million are registered donors compared with 10 Australians per million. Australians are increasing our registrations but we can clearly do so much more. Today I hope that this motion will encourage more Australians to put their names on the register as donors.
It is interesting to note that the highest concentration of Australian organ donors in 2006, live and deceased combined, were in the age bracket of 15 to 24. There were 105 donors in this group, compared with 59 between the ages of 25 and 34; 50 between the ages of 35 and 44; 77 between the ages of 45 and 54; and 45 between the ages of 55 and 64. Beyond these ages, the number of donors decreased substantially. In that one year there were 202 deceased donors, yet 360 donors in total—a substantial number, as a proportion, of living donors. Over the 12 months from January 2006, Medicare Australia consent and intent registrations rose from 5.57 million to 5.66 million. That is an increase of some 90,000-odd people, or 1.6 per cent of potential donors.
We can do much more, and much more is needed. It is the good and the right thing to do. To this end, we introduced and passed the
Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008
back in 2008. Our world’s best practice reform package on organ and tissue donations for transplantation commenced last year, funded to the tune of $136.4 million over four years. Drawing from both international and Australian experience and tailored to fit with the Australian context, the reform package consists of the following: a coordinated, consistent approach spearheaded by the national organ donation authority and a network of nationally coordinated organ procurement organisations to facilitate the donation process; new funding for medical specialist positions and other clinical positions in public and private hospitals around Australia dedicated to organ and tissue donation; a new funding stream for Australia’s public and private hospitals to cover the additional staffing and infrastructure costs associated with it; an enhanced national education and training program for health professionals involved with organ donation; and an ongoing, nationally coordinated, community awareness and education program, which is ever so important to get the message out to get people registered.
(Time expired)
2350
12:32:00
Laming, Andrew, MP
E0H
Bowman
LP
0
0
Mr LAMING
—It is right to talk up the importance of organ donation and placing our names as Australian citizens on the register. It is also right that we debate this twice in two sitting weeks. So if anyone thinks they have heard this before—dead right, they have, and it is worth speaking about on more than one occasion when it is as important as life and death decisions. I guess the great moral unease that many of us have is that 98 per cent of us would take an organ, just like that, but only 25 per cent of us are prepared to donate one. As I contemplate those figures, I look at how other economies promote organ donation and realise they are facing very similar challenges. So maybe I will use the short time available to me to look at what is happening in nations like New Zealand, Canada, the US and even Vietnam to raise organ donation rates.
The figures are well known to all of us. Only 20 per cent of Australians can recall specifically having had a discussion about organ donation, 40 per cent can say they do not actually know the positions of their own relatives as to whether they would donate an organ or not and only about 60 per cent of Australians at the moment would—when at that crunch point—decide to allow the organs of their relatives to be donated. I call it the 20-40-60 rule. We can do better, but we should never believe it is a simple matter to run a public awareness campaign and have those figures go up. It is much harder than it looks.
So I commend the work of the Organ Donation Register in Australia in putting out a very simple message: you can donate from the age of 18, and from the age of 16 you can indicate your interest to do so. It is not about medical research and it is not about looking at biomedical products and their development. This is about making a life-changing decision, because one person can change the lives of 10 or more people. At the moment, while 25 per cent of Australians are on the register in our nation, that is relatively low when we compare it to the levels in other countries. Whether or not you have ticked a box on your drivers licence, you have to make sure that you have made it really clear not just to one relative but to as many as you can, and to your close friends, that you wish to be a donor. And the Medicare card number is an important way of finding individuals as their information about donating and their consent to do so can follow them via a Medicare number, and that has significant advantages over not providing one. These are important messages to provide.
If we look across the Tasman, New Zealand have particular challenges with a large Maori population and, to reconcile the traditional concepts of mind and body with the more Western notion of donating organs, they have responded in an innovative way with radio shows referred to as ‘Te Ahi Kaa’. They are doing that exceptionally well. Those TV shows went to air only two or three weeks ago. There are inspirational stories in this seven-show series that are basically raising the issues but also making the populace aware of the massive benefits that can accrue from this one, single but timely decision often made by relatives who have not had that specific conversation. The UK have the Heart to Heart campaign, which encourages people to have dinners with colleagues, friends, family or fellow students to talk about the idea of donating. The UK, like Australia, have a large and well-funded transplant week and their organ donation percentages are slightly higher than ours. The UK also have the My Life, My Gift campaign, in which radio, cinema, libraries as well as health outlets are used to promote the idea of donating. The UK have a very detailed portfolio of things that you can do to increase organ donation rates. Some of the innovative ideas would not at first have come to your mind, such as being a mystery shopper and walking into health establishments and asking: ‘Where are the donation consent forms? They should be here.’ Another idea is for people to go to an empty office or unlet piece of real estate—of course the UK has plenty more of that than we do—and say: ‘Why can’t we put up posters inside those glass windows to publicise organ donation?’ The UK have lots of innovative ideas. They even provide a logo that you can drop onto anything that is being printed and disseminated about organ donation.
In Canada, the Organ Donation and Transplant Association are also doing great work by reaching out to around five million households and distributing nearly two million organ donor cards. They have a particular focus on teens. Their ‘Teens 4 Transplants’ contest encourages young people to talk to their families about organ donation. This is another great idea that we could take on. The USA have OrganDonor.gov—obviously doing work on an even grander scale. Even a nation such as Vietnam, a single party state, finds a way of involving its 7.6 million members of the Communist Youth Union to be pure of heart and mind and to step forward on Blood Sunday and give blood. They do that in large numbers. As a developing economy, they are finding ways to do that very successfully. Countries around the world are applying different solutions to the same problem. Australia can learn from some of these great ideas, and I commend the work of everyone working in organ donation.
2351
12:37:00
Parke, Melissa, MP
HWR
Fremantle
ALP
1
0
Ms PARKE
—I commend the member for Canberra for her motion on organ donation, and I support it wholeheartedly. I have spoken about this issue several times in this place. Indeed, it was the subject of my very first notice of motion, in February 2008 and, like a number of my colleagues, I continue to regard it as a matter of great importance.
The health problems that require organ transplant are often life threatening, and the gap that exists between the availability of organ and tissue material and those whose health problems can only be solved by transplant of such material is far too high. No great leap of discovery or innovation in medical science is required to make real progress in this area—we simply need to increase the number of people who are prepared to donate organs upon their death and we need to improve the clinical infrastructure and administrative coordination that will support a lift in transplant rates. The health benefits that follow a successful transplant are obvious; and the social and health benefits are similarly profound.
Australia is a country that is rightly proud of its leading record in a number of areas, but that is not to say that there are not areas in which Australia underperforms and, unfortunately, we must acknowledge that organ donation is one of those areas. Of course, as the member for Canberra rightly notes, this Labor government has already made significant strides in this area. In the first year of government, we established the national Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority with the mandate and resources needed to begin delivering on the recommendations contained in the February 2008 report by the National Clinical Taskforce on Organ and Tissue Donation. The relevant bill, passed in 2008, provided new funding of $136 million over four years as part of a total package costing $151 million. As with a number of Labor government initiatives, the purpose here was to create a nationally consistent approach so that better health outcomes for individuals could be provided through more efficiently coordinated clinical service frameworks.
The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation Authority has made good progress in that time, and I would like to mention two aspects of their work. The first is the national protocol for donation after cardiac death, which was adopted in July 2010 and provides the first clear and consistent protocol for this aspect of clinical practice. As members would be aware, donation after brain death is at the more straightforward end of the clinical spectrum, as a person whose brain function has ceased can nevertheless continue to have circulatory and respiratory function, which means that the transplant of their tissue or organs can occur in a relatively calm and considered manner. Donation upon cardiac death presents a very different clinical challenge, and with that goes challenges in terms of patient and family communication, and in dealing with certain ethical concerns.
This new national protocol represents a clear advance as a document that consolidates the work and analysis already done in this area, and sets out a step-by-step procedural
framework for donation upon cardiac death. I congratulate Dr Gerry O’Callaghan, the chair of the Donation after Cardiac Death Working Party and the national medical director of the authority itself.
The second initiative of the authority that I would like to mention is one that I have a special regard for as it was pioneered by Dr Paolo Ferrari in his work at Fremantle Hospital. As part of its early work, the organ authority has now established a nationwide live kidney donor program, the Australian paired Kidney eXchange or AKX, which cross-matches compatible donors across family pairs so that a willing but incompatible family donor of one person needing a transplant can be matched with a similarly willing but incompatible donor-recipient pair to facilitate two compatible live kidney transplants. This innovation is the perfect example of how creative thinking and coordination can help solve a serious health problem. Approximately 30 per cent of potential donors cannot fulfil their wish to donate because they are incompatible with the family member they would like to assist. The AKX program will hopefully help to cross-match a large proportion of those people, thereby allowing them to assist their relative by a matched exchange of kidneys.
Finally, I would like to again emphasise how important it is that donation rates are lifted through programs which encourage and facilitate the registration of Australians as organ donors. On that point I welcome the move by the Western Australian government to commission a report on the creation of an opt-out—or possibly a single opt-in—approach to organ donation, rather than the double opt-in system that currently applies. It would surprise some people to know that currently a person who has chosen to be a donor can only have their organs or tissues donated if their family consents after their death. Full and informed consent is important but a double opt-in approach is, in my opinion, setting the bar too high and it is an approach that does not respect the individual’s decision, which is intended to be an act of generosity reflecting true altruism. This is an important motion and a critical health issue in Australia. Once again, I congratulate the member for Canberra and all the speakers to this motion.
2353
12:42:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—I rise to support the motion from the member for Canberra and further to the member for Fremantle for giving a Western Australian perspective on this. I would also like to thank the member for Canberra for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It was good of the member for Fremantle to mention the state government’s plan to do an inquiry and also the draft but she failed to mention that it is actually the Liberal state government, so I thought I would let that be known. She gave accolades to the Labor Party federally, so I thought I would give the state Liberal government a plug as well.
Members may recall the last time I spoke about organ donation in this place I was in the process of organising a community walk for organ donation awareness around the picturesque Tomato Lake in my electorate of Swan. I organised the event to tie in with Organ Donation Awareness Week. I am pleased to report the event was a success with a good number of people turning up on the day for the walk. The number of people attending reflected the fact that organ donation had been at the forefront of news in Western Australia during the preceding weeks.
A Perth woman and drug addict Claire Murray had sparked debate in the community over her bid for a second liver transplant. This was controversial because Claire had continued to use drugs after receiving her first liver transplant. Her serious condition meant that she needed an urgent transplant to survive. The community was divided, with some arguing that Claire did not deserve another chance, given the shortage of organs in Australia, with others contending that it would be wrong to condemn a young girl to death. On the day of the walk around the lake, some of the organ recipients who attended had mixed views on how this young lady’s position should be treated but most of them saw the organs they had received as a gift and as something to be treasured and valued from the people they had received them from.
Claire’s distressed father was courageous enough to speak to the public on talkback radio about his family’s experience. The Western Australian state government responded to Claire’s situation by offering a $258,000 interest-free loan for Claire and the family to travel to Singapore for a live liver transplant. The family took up this offer, but Claire Murray, sadly, did not survive the surgery.
While this sad tale highlighted some tough ethical questions about organ donation, I think it is fair to say that the issue would have not been so contentious had there not been such a shortage of organ donors in Western Australia. On 4 January 2010, there were still 1,770 people on the national organ donation list, many of them in a life threatening condition. In 2008, only one-third of the demand for solid organ transplants was able to be met.
Western Australia has the lowest rate of donation in the country, so organ donors are desperately needed. That is why so many people took note when last month the Liberal state government of Western Australia commissioned the WA health department to start drawing up proposals for the introduction of an opt-out organ donation system. Opt-out systems automatically assume adult donor consent unless there is advice to the contrary. The alternative is an opt-in system, a version of which all Australians are currently subject to.
As members would be aware, opt-out systems have been used in many countries across the world to solve the problem of low rates of organ donors. In fact, 24 European Union countries use some form of opt-out system. Western Australia’s Minister for Health, Dr Kim Hames, said that legislation would be drafted once a model had been agreed upon, and I, like many others, will be interested to have a look at it when it comes up. Until the legislation is passed, I advise people who wish to be organ donors to register through the Medicare system or through the online organ donor register. I also encourage potential donors to discuss their wishes with their family. Almost half of organ donations do not proceed because the donors do not have this important conversation—but I, for one, have had this conversation with my son.
Once again I congratulate the member for Canberra for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. As the Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I always take a keen interest in issues such as this, and I am open to working with the member for Canberra on this issue in the future. As I have a little bit of time left, I will mention Simone McMahon, who herself is waiting for a transplant and is the Executive Director of the Organ Donation and Transplant Foundation of WA. Simone held an event recently to name stars after organ donors in Western Australia, and that was a great way to highlight the efforts and commitments of people who have made organ donations. Again, I congratulate the member for Canberra for bringing this issue to the attention of the House.
2354
12:47:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
1
0
Ms BURKE
—I again thank both the member for Canberra for bringing this motion before the House and all the speakers on the motion. We need to put the matter into context. The reality is that less than one per cent of deaths occurs in such a way that the donation of the deceased’s organs is possible, and currently across Australia an average of only 50 per cent of families consent to the donation of the organs of deceased loved ones. That is why this debate is so important—less than one per cent of deaths permit the donation of organs and only 50 per cent of organ donations from those who have consented to be organ donators proceed. We need to have discussions with our families. Many of the statistics have already been cited, but I am going to restate them so that my speech is complete:
One organ and tissue donation can save the lives of up to 10 people and significantly improve the lives of dozens more.
Australia has a world class reputation for successful transplant outcomes.
Australia also has one of the lowest donation rates in the developed world.
98 % of Australians agree that organ and tissue donation has the potential to save and improve lives.
40% of Australians do not know the donation wishes of their loved ones.
Less than 1 in 5 Australians (only 17%) have had a memorable discussion with their loved ones about their donation wishes.
The most important thing that helps a family’s decision is their knowing the wishes of their loved one.
Australia’s family consent rate is low with just 58% of families giving consent for organ and tissue donation to proceed.
Around 1700 people are on Australian organ transplant waiting lists at any one time.
On average, people on the transplant list must wait between 6 months and 4 years.
Many of those people, of course, die while on the list. Some further statistics are:
In 2009, less than half of the demand for organs was able to be met.
In 2009, 247 organ donors gave 799 Australians a new chance in life.
So the actual donation rate is good—247 donors resulted in 799 Australians having a new chance in life.
In 2009, the Australian population had 11.3 donors per million people. In 2008 the Australian population had 12 donors per million; Spain had 34, the US 24, Estonia 23, Italy 21 and the United Kingdom 15.
As many speakers have said, Australia needs to lift its rate.
Australia has one of the highest retrieval rates per donor (3.4 organs per donor in 2008).
The reality is that when a person dies it is not just one organ that can be harvested and then utilised.
Australia’s rate of cornea donation puts it in the top five countries for corneal donation rates.
In 2008, 1096 people donated their corneas. As a result, 1696 people had their sight restored.
Each year, 3000-4000 skin, heart and musculoskeletal tissues are transplanted.
So it is not just major organs that can make a huge and defining difference to an individual’s life.
Being married to a MICA paramedic, I know it is often a fairly sobering thought at the end of the day’s work, having kept a person alive to get them to hospital so that organs can be harvested, that somebody will say no. It is a fairly confronting issue. My husband took a friend of ours out with him in the ambulance one night. I do not think he has ever been the same again. They worked tirelessly on a 33-year-old who was brain dead so that her organs could be donated. My husband will never find out if they were, as that is not appropriate, but it is a sobering thought that they might have worked all night to get somebody to hospital so that their organs could be used and then somebody turned around and said no.
Last year I went through a harrowing time with my father at the Alfred Hospital in intensive care for 10 weeks, 10 weeks that probably he should not have spent in intensive care. I had to have with doctors numerous conversations that I did not wish to have. One was when I had to fly home on a Wednesday night to discuss whether we would turn off his breathing apparatus. At the end of the harrowing experience my father did die, not that his organs would have been of use to anyone—I must put that on the record—but he had donated his body to Melbourne university to be used for students. This caused untold grief in my house because we were not going to have a body at the funeral. My argument was it was my father’s wish; he had conveyed it to me in no uncertain terms and we were going to do it. It saved us a small fortune too into the bargain, I can say. It was a very funny conversation with the undertaker because it was finally revealed that, yes, he had signed it over, but we respected his wishes. The easy thing in that family conversation was that I knew what my father’s wishes were and so I could say to my numerous brothers and sisters and to my uncles and aunts and my mother, ‘That is what he wanted to do.’ Have that discussion now before it is too late.
2356
12:52:00
O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP
LKU
Higgins
LP
1
0
Ms O’DWYER
—I rise in support of increased awareness of organ donation, specifically to support an improvement in the organ donation numbers in Australia, and I congratulate the member for Canberra for bringing this to the House’s attention. I am very fortunate that I have not been in the personal situation where I have been impacted by the critical nature of organ donation. But my husband and I are two of the 5,622,362 people in Australia who are part of the Australian donor register. The reason we have both made the decision to be part of that register is we understand the significant impact that an organ donor can have on the lives of others. To repeat some of the statistics already given, one organ donor can save the lives of, or dramatically improve the lives of, up to 10 people. We know that as at 30 November 2009 there were about 1,770 people waiting on a list for organ transplants, transplants for things like a kidney, a heart, a liver, a lung, a pancreas or an intestine.
We know that we can have a significant impact, through these incredible transplants, on the lives of those people who are currently suffering from chronic illness because Australia has been at the forefront of technological advancement regarding organ and tissue donation. In fact, in the early 1940s Australia was the nation that began corneal transplants, in Sydney and in Melbourne. In 1965 Australia had the first successful living kidney transplant, and in the mid-1980s right through until the late 1980s we had some breakthroughs with the first successful heart transplant, Australia’s first successful kidney transplant from a deceased donor along with some great innovations in the early 2000s with the first single segment liver transplant on a baby. We can very rightly be proud of the medical advancement in this particular area.
But what concerns me today is the fact that we do not have the requisite number of people on the organ donor list for the number of people who are waiting for transplants. When you consider these statistics in Australia compared to those in the rest of the world, it is quite telling. The number of people who donate in Australia per million is in stark contrast to the rest of the world. That figure is tripled in Spain, per million people, more than doubled in the USA and doubled in France. Clearly, there is more work to be done here. The reason there is more work to be done is that it is a very difficult issue. Organ donation is a very emotional issue and the most critical aspect in all of this is to understand the wishes of loved ones when it comes to the point where a decision can be made.
The coalition has got an incredibly proud record trying to bridge the gap between the number of people who require transplants and the number of people who are able to offer their organs on the register. In 2006 we spent $28 billion trying to boost organ donation and trying to close that gap. As I have said, there is still much more work to be done. While 96 per cent of Australians are supportive of organ donations, only 54 per cent of people who suffer brain death become donors because in 46 per cent of cases the family refuses consent. This is why it is so critically important that people tell their family members of their wish to become a donor. According to the International Registry of Organ Donation and Transplantation, Australia is currently ranked 17th in the world, but we do need to consider how we can become even more innovative in trying to get people to register their wishes early on. Certainly, we have done that work when it comes to people applying for their licences. I think we can perhaps also come to consider whether there might be other critical points in people’s lives where they might also consider making their wishes known. I would like to again congratulate the member for Canberra for bringing this to the attention of the House. It is an issue that has support among the coalition, the Labor Party and the Greens. I commend this motion to the House.
10000
Livermore, Kirsten (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms K Livermore)—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.
Iran: Human Rights
2357
Debate resumed, on motion by
Mr Neumann:
That this House:
-
notes with deep concern the ongoing human rights violations in Iran, including the:
-
use of the death penalty, especially the use of stoning as a method of execution;
-
violations of the rights of women;
-
repeated violations of due process of law;
-
use of violence, intimidation and arbitrary arrest to suppress peaceful opposition activity and the impact this has on the ability of Iranians to exercise their freedom of expression, association and assembly;
-
reported arbitrary arrest and detention, and torture of opposition protestors;
-
discrimination against and failure to protect the rights of minorities, including the Baha’i, Sufi, Baluch, and Kurdish communities; and
-
trial and reported sentencing of seven Baha’i leaders—Fariba Kamalabadi, Jamaloddin Khanjani, Afif Naeimi, Saeid Rezaie, Mahvash Sabet, Behrouz Tavakkoli, and Vahid Tizfahm—for insulting religious sanctities and propaganda against the Islamic Republic; and
-
calls upon the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to:
-
ensure that the rights of all individuals are fully protected, without discrimination, and that it fulfils its obligations to its own citizens as set out in the Iranian constitution;
-
abide by its international human rights obligations, including the rights to freedom of religion or belief as set out in Article 18 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights; and
-
ensure that all trials, including the case of the seven Baha’i leaders, are fair and transparent and conducted in accordance with Iran’s international obligations.
2357
12:58:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I move this motion concerning the deep and ongoing concern that the Baha’i community in Ipswich and the Somerset region in the federal electorate of Blair have concerning the ongoing human rights violations in Iran, particularly the use of the death penalty and the use of stoning as a method of execution; the violations of the rights of women; repeated violations of due process of law; the use of violence, intimidation and arbitrary arrest to suppress peaceful opposition activity and the impact this has on the ability of Iranian people to exercise their freedom of expression, association and assembly, civil liberties which we in Australia take for granted; the reported arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of opposition protestors; discrimination that has been reported, and which is allegedly rife, against minorities, including the Baha’i, Sufi, Baluch, and Kurdish communities in the country; and the trial of what are known as the Baha’i seven.
This motion calls upon the Islamic Republic of Iran to ensure that the rights of all individuals are fully protected, without discrimination, and that it fulfils its obligations to its own citizens as set out in the Iranian Constitution, and to abide by its international human rights obligations, including the rights to freedom of religion or belief as set out in article 18 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and also the rights of people to believe what they want and to exercise those beliefs and practice them peacefully in accordance with human rights and dignity.
This motion deals with ensuring that all trials, including the case of the seven Baha’i leaders, are fair and transparent and conducted in accordance with Iran’s international obligations. This is a position that the Australian parliament has taken previously. On 15 February 2010 the United Nations Human Rights Council held a universal periodic review on Iran, with governments and human rights groups from around the world describing in detail the degree to which Iran has failed to live up to its international obligations with respect to civil and political rights but also with respect to those rights concerning people’s beliefs and religion. The Australian government, in its recommendations to the UN, made it very clear that Australia wanted to ensure that the trial of the seven Baha’i leaders is fair and transparent. On 25 May 2009 the Australian parliament called on Iran to release without delay the seven Baha’i leaders imprisoned in Tehran.
The Baha’i faith is a peaceful faith that was founded over 150 years ago. It says the purpose of life is to know and love God. It is one of the fastest-growing religions in the world with more than five million followers in over 100,000 localities across the world. The unity of all people is a powerful force in the Baha’i faith. It believes in an integrated and peaceful world community. It emphasises the respect and diversity of people and the idea that, by meditation and prayer, a person can get close to God and get close to knowing himself or herself. It believes in one human race which has custodianship of the planet that God has given to us. I am a Christian by religious persuasion, tradition and faith but I respect the faith and practices of the Baha’i community in my electorate and elsewhere.
President Obama recently visited our northern neighbour Indonesia. In a very moving speech at the University of Indonesia he spoke of his childhood memories of growing up in Indonesia, of feeling welcome there and of the religious and cultural tolerance and understanding that he experienced there. He spoke of his recent visit to a mosque which he remembered being built when he was child—a mosque which symbolised independence and was designed by a Christian architect for the Muslim community of Indonesia. A couple of years ago when I had the privilege of being on a parliamentary delegation to Jakarta I discovered that on Christmas Day the mosque allowed parishioners of the Catholic Church to park their cars in the car park of the mosque. President Obama made the point that Indonesia was a very productive and cooperative country with respect to religion and beliefs and the widespread practices of many people. ‘Unity in diversity’ is, of course, the Indonesian motto.
Sadly, that practice of our northern neighbour Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, is not adhered to in Iran. I speak of the plight of the followers of the Baha’i faith living in Iran, who are really suffering from persecution, and the seven Baha’i leaders: Fariba Kamalabadi, a married developmental psychologist and mother of three; Jamaloddin Khanjani, a married businessman with four children and six grandchildren; Afif Naemimi, a married businessman with two grown sons; Saeid Rezaie, a married agriculture engineer with three children, two of whom were arrested while working on a project to help the underprivileged; Mahvash Sabet, a married teacher and school principal with two grown children; Behrouz Tavakkoli, a married social worker and businessman with two children; and Vahid Tizfahm, a married optometrist with one child. On 8 August 2010 the Baha’i community in Australia received reports that these Baha’i leaders in Iran had received sentences of 20 years. On 15 September this year the lawyers of the seven Baha’i leaders were verbally informed that their sentences had been reduced to 10 years. This follows decades of intense harassment by the Iranian regime—careers destroyed, businesses confiscated and lives made more difficult on many levels.
These people had attempted to exercise productive lives and carry out their beliefs peacefully. They were arrested in 2008 and held in detention in the notorious Evin prison. They were subjected to intense interrogation. One was held in solitary confinement for five months and another for months. They were denied access to legal representation for over a year and then were given only one hour to consult. The charges are draconian, egregious and outrageous. There were allegations that they had engaged in espionage for the benefit of foreigners, spread anti-government propaganda, collaborated with Israel and spread corruption on earth. There were a whole host of ridiculous charges against these people. The Iranian regime has continually obstructed access to legal representation for the Baha’i Seven and moved them to locations away from support and families. Their lawyers have themselves experienced harassment to the point where one of them has been forced to remain outside of Iran for an extended period.
I congratulate the Gillard Labor government for expressing its concern for this grave injustice. I add my strongest condemnation of the Iranian regime for the detention and sentencing of the Baha’i Seven in this really draconian and repressive way. I congratulate the local Baha’i community in Ipswich, particularly Jessica Jackson, who has met me on several occasions to advocate for the Baha’i Seven, and Rahmat Mehdizadeh, who has also met me regarding this matter on numerous occasions. I congratulate them on their strong advocacy on behalf of the very small community of about 60 members in Ipswich.
We all live in a free country here in Australia. We speak about democratic institutions, civil liberties and human rights, but there are 50 Baha’i in prison in various locations in Iran. All are in jail for their religion. Some have been held for more than 13 months in so-called temporary detention. Around 250 Baha’i still have open cases at various stages of the Iranian judicial process. Additionally, there is discrimination against other minority groups, such as the Kurdish community and the Sufi community inside Iran. This continues and there are too numerous cases to outline. We have called upon the Republic of Iran to ensure that the rights of all individuals are fully protected without discrimination; fulfil its obligations to its citizens under the constitution—which makes reference to civil liberties and freedom of religion; abide by its international obligations, including the rights of freedom of religion or belief as set out in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and ensure that all trials, including the trials of the Baha’i Seven, are fair and transparent.
President Obama recently said:
We can choose to be defined by our differences, and give in to a future of suspicion and mistrust. Or we can choose to do the hard work of forging common ground, and commit ourselves to the steady pursuit of progress.
I commend the motion to the House.
2360
13:08:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—On behalf of the opposition, it gives me great pleasure to lend both my personal and our collective support to this motion by the member for Blair in relation to human rights abuses and the condemnation of human rights abuses in Iran. It is a strength of the Australian parliament that there is generally a unanimous view in relation to the protection of human rights around the world. We must not be immune from self-examination—I believe that is absolutely the case—but, as we look around the world, nor should we be afraid of drawing to light breaches of the UN charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those are three foundation documents which define rights and which, to my mind, represent a common human conception rather than a paradigm imposed by one country at one stage of development, as has been argued from time to time.
Let me start from the principle of belief in the notion of universal human rights. There may be marginal differences, but the fundamental elements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are common, consistent and abiding. They are, first and foremost: the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to association, the right to freedom of belief, the right to freedom of worship and, perhaps above all else, the right to elect a government which will be democratically elected and democratically put in place as the paramount guarantor of all other rights. Where there is no such government, then it is incumbent upon the members of the international community to do all that they can to protect, highlight and seek justice in cases where there is no internal democratic mechanism or where the elements of that democratic structure are broken.
I wanted to set down that structure and theory, because I believe it is critical as to our justification for pointing out human rights abuses in other countries. There is in my view a sense of common humanity and a truth to the notion that there are universal human rights. It is inconceivable to me that simply because somebody comes from another country or culture they have waived their right to freedom of religion, to freedom of expression, to freedom of association and, above all else, to protection of their lives against arbitrary loss. These are fundamental issues.
I want to put this secondly into the context of my own experience. Along the way my teaching and part of my work was in the international human rights sphere, and there are two experiences which stand out for me above all else. I lead all of this as a path to discussing the issue of human rights in Iran and the specific motion. I worked for the Centre for Human Rights in Geneva, in particular I was an intern with the UN special representative for human rights abuses in the former Yugoslavia in 1993. That role as an intern lead me to compile reports of atrocities coming out of the former Yugoslavia.
This was at a time when there was some light being shed on the issue, but much was still hidden. We did not know of the full horrors of Srebrenica. We did not know of all of the atrocities that were occurring in Bosnia. Part of my job was to seek and compile information while based in Geneva, which was coming from different field agencies be they from arms of the United Nations, the work of the media which was incredibly important in the former Yugoslavia or from different rights groups and non-government organisations. The stories were compelling, and I remember to this day the stories of families being locked away in houses and the houses being incinerated from the outside.
Similarly, I spent time travelling with Medecins Sans Frontieres in Rwanda in the period not long after the atrocities there and branching out from Kigali and visiting Goma across the border into Zaire. As many people did, I also discovered stories which were compelling and profound and they carry with me the beliefs which are fundamental and which help form the policy that Australia took under the leadership of Alexander Downer to support the creation of an international war crimes tribunal. I believe it was fundamental.
This brings me to the challenge in Iran today, which must be seen in those consequences. Iran has made some progress in some areas, but let it be absolutely clear: Iran is not a democracy. The recent elections were largely fraudulent. They were not carried out in a free and fair manner, and they were not acceptable either to the international community or, more importantly, to the people of Iran who demonstrated on the streets their concern, their commitment and their grievance. Beyond that, there are powerful individual cases which flow naturally from the fact that the bulwarks of individual protection are not in place.
Firstly, I want to raise the case of Sakineh Ashtiani, who, on the latest advice I have from Amnesty International, is 43 and a mother of two from the north-west of Iran. She spent a number of years in prison always with the expectation that her life was to be cut short on the basis of a case which is clearly of very dubious origin—firstly, a charge of murder, which was subsequently reduced and which remains highly contentious.
There is also an extremely highly contended case of alleged adultery. This case is problematic on at least three grounds. Firstly, although states choose capital punishment, I will remain resolutely opposed throughout my working life and I have no doubt until my dying day to capital punishment wherever and under whatever circumstances, no matter how heinous the crime. I may have no sympathy for the individual but I cannot countenance or support that punishment. Secondly, we have here the notion of a fair trial, and the judicial reasoning for the conviction was not on the basis of evidence adduced but on the basis that the judge believed that there was ‘knowledge of the judge adduced from assessing the character and the demeanour of the individual’, not on the basis of any known evidence before the court. It is in effect a blanket judicial discretion to introduce arbitrary capital punishment. So in my view not only is there a flaw with capital punishment, and that remains the case whether it is in the United States, Indonesia, China or wherever else it may be, but in this case there is no protection against arbitrary decisions of a system which clearly has the most limited of judicial protections that one would wish to see. Thirdly, the form of punishment here includes the potential for stoning. Of all of the different forms of capital punishment, stoning must surely be in the modern age the most unacceptable, the most egregious, because of the pain, because of the agony, because of the inhumanity and because it incites the lowest and most base of human emotions within the community.
I believe that this case is unjust of and in itself but it is an exemplar of a system which allows women to be treated as chattels, of a system which has destroyed the rule of law in many cases, of a system which introduces an arbitrary notion and of a system which, above all else, flows from the lack of democratic structure. It is not to be justified on the basis of a religious notion. Every country, every society has the capacity for religious differences and cultural differences but no society can use those differences to take away the basics of individual liberty, of an individual right to a fair trial, of an individual right to be protected against arbitrary imprisonment and, above all else, the effective extrajudicial killing which will result from the manifest injustice in this case.
Sakineh Ashtiani’s case is an exemplar of a system which is broken, a system which must be changed, and along with other countries we will continue to work to see a genuine universal system of human rights.
2362
13:18:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
1
0
Ms OWENS
—I rise to support the motion advanced by the member for Blair. The persecution of ethnic and religious minorities in Iran has been the subject of international attention and condemnation for several decades. Unfortunately over those decades little progress has been made, and many members of this House have noted, I believe correctly, that the human rights situation in Iran seems to be worsening.
I have a quite strong and reasonably large Iranian community in my electorate of Parramatta. I have every community in Parramatta, including the Iranian one, and I have come to know my Iranian community as some of the most gentle, well-educated and I use the word civilised people you can imagine. In fact, even when I am doorknocking, before a person tells me their background is Iran there is something about these people, the way they have been educated, the way they have been raised, that just sets them as Iranian. It is quite remarkable. I say to them quite often that it is beyond belief that a country that can produce the people that I know as Iranians can also produce the kind of regime which has brutalised them for so long. I know that they share that view and they wish some day to be able to return to the Iran that they remember. I absolutely share that wish with them.
Among my Iranians I have a very strong Baha’i community, who well and truly keep me informed about what is happening in Iran and have asked me specifically to speak on this issue on their behalf. They have visited me in the last month to raise their concerns for the seven Baha’i leaders: Mrs Fariba Karmalabadi, Mr Jamaloddin Khanjani, Mr Afif Naeimi, Mr Saeid Rezaie, Mrs Mahvash Sabet, Mr Behrouz Tavakkoli and Mr Vahid Tizfahm, all of whom are detained in Tehran. They have spent more than two years in temporary detention. The seven former leaders of the community were known as ‘friends of Iran’ and were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on 9 August.
The Baha’i faith was founded more than 150 years ago in Iran, so it has been around for 1½ centuries there. The Islamic Republic of Iran was established in 1979, so it is relatively new. Members of the Baha’i community had been living peacefully in Iran prior to the formation of the Islamic Republic, but since then the Baha’i community have been harassed and persecuted. Many Baha’i are now living in other parts of the world, including in Australia. I have been very fortunate to know them. The strongest Baha’i community groups of Parramatta, Holroyd and Blacktown, in and around my electorate, have been calling for the fair and humane treatment of the Baha’i in Iran since their arrival in Australia.
Six of the seven Baha’i leaders have been in custody since May 2008, when they were arrested in a raid of police forces on their homes. The seventh one, Mrs Mahvash Sabet, was arrested in March 2008 in Mashhad. It should be mentioned that the Raja’i prison in Mashhad has frequently been criticised by human rights advocates for its unsanitary environment, lack of medical services, crowded prison cells and unfair treatment of inmates by guards. Before this, but after the recent execution of the five political prisoners in Iran, some political prisoners and journalists were transferred from Evin prison to Raja’i prison in Karaj.
When I talk about human rights violations, there is no real way to describe the kinds of things I am talking about. I have received descriptions from some of my Iranian community of the conditions of family members after spending time in these places. No language that we use in this parliament will ever be able to convey the horror that some of these people experience at the hands of this regime.
The first trial of the seven prisoners was held on 12 January this year, and it was there that they first heard the charges that were being levelled against them. The charges included propaganda activities against the Islamic order, espionage, the establishment of an illegal administration, sending documents outside the country, cooperation with Israel, acting against the security of the country and the corruption of the earth. All seven of the prisoners have strenuously denied the charges.
The Baha’i leaders arrested nearly two years ago had their second court appearance in August. It was closed to family members. At that trial they were found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in jail. I call on the Iranian government to abide by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to act in a fair and transparent humane way towards the seven Baha’i leaders.
(Time expired)
2363
13:23:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—Despite our coming from different sides of politics, I have no hesitation in supporting the motion by the member for Blair. Iran has become something of an international pariah because of the confrontational attitude of President Ahmadinejad. The inflammatory rhetoric from Iran’s leadership with regard to nuclear development is particularly damaging to the stability of the Middle East. The international impact of Iran’s belligerence is yet to be completely realised, but for many individuals in Iran the effects of the president’s domestic policies are all too real.
The violations of human rights in Iran are deeply concerning. The Iranian government refuses to recognise international human rights standards and continues to ignore calls from around the world to engage with the international community about human rights. Of particular concern is Iran’s continued use of the death penalty—in particular, the use of stoning. I am deeply concerned about Iran’s state sanctioned abuse of women and the refusal to implement the basic principles of natural justice. Iran also continues to imprison and persecute those who expose and publicise human rights abuses.
My primary purpose in speaking to this motion today is to give voice to a small group of my constituents who are deeply concerned about the imprisonment of seven Baha’i leaders in Iran. The Baha’i community in Coffs Harbour has been active in publicising the plight of these leaders, and I want to ensure that my constituents have their concerns heard in this place.
The Baha’i leaders were charged with a range of offences, including spreading anti-government propaganda, collaboration with Israel and spreading corruption on earth. Information from within Iran indicates that the seven were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, which has been reduced to 10 years following international outcry. The accused were tried without appropriate access to legal representation, and the lawyers who did attempt to provide assistance have themselves suffered persecution and harassment. The imprisonment of these religious leaders is in direct defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms the right to freedom of religion. The opposition continues to call on the Iranian government to end its persecution of people of the Baha’i faith and to respect the right of all Iranian citizens to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
10000
Livermore, Kirsten (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms K Livermore)—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.
Sitting suspended from 1.26 pm to 4.00 pm
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (FEE-HELP LOAN FEE) BILL 2010
2364
Bills
R4474
Second Reading
2364
Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by
Mr Garrett:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2364
16:00:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
0
Ms LEY
—I rise to speak on the
Higher Education Support Amendment (FEE-HELP Loan Fee) Bill 2010
which seeks to increase the amount of FEE-HELP debt for fee-paying undergraduate students from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the FEE-HELP loan. As this bill is virtually identical to the
Higher Education Support Amendment (FEE-HELP Loan Fee) Bill 2010
fee that was considered by the 42nd Parliament, I will only speak briefly on this today. The Higher Education Support Act 2003, part 3.3.3, administers the FEE-HELP scheme, which allows domestic students enrolled in a course to access assistance of up to $80,000 to pay for fees, or $100,000 for courses in veterinary science, dentistry and medicine. The estimated financial impact for this bill provides for a commencement date of 1 January 2011. The adjustment to the cost of the measure for this commencement date is $7 million fiscal balance over the period 2010-11 to 2013-14.
FEE-HELP currently extends to undergraduate and postgraduate studies at private higher education providers in the vocational and education training sector, including TAFE, for diplomas and advanced diplomas and to some students doing postgraduate studies at university. All types of HELP schemes are subsidised by the government as students do not pay a commercial rate of interest on the loan and there is no interest paid on the debt, though it is subject to indexation. There is a significant cost to the Commonwealth as some student debt is never repaid due to death of the debtor; relocation overseas; or the income threshold, which triggers repayment by the debtor, never being reached. To partly recover that subsidy, the government currently adds 20 per cent to the value of the FEE-HELP loan. The loan fee is designed to compensate the Commonwealth for the lending amounts that are in most instances higher than those loaned to Commonwealth supported students and therefore in many instances can take longer to repay.
The review into higher education chaired by Professor Bradley recommended an increase in the FEE-HELP loan fee from 20 per cent to 25 per cent, which was based on modelling done by Professor Bruce Chapman, the architect of the HECS scheme. I note that this measure and the modelling by Bruce Chapman has attracted concern from the sector about the appropriateness of increasing the loan fee to 25 per cent, given that the loan fee for OS-HELP and VET FEE-HELP students is 20 per cent. The anomalies between the different HELP schemes have been noted by the coalition and we have advocated for a thorough review of all of the schemes to iron out any inconsistencies. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that there is a need for the Commonwealth to recover more of the subsidised cost and reduce the pressure on the taxpayer. For this reason we will not oppose this legislation. I thank the Main Committee.
2365
16:04:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I am happy to support the
Higher Education Support Amendment (FEE-HELP Loan Fee) Bill 2010. Higher education is absolutely integral to the Gillard government’s vision for A Stronger, Fairer Australia. It drives economic development, productivity and high-skill jobs. I am pleased to have a number of important higher education institutions in my electorate, including the University of Queensland Ipswich campus, the University of Southern Queensland, as well as Bremer TAFE. Prior to the last redistribution, I had the University of Queensland Gatton campus in my electorate. Higher education is important in my seat. It is a driver of employment.
It is particularly important in view of the answer that the federal Minister for Health and Ageing gave in federal parliament not less than a couple of hours ago when she talked about what the University of Queensland is doing with the superclinic at the Ipswich campus. That particular campus sees doctors, nurses and physicians’ assistants trained, educated, qualified and operating in the Ipswich and West Moreton region. It is a particularly important campus.
This legislation increases the amount of FEE-HELP loan fee for units of study undertaken as part of the undergraduate courses. It is following up the recommendations of the review of Australian higher education, the Bradley review. This bill seeks to increase the amount of FEE-HELP debt from 120 per cent to 125 per cent of the loan amount for units of study undertaken as part of an undergraduate course of study. The increased loan fee will apply to FEE-HELP debts incurred on or after 1 January 2011.
The Bradley review recommended this legislative change to reflect a greater cost to government because governments effectively subsidise higher education. Many people do not ever pay back the debt owed to the government, sometimes because they pass away and sometimes because their income has never quite reached that height. This will not act as a disincentive to people going to higher education institutions, particularly universities. The criticisms in relation to this are misplaced when I look at the some of things that have been said about this particular bill. The increased loan fee will not significantly affect students at public universities in my electorate, at USQ or at UQ Ipswich campus. The USQ campus is at Springfield. The government has prohibited fee-paying undergraduate places and introduced a demand driven funding scheme, which means that from 2012 the Gillard government will fund a Commonwealth supported place for every student accepted into an eligible course of study at a public university, including USQ at Springfield and UQ at Ipswich.
Whether it is universities or TAFE courses and TAFE institutions, these things make a big difference in the lives of working-class boys and girls and young men and young women in my electorate. And while I am on my feet I want to particularly pay tribute to the Bremer TAFE, which is an important tertiary institution in my electorate. I particularly thank the assistance given to me by the acting institute director, Michael Thomas, and facilities manager, Brad Fisher. Recently I had the pleasure of representing the minister, Senator Chris Evans, in relation to opening the Better TAFE Facilities recognition ceremony for the $2 million we put into the Bremer TAFE. This $2 million has made a big difference to my constituents in the electorate of Blair, particularly in terms of what they have done. They have made a massive difference to campus. I will be speaking about that later, in a speech either today or tomorrow. That is just a way in which the Gillard government is making a difference in the lives of people in my electorate, contributing valuable investment to make a difference to the kinds of facilities that are available, particularly in the trades, particularly in computers and graphic design, particularly in metal fabrication, and also in the upgrading of equipment and workstations. These things make a huge difference in the lives of people, and not just the administration. Providing air-conditioning to learning spaces in institutions is a practical way which makes a difference in the lives of people who attend those institutions.
This legislation will not prohibit young people or mature-age students attending university. It is in line with the recommendations. Since 1989, undergraduate students have been required to pay a contribution towards the cost of their courses under what was then known as the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. This is the way we have done things for quite some time, but we need to make sure the system is viable. We need to make sure that investments in great institutions in my electorate, such as USQ at Springfield, UQ at Ipswich and Bremer TAFE at Bundamba, can continue and this sector can be viable for the electors of Blair.
2366
16:09:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women
1
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I thank the member for Blair as well as the other members who have spoken in this debate on the impacts that this government’s changes to education, particularly higher education, are having on their constituents in their communities and on the substantial benefits the changes are bringing. In representing Minister Garrett, in summing up this debate, I also thank all of those members from both sides who spoke on the
Higher Education Support Amendment (FEE-HELP Loan Fee) Bill 2010.
The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement the government’s decision to increase the loan fee from 20 per cent to 25 per cent for FEE-HELP for fee-paying undergraduate students. An increase in the loan fee applying to FEE-HELP debts incurred from 1 January 2011 will enable the government to recover more of the taxpayer-subsidised cost of providing FEE-HELP loans, giving effect to the recommendation that was part of the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education. Even with a five per cent increase in the loan fee, the conditions of the government’s FEE-HELP scheme continue to provide an extremely favourable income-contingent loan for students. Contrasting with commercial loan schemes, FEE-HELP loans are not means-tested, do not require security, are interest free, are indexed only to maintain real value and have income contingent repayment arrangements. Students do not have to start repaying their HELP loan until their income reaches the minimum repayment threshold of $44,912. If students do not repay their loan, the government meets that cost. The majority of students will not be affected by the change which will impact only on undergraduate students who choose to use FEE-HELP for their tuition fees in a fee-paying place. With all of that in mind, I urge members to support the bill.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
2366
Ministerial Statements
Afghanistan
2366
Debate resumed from 28 October, on motion byMr Stephen Smith:
That the House take note of the document.
2366
16:12:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—In continuing my remarks on this matter, I will pick up from where I left off. At the time I was making the point that our engagement in Afghanistan is often linked to the attack on the Twin Towers and the Bali bombings. I was specifically making the point that I knew Angela Golotta, who was killed in the Bali bombings. I know her family, and I know the trauma that the death caused her family. I also knew Andrew Knox, a young Australian who was killed in the Twin Towers attack. Andrew and I were political colleagues and friends and worked on campaigns on a number of occasions in the Makin electorate, which I represent today. In referring to both of them, I know and understand full well the strong links and passions that some members have in respect of our engagement in Afghanistan and both of those attacks. It is also my understanding that more Australians have now been killed in terrorist attacks on the West than those from any other Western country other than the United States. So, quite rightly, our engagement in Afghanistan is as much about protecting Australia’s people and interests as it is about supporting the US.
Today Afghanistan is one of the most impoverished nations in the world. According to the Australian Council for International Development, Afghanistan ranks second last at No. 181 of 182 countries on the UN’s Human Development Index. It is the most food insecure country on the planet. Less than 30 per cent of its people have access to safe drinking water and more than 90 per cent do not have access to proper sanitation. The average life expectancy for an Afghan woman is 44 years. Every 29 minutes, a woman dies during childbirth. Maternal mortality rates are estimated to be the third highest in the world at 1,600 per 100,000 live births. Literacy rates, at 26 per cent of the total population, are the fourth lowest in the world. One in four children die before the age of five.
The human and financial toll caused by three decades of fighting and destruction is immeasurable. If the same efforts had gone into addressing the level of disadvantage as have gone into the engagement in Afghanistan, the country may well be much different today than it is, and it may well not be as vulnerable as it is today.
The Afghanistan war began as a war on terrorism; however, I believe that that is no longer the focus of our presence there. So why are we still there? We are still there because we were party to overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and we cannot leave until an alternative, stable government is in place. To do otherwise would leave the people of Afghanistan at the mercy of those who would quite likely not treat them well. We are there because, having disrupted al-Qaeda operations there, we must ensure that a future Afghanistan government does not again provide a cover for terrorist training or a refuge for terrorists. These are valid reasons for Australia’s continued presence in Afghanistan. I am deeply concerned, however, that there is no end to the war in sight and that our ADF members could be in Afghanistan until 2014 or possibly for the rest of this decade.
I am also concerned that reports about progress made are countered by other reports which describe a worsening situation. What is now needed is international aid and a continuation of the training, mentoring and equipping of the Afghan army and police so that they can build their own capability.
The Taliban is not al-Qaeda and, according to several respected commentators, engaging the Taliban in constructive discussions may prove more successful in bringing an end to the war than continuing the military action against them. The member for Werriwa clearly articulated this in his contribution to this debate. Peter Leahy’s options of diplomacy, economic, military and soft power should all be part of Australia’s strategy in our future engagement in Afghanistan.
In summary, our engagement in the Afghanistan war is not about human rights or liberating the Afghan people. If it were, we should be in many other countries as well. Nor is it about being a compliant partner of our allies, particularly the USA. This is as much our problem and our war as it is that of our allies. Securing the safety of the Australian people is no longer simply a matter of securing our own borders. This war was about attacking a terrorist organisation which presented a threat to all of the Western world, including Australia. That makes it a just cause. It is about Australia sharing responsibility on a matter of mutual international interest with our allies, and that makes it a just cause. I do not want to see any more ADF lives lost, nor do I want to see any more civilian lives lost because of the acts of terrorists.
I will finish with this remark. Last Thursday I attended the Remembrance Day service in my electorate. I was approached by the mother of an ADF member who is serving in Afghanistan. The mother was in tears when she asked me to strongly argue the case that Australia should withdraw from Afghanistan. She was in tears because every time her phone rings or there is a knock on the door, she is concerned that it is the phone call or the knock that tells her about her son. I understand exactly what she was saying to me. I may not understand how she feels, but I understand the point she was making to me. And I do understand that there would be so many other mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters in exactly the same situation. That is why I would like to see an end to this war sooner rather than later.
2368
16:20:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—I acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Makin and also those made by other speakers on this subject. I rise to speak on Australia’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan. For me, this is an excellent opportunity not only to reflect on and review Australia’s role in the war but also to ponder what is in the hearts and minds of Australians.
Before I start, I would like to state that I have a deep respect and admiration for Australian soldiers past and present. With Remembrance Day just last week, this is an opportune time to discuss this issue—keeping in the forefront of all our debates the memories of those who have passed—and to try to put into perspective the current situation and the future of those currently serving for Australia overseas. To those soldiers—some 1,550 of you—currently deployed, as well as to the many more who have been to Afghanistan and theatres around the world, and also, sadly, to all Australian troops who have lost their lives, and to those who have been seriously wounded: we must recognise that you have paid the price that many of us in this place talk about but have never experienced. While we are here today talking about the war, Australian men and women are living the war. They are at the coalface.
There are a number of reasons why this debate is timely. The politics surrounding the war in Afghanistan have changed. There are new elements reshaping the war debate, including a high number of Australian casualties, particularly this year; operational concerns from the troops, in particular with regard to leaked emails; three soldiers facing charges; national weariness of the nine-year war effort; and a lack of understanding as to why Australian troops are in Afghanistan.
This debate is not as simple as being prowar or antiwar, as some would want to believe. Our involvement is woven into the complexities of Afghanistan and into an ongoing commitment that has exceeded all expectations. If we are having a debate on whether or not Australian troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan, we are really articulating a concern at the long nine years of Australia’s involvement and our generational commitment to the US-Australia alliance. Are we prepared, as the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said, to be involved in Afghanistan for the next decade at least?
The commitment is the issue that needs to be addressed. We should remember the reasons for deploying troops to Afghanistan were born after 9-11. It was the start of our commitment to the war on terror, and that commitment had Australia-wide support—even from the Greens. Senator Bob Brown, in a speech in September 2001 in the other place, described 9-11 as an ‘awesome tragedy’ and a ‘heinous terrorist attack’ on the United States. Australia’s deployment was viewed as necessary to combat further potential terrorist attacks.
We have now been committed to Afghanistan for nine long years, and some Australian people are becoming increasingly uncomfortable. It appears we have no tangible outcomes and no end in sight. The confusion speaks to the heart of why our young men and women are still in Afghanistan. This is another reason why this debate is so important. The Australian people want reassurance that we are there fighting a just fight.
Australians only need to ask the troops who serve in Afghanistan for that reassurance. I have been privileged to speak to some of the fine young men and women of Australia who have served our nation in Afghanistan, and they believe they are there for the right reasons. Australians believe the primary motivation for our troops continuing their deployment in Afghanistan is to ensure that it does not again become a training ground for terrorists.
The threat of terrorism continues to be a real threat for all Australians. Nearly 100 Australians have been killed in terrorist attacks over the past 10 years which have been planned and executed from terrorist safe havens within the mountains of Afghanistan. Australians have, unfortunately, been victims of a number of targeted terrorist attacks, including Bali in 2002, the Australian embassy in Jakarta in 2009, the London train and bus bombings in 2007, Bali again in 2005, and the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta in 2009.
I was recently reminded about the Bali bombings and the effect they had on all Australians and their families and friends when I attended the Bali bombing dawn memorial service in Kings Park on 12 October. I was joined by my colleague the member for Curtin, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Julie Bishop, in a moving ceremony that was attended by many people in Perth. Some were survivors and others were friends or family of the victims of these terrorist attacks. The memory of those Australians who died and those who survived these attacks will never be forgotten by these people, and all Australians should never forget them.
These Australians remain a stark reminder to us all about the reality of terrorism. If we are to continue the war against terrorists then we need to continue to ensure that there are no safe havens for them in countries like Afghanistan. We must remain vigilant to safeguard all Australians, and no more Australians should lose their lives because Afghanistan has served as a safe haven for terrorists to train.
Are we in Afghanistan to honour our alliance with the US? For some Australians the idea of Australia being in Afghanistan purely to keep the Americans on side does not sit well. Australians need to be reminded, however, that we have a responsibility to join with the US and its partners under the sanction of the UN to continue to achieve the mission in Afghanistan, and the mission clearly has not yet been achieved. The US has also supported us not so long ago with occupations of East Timor and the Solomon Islands in 2003. Our alliance with America cannot be the primary and only reason for staying; however, it forms part of a broader strategy.
So why are we in Afghanistan? There are a large number of reasonable explanations, including to uphold ANZUS; for Australia’s self-defence; to capture Osama bin Laden; to dismantle the Taliban; a commitment to be part of the war on terror; to help avert further terrorist attacks in places like Bali; for human rights, in particular liberating Afghan women; and to set up a democracy or training the Afghan National Army—all of which are just reasons to be there. However, we have seen the government change the focus on our involvement in Afghanistan over the past two years, which the member for Makin mentioned during his speech. What started as an anti-terrorist focus has now become the mentoring and training of Afghan soldiers to ultimately take responsibility for upholding the safety and security of their people.
Since the change of government in Australia in 2007 and the US in 2008, the mission in Afghanistan has changed, with the central focus now geared towards ensuring that Afghans take over responsibility for their own security. We must support the stabilisation of the Afghan state through the combination of civil, police and military training for local Afghans to enable them to achieve self-determination within a reasonable period of time.
In 2009, President Obama announced a revised strategy for Afghanistan that saw more troops committed and the long-term goal being a transition over to the Afghan government. Part of the new counterinsurgency strategy includes the COIN doctrine as laid out by General David H Petraeus. It aims to bolster economic growth, stability and Afghan goodwill toward their government with a strategy with a range of various components, including to hire Afghans first; buy Afghan products and build Afghan capacity; use contracting to hire Afghan workers and Afghan owned companies; and to consult and involve local leaders, develop new partnerships and contracts with a broader range of Afghan companies which will help break monopolies and weaken patronage networks that help breed resentment.
Progress in a counterinsurgency is gradual and achieved by degrees, village by village. It is a slow process, but there is no other way to achieve the goal. The success of Afghanistan can only be measured in the small wins that are happening day by day taking us closer to a secure Afghanistan. One of Australia’s operational objectives was to train the Afghan forces to the point where they can take responsibility for the Oruzgan province. That has not been achieved and is likely to take some years before that objective is achieved; however, the 4th Afghan Brigade are being trained and mentored to take control of Oruzgan so they can help build a secure place where the locals can live without fear of reprisals from the Taliban and other criminal elements.
So are the Australian troops making a difference? The answer is yes. Our troops are doing their job in difficult and dangerous circumstances. The terrain is inhospitable, the weather and the dust overbearing, and the insurgents are unrelenting. Despite this, our forces are fighting the good fight. Progress is slow but is being made. Not only military progress but trust has developed between our forces and the Afghan forces, forging a productive partnership.
The Australian Defence Force are involved in a number of projects across Afghanistan, including Oruzgan Province and Kandahar. They are engaged in operations, including those involved in reconstruction, mentoring, security, accommodation, infrastructure and countering the effects of improvised explosive devices. Australia is leading the way in training and promoting the development of the Afghan people in determining their own destiny. Despite various media reports on the war, with various experts saying it is unwinnable, it should be understood that the success of this conflict will not be achieved through military means alone. Success will also be measured by ensuring that the local population is protected and separated from the insurgents.
Now we come to the question that lies at the heart of the debate: when is the right time for Australia to withdraw troops? When can our troops come home? Looking at the withdrawal of other international forces: in August the Netherlands withdrew most of its 1,950 troops from Oruzgan; the Canadians are expected to commence withdrawing their 2,830-strong troop commitment as of next year; Poland’s 2,600 troops will leave Afghanistan in 2012; indications are that the British will commence the withdrawal of their 10,000 troops in 2014 and 2015; the US have said that they will commence standing down troops in July next year; and, as to the remaining 90,000 troops, it is unclear when they will leave. The question is very difficult to answer. My colleague the member for Curtin has urged the government to not set a specific timeline for the withdrawal of Australian troops so that the Taliban do not use it to their advantage. I agree with the member for Curtin that we need to be very careful about how and when to start withdrawing our troops. We need to ensure that our exit does not leave the country to implode. The best exit plan for Australian and international forces is to finish the job we have started. For Australia this means completing the task of training the 4th Brigade and ensuring that the central government is capable of containing and defeating the insurgency. To leave before that goal is achieved would hardly be the actions of a friend. It was recently reported that America’s plan to start withdrawing troops from July 2011 had given a morale boost to the Taliban, who believe they can wait out the NATO forces. Our forces should only withdraw when Afghan forces are ready and able to take over. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.
Afghanistan over the past nine years has been a dynamic problem, with the challenge of keeping up with the constantly changing conditions on the ground. Counterinsurgency campaigns are rollercoasters with advances and setbacks, which brings us to the fact that Australian troops have lost their lives in Afghanistan. This is a high price. This is the most heartbreaking aspect of war and nothing can come close to the loss felt by devastated loved ones left to carry on. I hope that families can take some comfort in knowing that in the heart of every Aussie soldier is a dedication and commitment to ensure Australians are safer across the world because of the job they are doing. We are all forever grateful. We must also not forget the lost lives of our allies and the Afghan people.
This war has not been easily fought. All sides have been hurt. There is no hiding from the reality. We are part of an international mission in Afghanistan and we should not walk away from our responsibilities. Australia has a moral obligation to fulfil its part. We need to finish the task. Our country was built on hard work and finishing a job properly. Those values are still important for us as a nation today. Mature governments do not cut and run ahead of their senior allies. From the start, Australia’s commitment was mandated by the UN and the invoking of the ANZUS Treaty. Many vocal minorities quote international agreements for issues that they say we must support, but they conveniently forget our treaty commitments when they are about an issue such as Afghanistan.
Before I close, I would like to mention that last week I saw a show that mentioned Captain Noel Chavasse who was in the Royal British Army Medical Corps during World War I. He died on 4 August 1917 after suffering a gaping abdominal wound. His gravestone is engraved with two Victoria Crosses—that is unique in itself—but the inscription on his gravestone is what I want to bring to the attention of the House. It reads:
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
In recognising the spirit of the inscription of Captain Chavasse’s gravestone, this applies to all our brave Australians in Afghanistan and to every Australian who has fought for their country. Whether or not they believe in the reasons for being there, they must never have their commitment undervalued by those back home who did not make the decision to send them to war or by those who have never faced an enemy or had to make the decision to put their lives on the line for their country.
In closing, I support Australia’s continuing deployment to Afghanistan because the job is clearly not finished. To leave the job half finished would be an insult to all those Australians who have given their lives or who have been wounded during duty, believing they were making a difference and ultimately making the world a safer place for all Australians.
2372
16:34:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
0
Ms RISHWORTH
—I welcome this opportunity to speak on the statement by the Prime Minister on Afghanistan. The decision to go to war should be the hardest decision that any government should have to make. This decision to put our men and women in harm’s way is one that I believe that this government has not taken—and should never take—lightly. Our mission in Afghanistan is both dangerous and difficult. Australia has paid a high price. We should never forget that 21 Australians have lost their lives serving Australia in Afghanistan. I cannot imagine the anguish and despair of losing a loved one in combat and I would like to put on the record my profound sympathy for those families and loved ones who have.
But, in spite of this mission being both dangerous and difficult, I do support the government’s commitment in Afghanistan and believe it is an important commitment that must be maintained. In this age of global terrorism, our work in Afghanistan is necessary. If terrorists harboured by the Taliban were allowed to regroup in Afghanistan, the security of Australians both at home and abroad would be in jeopardy.
September 11 2001 was a stark reminder of the realities of terrorism. The more recent attacks in Jakarta and Bali serve as a grim reminder that terrorism is not confined to the Middle East, the Americas or Europe. Australia’s commitment to the mission in Afghanistan is dedicated to minimising the threat of terrorism, rectifying human rights abuses in Afghanistan and ensuring the development of a stable and secure Afghanistan. Inaction and withdrawal by coalition troops will arguably lead to a power vacuum which would be filled by non-state actors, extremists and radicals, further hampering the Afghan people’s efforts to establish themselves as a viable nation-state.
Recently the UN Security Council unanimously renewed the International Security Assistance Force’s mandate in Afghanistan. The UN has affirmed its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan. This is an important point. The mission in Afghanistan is not a unilateral decision of any one country but a multilateral commitment made by the international community with 47 countries acting under this mandate.
This debate on the Prime Minister’s statement has been extremely comprehensive. Many previous speakers have outlined in detail the objectives and details of our mission in Afghanistan. Therefore I am not going to repeat what many of my colleagues have already placed on the record. But I do want to comment on the importance of providing support to our troops and their families. There is no denying that the recent past has been an exceptionally tough period for our troops in Afghanistan. On a daily basis they face dangerous conditions. The threat of improvised explosive devices is ever present. Afghanistan is a place where any rock or tin can may be one of these explosive devices and where enemy combatants do not wear uniforms. Our troops face a dangerous environment, a compromising terrain and an arid climate with scorching days and cold nights. Our troops are exposed to constant turmoil and threat: 156 Australians have been physically wounded in the war in Afghanistan, which has left them with the physical scars of war. But there are also the scars that we cannot see. History has shown us that the psychological toll of combat can also be debilitating. Both physical and psychological wounds can have a long-lasting impact. For many of our troops in Afghanistan this is not their first deployment. Many have been on multiple deployments not just in Afghanistan in recent years but also to East Timor and Iraq. Many of our troops in Afghanistan have been exposed to near misses and witnessed their mates injured or even killed.
It does not matter how resilient, capable or trained our soldiers are; these conditions will take their toll. For some it may result in mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Post-traumatic stress disorder is believed to develop as the result of a human brain not completely processing a traumatic event. The results of this are debilitating and include invasive memories, hypervigilance, nightmares, loss of concentration, guilt and irritability. Therefore, post-traumatic stress disorder is an inevitable side effect of war that some of our troops may suffer from. As a government and as a society, we must ensure that our troops who serve our country get the support they need when they need it. We must ensure that there are no barriers for our defence personnel in obtaining mental health treatment.
A study published in the
New England Journal of Medicine
in 2004 found that stigma associated with seeking treatment for mental health disorders was a significant barrier to American soldiers and marines returning from Afghanistan and Iraq accessing treatment. In fact the study reported that service personnel who were most in need of treatment for mental health issues did not access services because of the stigma associated with receiving care. Since then there have been a variety of studies confirming that stigma continues to be a barrier to military personnel seeking treatment for mental health issues. This is concerning because accessing help for conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health issues should not be viewed by service personnel or anyone else as embarrassing or a weakness.
We know that addressing mental health issues can significantly improve the lives of those affected. Studies have also shown that addressing mental health issues can increase retention of personnel in the defence forces. As a government and a community we need to ensure that everything is being done to support those service personnel who are affected by mental health issues and work to reduce any stigma that may exist about accessing help, both within our defence forces and in our wider society.
We must not make the mistake that we did when previous war veterans returned home. Many have told me they were provided with little recognition of and support for their physical and mental health difficulties. The Vietnam War saw many soldiers return to Australia with no real support. They were expected to come back and just get on with life. Many were not offered support, understanding or the opportunity to talk about their experiences. For some, this led to lifelong issues that have been debilitating and have severely impacted their quality of life for decades. For many it took years to get help for some of the issues they were experiencing. Therefore providing prevention and early intervention services for our personnel is critical.
I am pleased that the Gillard government has taken the area of mental health in our armed forces seriously. Upon election in 2007 the government initiated a review of mental health care in the Australian Defence Force and transition to non-military life. The government accepted the majority of recommendations in this report. I have been advised by Minister Snowdon’s office that the Department of Defence department is now implementing these recommendations, with the enhancement of the ADF mental health workforce being the main priority.
It is not only service personnel who are affected by deployment to Afghanistan and other war zones. It is the families as well whom we should not forget when our service personnel are deployed. My brother is an Air Force pilot and has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and I have seen the anxiety and stress that those deployments have had on my family, especially my mother. The anxiety and stress that family members suffer is real. For some families the worst-case scenario they fear does indeed occur and they lose a loved one. We need to make sure that families in this worst-case scenario get all the support they deserve. Ensuring that families are prepared for their loved ones to be deployed has been found to be a very important factor in improving the family’s resilience. Ensuring there is support for soldiers and their families upon their return is also critical. Some of our Defence Force personnel may have difficulty readjusting to their lives in Australia after returning from deployment, and it is important that once again the appropriate support is available for them and, importantly, their families as well.
Our mission in Afghanistan is a difficult and dangerous one. It is a mission that I believe we should not abandon. If coalition forces were to withdraw there could be serious consequences for global security. Our troops in Afghanistan are doing a professional job on the ground but, as I have said, it is dangerous. It is important that while we continue our work in Afghanistan we do not forget that this mission could have a significant impact on our personnel on the ground and their families. We must support them.
2374
16:44:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
0
0
Mr NEVILLE
—I too welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on Afghanistan. It seems that every Australian has an opinion on whether our troops should remain in Afghanistan or whether they should be withdrawn, and I think that debate is quite good and proper. We are all asking ourselves ceaseless questions like: should we stay in Afghanistan or should we walk away; are we making headway or is it a lost cause; and have we matched our military might with social and economic reconstruction? I might say by way of an aside that the lessons of previous conflicts should have told us that we need to put a lot more into social and economic reconstruction.
Of course, if we abandon our course prematurely, we are simply surrendering Afghanistan to authoritarian governments or to warlords or, even worse, to terrorist organisations that would possibly run the country, as they have in the past—organisations which will invariably carry out attacks on foreign soil or allow the training of people who will carry out attacks on foreign soil. The fact that so many terrorists and would-be terrorists have admitted to training in Afghanistan demonstrates the depth of the problem. Those of us who have seen Australians killed in Bali or in the London underground bombings should be in no doubt of the capacity of these terrorists—and that is saying nothing, of course, about other occasions and near misses at Australian and American embassies and the dreadful events on the Spanish railways. They are other examples of training that occurred in that country.
It is important that all views are aired and it is important to support the men and women who are carrying out their duties in what must be the most hellish of circumstances. It is absolutely pivotal to this debate that we understand the broader implications of Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. We must take into account Afghanistan’s history, its current situation and its likely future. We must consider international alliances and security matters, Australia’s role in Afghanistan up to this point, the welfare of our troops, the wishes of Australians and the deeply held sentiment of people that we must finish the job in Afghanistan as a fitting tribute to the 21 Australian soldiers who have been killed to date.
Bearing in mind the parliament’s bipartisan commitment to remain militarily engaged in Afghanistan, it is timely to re-examine our role in reshaping that country—and, of course, that goes beyond the military. For hundreds of years Afghanistan has experienced conflict and strife—strife that we as a nation have never known but strife that has gone on there for literally hundreds of years. History tells us that whenever a foreign power has tried to exert influence over Afghanistan, that particular country has come off second best. You can trace that back to colonial Britain or, more recently, to Russia. They are just two of many examples of countries that have tried to use their influence in Afghanistan. So we must be cautious in our endeavours.
I believe we must stay the course in Afghanistan but we must also have a roadmap and benchmarks for our eventual withdrawal from that country. For the sake of our troops, their families, their friends and all Australians, we need to know when that job is done and not just stay on in some endless continuum.
As developed nations forge closer ties and become more and more engaged with the internet and so on—in other words, as we become a more global community—it is ironic that the gap between Afghanistan and the rest of the world widens. It is a nation which faces enormous challenges, and not just in the political sense. Geographically, Afghanistan has some of the most hostile terrain on earth and its people struggle for basic subsistence.
Almost 44 per cent of the population in Afghanistan is aged under 14. Corruption is rife and public infrastructure, as we all know, is diabolical. Unemployment runs at 35 per cent and roughly the same percentage of Afghans live below the poverty line. And per capita, Afghanistan’s GDP is only $1,000. It is also the world’s largest producer of opium—an illegal crop. Throw into that mix constant armed conflict and terrorism and you have about as grim a situation as you can imagine. Clearly, there is a hell of long way to go before peace and prosperity will be created in Afghanistan. So the goals must be military, political and social if we are to achieve genuine results in Afghanistan.
Our troops are there to make a difference, and I believe they are doing just that. Our nine-year presence in Afghanistan is only second in Australian memory to our engagement in the war in Vietnam. On that point, I want to come to another aspect of our engagement in Afghanistan, and that is support for our troops. I hope that I am not being unduly critical but I am not convinced that it is all that it should be. I want to take you back to Vietnam and, in particular, to the Battle of Long Tan to make a point about the importance of support capability for our troops in the field. While I accept that Australia’s role in Afghanistan is quite different from its role in Vietnam, and also the environment in Afghanistan—the desert and hostile terrain that I was talking about before—is quite different from that of Vietnam, the need for support for our troops in Afghanistan is as paramount as it was in Vietnam.
In the Battle of Long Tan, 105 Australian troops, with some support from RAAF helicopters and a contingent of APCs, took on an estimated contingent of 2,500 North Vietnamese regulars and Viet Cong. The odds of 105 to 2,500 are just enormous. Even though those odds were overwhelming, the Australians prevailed. But what was seminal to that battle—and I have heard it from people who actually served there, even the commanding officer in the field, the commander of D Company of 6RAR, Major Harry Smith, now Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith, who was decorated for his exceptional leadership and bravery on that day—was the strategic nature of New Zealand, Australian and American artillery units who provided a carpet of fire into the rubber plantation where the battle was occurring. Harry Smith makes no secret of the crucial nature of the artillery fire and of the helicopters which brought in ammunition at the height of the battle. Imagine his situation: he was right at the front of the firefight, with his New Zealand artillery officer beside him. They were both lying face down in a puddle of muddy, swampy water, trying to raise their heads just enough to keep them out of the line of fire to call down a withering barrage of artillery from the three units that were literally metres in front of them. He says that that was the turning point for them. The only way that they could have won that battle was with the support of the RAAF helicopters and that barrage of fire. It was scary, it was frightening but it was crucial and decisive. In fact—and I just say this by way of an aside—it is said that, if they had not won the battle on that day, the Australian base at Nui Dat would probably have been attacked by those 2,000-plus North Vietnamese troops. Contrast that with the situation in Afghanistan where the Dutch helicopters stayed at 5,000 metres above our troops at Deh Rawood, out of the firefight but broadly in support of the troops. This is not a criticism of the Dutch helicopters—they had to make the call on that day—but, rather, a call for an integrated Australian capacity where the Australian commanders in the field can make those decisions and call on Australian backup.
I was disappointed by the criticisms made of the shadow defence minister, Senator Johnston, when he called for better Australian support. Honourable members would know that there have been too many delays in military procurement in this country. I am not criticising the current government or the previous government; I am just talking in broad terms. There have been too many delays, too many changes and too many cost blow-outs of all sorts in defence procurement. When I hear of troops wanting to buy different shoes or not being happy with their flak jackets and the like, it gives me a sense of unease. Our people have to have the best support, whether it is in their personal equipment or in having other forms of backup. General Jim Molan said we should have tanks in Afghanistan. We need to take notice of people who have been in these sorts of situations and can make a judgement. If a soldier says something to me about his equipment or his backup, I am more likely to listen to him than to a Defence spokesman.
In the remaining few minutes I would like to back up my colleague the member for Kingston and say how important it is to have support for the families. Just last week we had a friend around for dinner—and you do not realise the impact of this until someone close to you is in this situation. Her daughter’s husband, her son-in-law, was killed in Afghanistan just a few months back. Of course, once the funeral is held and the tributes are paid and the troops return to the field, there is a lonely widow and two children. The lonely widow is so wracked with grief that she suffers from clinical depression and has to go to hospital. When you see that at close quarters you call for another form of support, as the previous speaker did—support for the families—and no support is too much.
My colleague also made a very good point about support for returning troops. Again, I spend a lot of time in my electorate with Vietnam veterans, for whom I have a great affection. We ran a health program for them—I cannot remember its name—through the YMCA. I remember that, when I went to the graduation of these ex-servicemen who had been through this health course and this physical exercise, two of them told me that they were on the verge of suicide at the time they took that course. So, in closing, in talking about support and in examining what we do on the ground in Afghanistan, we should also remember the families that have been left behind and the troops who suffer psychological damage from these conflicts.
2377
16:59:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
0
Mr CHAMPION
—I congratulate the member for Hinkler and the member for Kingston for raising the very important issue of post traumatic stress disorder. We have seen the ramifications of that for veterans in all wars—of course, in World War I they called it shell shock. There should be no shame in reaching out and admitting that you have a problem and seeking treatment, and we have to be much better this time round at offering that treatment.
This is an incredibly important debate for the parliament to have because it involves the welfare of Australians and the safeguarding of our national interest. It is an important debate for the parliament to discuss and think about the great challenge of our age, which is the dangerous combination of transnational terrorism and failed, lawless and chaotic states. I support our mission in Afghanistan and I support our ADF personnel, our federal police and our civilian aid agencies who are undertaking that mission. Having seen ADF personnel at work in the field in Afghanistan as part of the parliamentary exchange program and having met many of them in my electorate of Wakefield at RAAF Base Edinburgh, I have seen the professionalism, maturity and decency that they bring to a dangerous and hostile environment in Afghanistan.
Our thoughts in this debate are with the families of those who have made the greatest sacrifice, with the wounded and with all those who serve our nation. This conflict does serve as a reminder of the generations of Australian servicemen who have made many sacrifices big and small to protect our liberty and more often than not the liberties of people from many distant places around the globe. We must remember that those sacrifices do not stop with one generation; they echo down the generations and they define our nation as a beacon of liberty, justice, mateship and democracy.
The history of Afghanistan should weigh heavily on this debate because Afghanistan has been fought over the centuries in what was described in the 18th century as the great game. Prior to the first British-Afghan war, Mountstuart Elphinstone, the former Governor of Bombay, wrote to a friend:
If you send 27,000 men up the Bolan pass to Candahar (as we hear is intended), and can feed them, I have no doubt you will take Candahar and Caubul and set up Soojah; but for maintaining him in a poor, cold, strong and remote country, among a turbulent people like the Afghans, I own it seems to be to be hopeless.
The British found Afghanistan an easy place to invade and a very hard place to hold. I have one of the Rats of Tobruk in my electorate. When I went round to see him prior to Anzac Day he showed me his medals. One of those medals was from Dunkirk, which he had neglected to mention. When I asked him how he came to be in the British Army he said he had actually joined up in the thirties and spent some time on the Khyber Pass. He is 90-odd now and it just goes to show you that some things do not change.
The Soviet Union also discovered this reality about Afghanistan. Despite their brutality, unrestrained use of force and conventional military advantage, they could not bring peace, order or stable government to Afghanistan. In the process of the invasion the Soviet Union destroyed Afghanistan’s agricultural economic base—which was fairly sophisticated—fractured its tribal society, exacerbated ethnic and tribal tensions, killed over a million Afghans, internally displaced two million more and then forced a further 5.5 million to flee abroad. That legacy is especially confronting when you consider that from 1880 to 1973 Afghanistan was largely stable and peaceful, and ruled through a combination of strong local governance and benign royalty. In fact, it was even possible to travel through Afghanistan—as many people did in the 1960s, following the hippie trail—with relative degrees of security.
The sudden withdrawal of Soviet forces, while celebrated locally and internationally, opened the door for an even more brutal period of civil war amongst warlords, with foreign interference, the Taliban and ultimately with the nation becoming a client state of al-Qaeda. Advocates of the sudden withdrawal of UN sanctioned NATO forces should consider that historical lesson. Those who imagine that Afghanistan can somehow be made good through sudden withdrawal, foreign aid and wishful thinking must face up to the murderous chaos that would ensue if NATO forces withdrew suddenly.
It should not be our desire, and it is not our desire, to permanently occupy Afghanistan but we can only withdraw when a relative degree of peace and stable governance is achieved. The real question that should be debated is how to bring peace to Afghanistan. In my opinion there are four pillars on which that peace may be based. The first is that we must embark on well-researched and intelligence orientated intensive counterinsurgency operations. Insurgencies are in essence violent competition for the state and, to be overcome, they must be met with careful and selective use of military force, with civilian aid and with good governance. These operations are being undertaken now, and that includes the training of the Afghan National Army—a direct part of the Australian mission in Afghanistan.
The second thing we must do in Afghanistan is disaggregate the threats. There is a tendency in this debate to roll a whole lot of people up in a bundle and call them all our enemy. I think we need to disaggregate those threats and understand the bewilderingly complex nature of Afghan tribal society and the difference in the threats we face and have a different strategy for dealing with each of them. It seems to me there are three main threats in Afghanistan. The first threat is that the Pashtun tribes may turn against us and wage a permanent insurgency. If that occurs, all will be lost. These tribes must be understood, and we must take into account the complex nature of their society, be mindful of their interests, be respectful of the code of Pashtunwali, which has reigned there for centuries, and resist the impossible task of imposing Western values on their communities. In short, we must make these tribes our allies, not our enemies, because Afghanistan cannot be peaceful or stable if Pashtun society is disrespected or ignored. We must seek an honourable engagement built on respect in order to create the conditions for peace, and marginalise those who would truly damage our national interests and international order.
The second of these threats is the Taliban, whose ranks range from thieves and thugs to religious zealots, and that group must be isolated and marginalised and forced into peaceful conduct through counterinsurgency campaigns. Force is necessary to provide unrelenting pressure on our part on the Taliban.
The third enemy, the final threat, is of course the most dangerous and the real reason we are in Afghanistan—al-Qaeda and groups like them who subscribe to Takfiri transnational terrorism and who have declared war on all civilised societies and all the world’s major religions, Islam included. I use the term ‘Takfiri’ deliberately, and for the benefit of the House I will provide a definition of the term. David Kilcullen, who is a counterinsurgency expert, uses his description because he thinks it is much more accurate than terms like ‘Islamic extremist’. In his book
Counter Insurgency
he describes the term as follows:
The doctrine of Takfiri disobeys the Qur’anic injunction against compulsion in religion and instead holds that Muslims whose beliefs differ from the Takfiri are infidels who must be killed. Takfirism is a heresy within Islam; it was outlawed in the 2005 Amman Message, an initiative of King Abdullah II of Jordan, which brought together more than 500 ulemas, Islamic scholars and Muslim political leaders from the organisation of the Islamic Conference of the Arab League in an unprecedented consensus agreement, a ‘unanimous’ agreement by Muslims everywhere as represented by their acknowledged most senior religious and political leaders. Al-Qaeda is Takfiri and its members are universally so described by other Muslims who they routinely terrorise.
Dr Kilcullen continues in his book:
I prefer it to the terms ‘jihad’, ‘jihadist’, ‘jihadi’ or ‘mujahadeen’ … which cede to the enemy the sacred status that they crave …
It should be understood that these Takfiri transnational terrorist groups threaten the Muslim world as well as our own. We must resist the notion that there is a clash of civilisations or religions and expose al-Qaeda for what they are—murderous heretics. We must isolate al-Qaeda from the Muslim world in order to destroy it, and we must seek allies in the Muslim world in order to do this. There is a great deal of overlap in the threats. Nothing is simple in Afghanistan, but we must disaggregate the threats as far as possible and have a different strategy to deal with each of them. Peace and stability can only occur if we understand the nature of the threat we face and concentrate on the true nature of our ultimate enemy—al-Qaeda and groups like them.
The third pillar to bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan is that there should be some movement away from the highly centralised government there. As I said before, previous periods of stability were characterised by highly decentralised governments. I believe that only by devolving democratic power back to the provinces and the valleys can we avoid civil war and eliminate national kleptocracy. A devolution of power is essential to bringing peace to Afghanistan.
The fourth and final pillar to seeking a stable and peaceful Afghanistan is to end the great game which has been played by a range of foreign powers who have sought to fight proxy wars with each other within Afghanistan’s borders. We must seek broad international and regional agreements that end the overt and covert support for warlords and extremists—and, basically, a different era in the great game must begin. We must foster regional security in exchange for an end to the money, aid and resources that have fuelled the civil war and the insurgency in Afghanistan. Safe havens can only be eliminated through diplomacy, and we should give no quarter to those who spread violence, terror and disorder around the world, because no state, religion or community is safe from that violence, terror and disorder. It seems to me that diplomacy is an essential tool for ensuring peace and stability.
Afghanistan once was peaceful and it can be stable and peaceful again. In the end, only Afghans can decide this, but they need our assistance and the world’s assistance. There are plenty of nations that have overcome barbarism and civil war, but in Afghanistan this can only occur with the help of the rest of the world and the goodwill of its neighbours. It is natural to have doubts, ask questions and seek knowledge, but we must not fool ourselves about the nature of the threat of al-Qaeda. It is as evil and unrelenting as any tyranny; it is as ambitious as any tyranny. Like fascism and communism before it, Takfiri terrorism is a political ideology of absolutes that cannot be reasoned with. We should remember the words of Sir Winston Churchill in 1938:
Before we cast away this hope, this cause and this plan, which I do not at all disguise has an element of risk, let those who wish to reject it ponder well and earnestly upon what will happen to us if, when all else has been thrown to the wolves, we are left to face our fate alone.
Our mission in Afghanistan is a reluctant duty—a duty we commit to knowing the terrible sacrifices that will be made in our national interests, in the interests of international stability and security and to protect the liberties, however small, of others.
2380
17:13:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important motion regarding Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. It is an opportunity to join with so many other members of the House and restate my commitment to our important engagement in Afghanistan. I have had the opportunity to hear a great many of the contributions that have been made in the House and in this Main Committee, including those of the last hour or so. I think that those contributions, by members from both sides of politics, showed the strength of our commitment, and the thought that went into them demonstrated a thorough grasp of the very difficult issues and challenges.
We of course reflect on the sacrifice of those 21 Australians. We reflect on those who have been injured in Afghanistan. We reflect on the pain of the families who have lost loved ones. And we think of those serving there today doing very important work not just on behalf of Australia but on behalf of the values of freedom that are the values of our country and other countries throughout the world.
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition outlined in great detail some weeks ago the important issues at stake. I will not at this stage of the debate cover each and every one of them. But, in reflecting on this statement just a few days after Remembrance Day, all of us who have spoken in this debate have made the following point about the terrible events of 11 September 2001, nine years and a couple of months ago. When those events occurred, the world community had a choice: to do something or to do nothing. The Taliban and al-Qaeda, which had wrought so much damage, in bringing in a new form and reign of terror had signalled that their ultimate aim was to carry out more September 11s, perhaps in different forms. Their ultimate aim was nothing short of the destruction of the values and the freedoms we hold so dear.
At that point in time, our country and other countries made a commitment. A lot has been said in the public arena and in the debate on this statement about the difficulty of engagement in Afghanistan. The previous speaker very eloquently ran through some of the history, and most of us are very familiar with the history and difficulty of engagement in Afghanistan. The point I would like to make is that at the time that we, the United States and the other allied countries commenced the engagement, no-one stated otherwise—there was no voice saying that the engagement would be short or easy. Everyone knew the history and the difficulty, but also the importance, of the task. In fact, I took the trouble to look back on some of the contributions that the then Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition and other senior frontbenchers on both sides made back in 2001 and 2002, and each side of politics made that point. It is natural to compare the length and difficulty of this commitment with that of conventional wars that have occurred in the last century. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that, World War II lasting six years, the length of the engagement has now been, obviously, 1½ times that of World War II. But it was known that that would be the case, and the fact that it was known and recognised went to the strength of the commitment and the purpose and necessity of the action.
In his recent book, Tony Blair makes this point very eloquently. I was reading this recently. He says that the goal was not simply to remove the Taliban but to replace them with a democracy to rebuild the country. This was not just a matter of idealism; it was also about understanding why Afghanistan had become a failed state, why it had become a breeding ground for terror and why it had descended into this horrible cruel mix of anarchy and despotism. Like it or not, from then on we were in the business of nation building.
I mention that because there is another world leader, a critical one at the time, who recognised exactly what was at stake. For those who think we should not be engaged in Afghanistan, the absolute point they need to confront is this: what is the alternative? The member for Kingston, the previous speaker on the other side, made this point. Some have said we should replace military action just with aid, as if aid can somehow be delivered in a country which would surely and quickly descend to the sort of place it was 9½ years ago. Those people need to state how they think this terrible scourge of terrorism can be dealt with. In our hearts what we know is that September 11 was a beginning, in one sense, of what al-Qaeda wants to wreak on a much larger scale. In fact, if we look back, things had begun before September 11—a long time before. Think back to the first bombing of the World Trade Centre.
I mentioned earlier our natural inclination to measure conflicts in periods of time that we have been conditioned to understand, through the history that has been taught to us and through conflicts that have occurred during our own lifetime. The great difference, as has been pointed out, is that we were then engaged with one nation; the conflict at hand is not a conflict between nations with borders, it is not a conflict about the sorts of things we have seen in previous conflicts, and it is going to be at so many levels a long battle. By that I do not just mean the physical military action in Afghanistan. The very freedoms that we cherish are at stake. To have confronted the reality of September 11 and done nothing was never an option. Similarly, to know what the consequences are of premature withdrawal means that there is no option. Our Australian troops are doing good work. It is a long and difficult process and at the end of it we want to see a better Afghanistan and, importantly, we want to see those roots of terrorism stamped out so that not just Australians but people around the world have this threat removed.
2382
17:25:00
Vamvakinou, Maria, MP
00AMT
Calwell
ALP
1
0
Ms VAMVAKINOU
—It is a pleasure to be participating in this very important debate on Australia’s commitment to the war in Afghanistan. It is a debate that is taking place in the ninth year of our involvement, and I think we can say that it is a war that Australians generally appear to have concerns about and may no longer support. Public support for the war has changed over the course of the last nine years and I do believe that a great number of Australians now are not supportive of Australian military involvement in Afghanistan. It is on behalf of those people, many of whom are my constituents, that I wish to make my contribution here today.
We have heard a lot about Afghanistan from many speakers, and many great contributions have been made. Afghanistan finds itself at the epicentre of a global paradigm which speaks constantly to us all of national security, of Islamist terrorism and of the war on terror. This is a somewhat narrow perspective and it has dramatic human consequences. These consequences very much include the loss of Australian and Afghan lives and the mass displacement of people seeking refuge. Ironically, in my own electorate some 150 young unaccompanied Afghani minors are currently being accommodated in the Melbourne immigration transit accommodation centre in Broadmeadows. So the reality of displacement is very much in my own electorate and in our neighbourhood. It is clear for us all to see and to try to understand.
The prognosis for resolution in relation to the war in Afghanistan has been assessed. It is often referred to as protracted and is often also considered to be a military success, but from time to time it appears to be described as outright hopeless. As I said, most Australians, including many of my constituents, are asking very pertinent questions. They ask me often and they have certainly been asking me over the course of the last nine years. The obvious question is: what is the war in Afghanistan all about? They want to know where it is leading and what the cost is of our continued involvement—not only to Australia but to the people of Afghanistan, to the region and to the US and all of our allies.
In her speech to the House, the Prime Minister did answer some of these questions. She pointed in particular to two very vital national interests that drive Australian involvement in Afghanistan. The first is to make sure that Afghanistan does not continue to be a haven for terrorists. The second, most emphatically, is that we are there to stand firmly by our alliance commitments to the United States. The Prime Minister also went on to make it clear that we would not abandon Afghanistan and that we will be engaged throughout this decade at least. I know that that has resonated with a lot of the public, particularly with a lot of people in my electorate. So the war appears to be a long way from being over and, despite little progress, it also appears that we intend to stay the course—that is another phrase that is very often used and linked to what we are doing in Afghanistan: ‘We intend to stay the course.’ A lot of people do not fully understand what that course is.
In 2003 I said in this chamber regarding the Howard government’s decision to commit Australia to war in Iraq:
I am a representative who cares about the reason our country went to war.
I also recall addressing an antiwar rally in Melbourne where over a quarter of a million Melburnians marched against the war in Iraq. The rally in Melbourne was part of a weekend of mass international protests which saw tens of millions of people out on the streets in over 600 cities and towns across the world.
At that time, the war in Afghanistan was seen as different. The attacks on the twin towers on September 11 did cast a very violent narrative, and the almost immediate association of Osama bin Laden with these horrific acts catapulted Afghanistan to the forefront of a new and dangerous threat, a threat the world and we here in Australia were not familiar with. It was easier to support Australian involvement in Afghanistan because there was a strong and obvious correlation between the killings on September 11 and the man who has come to personify the face of Islamist terrorism.
Iraq was a different proposition. There were questions about regime change, missing weapons of mass destruction and shifting geopolitical balances. Our involvement in Afghanistan seemed to have a nobler cause, especially so in light of the Bali bombings that so horrified our country and killed so many innocent Australians—young people who were just going about their business while on holidays.
I think this debate therefore gives us the opportunity to take stock—and many members have done that in the course of their contribution—and to examine what has become of our Afghanistan mission: what progress have we made? What have we achieved? Have the original objectives in going to war been met? In short, I think they have not been met: bin Laden has not been captured; al-Qaeda has not been eradicated but has, rather, been pushed into Pakistan, relocated but not defeated; stability and peace have not come to the people of Afghanistan or the region; and the allied troops are no closer today to resolving this theatre of war than they were nine years ago.
The renowned American journalist of Watergate fame, Bob Woodward, in his recent book
Obama’s Wars, describes Afghanistan as a war bogged down with slow progress, almost no capacity to build a new nation and little or no prospect of victory. Indeed, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, made this concerning assessment:
… I don’t think you win this war; I think you keep fighting. It’s a little bit like Iraq … This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.
Concurring with this assessment of the military situation on the ground, Australia’s Brigadier Mark Smethurst, one of our top combat soldiers, said that our troops are overwhelmed and unable to defeat the Taliban. This prognosis is devastating, I think, and does not offer much hope for progress. It is therefore only logical that, given those cited assessments, we carefully and truthfully re-examine our commitment to this war—a commitment that places the lives of Australian soldiers and Afghani civilians at risk and a commitment on which we have failed to make decisive and definitive progress.
This quagmire is neither new nor unique. Putting aside renditions of George Santayana’s altered phrase that ‘those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it’, we have been down this road before. I want to reflect on the words of Arthur Calwell, who stood against another infamous war that was both protracted and unwinnable, a war waged on the pretext of national security, the need to stop the spread of communism—those of you who have studied this war will recall the so-called domino theory and the yellow and red ‘perils’—and our commitment to the US alliance. I am referring of course to the Vietnam War.
In May of 1965, Arthur Calwell, leader of the Australian Labor Party, long before Australian popular opinion morphed into a groundswell of antiwar protestation, stated:
Our men will be fighting the largely indigenous Viet Cong in their own home territory. They will be fighting in the midst of a largely indifferent, if not resentful, and frightened population. They will be fighting at the request of, and in support, and, presumably, under the direction of an unstable, inefficient, partially corrupt military regime which lacks even the semblance of being, or becoming, democratically based.
A debate similar to this one took place in this country at that time. Our government’s commitment was espoused with the catchcry ‘All the way with LBJ’. It would, however, take Australian governments another decade to realise that Arthur Calwell’s assessment was indeed correct and that, perhaps, LBJ’s way was the wrong way.
I think Calwell’s words ring true today, as they did over 45 years ago. Afghanistan and Iraq have become the 21st century’s Vietnam for both the US and for us here in Australia. I do not intend, in expressing my views, to disrespect or devalue the sacrifices and the courage of our young Australians serving in Afghanistan. Rather, my objection to the war and our involvement goes to its purpose, the prospects of the mission itself and our ethical responsibility to those we send to fight in our name. I was here when the member for Makin made mention of the approaches—indeed, the pleas—that he has received from the mother of an Australian soldier, a mother who wants the member for Makin to support our soldiers being brought back home. We need to be conscious of that anxiety and concern here in Australia.
As we mourn the death of our fallen soldiers, we have to also reflect on the countless deaths of Afghani men, women and children who through no fault of their own have become the casualties and victims of a war they have no say in. Given the course, the prospects and the cost of our engagement, I believe it is now time for Australia to withdraw its troops, or to disengage from its military involvement in Afghanistan. The objective is to end terrorism by removing al-Qaeda and, sadly but clearly, together with our American allies, we have not achieved that objective. It is now clear that we cannot meet these objectives through a continuation of war.
It is my view that peace talks working towards a political settlement should commence almost immediately amongst the Afghani parties, and that includes the Taliban, mediated and facilitated by the United Nations. If this entails power-sharing with the Taliban, such a proposition should not be viewed as fanciful and intractable, but it should be seen as the way forward.
I want to refer to comments made by Professor Amin Saikal, who is the director of the ANU Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies. He recently wrote, and it is very important because he is right:
The problem of Afghanistan is not that the US and its NATO and non-NATO allies have not deployed enough forces and firepower. They have.
…
…
…
The problem of Afghanistan is largely political, economic and regional. The corrupt, dysfunctional and nepotistic nature of the government of President Hamid Karzai is well documented.
Professor Saikal is correct in his assessment. We cannot resolve this issue by staying only on a military course. Dialogue and negotiation for political solutions are now the only viable option. And, again, as Professor Saikal notes:
It is now absolutely imperative for the UN Secretary-General to convene a regional conference with all five permanent members of the UN Security Council to establish such an agreement.
We will need to come to the realisation that we cannot choose who the Afghan people put forward to make peace. We must discard the idea that, if the Taliban were not there, it would be easier to manage Afghanistan’s transition into a peaceful and stable state.
After nearly a decade of being consumed by the monologue of war on terror, it is time that we commenced a dialogue on the politics of withdrawal: how to peacefully and effectively disengage our military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. As Australia we should—indeed, it constitutes our moral imperative—continue our commitment to the Afghani people through our technical and even our international aid programs. By calling for an end to the military engagement, we are not abandoning the people of Afghanistan. Instead, by supporting a peace process through dialogue towards a political settlement rather than a military solution, I believe we are providing the only real hope for peace, stability and prosperity for the people of Afghanistan, for the region, for us here in Australia and for all of the international parties involved in this conflict.
2385
17:38:00
Gambaro, Teresa, MP
9K6
Brisbane
LP
0
0
Ms GAMBARO
—Australia’s contribution to the war on terror is absolute: the need to restore sovereignty to the people in Afghanistan, to promote universal values of liberty and democracy, and to ensure the security of Australia and our allies is paramount. There is a simple fact that those who do not support our troops in Afghanistan do not understand—that is, the war on terror is real, it is happening now and, if we do not take a stand, it will continue to haunt the world for generations to come. Let us not forget the same totalitarian Islamist movement we are fighting in Afghanistan was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 people in New York on 11 September 2001, 202 people in the Bali bombings in 2002, 191 people in Madrid in 2004 and 56 people in London in July 2005. It is sad to say, but the list goes on and on. I say ‘people’, because it is not only the victims who have been affected; it is also their partners, their parents, their brothers, their sisters, their friends and their extended families—and, in some cases, children have had to deal with the loss of a loved one from the atrocity that is a terrorist attack.
I am full of pride to share the site of the Enoggera Barracks with the member for Ryan, Jane Prentice. Of the 1,550 troops that Australia has committed to Afghanistan, I am honoured to announce that the 6RAR Battalion is a significant contributor to the war effort. To the men and women of the 6RAR Battalion who are over in Afghanistan, who are about to go or who have been: as a nation we are privileged to have such fine representatives of a great nation furthering freedom and liberty across the world.
The Mentoring Task Force is led by the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, most of whom call Brisbane home. Involved in the Mentoring Task Force are several Brisbane based units, including the 2nd Combat Engineer Regiment, the 1st Field Regiment and of course the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. Australia’s military contribution to the International Security Assistance Force includes around 1,550 Australian Defence Force personnel, who are deployed within Afghanistan. Of these, 1,241 are deployed in Oruzgan province and around 300 in Kabul, Kandahar and elsewhere in Afghanistan. I am proud that Brigadier McLachlan at the Enoggera Barracks and the 6RAR are doing their best in leading the mentoring of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police.
As an international community we need to promote the same freedom and democracy that we celebrate here in Australia. In the case of Afghanistan, we need to promote modernisation at the expense of extremism. We need to develop an environment where societies celebrate diversity through tolerance for everyone with the exception of the intolerant. This simply cannot be accepted in Afghanistan and anywhere in the Middle East or throughout the world with the Taliban and al-Qaeda active and recruiting people to their unjust and immoral cause. We simply cannot miss the opportunity to stand for liberty and freedom simply because the journey is a long and tough one. As a nation we simply cannot allow the threat of terrorism to fester and the oppression of Islamic fundamentalism to continue indefinitely.
The recent AUSMIN talks are a sign that Australia is here for the long haul and that we will only withdraw when certain conditions are met and not on any given time frame. I was glad to see that the US Secretary of State and US Secretary of Defence, in Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, share the same view as we have here in Australia. Can I also add that President Obama has recently recommitted to staying the course in Afghanistan. These recent comments by our American allies are an important reaffirmation of the US-Australia alliance by both countries.
The Taliban treatment of women and ethnic minorities is one of the worst, if not the worst, examples of Islamic fundamentalism the world has ever seen. There are positive signs appearing since the ISAF invasion in 2001. Under Taliban rule, Afghan women and girls were not educated beyond the age of eight and were not permitted to work. As a consequence of this, many of the teachers, being women, have now been forced to leave their jobs and the schools have been shut down. Women were not allowed to go to the doctor without a male relative, resulting in many illnesses that women face going unreported and without medical treatment. In the Taliban-run Afghanistan, women were regularly beaten. They were stoned, flogged to death and had their limbs cut off. But it does not stop there. At the peak of this tyrannical Taliban rule, windows in houses were blackened on the off-chance that someone saw a woman inside. This sort of behaviour would certainly not be accepted in Australia. We would not tolerate this type of behaviour if it were committed by any country in our region. So there is no reason why we should accept it in Afghanistan. We can look at three important development indicators that prove my statements. The literacy rate for men is 49 per cent and for women it is 18 per cent. School attendance in Afghanistan for boys is 66 per cent, yet for girls it is 40 per cent. The differences are appalling.
I am a Liberal because I believe in four fundamental freedoms: the freedom of the individual, the freedom of choice, the freedom to pursue excellence and the freedom to seek reward for effort. Under a totalitarian Islamic rule, none of these freedoms is achieved. This is another and just reason as to why we as a nation have committed troops to Afghanistan. In the defence of liberty we cannot allow these atrocities to continue or, at the worst, spread around the world in the form of sharia law, home-grown terrorism and transnational terrorist bodies—for all of which Afghanistan and the Taliban are fundamental and ideological nuclei.
To those people who wish to withdraw Australia’s military commitment to Afghanistan, I would like to make one important point and that is of the Spanish experience. In 2004 Spain was attacked by a terror cell associated with al-Qaeda. After that unfortunate and heinous incident, spurred by fundamental Islam, the government of Spain changed and the Spanish government started contemplating a withdrawal from the Middle East. But this did not change the fact that al-Qaeda was actively trying to continue to kill innocent, mainly Christian, civilians through terrorist bombings not only in Spain but throughout Europe.
Australia’s role in Afghanistan is equal in importance to our other counterterrorism efforts in the region. We are currently involved in policing, training and enforcement with Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Australia also engages with regional partners on intelligence sharing and gathering, through ASIO, ASIS and the AFP, and Australia is a major contributor to rebuilding efforts through AusAID.
Let us not forget what terrorist groups are capable of. We must not allow a recurrence of the Bali terror attacks in Indonesia in 2002 when 202 people, including 88 Australians, were killed, or the Jimbaran Beach attacks in Bali in 2005 when 26 were killed, four of those being Australians, or the 2009 Marriott bombings in Indonesia, where seven were killed, including three more Australians, by fundamentalists that were linked to the Taliban.
If as a nation we are serious about stopping these events, we must continue to support our military efforts. If we are willing to commit police and intelligence officers, why would we be unwilling to follow it though with troops on the ground in Afghanistan, which is the breeding ground and, more importantly, the training ground for international terrorism?
Since 2001, Australia has committed nearly $750 million in development and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan. As of the last budget and this financial year, the annual AusAID budget for Afghanistan is around $106 million, which is delivered in line with the development priorities of the Afghanistan government’s Afghanistan National Development Strategy and through the World Bank’s Afghanistan Reconstruction Fund. Australian aid is being used to support agriculture and rural development, the promotion of good governance, the protection of vulnerable populations and for the improvement of efficiency and spread of basic service delivery to the Afghani people. While the coalition supports these contributions, we need to ensure that they are done with absolute financial integrity through all recipients and to ensure that the maximum amount can get to the people in need and not be used to perpetuate needless bureaucracies, which is so often the case with aid funding.
The idea that Australian troops or the ISAF engagement as a whole is making the Afghanistan situation worse is simply fanciful and utter rubbish. An article in the
Australian
recently showed a snippet of the attitudes of the Afghani people in Oruzgan province, where the majority of the Australian troops were based. They gave unqualified support for the Australian efforts in the region. The article began by saying that Afghans in Oruzgan province had painted a bleak picture if the Australian military contingent were to pull out and not be replaced. Most agreed that schools would close, people would retreat to their homes and major security gains made in the past few years would evaporate. The locals are supporting our efforts to train their police force and the locals are enjoying the new-found liberty and security that our Aussie soldiers are able to afford the Afghan people.
If we leave Afghanistan now, the situation will simply go back to where it was before we started. The girls schools will close, women will once again have no more rights, democracy will be dead and the community at large will be scared to leave their homes because of the sheer brutality of the Taliban. Australia’s deployment in Afghanistan needs our 100 per cent support. We owe it to the Afghans, who are relying on our support for their own security; we owe it to the international community in the support of liberty and security and the spread of democracy; and we owe it to all the Australians who have died in terrorist attacks at the hands of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and its networks. Most importantly, we owe it to the 21 diggers who lost their lives—three of whom were from the Brisbane area—and their families to finish what we are now so close to achieving. At a moving ceremony at Anzac Place in Brisbane on Remembrance Day, the RSL Queensland President Doug Formby acknowledged their great service to our great country. To those families in the Brisbane electorate who did lose loved ones, you have made the ultimate sacrifice and we are eternally grateful for your sacrifice. Your husbands, sons, brothers and fathers will not be forgotten.
2388
17:51:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—I commend those before me who have made a thoughtful and considered contribution to what is a complex and difficult debate. I welcome this debate. Any engagement that puts the lives of Australian troops at risk deserves to be discussed openly and responsibly in this place. My focus today will be on military justice, but I will say this about Australia’s role in Afghanistan: we cannot let Afghanistan once again become a safe haven for terrorists who want to perpetrate attacks on Australia or our allies.
We all remember the September 11 attacks on New York, Washington and the Pentagon which brought the world’s attention to al-Qaeda’s activities in Afghanistan. We all remember the 202 people who were killed, including 88 Australians, in the Bali bombing of 2002. We all remember the coordinated suicide bombings on London’s transport system on 7 July 2005. Each of these has been linked to al-Qaeda and activities in Afghanistan and each of these caused mass fatalities, including the loss of Australian lives. The decision by the former Prime Minister John Howard to assist the United States and our allies to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks was the right one. Unlike the war in Iraq, the decision to send Australian troops to fight in Afghanistan was bipartisan and done with a mandate from the United Nations Security Council.
Ours is a challenging and difficult mission in Afghanistan: protect the civilian population, train and equip the Afghan national security forces and improve governance and socioeconomic development in an emerging democracy. We intervened in Afghanistan, and remain there, because it is important to defend ourselves and our values. In World War II we stood and fought beside our allies to defend the values of freedom, respect for the law, fairness and democracy. The defence of these values is why we went to war in Afghanistan nine years ago and our commitment to these values is why we are still there today. These values are worth fighting for both abroad and at home.
To recognise that we are fighting to defend these values is to recognise that we must also uphold these values. There is an onus on us, as a nation which has repeatedly stood up and fought for fairness, equality and the rule of law, to enhance respect for these values in our own country and respect for our people. That leads me to the recent public discussion over the military justice system and the charges laid against three Australian soldiers while serving in Afghanistan. I do not know if these three men, one of whom is facing a charge of manslaughter, are guilty or not. If I did have an opinion it would be inappropriate for me to make comments that might tend to influence the outcome of proceedings against these soldiers.
It is the same situation for the Leader of the Opposition. But that did not stop him from shouting from the rooftops his disapproval of the military justice process, trying to score cheap political points by accusing this government of letting down the troops by allowing the process of military justice to take its course. Just as it is completely inappropriate for any member of this place to prejudice a criminal or civil trial by commenting on it publicly, it is inappropriate to go on Sydney radio and make the suggestion that by being put to trial these three soldiers are being—and I quote the words of the Leader of the Opposition—‘thrown to the wolves’.
The current system of military prosecution was set up under the Howard government. Its independence is paramount. The process must be free from political interference and it must focus entirely on the law and on the facts of the case, just like any other legal process in this country. That is crucial to confidence in the system and fairness for our men and women in uniform. Yet the independent Director of Military Prosecutions, Brigadier Lyn McDade, has been under personal attack from some areas of the media, with derogatory references to her gender and her 23 years of service to military justice. How did the opposition leader respond to these attacks on Brigadier McDade, who was appointed, I would remind the House, by the Howard government? The opposition leader responded by staying silent when a talk show host referred to the brigadier’s ‘so-called’ independence. The opposition leader responded by creating a presumption that all soldiers have done the right thing. The opposition leader responded by falsely suggesting that the government had failed to assist in the defence of these soldiers—in short, he responded by involving himself in what should be an independent and apolitical process. This kind of rhetoric from the opposition leader is irresponsible and is yet another example of why he is unfit to be this nation’s Prime Minister.
The old adage that war is hell is true. It is ugly and dangerous, and I have the utmost respect for anyone who is willing to serve Australia in a war zone. But there are rules of engagement in war, and it is vital that the Australian defence forces conduct their activity within those rules. It is that insistence on compliance with the rules of engagement and that insistence on proper conduct even in the fog of war which differentiates us from our enemies. It is also worth pointing out that the rules of engagement for Australian troops in Afghanistan are consistent with the rules of engagement that the US forces are bound by. For Senator Johnston, the opposition defence spokesman, to say that he is disappointed that charges have been laid in this case and that this case going to trial is ‘counterproductive to our national interest’ smacks simply of political opportunism, especially when just two years ago Senator Johnston said in committee about Australia’s military justice system:
These statutory officers have to be completely independent …
But now Senator Johnston is willing to compromise the independence of our military justice system by publicly commenting on whether a case should be going to trial or not. This of course is not the first time that Senator Johnston has gone off on an irresponsible tangent when it comes to Afghanistan. A few months ago, he publicly said that Australian troops were poorly equipped and that more troops were needed. This stance was inconsistent with the expert military advice from the Chief of the Defence Force and senior officers of the ADF, and it was quickly recanted once the opposition leader went to Afghanistan and spoke to our troops on the ground.
We have an opposition leader and an opposition defence spokesman who seem determined to make unhelpful and irresponsible comments about a case which they have no particular responsibility for and no particular knowledge of—a case which is going through an independent process that was set up when the opposition leader was sitting at the cabinet table and, indeed, is being presided over by a senior officer who was appointed by the former government.
Neil James, the Executive Director of the Australian Defence Association, says that the fair trial these commandos deserve could be prejudiced by comments being made in the public domain. He understands that no-one in a position of influence—politicians, senior military officers or talkback radio hosts—should interfere in that independent process. One would hope that the opposition leader, of all people, understands why. To have a strong and credible military, you need a strong, credible and independent military justice system. We are fortunate to have both in Australia.
I conclude by paying tribute to the 21 brave Australian men who have given their lives on duty in Afghanistan. Their loss looms large in the hearts and minds of their families and friends, and indeed of all of us, and is a constant reminder to Australians of the ultimate sacrifice they have made to defend our freedom and our way of life.
2390
18:00:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—The fact that we are holding this debate reflects a huge change in our world view. With the possible exception of the Russian invasion of 1979, for most Australians Afghanistan fell into the category of those faraway lands about which we knew little and cared perhaps even less. When the Russians departed, effectively defeated nine years later, the country sank back into obscurity—an obscurity broken only by occasional cries of outrage at the activities of the fundamentalist Taliban regime. Even then there were those both within and outside Afghanistan who argued that, whatever their faults, the Taliban were providing some measure of stability in what had become a ruined and lawless country. However, any tolerance of the Taliban and any measure of obscurity vanished with the tragic and barbaric events of 9-11. Afghanistan was revealed as the source of an evil—plotted and enacted on a scale that we had not seen before—that changed our perception of national security and national interest. It questioned our commitment to defending fundamental values and challenged us to act on our beliefs and help turn an impoverished and divided country into a stable, democratic nation.
Before I turn to those issues, I will say that it is above all the sacrifice made by our fellow Australians that has brought Afghanistan to the forefront of our national consciousness. Twenty-one Australians have been killed in action and 155 have been wounded. I wish to pay tribute to them all, but in particular I mention Sergeant Matthew Locke from my electorate of Cowper. Sergeant Locke from Bellingen joined the Army in 1991 and was posted to the 5th/7th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, after he completed his training. In November 1997, he completed the Special Air Service selection course and eventually joined the 3rd SAS Squadron. He had a distinguished career, including service in East Timor and Iraq, and was awarded the Medal for Gallantry while serving in Afghanistan in 2006 for his actions when his patrol came under sustained attack from anti-coalition forces. I quote from the citation:
The courageous and gallant actions of Sergeant Locke were instrumental in regaining the initiative from the Anti-Coalition Militia and allowing the successful exfiltration of the patrol on foot prior to first light the next day.
Sergeant Locke’s actions of gallantry whilst under enemy fire in extremely hazardous circumstances, displayed courage of the highest order and is in keeping with the finest traditions of Special Operations Command-Australia, the Australian Army and the Australian Defence Force.
He was fatally wounded in October 2007 by small-arms fire while on patrol in Oruzgan province in an operation to clear Taliban from an area around Tarin Kowt, where many Australian troops are based. I was privileged to be able to attend his memorial service in Bellingen. Throughout this debate we should remember that, when we talk about national security, national reconstruction, defending democracy, denying terrorists a safe haven, and many other abstract concepts, this is what it comes down to: a brave and committed soldier putting his life at risk in a foreign land, a memorial service in a small country town and a grieving family. Matthew Locke was just one of the 21 servicemen who have died.
There is much in the history of Afghanistan of which we should take note in an attempt to avoid previous mistakes, but we should also look into our own history and ensure that it is not just the dead we honour but the 155 wounded as well. We require a longer and more difficult commitment, but that is the very least we can do. Everything we say during this debate should be seen in the light of what we are asking our service men and women to do and in the light of the sacrifice that they may have to make. This is no academic exercise divorced from reality and dignified by the use of words like strategy, geopolitics and democratisation; for our service men and women on the ground in Afghanistan it is a reality, and it can be nasty, brutish and fatal.
I mentioned the history of Afghanistan in the context of our avoiding previous mistakes—but, to be more precise, its recent history is instructive. It has been invaded three times not for the resources it has but for where it is. In the 19th century, the British saw the country as a back door to British India through which the Russians would march if allowed. In 1839 the British dispatched a force of 21,000 men which succeeded in controlling enough of the country to install their own man on the throne in Kabul. The British withdrew the bulk of their force, leaving an occupying army of some 8,000 soldiers who were soon after allowed to bring their families to join them.
Resentment grew against the propped-up puppet government and the presence of foreign troops and their families, and a revolt broke out in 1841, leading to what the British thought was a negotiated retreat and safe conduct for the soldiers and their dependents. The retreat started in 1842, and in the depths of the Afghan winter the British were systematically slaughtered as they struggled through the snow. Only one man, Dr William Brydon, made it back to British territory.
In 1878 the British tried to send a diplomatic mission to Kabul in response to a similar move by the Russians. They were turned back at the Khyber Pass—through which many of the coalition forces’ supplies travel today—and their response was to summon an invasion force of some 40,000 soldiers, nearly twice the size of the previous expedition. Once again the British succeeded in gaining control of most of the country, and they established a British presence in Kabul.
All was well until September 1879, when all of the members of the British mission were killed in a rebellion. The rebellion was put down, but this time the British, learning from their mistakes, withdrew while they still had control and retained only two passes and oversight of Afghanistan’s foreign policy for their pains.
In a twist of history, it was again geopolitical concerns that led to the Russian invasion in 1979, ostensibly at the request of the then communist government in Kabul. The Russian forces rapidly became bogged down in a vicious guerrilla war in which they controlled only the main towns and connecting roads, and they eventually completed a withdrawal in February 1989. Around 15,000 Soviet soldiers and KGB operatives lost their lives; estimates of the Afghan dead range from 100,000 to two million people.
Five million people fled to neighbouring countries and two million were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, half the refugees in the world were from Afghanistan. In the midst of all this misery Afghanistan became one of the most heavily land-mined nations on earth. Thousands of its citizens were crippled or killed, and any attempt to restore subsistence farming to previous levels was seriously limited.
So what did we learn? That the Afghans have no love of foreign forces on their soil, whatever their reasons for being there; that the country is extremely difficult to control and supply; that the three major invasions could be regarded ultimately as failures; that inevitably the country’s professional classes would have been among the first people to leave; that we are dealing with a country in which tribal and family loyalties are far more relevant than dealings with any form of regional or national administration; and that we are dealing with a country that was shattered and brutalised even before the military actions of 2001.
A report on ABC Radio National noted recently that in Oruzgan province, where most of our forces are based in their training in rebuilding roles, the illiteracy rate is 95 per cent. How do you rebuild a police force, a health service and an education system when only one person in 20 can read and write? How can you rebuild on this scale while fighting a guerrilla war? The scale of the task is tremendous, and it is good at this juncture to remind ourselves why we are there. To my mind, arguing the case for our presence in Afghanistan is the easiest part of the whole debate. We are there because 111 Australians lost their lives in terrorist attacks linked in some way to the freedom that terrorists enjoyed in Afghanistan.
It is not that we are seeking revenge, but we want those responsible brought to justice and to deny another opportunity to those who would harm us. We are there because we have a treaty obligation to other countries, notably the United States, and because we as a country meet our obligations. We are there because it is simply the right thing to try to rescue and restore a failed, broken state and provide the Afghans with the things that we take for granted: adequate food, water, shelter, health services, education and freedom from fear.
I refer to the government’s national security statement, which aims to establish freedom from attack or threat of attack. The premise behind the action in Afghanistan supported by the United Nations resolution was that the Taliban regime allowed al-Qaeda to operate in the country and to use it as a training base. Most security analysts believe that al-Qaeda has been seriously weakened by the denial of its base and the fact that its leaders have been forced into hiding, probably in tribal areas of Pakistan. On the other hand, it is obvious that the support for the ideology of al-Qaeda remains strong and widespread, and if a weak or fundamentalist regime were in charge in Kabul there would be little doubt that the movement would quickly re-establish itself. Would it be a threat to Australia? Of course. Australians were killed in New York. Australians were killed in Bali and an Australian was killed in Mumbai. Slaughter aside, a resurgent al-Qaeda or its successor would have a measurable effect on international travel, commerce, communications, merely by its presence, let alone by any attacks it was to mount. There is no way that Australian citizens or Australia’s interests would remain untouched.
As I said, we also have treaty obligations. In the case of ANZUS, one which we must honour, failure to do so would be morally reprehensible, would damage Australia’s standing and, crucially, would send a signal to our enemies that we are not united. One of the principles of our national security is to support the UN in its efforts to promote rules based international order. This is an important reason for staying the course in Afghanistan.
This continuing conflict is not just about preventing loss of life; it is about values. It is about Australians standing up and saying that mass murder is evil and must be prevented. It is about standing up for tolerance, free speech and basic human rights, not least in Afghanistan itself. Put simply: to be part of an international presence in Afghanistan is the morally right thing to do; putting aside all strategic and political considerations, it is the right thing to do.
Of course doing the right thing is not always easy. We are trying to build a nation that had little to start with and has lost what it had. Many Afghans have fled. Many of those who remain have been brutalised by violence, poverty and insecurity. There is no civic structure as we know it. Our efforts in nation building will be undermined until the Taliban and other forces are finally defeated or, more likely, persuaded to become part of the process. That may seem far-fetched, but one only has to look at Northern Ireland to see where such a process can lead and the benefits that it can bring.
I note the Prime Minister’s statement that we will be in Afghanistan for at least a decade. I believe that this is a realistic assessment and that we should stiffen our resolve, support our troops in any way we can and get the job done. Only when the Afghan people as a whole feel they have something to lose, only when they feel they have an investment in their own country, will we have solved the problems of Afghanistan.
2393
18:13:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
0
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—It is an honour to speak in response to the Prime Minister’s statement in the House on Afghanistan. We as Australians know that the vast majority of us do not and would never support terrorism. We would never subscribe to the notion that there is somehow justification for taking people’s lives for a particular cause or belief. Making a statement or a point by killing and maiming is simply abhorrent and totally unacceptable. On the other hand, many Australians do not like the idea of going to war whatever the justification, and in a sense this is what this whole debate is about.
We know the threat of terrorism in this country is very real. Only recently more plots to cause widespread death, injury, damage and public chaos in Australia have been uncovered by our intelligence and security agencies. Without any major events having occurred in Australia, it is sometimes difficult for us to imagine the scenario of a terrorist attack, but it only takes us a little reading through the details of plots that have been so far uncovered to realise how close we have already come to witnessing nightmarish scenes unfolding on our own soil.
It is clear that, among many Australians, there is difficulty accepting that Australia’s presence in Afghanistan is actually making a difference. There are doubts about our role in fighting terrorism on foreign soil. There are questions about whether, indeed, the point of us being there is to help stop terrorists. I have no doubt that Australia’s military presence in Afghanistan is making a difference and is helping to weaken the network of terrorists that use that country as a base.
We will never forget September 11 and the more than 3,000 people who died in the al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Centre. And it did not end on September 11. Since 2001, some 100 Australians have been killed in attacks by extremists overseas. Amongst those, 88 Australians were killed in Bali in the first bombing there and four in the second in 2005, and our embassy has been bombed in Jakarta. In each of these cases, the terrorist groups involved had links to Afghanistan.
Australia went to Afghanistan to make sure it never again would be a safe haven for al-Qaeda. We went with our friends and allies, as part of the international community. We went with the support of the United Nations. As a result of our efforts in this war, al-Qaeda’s core leadership has been dealt a severe blow. Some have been killed, others captured, many have been forced into hiding and all have been forced onto the defensive. But al-Qaeda remains a resilient and persistent network. Our successes against it in Afghanistan are only part of our effort against terrorism. We are working to counter the rise of affiliated groups in new areas such as Somalia and Yemen, and the violent extremist terrorist groups in Pakistan.
I wanted to know what people in my electorate thought about Afghanistan, to prepare myself for this debate, and what they thought about Australia’s involvement in the conflict. To this end, we did some phone surveys of members in my constituency. We also went to shopping centres and I used Facebook to ask people their views on Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. The response was mixed. Many do not agree with our troops being there. Some believe that, initially, Australia did the right thing by becoming involved but that the time to withdraw is now. Others think we should remain in Afghanistan until our objectives are achieved. We asked when or in what circumstances the respondents believed it was legitimate for Australia to be involved in international conflicts. Geoff said: ‘All the time.’ Deborah said we should be involved unless it involved harm to Australians. ‘If our country is threatened,’ was the reply that Christine gave. And James said that he believed that commitments to defence agreements must be upheld. Others in our survey were a bit more blunt. Ralph thought we should not, as he put it, ‘blindly’ support an ally and that we should be involved only when our national security was directly at stake. Warren and Deborah said we should be involved only if it affected Australia directly, and Rex said, ‘Not at all.’
We also asked the constituents what they thought about the Afghanistan conflict generally. A significant number of them said they believed that international intervention there had achieved little or nothing. Some thought there would never be peace in Afghanistan. Others thought Australia had done enough and should leave the Afghan people to resolve the conflict themselves. Judith told me that she thought Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan was probably justified initially but that the United Nations should do more to end the conflict. Mervyn believed we were only there because the United States was. Robert, himself an ex-serviceman, said the Afghanistan situation was ‘very sad’ but we should bring our troops home.
I also asked, as I said, my friends on Facebook—of which there were many—what their responses were to our involvement in Afghanistan. Julie thought there would always be fighting over there and that nothing would change no matter what the allied forces did. Cale’s view was that Australia should have had a bigger task force to scrutinise the situation in Afghanistan and check out why we would go to war there in the first place. He also said: ‘We can’t pull out without the system we put in place collapsing. But if we stay there all we are doing is spreading a growing dislike of the Western world.’ He went on to say: ‘If we are to stay there over the next 10 years, make it constructive: build schools, put in water pumps—that kind of thing. But, most of all, try to understand the people. If you win over their hearts this whole mission might not be a waste of time.’
Teresa wanted to relay the simple message that she was grateful for the diggers’ service in Afghanistan. Teresa said she had many American friends who were serving, including one now attending officer training school in the United States, and more than likely will serve another tour there. ‘It is dangerous work and I am very grateful,’ were Teresa’s words.
As we can see, the Afghan conflict is in the minds of most Australians. There are many and varying views about why we should or should not be in Afghanistan. It is fair to say that there is widespread feeling in my electorate on the Central Coast that Australia’s involvement should at least be fully reviewed—and that is what this debate, in some ways, is about. This is understandable, given the length of time and the cost of the international military presence. The allied forces have been in Afghanistan a long time—nine years. But we have to remember that if the insurgency in Afghanistan were to succeed, helped significantly by a withdrawal of the international community, then Afghanistan could, once again, become a safe haven for terrorists.
We must always think about al-Qaeda’s ability to recruit, indoctrinate, train, plan, finance and conspire to kill. They and their partners are very good at all of those things. We cannot afford to drop our guard when it comes to this very fearful and ruthless organisation. I have very little doubt that withdrawal of the allied presence in Afghanistan would present the opportunity for resurgence in al-Qaeda’s influence, and the propaganda victory for terrorists worldwide would be enormous.
Our troops have a clear goal and so do our partners in the international community: to deny terrorist networks a safe haven in Afghanistan. Let us have a quick look at what has been achieved so far. Removing the Taliban government in 2001 and pursuing al-Qaeda in the years since has made a crucial difference in preventing terrorist attacks. From 2001 to mid-2006, US and coalition forces and Afghani troops fought relatively low levels of insurgent violence. The international force in Afghanistan was focused on a stabilisation mission and there were no Australian units deployed in Afghanistan between December 2002 and September 2005.
Through this period, few would now argue, US and international attention turned heavily to Iraq. Australia’s substantial military involvement in Afghanistan resumed when the Special Forces Task Force was redeployed there for 12 months from September 2005 in support of international efforts to target key insurgents. Violence increased further in mid-2006, particularly in the east and the south. Due to significant intimidation and the absence of effective governance in many rural areas, some Afghanis turned to the Taliban at this time.
The mission moved to a counterinsurgency focus. Australia’s contribution increased from October 2008 as we took a growing role in training and mentoring in the southern Afghanistan province of Oruzgan. However, the international counterinsurgency mission was not adequately resourced until 2009. In December 2009 President Obama announced a revised strategy for Afghanistan and a surge of 30,000 US troops. NATO has contributed more; so has Australia.
Australia has two vital national interests in Afghanistan: (1) to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists, a place where attacks on us and our allies begin, and (2) to stand firmly by our alliance commitment to the United States, formally invoked following the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. The overarching goal of the new strategy is to enable transition—that is, to prepare the government of Afghanistan to take lead responsibility for its own security—but our vital national interests in preventing Afghanistan being a safe haven for terrorists who attack us and in supporting our allies do not end with transition.
Our aim is that the new international strategy sees a functioning Afghan state become able to assume responsibility for preventing the country from being a safe haven for terrorists. Australia’s key role in that mission—training and mentoring the 4th brigade of the Afghan National Army in Oruzgan—is expected to take two to four years, and President Karzai has said the Afghan government expects the transition process to be complete by the end of 2014. This means the Afghan government will take lead responsibility for security. The international community will remain engaged in Afghanistan beyond 2014, and Australia will remain engaged.
There will still be a need for Australians in a supporting role. There will still be a role for training and other defence cooperation. The civilian-led aid and development effort will continue. And we will continue to promote Afghan-led reintegration of former insurgents who are willing to lay down their arms, turn their backs on terrorism and accept the Afghan constitution.
Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan does make a difference. The government support the new international strategy and we have supported the surge. Australia has increased its troop contribution to Afghanistan by around 40 per cent in the past 18 months. We now have around 1,550 military personnel deployed in Afghanistan. Our military force is complemented by around 50 Australian civilians. Earlier this year we took over leadership of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Oruzgan to spearhead our civilian efforts and increased our civilian commitment to Afghanistan by 50 per cent. In fact since 2001 we have committed over $740 million in development assistance to Afghanistan.
The new international strategy is in place. The elements of the surge to support the strategy are now reaching full strength. Afghanistan is a war ravaged country that faces immense development challenges. While the challenges are huge, there are many tentative signs of progress to date. The Afghan National Security Forces are being mentored and trained. The Afghan National Army is becoming increasingly capable and is supporting coalition operations more effectively. Nearly 85 per cent of the army is now fully partnered with ISAF forces for operations in the field. Afghan forces are now in the lead in Kabul.
The ability of the Afghan government to provide services to its people is being built. In primary education, enrolments have increased from one million in 2001 to approximately six million today, and some two million of these enrolments are girls—there were none in 2001. In basic health services, infant mortality decreased by 22 per cent between 2002 and 2008 and immunisation rates for children are now in the 70 to 90 per cent range. In vital economic infrastructure, almost 10,000 kilometres of road has been rehabilitated and 10 million Afghans now have access to telecommunications compared to only 20,000 in 2001.
Australia will do everything in its power to ensure Afghanistan is never again a safe haven for terrorists. Like my constituents, I think many of us have mixed views about the war in Afghanistan, but what we can say is that, once we made that decision to go there, we could not simply abandon Afghanistan midway through the process. To do so would simply provide al-Qaeda and other terrorists with a propaganda victory. It would mean turning our back on the work that we have done as part of the international community in trying to make a difference in Afghanistan.
Of course, we cannot speak about Afghanistan without turning our thoughts to the professional soldiers of the Australian Defence Force and their families, who have made such a commitment over these years. They are proud people. These soldiers offered their lives to make sure that this mission was successful. They embraced wartime sacrifice as their highest duty and in return they look to us for wisdom and guidance. Our highest duty is to make wise decisions about this war and ensure that the mission we set ourselves—to make Afghanistan an unsafe haven for terrorism—continues so that Afghanistan can be part of the international community. These are issues that we need to continue to work on.
Our commitment to Afghanistan will not be over quickly. Our commitment to Afghanistan will continue to attract mixed views in the electorate and invoke some controversy. One of the great things about this discussion that we are having is that it enables MPs like me to talk directly to their electorates about their views and to better inform the electorate regarding the motives around why we are there. More importantly, it enables us to help our constituents understand the complexities of what we are doing there, the time line of our presence in Afghanistan and the nature of the mission.
It has been an honour to participate in this debate today on Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. This is a very important debate for all Australians and I am very glad that I have been able to take part in it.
Mr TUDGE
(Aston)
00:00:00
—I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY BILL 2010
2397
Bills
R4481
Second Reading
2397
Debate resumed.
2397
18:28:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
0
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
because it is an example of why this parliament actually exists—that is, to make sure that legislation and decisions brought forward by this or any government are properly scrutinised and are considered to be the best possible option and solution for the Australian public at the time and, of course, will continue to serve into the future. After all, this bill proposes to appropriate Australian taxpayers’ money. It is not the government’s money; taxpayers’ money would fund the National Broadband Network as proposed by the government.
The coalition, business and industry are not sure if this NBN proposal fits that description. We are not sure if this project is the best option for the Australian public or, for that matter, the Telstra shareholders, who are yet to decide whether they will support the divestment of a whole lot of their infrastructure for a figure of some $11 billion. They are not sure and we are not sure because we as a parliament have not been privy to the financial data associated with the NBN.
The NBN has not been subject to proper scrutiny. We see articles every other day in the newspaper that are critical of the process—and rightly so. It has not been subject to any cost-benefit analysis. Any government project of this magnitude—even 50 per cent of this magnitude—should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis, as it is in the case of road infrastructure. It has not even been referred to this government’s own agency Infrastructure Australia for consideration. We have to ask why. This is the largest single infrastructure investment in Australia’s history and it deserves better scrutiny. It deserves to be referred to Infrastructure Australia. It also deserves to be referred to the Productivity Commission for their analysis, as this bill suggests.
This government does not have a good track record when it comes to rolling out big spending projects. We only have to look at the roof insulation debate and the BER school halls scheme to see that. That is why we as an opposition are concerned about this $43 billion that is to be spent on a nation-building project that has not been submitted to a cost-benefit analysis. That is why this bill has been introduced by the coalition. We are requesting that the NBN Co., which is obviously responsible for the NBN project, release a highly detailed 10-year business plan. That would be a good start. We are also calling on the NBN project to be referred to the Productivity Commission for a cost-benefit analysis. That is what the Australian taxpayers deserve at the very least. It is their money. We need to have an assurance that it is being well spent and not wasted.
An important inclusion in our proposed Productivity Commission inquiry would be an analysis of the current availability of broadband across Australia and consideration of the most cost-effective and speedy options by which fast broadband services can be made available to all Australians, particularly those in rural and remote parts of Australia. This would certainly be welcomed by my constituents of Maranoa, especially those in the far west of my electorate. Many of the shire councils in far western Queensland are working hard to increase their annual tourism market numbers and they have great initiatives and ideas to encourage more domestic and international visitors to their unique outback towns. But to do this they need the necessary infrastructure. If this NBN is truly nation building then the NBN Co. should be focusing on these areas where the market fails. Yet what we have heard from this government is that they are building from the cities to the outback and, as we understand it, the outback may one day get a satellite service. If they want to undertake nation-building projects, they should go to where the market fails with taxpayers’ money and build from the outback to the coast. I can assure you that that would have the support of many of my constituents. A cost-benefit analysis from the Productivity Commission would be a sensible move by this government.
This bill is not about delaying the rollout of the NBN; it is already being rolled out in many parts of Australia. I must say that I have already had grave concerns about the process. Earlier this year in my electorate of Maranoa we had a number of landholders from Dalby contact my office to inform me that Nextgen, the company contracted to roll out the NBN optic fibre cable are trespassing across people’s private property. They are running beside a public highway and they are running alongside the railway line—another public land corridor—but, no, they have to go through private property. Why? Because it is easier and does not require the same sort of—
(Time expired)
2398
18:34:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—At the commencement of my contribution to this debate on the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
I must say I am really surprised that the member for Maranoa cannot see the benefit of the NBN to his electorate, because I believe that his constituency and those people that are living outside big cities are the ones that have the greatest potential to benefit from the NBN. I understand that the member for Wentworth lives in inner Sydney. That is a very nice area where you can access all the services and infrastructure you need. But in areas like the area I represent and like most of the members in this parliament represent, we struggle to get access to that vital infrastructure. Do you know what I think this legislation is? It is legislation to delay, to put barriers in front of the national broadband network, NBN, being introduced. It is a tactic.
We all know that the Leader of the Opposition gave the member for Wentworth the brief of demolishing and destroying the NBN. He is doing it in a very subtle way; he is trying to prevent it actually becoming operational. The member for Wentworth should be ashamed of himself. The people of Australia can actually see through what he is doing here. I can assure the House that my constituents in Shortland are well aware of the benefit that the NBN will have for them. They do not believe that establishing a joint select committee to oversee the rollout of the NBN will benefit them. They do not see that will allow them to be able to access broadband, let alone fast-speed broadband, any quicker. They just see this as members living in a very nice area of inner Sydney putting barriers in front of their being able to access what they believe is their right. They do not believe that the Productivity Commission doing a cost-benefit analysis will do anything to help them get fast-speed broadband any quicker. No, they recognise it for what it is. They recognise that requiring a Productivity Commission cost-benefit analysis and the publication of a 10-year business plan for the NBN Co. is just a delaying tactic that is designed to prevent them from accessing fast-speed broadband.
On this side of the House we know that the nations that embrace fast-speed broadband are the nations that will succeed. It has already been shown how far behind Australia is in relation to broadband: 17th out of 31 countries on national broadband penetration; the fifth most expensive among 30 developed countries on broadband prices; 50th in terms of broadband speeds; equal last on deployment of optic fibre broadband; and 29th out of 50 countries on an average connection speed at 2.6 megabytes per second. On this side of the House we do not support that. We support fast-speed broadband for everyone. We recognise its worth to businesses. We know that businesses such as in the area I represent on the Central Coast and near Lake Macquarie need this to be competitive. It means that residents living on the Central Coast will no longer need to travel to Sydney; they will be able to work from their home. It is bringing their work to where they live.
The member for Wentworth should be condemned for trying to frustrate the government in its efforts to roll out fast-speed broadband to all Australians. This is good legislation that will be good for Australia and good for the people I represent in this parliament.
2399
18:39:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—Australians have become used to big numbers being bandied around under this Labor government: a couple of billion for the home insulation scheme; a few more billion for the school halls program—it sounds a bit like the whistle effect from
The Hollow Men. The Australian people can perhaps be forgiven for having become desensitised to what are significant amounts of taxpayer money.
The government’s NBN proposal amounts to the biggest spend of taxpayer funds for its infrastructure in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. That is why it is remarkable that this idea has not been subjected to a cost-benefit analysis or properly considered by Infrastructure Australia. In September 2009 the Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, stated:
Government spending that does not pass an appropriately defined cost-benefit test necessarily detracts from Australia’s wellbeing.
Mr Henry is right. This spending deserves scrutiny. I therefore rise today to support the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
which will provide this scrutiny. In supporting this bill I recognise the member for Wentworth and applaud his efforts in bringing this legislation before the House today. If passed, this bill will lead to two major outcomes. First, it will require the publication of a 10-year business case for the NBN. Secondly, it will refer the NBN to the Productivity Commission for a thorough consideration. Both are required to provide scrutiny of this major expenditure project. To date the government has relied upon the advice of the McKinsey-KPMG implementation study which, its own authors were keen to point out, was not a cost-benefit analysis. Incidentally, $25 million was spent on this implementation study. As a consequence the government has been unable to justify the economic benefits of establishing such a large monopoly—a monopoly which would possibly be in breach of this country’s competition legislation.
Recently, NBN Co. CEO, Mark Quigley, would not reveal the cost of the rollout of the NBN in Tasmania. Maybe there are a couple of members from Tasmania who would be able to enlighten us, but why all this secrecy? The Australian people—or should I say the Australian taxpayers—deserve to know whether this is the most effective way of delivering high-speed broadband to them. Without the scrutiny called for in this bill, they would not be provided with this information. It is not just the coalition that is seeking the passage of this bill and asking for this scrutiny; some of the most respected business leaders in the country have added their weight to the argument. Only today, a group of CEOs have written to the crossbenchers to urge them to support this bill. In their letter they state:
The NBN proposal now differs significantly from the proposal that was contemplated in the implementation study (which already found that the proposal in its then form was unlikely ever to generate a commercial rate of return). No serious analysis has been done of the changed cost implementations of these differences. Fundamental features of the project remain unresolved.
The voices of concern have not been confined to our shores. The recent OECD report pointedly observes that no cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken and then specifically goes on to suggest that the Productivity Commission is an ideal organisation to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. So if the cost-benefit analysis is sensible, prudent and supported, why is this government so reluctant to provide one? The excuses by the Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy of delays and costs simply do not stack up. The rollout is already progressing and will continue to progress, no doubt, whilst the Productivity Commission undertakes this proposed cost-benefit analysis that would also comfortably fit within the commission’s budget.
This bill has interest for my electorate of Swan given the Labor Party’s pre-election commitment to roll out the NBN in the suburb of Victoria Park as one of the second-release sites. Why they did not choose Belmont, I do not know. Victoria Park was probably higher on their agenda to win the seat of Swan. The Labor Party announced along with the Labor candidate—with much fanfare—that the construction of Victoria Park would be at the beginning of the second quarter of 2011. Yet of course there was no proof that they could deliver and no indication of whether it would be an opt-in or an opt-out system. Will my constituents face additional charges? We do not know because there is no adequate business plan. Notwithstanding this, after such fanfare during the campaign, the people of Victoria Park will be expecting the government to deliver on this commitment. I very much doubt that the constituents of Victoria Park will see anything other than just another broken promise, as the focus is now on regional areas.
I support this proposed bill. It is basic economic sense to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. There is overwhelming pressure on the government from the business community for this cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken. The NBN Co. also needs to produce a 10-year business case. The budget deficit stands at $41 billion. For the sake of Australia and the Australian taxpayer we must make sure this spending is justified. As Dirkson’s famous quote goes: ‘A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it all adds up to real money.’
2401
18:44:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
1
0
Mr ADAMS
—I wish to speak against the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
and the proposal to have a joint select committee to oversee the rollout of the NBN. The bill also includes a proposal for the Productivity Commission to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network and to publish a business plan. Although I believe that the member for Wentworth has good intentions—or I hope he does—to try and make this a transparent process and that he thinks it will not have any impact whatsoever on the rollout of the National Broadband Network, it is a little late for him to start arguing for a cost-benefit analysis at this stage. Endless analyses, studies and arguments have suggested that this should happen and that we should be getting on with it.
We did not do a cost-benefit analysis when we put in railways in Australia, we did not do a cost-benefit analysis of all the roads around the country, we certainly did not do one when the copper went into the ground, we did not do it when we got the post office service going and we did not do it when the telegraph wire was run up the middle of the country. Those were the technologies of the time; this is the technology that we need now. This is the technology which will drive Australia forward and allow us to be competitive in the world, which we have not been up to now. We have been left behind. Those on the other side had 12 years to do this when they were in government. They used the argument, ‘Competition’s going to do it,’ but we just kept copper and bits of other stuff. Other people were going to make money out of pay TV. Basically that was the argument they made.
In my electorate, people are very angry about having to use a dial-up service, which drops out frequently. There does not seem to be any understanding on the other side of dial-up or the number of people who have contacted members about it. Ever since I have been a member of the House, for 17 or 18 years, people have been really angry about it. With pair gain they have certainly gained, by taking a bit of copper off somebody.
Some of the regional towns in my electorate, especially the outlying areas, have real problems keeping up. Many people who communicate and work at home have come to my region, the great electorate of Lyons, and wanted to live in its great valleys. But, since they have not been able to connect to the rest of the world, we have lost them. They are people who could make a very good contribution to the electorate through employing people and playing a role in the local community. Losing those people has been one of the sad consequences of not having fast broadband—let alone the constituents that do live in my electorate not having the opportunity to access fast broadband.
With a broadband connection, we could have e-health in my small towns. A 90-year-old could go to the local health clinic, put a wire or something on her chest and plug it into a socket, and her vital health information would go to a nurse. That nurse could look at that information and say, ‘You’re okay today; I’ll see you tomorrow.’ E-health saves money and improves delivery of health services. There are many positive things that could come out of this network. One school told me that it takes them five hours to download a documentary—five hours! With a broadband connection, it would happen with a click of the finger. They could talk to schoolchildren in other parts of the world. They would have the free flow of information which we all talk about. Small businesses are another group who would benefit from having a fast broadband connection.
I cannot believe that the National Party, of all parties, are opposed to this. They cannot see the pluses of this for regional Australia—a failure again by the National Party to get a grip on, or have an understanding of, broadband. Maybe they are ignorant. I certainly do not support this legislation. I believe that we have to make this happen. We have to get on with it and deliver the National Broadband Network. We are behind the eight ball; we need to be in front of it.
2402
18:49:00
Tudge, Alan, MP
M2Y
Aston
LP
0
0
Mr TUDGE
—The purpose of the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
is twofold: the first is to require the publication of a 10-year business case for NBN Co. and the second is to refer the NBN project to the Productivity Commission for a thorough cost-benefit analysis. I find it astounding that we actually have to put a bill to the parliament to pressure the government to do this. Doing a business case and undertaking a cost-benefit analysis should be a basic requirement for any serious government infrastructure investment. In this case we are not just talking about a small investment. We are not talking about a couple of thousand dollars or even a couple of million dollars; we are talking about the largest public investment in Australia’s history—a $43 billion project. That is $5,000 per household, and all of it, of course, on borrowed money. Surely such a massive outlay deserves scrutiny. Surely it deserves a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
The government has repeatedly justified the enormous cost of the NBN project on the basis of its large contribution to the economy. We have just heard that here. Yet they have provided neither any tangible evidence nor any concrete examples to support that claim. Most of the applications and uses for the NBN that actually add to economic productivity are available over today’s ADSL2+ broadband speeds.
The McKinsey-KPMG implementation study did not offer the financial analysis necessary for such a large-scale project. It did not attempt a cost-benefit analysis or consider any other alternatives. Over $25 million was spent on that study, but the government did not require it to answer the most important question: is a $43 billion fibre-to-the-home network the most cost-effective way of achieving universal access to affordable broadband in Australia?
It is not just the opposition that is calling for a cost-benefit analysis and the assumptions underpinning the business case to be revealed. Many other respected commentators are also doing this. For example, the ANZ chairman said:
The lack of a business case and full publicity of that business case is throwing a lot of doubt in people’s minds about the level of expenditure.
The chairman of Wesfarmers said:
I am not convinced and feel it needs a cost-benefit analysis. I just don’t know if an NBN will rank in priority.
Even the Treasury Secretary, Dr Ken Henry, said that government spending that does not pass an appropriately defined cost-benefit test ‘necessarily detracts from Australia’s wellbeing’. Surely they should be listening to at least Dr Ken Henry in this regard, and I am not sure why they are not. Why is the government resisting commonsense, good financial practice and what is being called for by so many people? Senator Conroy has stated many reasons. He says it will be too costly, but it will not cost any additional government outlay if it is done by the Productivity Commission. He says it will take too long, but an analysis would take probably only six months and could be done in parallel with the existing operations. Finally he says that it cannot be done because it would just be too hard to do. Yes, it would be a difficult analysis, but it can be sensibly done, as the Productivity Commission itself has indicated.
The bottom line is that Minister Conroy has made every excuse that proponents put forward when they do not want their project subjected to scrutiny. This project is too large and too far reaching to avoid scrutiny. It needs the full scrutiny of the Productivity Commission. It needs a full, 10-year business case to be made publicly available. I commend the bill to the parliament.
2403
18:54:00
Husic, Ed, MP
91219
Chifley
ALP
1
0
Mr HUSIC
—I oppose the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
that is being put forward. I want to start by demonstrating problems that are being experienced in Chifley directly by small businesses. I was at the Woodcroft Lakes Festival in late September and I was approached by a franchise partner of a Gloria Jean’s outlet that works out of Woodcroft. He has been attempting to get a service that is available to him in his other outlets where he uses web technology to install cameras to monitor workflows and customer flows. From a security perspective he is able to access the operation of web cameras in their cafes. He tried to do the same thing in Woodcroft and was told, ‘Currently we are unable to activate the ADSL connection on your number as we have been advised by Telstra that the transmission loss on your nominated phone line is too high. This situation occurs when Telstra detects the possibility of a loss of data when the service is installed or the chosen location of your ADSL connection is too far from the exchange.’
This problem relates to Woodcroft’s distance in Western Sydney from the Blacktown exchange. In Woodcroft people are basically reliant on RIM technology to get access to ADSL. That technology is overwhelmed by the number of customers present. People have to wait for customers to leave to get access. I get constant complaints from people who are unable to access ADSL from Woodcroft. This is not new. I also raised this same problem in 2004 in relation to Glenwood and I was told by both Telstra and the former government that there was no problem, though consumers were screaming. Customers were saying that there was definitely a problem and they could not get access. This problem did not arise overnight; it has built up over time. At its heart, this problem reflects a regulatory stalemate that has existed for years. Once Telstra was sold off by the coalition, Telstra’s priority was about keeping shareholders happy by giving them great returns. Whenever Telstra considered investment in its network, it had to consider its return to shareholders and ultimately what it would be able to secure via its prices.
Telstra has always experienced its own battles with the ACCC, who had reservations about consumer impacts, concerns about Telstra levering off its market power and other concerns about lack of access to the network by its competitors. What did we have? We had a stand-off where the customer lost out. The problem is that when the coalition were in government they tried numerous times to fix it and were unable to. Customers lost out then, and now the coalition are offering further delay. Consumers were not able to get access to a strong network during the coalition’s period in office and they are being frustrated yet again by the coalition delaying things. I have to say I give the coalition points for being consistent. They have been unable to solve the problem themselves. They delayed getting an answer for people and now they are attempting to delay the government with the introduction of a variety of measures to frustrate the implementation and the rollout of the NBN.
We never saw a cost-benefit analysis when they proposed the Adelaide-Darwin railway, the privatisation of Telstra in the first place, Malcolm Turnbull’s $10 billion water plan or the OPEL regional broadband plan. We never saw a cost-benefit analysis then, but that is what they are suggesting now. The other thing that gets me is that they are offering a sub-par alternative in regard to the technology, offering HFC access or wireless at best for people who are trying to get access to broadband. They are proposing a sub-par option. With the rollout of the NBN, we will be able to get access to modern technology—especially in Chifley if the rollout goes ahead. Instead, we see an elitist option from the coalition. If you are in the inner city, you have access to broadband at the moment—that is fine. But if you do not have access to it, the best you will get out of the coalition is a wireless option that is substandard and reflects yet again their disregard for infrastructure rollout in Western Sydney. This bill is nothing short of a delay and a frustration for people in suburban areas to get access to modern technology. This bill should be opposed.
2404
18:59:00
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
0
0
Mrs MIRABELLA
—The
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
is a bill that we should not even need to debate, because it is a matter that one would have thought would be standard practice in any democracy, a simple matter of transparency in decision making and integrity of government—nothing more and nothing less. In October 2008 the now deposed Prime Minister made a speech about transparency in decision making. Ironically, the speech was named ‘Bringing transparency to nation building’. Mr Rudd announced guidelines about how his government would make key decisions on approving and financing infrastructure projects. He raved about the guidelines, saying it was critically important that decisions must be based on ‘objective analysis and evidence’. He insisted that there must be a serious cost-benefit analysis and warned that guidelines are not much use if they are not implemented.
People actually took the Prime Minister of the day at his word when he made those promises, but we all know what has happened since. The Secretary of Treasury, Dr Ken Henry, summed up the importance of transparency when he said:
Any major infrastructure project must be subject to a rigorous cost benefit analysis and if it does not pass a rigorous cost benefit analysis then it necessarily detracts from Australia’s wellbeing.
…
…
…
That is, when taxpayer funds are not put to their best use, Australia’s wellbeing is not as high as it otherwise could be.
So here we have the government’s key economic adviser spelling out in no uncertain terms that any major infrastructure project must be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Given that the NBN is by far the single largest commitment of taxpayers’ dollars to an infrastructure project in Australian history, you would think that it would be an obvious candidate for this sort of scrutiny. In September this year, upon forming government with Independent assistance, the Prime Minister said:
So let’s draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in, let our Parliament be more open than it was before.
…
…
…
We will be held to higher standards of transparency and reform and it’s in that spirit I approach the task of forming a government.
What a load of codswallop! The Prime Minister again is all words and no substance—the grandstanding, the words and the sunshine. Well, the clouds have been blocking that sunlight for a very long time as far as this Prime Minister is concerned.
The National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010, would ensure that all these grand principles as espoused, but not adhered to, would actually be part of government decision making. It would assure Australian taxpayers that the government is spending their money appropriately. That is a very simple demand, and it is what my constituents and industry groups across Australia tell me they want—just some basic accountability to give faith back to them in the political process and decision making. But the Labor Party are afraid of scrutiny. Those opposite do not like to be questioned and they do not like to be challenged. They certainly do not like to admit mistakes. But, if they did actually admit mistakes, they would show the courage of leadership that has been so sorely lacking.
Deep down, every member of the government knows that a cost-benefit analysis would expose the NBN for what it is—a giant, monopolistic white elephant that will plunge generations of Australians into enormous debt. In order to illustrate this, it is worth noting that, as we speak, Labor are desperately trying to pass legislation that would exempt the NBN from the scrutiny of the ACCC. So not only do they refuse to conduct a cost-benefit analysis; they also want to hide the NBN from the independent competition watchdog.
What do we know about the NBN so far? We know it is the most expensive piece of infrastructure in Australia’s history. We know it will create a giant government-owned monopoly. We know it will destroy competition. And we know Treasury’s red book advice to the incoming government said that the NBN ‘carries significant risks, including financial risks for the public balance sheet and risk around competition and efficiency’. If those opposite want to dispute these facts, they can do so by supporting this bill and proving to the Australian people whether the numbers stack up. But, as I said, Labor know the numbers do not stack up. They know Labor’s plan is fatally flawed and they know that they will not be the ones who will have to fix up the mess.
2405
19:04:00
Jones, Stephen, MP
A9B
Throsby
ALP
1
0
Mr STEPHEN JONES
—When I last spoke on a motion moved by the member for Wentworth on a similar matter, I think I said that any time somebody puts a proposal together which has the words ‘costs’, ‘benefits’ and ‘analysis’ in the one sentence, it has a seductive sheen of credibility, but when you peel back the proposal you realise that the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010, like the motion that preceded it, is a sham. We know it is a sham, because the proponents are deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to both the benefits and any analysis of our proposal to build a national broadband network.
This private member’s bill on the financial transparency of the NBN has no credibility because the member for Wentworth’s mission, like the mission of his leader, is to wreck and demolish the National Broadband Network. If he cannot wreck it outright, then his only other option is to wreck it by delaying it and wreck it through scare tactics. We know it is a sham, because it comes from the same party who roundly criticised the government throughout the course of the last election for not getting out there and rolling the broadband network out quickly enough. They criticised us in Tasmania. They criticised it in the electorate adjoining my own. In fact, I remember full well the member for Gilmore complaining that the government had not rolled the network out speedily enough so that people could access it. The very same member has come to this place and said, ‘Hold on, we should delay things and go through a cost-benefit analysis.’ What the member for Wentworth does not accept is that you cannot simply transfer the principles that apply to private sector investment practice to the role of the Australian government. That does not mean that the analogies do not sometimes apply, but where they do not apply is when you have an instance of market failure.
The only reason that the government has had to come forward with its nation-building project, the National Broadband Network, is that, after 19 failed broadband plans and about 20 years of deregulation in the telecommunications industry, we have had a huge and tragic instance of market failure. Throughout that time, Australians have patiently endured the market domination of Telstra, which did not deliver real competition to telecommunications. Now we have a plan that is financially viable and will deliver real competition in the telecommunications industry, real competition for consumers, and, sadly, this success is what the coalition and members opposite fear most. They fear the success of the National Broadband Network. They do not want it to be rolled out, they do not want it to be rolled out on time, they do not want it to succeed, they do not want it to work and they do not want consumers to have the benefits that it would deliver to them. The coalition knows that, if the NBN is a success, they will have zero credibility left when it comes to the economy and the critical infrastructure that is needed to ensure that we have a modern economy fit for the 21st century.
The NBN is critical infrastructure. It will connect our rural and regional centres back to our main cities and to the markets of the world, with world-class broadband services. The costs of this project have been public for quite some time. They have been debated through two elections. There is no need for further sunshine or transparency on the costs, because we have been quite up-front about the costs of this project. When it comes to the benefits, we know that Infrastructure Australia has said that the benefits of this project are hard to overestimate. We know that business supports it, because business can see that this is critical infrastructure for the future of our nation. We know that voters, in no fewer than two elections, have voted with their feet in support of the National Broadband Network. We know that consumers are lining up to gain access to the network. So the message quite simply to those opposite—to the member for Wentworth, who has been given the impossible task of defending this bill—is: get out of the way and let progress have its way.
2406
19:09:00
Matheson, Russell, MP
M2V
Macarthur
LP
0
0
Mr MATHESON
—The
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
is simply a bill that seeks to give the parliament confidence in the unprecedented investment that is the National Broadband Network. As my colleagues have already made clear, the National Broadband Network represents the biggest investment of taxpayers’ funds into an infrastructure asset this nation has ever seen. Indeed the National Broadband Network represents a per capita expenditure for broadband infrastructure that is 100 times higher than the US has forecast for their own version of the NBN.
It would seem reasonable, if not even sensible, or, dare I say it, financially responsible, for an infrastructure investment of any significant cost to the taxpayer to undergo a thorough cost-benefit analysis process. Indeed the government agrees on this point, having created Infrastructure Australia to do just this—but apparently the government does not want to be held to account to even their own standards. They have refused to allow Infrastructure Australia to look into the National Broadband Network. It is almost unfathomable that an infrastructure investment of this size has commenced without the parliament being privy to the basic financial data of the project.
The National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 will ensure that the rollout and operation of a National Broadband Network process is transparent and that taxpayers’ money is used wisely and efficiently. The bill requires the NBN Co. to produce and publish a detailed 10-year business case, including key financial and operational indicators. This is nothing out of the ordinary. One would expect this document to have been produced before the plan was rolled out. It astounds me that one has not yet been made. In addition to this standard financial data, this bill calls the NBN Co. to report on expected numbers of premises passed by the NBN, provide estimated residential and business subscribers and projected average retail and wholesale revenues per user and to advise on the internal rates of return on invested capital.
The second part of the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 refers the National Broadband Network project to the Productivity Commission to prepare and publish a cost-benefit analysis. This analysis will include a study of current broadband services across Australia, consider different options by which particular broadband speeds could be made available to regional and remote areas, examine the economy-wide benefits likely to flow from enhanced broadband services around Australia and give a full and transparent costing of the pros of the NBN project, including all financial and economic projections underpinning the estimates.
The analysis will also examine reasonable commercial rates of return and cashflows for the NBN Co. and give consideration of what the likely realisable value of the NBN Co. would be if it were to be privatised after five years as current legislation assumes. Other aspects to be examined are the design, construction and operating arrangements for the proposed NBN project so direct and indirect outcomes from its construction and operation can be identified and evaluated, and provide analysis of the effects of a proposed NBN on the competition for Australian fixed-line broadband. The Productivity Commission will provide independent and expert analysis of this project.
The government has previously stated that it will release much of the financial information highlighted by this bill in the near future; however, as my colleague the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull has stated, creating a statutory requirement for transparency will give parliament much greater confidence in the delivery of this information.
The National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 will not disrupt the rollout and implementation of the National Broadband Network project. This bill simply places a requirement on the NBN Co. to produce a business case for the next 10 years. This bill does not ask for anything beyond what the ordinary taxpayer would expect would be carried out for such a massive investment of taxpayers’ funds. This bill will provide the parliament the long-awaited transparency it expects of such an infrastructure project. The coalition has taken a common-sense approach to the NBN rollout. I urge members to support this bill.
2408
19:13:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
0
Mr CHAMPION
—The member for Macarthur talks about being sensible and reasonable. I just wonder if it is sensible or reasonable to have had 18 failed broadband plans over 12 years of government. Was that sensible? Was that reasonable? Did that serve any of our electors? I would say no and I can tell you that people in my electorate in Craigmore cannot get broadband apart from wireless and only creeping up the hill. These people who live in metropolitan Adelaide cannot get ADSL, and the people in Burton where I live cannot get ADSL because of pair gains provided by a vertically integrated privatised monopoly called Telstra. We have the worst broadband infrastructure in the whole country in Adelaide. I wonder if that is sensible or reasonable.
Equally, I wonder whether it is sensible or reasonable for Australia to be ranked 17th out of 31 developed countries for broadband penetration, to be the fifth most expensive of the 31 developed countries on broadband prices, to be the 50th in broadband speeds, to be equal last in deployment of fibre-optic broadband and to be 29th out of 50 on average connection speed. That is the legacy of the Liberal Party. That is the legacy of John Howard. That is the legacy of supposedly being sensible and reasonable. We know what sensible and reasonable means. It means delay and inaction, to wreck the National Broadband Network. You would have to wonder why, because it is a drag on productivity and a drag on jobs. It is a drag on infrastructure. Labor believes in jobs, productivity and infrastructure. We are the party of the future.
We do not have any sensible approach from the Liberal Party or any sensible engagement or acknowledgement of the record. We have delay, inaction and excuses. We are assured that this will not have any effect on the implementation of broadband—there are all these ‘sensible and reasonable’ statements—but we know that the consequence of delay is that Australia loses out, particularly people in my electorate in places like Craigmore, Hillbank, Burton and up the track in Liberal voting areas like Clare, Freeling and Riverton. That is why these places are turning against the Liberal Party. I cannot believe it when the Liberal Party constantly says, ‘We’re going to wreck the National Broadband Network.’ I was so impressed when Liberal Senator Alan Ferguson put out a pamphlet through my whole electorate saying, ‘Tony Abbott’s going to wreck the broadband network.’ So do you know what I did? In my next pamphlet, I quoted Senator Alan Ferguson—in a leaflet to you.
HWO
Hawke, Alex, MP
Mr Hawke
—Forwards or backwards?
HW9
Champion, Nick, MP
Mr CHAMPION
—Forwards, always forwards. Labor is always forwards. We are always going to the future. I am stunned by the Liberal Party. They lost in 2007 and they lost this election over the issue of the National Broadband Network. They lose elections over this issue because they are determined to keep Australia in the Dark Ages. They are determined to keep my electorate in the Dark Ages. They are determined to keep people in Burton, in Craigmore and in Hillbank, in Clare, Riverton and Kapunda in the Dark Ages, denying them educational opportunities, denying them small business opportunities, denying them healthcare opportunities. Why? Because they want to play the same game with the National Broadband Network as they do with every other government program: not good policy; just pure partisan politicking.
What would be the result if the Liberal Party were ever to get into government? They would condemn Australia to another generation of living in the Dark Ages. Steam-powered dial-up—that is the way the Liberal Party want to lead us. Labor believes in jobs, infrastructure and productivity. That is what we have provided to the Australian community. That is why we are not in recession. That is why we are not in the Dark Ages and that is why we are going to deliver the National Broadband Network.
2409
19:18:00
Tehan, Dan, MP
210911
Wannon
LP
0
0
Mr TEHAN
—It is fantastic to stand in this chamber for the first time to show what the alternate government of this country believes in. Contrary to Julia Gillard’s latest slogan, we are not wreckers. Let us get it on the record. If I hear Julia Gillard say once more that we are wreckers, I will think that she has the rightful claim to be the Prime Minister renowned only for slogans and nothing else. On this side, we stand for holding the government to account, not as the opposition but as the alternative government of this country. We in the coalition have an alternative plan on broadband, a better plan on broadband. This is not about standing in the way of Labor’s policies; it is about standing in the way of bad policy. Let us make the point clear from the start. This is the largest expenditure of taxpayers’ funds on an infrastructure project in our nation’s history—that is, the taxes of mums and dads, of families in Australia going on the largest infrastructure project in our nation’s history.
And we will not forget where $2 billion of the total spend came from. That was money set aside by the Howard government to improve telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. It was put in a trust with the interest to be distributed to improve mobile and broadband services in the country. That money has not been spent in the last three years and, sadly, rural and regional Australia are worse off because of it.
What this country needs is an assurance that what this government has done and is going to do is not going to hurt us further into the future. That is why we in the coalition believe that a 10-year business case is what is needed, not the 10-week political case that has so far been provided by this sad attempt of a government. We propose a cost-benefit analysis by the Productivity Commission, not a political rhetorical analysis by the ALP. We on this side of the chamber know that the Australian people would not invest their hard-earned money on a venture without true returns and without having a study which would give us some idea of whether we will go any way towards achieving those true returns. This is the reason why it is so ludicrous that the Labor Party continues to insist that it knows what it is doing with our money—and it is our money, not the government’s. Taxpayers work too hard every day of the year to be short-changed by a government that simply does not care whether it is making a good spend, so long as it is making a big spend.
We hear the government tell us that we should judge them by what they have done. What they have done is deliver policy on the run—from school halls to insulation. We do judge you for what you have done but we are committed to not seeing this kind of disregard for taxpayers happening again. What we propose is that the government be asked the difficult questions about what they are doing. The government say they intend to release a majority of the information provided for in our bill sometime in the future. When? Why won’t you tell us when? If the government believe so strongly in the value of expenditure, why are we having this debate? Surely a government that believes in its policy would be happy to open it up to scrutiny. Instead, what we have is the largest taxpayer funded government infrastructure spend in our nation’s history being hidden from the budget bottom line.
We in the coalition believe in spending taxpayers’ money in a responsible and productive way, and that is why we are having this debate. We stand for transparency in government. We stand for, and welcome, reasoned debate on this issue. We cannot understand what you are hiding from, why you will not let the Productivity Commission decide whether what you are doing is in our interest or not. We stand for holding the government to account, not as the opposition but as the alternative government of this country.
2410
19:23:00
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Werriwa
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services
1
0
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—As the member for Wentworth has acknowledged, there are many ways to skin a cat—and what we are seeing in this process by the opposition is essentially an attempt, through a supposed inquiry by the Productivity Commission, to delay action. We all know the mandate the member for Wentworth was given by the Leader of the Opposition—that is, to destroy the concept of the NBN. His mission was not to promote it, to help it or to facilitate it; it was to destroy it. When we look at why this is being put forward, this supposed need for an inquiry, this grave concern for the taxpayers’ interests, we need to recognise that what is really behind this is yet another delaying mechanism. Were a Productivity Commission inquiry to occur, there is no guarantee from the member for Wentworth that its recommendations would be supported. So we really know what this is all about.
But there has been a lot confusion in the parallel debate that has been occurring in the House. There, I heard the member for Bradfield extolling Optus, his former employer. He was promoting his book, I must admit. He must feel that
Lazarus Rising
and
Faceless Man
are not much competition in the lead-up to Christmas, because he was certainly promoting his own published works in the House. His whole lament was around the question of how Optus had been mistreated, how evil Telstra was and how that had led to such a difficult telecommunications structure in this country. He was soon followed by the member for Moncrieff, who spent his contribution lamenting the way in which Telstra shareholders’ interests might be undermined. He seemed to be very concerned with Telstra and its interest. So there are quite a few pipers calling tunes on that side of the House.
What we see here is a manifest effort by the opposition to delay action on this front. They seek to delay action in the context of a situation in which this country is 17th out of 31 developed countries on broadband penetration. They seek delay in a nation where no Australian city is in the top 100 of urban concentrations for average internet connection speed. They seek to hamper change where Australia ranks only 23rd out of 50 countries on the percentage of connections of more than five megabits per second.
We have a situation where their legacy is not very impressive. The legacy of what they managed to accomplish is not something that one would go to the rooftops about. Yet they seek again, by the contrivance of a supposedly necessary inquiry, to delay very necessary, overdue action to rectify a manifest problem. It is not only the Labor Party saying this is a very urgent need. Also the United Nations has recently commented:
Broadband is the next tipping point, the next truly transformational technology. It can generate jobs, drive growth and productivity and underpin long-term economic competitiveness.
Admittedly we are the most urbanised nation on this earth, but we still have significant numbers of people whose very existence and future is around the question of distance education. We have very obvious gains to be made in regard to their situation. We have very obvious gains to be made in regard to medical accessibility, for people to be able to have swift assessments of their condition.
We have a situation where much can be accomplished in the context of failure. In Tasmania we can already see the beginnings of some success in delivery. A number of concentrated areas down there where there have been manifest problems over many years in gaining access are now having delivery of services, and the next string of Tasmanian areas is coming on-stream.
As I said earlier, we know that Access Economics can identify that Australia could save between $1.4 billion and $1.9 billion a year if 10 per cent of the work force tele-worked half the time. We know that the OECD, as well as Access Economics, sees a need for urgent action. It has commented that the effective use of high-speed broadband can provide significant improvements in productivity and efficiency across a number of sectors such as energy, heath, education and transport. It is time that the opposition got out of the way on this matter. Action is overdue. There is no need for procrastination and politically motivated delays on an important national enterprise.
2411
19:28:00
Cobb, John, MP
00AN1
Calare
NATS
0
0
Mr JOHN COBB
—The
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
requires the government to publish a business case for the NBN and to refer that project to the Productivity Commission to produce a cost-benefit analysis. Labor’s broadband policy is poorly thought out and hardly planned. The government spent $25 million trying to justify its position in a 546-page McKinsey and KPMG implementation study, which I think works out at $46,000 a page, without evaluating the objectives or doing an objective cost-benefit analysis. It is re-establishing a gigantic monopoly that is so anti-competitive that the proposed telecommunications legislation explicitly exempts it from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. When you talk to the telecommunications industry around Australia, they cannot believe it is happening. They may not be saying so in public but they cannot believe that this proposal can go ahead.
Let me tell you for rural and regional Australia there is not much going for it. My electorate of Calare admittedly is smaller compared to what I have been used to. It is 30,000 square kilometres, it has eight local government areas, but in shires like Oberon there will be no funds to improve mobile coverage, which is probably inhibiting the current and future strategic growth of the shire more than anything. And while NBN may provide better speeds within the town of Oberon itself, it will not improve broadband communication in the areas within the local government area, and that is true of almost every one of the local government areas within the electorate of Calare.
Let us remember they are not even pretending this is going to help eight per cent, it is only a 92 per cent target we are talking about here. Instead of wasting money updating sitting services where competition and natural growth are working, the money should be spent in rural and regional Australia—and I do not mean $43 billion—which needs reliable access to broadband so that it can also benefit from the technology improvements. And while it is probably the only technology to which nobody has a clue as to how far it can go, it has a long way to go.
As members of this House, we have a responsibility to use taxpayers’ money in the most cost-effective way, and that brings me back to this bill. I know that Labor want to run away from this bill as fast as possible. Why? Because they have to come up with a business case. They have to look at what are the business and financial rewards for the taxpayers, for Australians in general, and that is not going to stand up well. If it was, they would not be objecting to it in the way they are.
The government claims it is because the coalition will never support this project that they are not undertaking a cost-benefit analysis. I think we all know, and I can certainly assure you the communications industry knows, the reason they do not want to do a cost-benefit analysis. It just does not or will not stack up. The bill requires the government to publish a business case for the NBN, the biggest infrastructure project in Australia’s history. The reason it is so big is that it is going to deal with every major city which is already going there as fast as it can. Why? Because private enterprise has every reason to take it there. It proposes a sensible approach that underpins good governance. I strongly support this bill, as I think any Australian who pays his tax should. If you say $43 billion quickly it might not sound like much, but to me it does no matter how fast you say it. This is a huge thing to throw taxpayers’ money into at a time when only a fool thinks we are going to end up in surplus in 2013. I think the Treasurer was even talking earlier than that the other day. We will believe that when we see it. Rural and regional Australia are not being well served here; nor are the taxpayers of Australia. I support this bill.
2412
19:33:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—That speech, and those similar speeches on the other side, including the member for Wentworth’s speech, are all about delay. They know everything about delay. They did nothing for 13 years when they were in government, they did nothing while they were in opposition except put up a pathetic plan—I think it was either No. 19 or No. 20—and they were that confident of it they sacked the architect, stuck him on the backbench and said, ‘Thanks very much for nothing’. That is how much confidence they had in it. We listened to the member for Goldstein trying to um and ah his way through trying to explain what their policy was, and we had the Leader of the Opposition say to Tony Jones or Kerry O’Brien—one of those perceptive interviewers—‘Don’t take me on a tech survey, I don’t know anything about it.’
Now we have his shadow opposition spokesperson on telecommunications with the absolute mission statement to destroy the NBN coming up with another delay tactic. What a joke! Isn’t it interesting that he is that keen on accountability, saying ‘We must have a Productivity Commission investigation. We must have the parliament poring over this for the future of Australia. We must have every man and his dog poring over this to make us feel confident that the investment is needed.’ We know it is really all about delay. If he was that keen on accountability, he might have had the Productivity Commission do a cost-benefit analysis of the Adelaide-Darwin railway. We might remember that one.
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms Saffin
—We do.
849
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—Of course we do. What about the privatisation of Telstra? We all remember that cost-benefit analysis by the Productivity Commission that did not happen as well. What about the member for Wentworth himself? If he is going to be a hypocrite, he should at least have some runs on the board. What about his $10 billion water plan? I do not remember the Productivity Commission’s cost-benefit analysis of that. Do you remember the OPEL regional broadband plan? I think that was plan No. 16, 17 or something like that. I do not remember the Productivity Commission undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of that. So let us have none of this nonsense that we have heard from the other side. We all know this is about delay. That is the mission statement of the member for Wentworth. His mission statement is to destroy the NBN.
I have already spoken several times on this in the parliament—even today. We have the industry saying we need the NBN. Statistics tell us we need the NBN. Australia has a pathetic performance record of delivery—or lack thereof—of high speed broadband. We had the member speaking before me bleating on about the lack of services in regional and rural Australia and telling us that we have to leave it up to the free market because competition and the free market will provide those services. What a load of rubbish! They have not produced it to this point and will not produce it on their own plans. The NBN will provide those services to rural and regional Australia.
If Tasmania is any example, that is why they voted Labor. That is why so many of the Independents supported Labor. Indeed, it is the specific reason they voted Labor. That is why anyone who knows anything about it—including Telstra—agrees, unless they are part of the old conservative commentariat. I am talking about the good old
Australian
newspaper and News Limited. I am talking about the scaremongering and fearmongering that we are all doomed, that every school in Australia is a complete waste of money with the BER and that everybody has had tacky old insulation set up. What absolute rubbish! Thousands of Australians have had safe insulation installed. Thousands of schools and students throughout Australia have benefited from fantastic BER projects and they know it. I do not hear those on the other side screaming out about these schools except one or two wonky ones. But, of course, what do you expect from the other side? The NBN is what Australia needs. The NBN is what Australia wants and the NBN is what Australia should get. Move aside. Forget the delay.
(Time expired)
2413
19:38:00
Hawke, Alex, MP
HWO
Mitchell
LP
0
0
Mr HAWKE
—I want to thank the member for Braddon for raising the trifecta of reasons as to why we ought to have a cost-benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network. The insulation scheme is a fantastic reason why we should think, pause and carefully consider the impact of government decisions before we take them. The Building the Education Revolution scheme and the absolute rush to get projects out and handed to the New South Wales government meant that, in my electorate of Mitchell, we had two libraries built for a school of 90 pupils at the cost of $900,000. That could have been prevented by a cost-benefit analysis, by rationally examining how we were going to deliver those services.
The cost of the National Broadband Network represents the single biggest expenditure of any project in Australian history, so the member for Braddon has really raised the trifecta about why we are here today. If it were the case that, as those on the government side are consistently stating this place, the member for Wentworth’s objective was to delay or even to destroy the National Broadband Network, why would he be urging the government to do a cost-benefit analysis to consider the benefits versus the costs of implementing this program responsibly? If that were the case, the member for Wentworth would not be suggesting a deal which said, ‘Let’s pause and reflect, from a serious perspective such as that of the Productivity Commission, on how this could work, how it could be delivered and how we could best provide this broadband service to Australians.’
The experience of the member for Wentworth in business and investing leads him to understand that we need to spend taxpayers’ money wisely. We need to pause at these junctures when we have such a massive expenditure plan and say, ‘Let’s have a look at what we will get for that investment, because otherwise we will end up with a government program just like the insulation scheme or the BER where money is needlessly wasted and time and effort is spent delivering services that could have been delivered in a much better way.’ We have heard from our rural members here today that rural areas will not get the services they need even with an expenditure of $43 billion—the member for Calare is exactly right.
Why are we doing that? I come from an inner-city electorate, and there is pair gain in my electorate. I heard the member for Wakefield talking about pair gain, and of course that needs improving. Yet many inner-city areas are well serviced—there are people who do not need 100 megabits per second—while there are rural and regional areas that definitely need those services, and I endorse the remarks of those who say, ‘Why would we spend $43 billion and not service those areas of Australia where it is very difficult to provide these services in the free market?’
There is a large role for the market in the provision of broadband and telecommunications. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite of the experience of the member for Braddon that telecommunications in this country have been progressing in a fashion that has allowed people to better afford goods and services from telecommunications companies over time. It is not the case that the market is failing so badly that we need a massive government monopoly through an injection of money of $43 billion, a sum beyond the wildest dreams of any single investor or other provider of services in this country’s history. That is not just my view; we have heard in question time about the views of the OECD, but we have not heard about the fact that the OECD has this week criticised the NBN monopoly and called for a rigorous analysis of this $43 billion. Why wouldn’t they? The sum of $43 billion is a lot of money in anybody’s language, and it is very unusual for the OECD to call for such an analysis of a domestic policy.
The Alliance for Affordable Broadband, the AAB—which represents a cross-section of the telecommunications industry and includes in its membership infrastructure based carriers, fibre, wireless and carriage service providers, all of whom have things to gain and lose through the National Broadband Network—has written an open letter today begging the government to consider the cost-benefit of the NBN. The AAB’s members say that they can provide services in a reasonable and cost-effective way to much of Australia. In addition, the Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, has proposed an innovative scheme that has been tried in other major cities around the world.
So there are plenty of options here; there are plenty of reasons to pause and consider. The member for Wentworth’s objective in suggesting we do so is not to destroy the NBN. If a cost-benefit analysis would destroy the National Broadband Network, perhaps we ought not to be proceeding with the NBN. Perhaps the government ought to pause and think about that. Doing a cost-benefit analysis is a worthy task. The Productivity Commission can do a thorough cost-benefit analysis, and taxpayers can get the peace of mind that they deserve.
2414
19:43:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—When we came to government three years ago, we inherited a situation where the statistics showed that Australia had fallen behind other developed countries on broadband, and that was just not acceptable. Australia was ranked 17 out of 31 developed countries on broadband penetration. Its broadband prices were the fifth most expensive out of 30 developed countries and it ranked 50th on broadband speeds, which is pretty slow. Australia ranked equal last on deployment of optic fibre broadband and, at 2.6 megabits per second, 29th out of countries on average connection speed.
That really is an unacceptable situation. The government set out to change that so that, right across this country, Australians would have proper access to broadband or an equivalent. The NBN is the solution. It is a major infrastructure program. When I listen to members opposite talking, what astounds me is that there is no appreciation of the government’s role in the provision of public infrastructure. If we look at every piece of public infrastructure that has been provided in Australia under coalition governments, it has not been a lot. They say that this infrastructure requires a business case and so on, but if we followed the coalition’s suggestions it just would not happen. It is the role of government to provide public infrastructure. Some of those costs have to be borne; otherwise we do not progress as a nation. It just astounds me—it is another excuse for delay.
What does the NBN mean for jobs? The NBN will support 25,000 jobs every year on average over the life of the eight-year project, peaking at about 37,000 jobs. That is not insignificant; that is huge. The Australian Local Government Association estimated in its 2007-08
State of the regions
report that $3.2 billion and 33,000 jobs were lost to Australian businesses in 12 months due to inadequate broadband infrastructure. The NBN will fix this. The many benefits of the high-speed broadband to be delivered by the NBN will be felt particularly in small business. In my electorate, Page, there are over 11,000 registered small businesses—and they are the ones that we know of; there are more. They are the backbone of our local economy. High-speed broadband is one of the big items that they need, from the smallest small business to larger small businesses. The NBN is critical for small business.
It is also critical for future healthcare delivery, the education of our young and education generally, and our ability to work cleaner, smarter and faster. In health, there will be remote diagnosis over high-definition videoconferencing. I have been lucky to be involved in that sort of communication—it works really well. It needs to become the norm, not seen as something that is a bit exotic. Particularly in health, it is just the way that we will communicate in real time in the future. Students living in regional areas will not have to move to the cities to get specialist education. They still may want to—that is fine—but they will be able to receive their education via access to two-way interactive, high-definition, real-time videoconferencing from where they are. In a range of other areas, people will be able to telework from home.
The coalition are seeking to further delay something they were not able to deliver. They had 12 years, but they were not able to deliver anything. There were attempts, stops and starts and failed policies, but they hardly delivered anything, particularly in regional areas. It has to be a national program to make sure that we are plugged into broadband that can access the internet at speeds that are as fast as possible. Otherwise Australia will not progress but will be held behind. This whole nonsense of the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
and a select committee is just another case of delay.
2415
19:49:00
Vasta, Ross, MP
E0D
Bonner
LP
0
0
Mr VASTA
—I rise to speak in support of the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010, introduced by the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull. I support this bill because the residents of my electorate of Bonner support access to fast, affordable broadband. Availability of and access to broadband services is arguably one of the most contentious and frustrating issues for the residents of Bonner. Many residents—especially those who live in the suburbs of Mackenzie, Wakerley, Gumdale, Ransome, and parts of Wynnum-Manly and Carindale—do not have access to any broadband, let alone faster broadband. The majority of those households do not care about the politics of the situation; all they want is to be able to access the internet reliably, quickly and, most importantly, at a reasonable and competitive price. What they do not want is to wait for up to eight years for technology and service that may be well out of date and, at the same time, is likely to contribute significantly to Australia’s debt burden.
That is why I support this bill, which requires the publication of a 10-year business case for the NBN and, even more importantly, refers the NBN project to the Productivity Commission for a thorough cost-benefit analysis. As others on this side of the chamber have noted, this is not a delaying tactic or an attempt to hold back the NBN. It is simply an attempt to establish the facts and allow an impartial body to assess whether or not this investment—the largest investment of taxpayers’ funds in infrastructure in our history—is a good idea.
I know that there is growing pressure amongst the business community for the government to undertake a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the NBN project. But, closer to home, my constituents constantly remind me that every dollar that this government spends belongs to the taxpayers of Australia. The coalition is beholden to the community to act as responsible guardians for every cent of taxpayers’ money, given that the government has repeatedly refused to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of this NBN project. This government has even refused to refer the NBN to its own, newly-created, specialist infrastructure agency, Infrastructure Australia. The organisation created by this Labor government, and tasked with developing a blueprint for modernising the nation’s transport, water, energy and communications infrastructure, has been refused the ability to scrutinise the biggest infrastructure investment in our nation’s history.
The Productivity Commission is strictly nonpartisan, and is the best possible organisation to ask what the implications of this project are going to be. It is staffed by experts who understand economics but also understand the importance of factoring in non-financial costs and benefits, such as spillovers from and the social consequences of various policy choices. It is astonishing to the coalition and, particularly, to the residents of Bonner that a government is proposing to spend so much money with so little consideration or analysis—particularly when this is against the backdrop of the waste and inefficiency that has been the hallmark of other Labor projects like the home insulation debacle, the green loans scheme, and the Building the Education Revolution school halls fiasco.
An encouraging example of a broadband project that has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis can be found in my home town of Brisbane, where the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and the Brisbane City Council are working with international technology firm i3 Asia-Pacific to facilitate the rollout of a fibre-optic network that has the potential to deliver broadband faster and more effectively than the NBN. I am looking forward to working with the lord mayor to ensure that this exciting alternative proposal is given the full support that it deserves.
Nevertheless, this government’s NBN is going to be an eight-year, $43-billion project. Surely it deserves a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. It would be morally reprehensible and beyond financial recklessness for this parliament not to pass legislation for this government to allow the Productivity Commission—an independent and expert source of advice on economic and regulatory issues—to make an assessment of this investment. The public deserves to know that their money has been well spent. Our economy cannot afford another BER debacle.
2417
19:54:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I, too, rise to speak on the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. The detail of this bill is what I would suggest the honourable member for Wentworth should have put in his private member’s motion, to establish the joint select committee on the very same topic. It calls for the delay of the National Broadband Network to, amongst other things, develop a 10-year business plan—and to what end? The member for Wentworth’s list of objectives includes the opposition’s obsession: a consideration of the different options by which broadband services of particular speeds could be made available to all Australians.
The opposition is not set on any telecommunications infrastructure. Quite the opposite: the opposition’s purpose is to do anything they can to kill the project. They are seeking to bury it in a study which will consume all clarity and also the intention of the private member’s motion.
I recently read some newspaper articles reporting on a motion of this House that referred a substantial communications matter to a committee for investigation—somewhat similar to what the member for Wentworth is attempting to do with this bill and his private member’s motion. The newspaper was an issue of the
Argus, from Melbourne, of Saturday, 20 November 1920. To find anything comparable to what the member for Wentworth is doing, we need to look back into the depths of history, over half a century ago. The motion called on the Public Works Committee to enquire into the erection of trunk lines between Sydney and Melbourne and, through another motion, between Sydney and Brisbane. In the debate of these motions, as reported, the then Postmaster-General, the Honourable Mr Wise, is said to have been:
… surprised to learn that there was not a trunk line already in existence between Brisbane and Sydney, and that one extended only from Brisbane to Wallangarra, on the border between Queensland and New South Wales.
This was not the only communications matter to have been referred by motion to the committee for investigation. In 1931, the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works reported on the establishment of telephone communication between mainland Victoria and Tasmania. In 1929, the same committee had reported on the radical proposal of the establishment of telephone communication between Perth and the eastern states. It may come as no surprise that this report recommended the establishment of telephone communication between Perth and the eastern states even though it would cost the Australian taxpayer back then the grand sum of £69,800, and this was at the start of the Great Depression. It was estimated to give rise to only 50 calls per day. I thank the BrisbaneCourier Mail
for the report of Friday, 30 August 1929.
While these investigations were supported and the reports were favourable, I can only imagine what the results would have been if the current member for Wentworth had pursued his current tactics back in 1929 and in 1931 when those inquiries were taking place. One can only imagine where we would be if the Public Works Committee had come back, after years of delay, saying what the member has been saying today. If they had said that connecting Perth was too expensive and not justifiable, given apparent demand for the service, or if they had concluded that telephone technology was changing too fast for them to invest prematurely, right there and then, one can just imagine the member for Wentworth objecting and saying that copper wire technology was not good enough and that different regions should have different systems and use different technologies. We can just imagine the member for Wentworth saying, ‘Perth can wait for the telephone. The Great Depression makes contact with WA simply a waste of money.’ I can just imagine him as saying: ‘Now is not the time. Demand is only 50 calls per day. The profit is not sufficient. The business case has not been made.’ One can only imagine where we would be now if the member for Wentworth was able to do then what he is attempting to do now.
We all have access to the parliament’s modern system of governance and accountability of government business entities. It has served several governments and multiple parliaments well for many years, just as it continues to do today. Matters concerning government business entities are questioned through debates on annual reports, auditors reports and budget estimates. In addition, the Senate holds its own studies and conducts its own analysis. They have done several on the NBN already. There is nothing new to see. The motivation for this bill and the private member’s motion can only be seen as totally obstructionist. The tactic is exploratory delay—
(Time expired)
2418
19:59:00
Jensen, Dennis, MP
DYN
Tangney
LP
0
0
Dr JENSEN
—The NBN is the single largest infrastructure investment in our nation’s history, yet this government refuses to do a cost-benefit analysis and will not publish any business case. No Australian government has ever been allowed to invest so much money with so little scrutiny or accountability. Given Julia Gillard’s record of rolling out government programs, she should not be allowed to do so now. Senator Conroy claims that the ACCC has carried out an analysis of the NBN and that is enough to argue the government’s case. But this was not a cost-benefit analysis and it has not considered alternative solutions.
Coalition colleagues and government and crossbench members must support Mr Turnbull’s private member’s bill to hold to account Australia’s biggest ever infrastructure project. The shadow minister for communications and broadband has introduced his
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
to ensure the NBN faces rigorous scrutiny. This bill includes a requirement for the production and publication of a detailed 10-year business plan, including key financial and operational indicators. This will force—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 8.01 pm to 8.13 pm
DYN
Jensen, Dennis, MP
Dr JENSEN
—Is the NBN the most cost-effective way of providing all Australians with fast broadband? Assessment by the Productivity Commission will provide a wide-ranging, independent inquiry of all the claims and counterclaims and will force balanced submissions from all parties. The commission will also be able to explore positive externalities such as productivity gains from faster broadband and negative externalities such as economic losses and vastly diminished competition in the telecommunications sector.
Without any taxpayer funding, the greenfield fibre operators of Australia have already connected over 300,000 homes and businesses with advanced telephony, broadband and other services. The greenfield fibre operators have invited NBN Co. to discuss how it intends to operate as a fibre-to-the-premises, open-access network provider whilst complying with laws protecting fair competition in the market.
The federal government has given their answer loud and clear, with telecommunications legislation reintroduced into parliament which exempts NBN Co. from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. As well, Telstra will be contractually obligated not to compete with NBN Co. This includes not providing telephone or broadband services across its HFC pay television cables, an existing network that passes almost 30 per cent of the nation’s households and is capable of delivering 100 megabits.
NBN Co. has been nothing but incompetent in its design and deployment. Over-engineering is costing the taxpayer billions. Despite statements to the contrary, there are three fibres to every home. The cost to physically install, terminate and manage this fibre is hugely expensive, as NBN Co. is laying four individual 100 millimetre conduits from the exchange to the fibre distribution housing. This is hundreds of kilometres of excess fibre installed for possible use down the track and four times the amount of conduit required. The optical network terminal will be located inside each premises. At a recent luncheon it was realised that, for NBN Co. to achieve smart grid applications, this terminal must be outside the premises to get connection. Installation of the NBN will not be free to the home, either. It is estimated conservatively that it will cost between $2,000 and $3,000 for contractors to install conduit and fibre to the home, and this cost will fall to the consumer. This will require using approved contractors.
The coalition understands in an information age access to enhanced broadband services is vital to improve the provision of health, education, social inclusion and economic developments around Australia. The coalition is all for advanced technology and new technology, but the casemix must be part fibre, part wireless, part whatever new technologies emerge. We are proponents of a fiscal network that can be adapted and upgraded as technologies improve. Using fibre as a solution for all Australian households, inner city, regional and rural, does not provide the most economic and efficient solution to the problem. Funding a project without a business plan and cost analysis is poor business practice and an irresponsible allocation of taxpayer funds.
(Time expired)
2419
20:16:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
0
Mr PERRETT
—I rise to voice my opposition to the Orwellian named
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. I do so in full realisation that in my three years as a member of parliament this is the first bill I have ever spoken against. I am also a little disappointed that the member for Wentworth has used this place for a political point-scoring exercise rather than for true cooperative governance. Other members have used the improved private members opportunities to bring about constructive reforms—like the member for Dennison’s , achieved through the Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010, a bill that I proudly supported. However, unfortunately, this bill is more of a political muckraker.
Nevertheless, you have got to feel for the member for Wentworth—normally a constructive, cooperative, progressive and technologically savvy member of this House, but that was before he took on the job of opposition spokesperson for communications, aka the NBN wrecker. He claims this bill is not about delay, but we all remember the commission he was given by the opposition leader, the member for Warringah: ‘Go forth, Malcolm, and destroy the NBN.’ Like a thief in the night, the member for Wentworth comes with his wrecking ball, this bill, to destroy and kill the National Broadband Network.
We have a Leader of the Opposition, a self-confessed technophobe, who, when he hears about a broadband approaching, looks to the heavens and reaches for his raincoat. At the moment there are people at home downloading TV shows and movies, but the member for Warringah goes home to his video machine to watch
Weekend at Bernie’s—and it is on a beta video recorder; not even a VHS. No-one expects politicians to be experts at everything, even though some of us probably claim to be from time to time. Not you, of course, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, although I know that you are an expert at many things. But you do not need to understand the technology to understand how important high-speed broadband is for bringing the bush closer to essential services, for increasing productivity, for the economy, for new global business opportunities, for e-health—and the list goes on.
You do not need to be Bill Gates or a tech-head to understand how important this infrastructure is to Australia’s future; you just need to be a good listener. If the member for Wentworth and the Leader of the Opposition would listen, they would understand how valuable this national broadband network is now and into the future. They would appreciate the revolution that high-speed broadband will bring to households, that it will bring to businesses, that it will bring to schools and hospitals—whether the hospital is in Brisbane or Barcaldine or anywhere in the bush in between.
There is no escaping the fact that this is a major, once-in-a-generation infrastructure build. There is no escaping the fact that there is a significant cost involved in delivering this kind of infrastructure, but it is well worth it. There are, of course, significant costs involved because, apart from our east coast, Australia is a very sparsely populated continent. In fact, Australia as a nation is ranked 233 on the population density scale. That is alongside countries like the Western Sahara and Greenland.
But the tyranny of distance did not stop us from delivering road and rail. They were big challenges from two centuries ago. Similarly, when it comes to broadband we have distance in front of us but we can overcome it. It has not stopped Australians from delivering phone lines and neither should it stop us from delivering a world-class, high-speed broadband network.
If anything, Australia’s remoteness compels us to build the National Broadband Network. That is where we will increase productivity. When we look at the changeover in productivity from when the Rudd government came to power, we are looking at productivity of zero. Anyone who understands economics knows that that is no way to build the jobs of the future.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—That is not correct. It is not true.
HVP
Perrett, Graham, MP
Mr PERRETT
—It is. In the quarter that was handed over in 2007 productivity was at zero.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—The average over—
HVP
Perrett, Graham, MP
Mr PERRETT
—No, the quarter; I am talking about the quarter when it was handed over. I am therefore compelled to oppose this bill. Not only will the NBN finally get the bush and regional Australia connected to business opportunities around the world; residents on the city fringe, like those just outside my electorate who are currently denied broadband access—perhaps in the member for Bonner’s electorate—will have world-class broadband. The NBN will deliver 93 per cent of premises with optical fibre with up to one gigabyte per second, and the remaining seven per cent will be connected with the next generation wireless and satellite technology. I urge those opposite to get on board with this fantastic once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
2421
20:21:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—I am delighted to address the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. Let me start by making it clear that this is not about one vision versus nothing; it is about a choice between two different visions facing Australia. The first is the monopolisation and return to a state owned enterprise using the same structure that was the old Telecom Australia. It is extraordinary that in the 21st century we are having put before Australia—as the OECD pointed out only in the last 24 hours—the return to a grand telecommunications state-owned monopoly.
The alternative view is about technology which moves with time. It is about making sure that we are not adopting a single frozen, static form of technology. We know that we have seen an erosion in fixed-line services throughout Australia in the last 18 months, in the last 36 months, in the last five years, and that the pace of that change is gathering exponentially—and what does this mean? It means that the technology of the future is wireless and our vision is, amongst other things, of the world’s best wireless network.
So we have two visions in play here: firstly, the return to a state owned monopoly, which is an extraordinary thing in a Western democracy in the 21st century; and, secondly, a competitive regime such as has been taken on board in Malaysia, for example. We aim to provide incentives to ensure that we have the world’s best wireless technology, which fits with the very fact that every day the proportion of fixed lines in Australian homes and Australian businesses is beginning to collapse. History is already beginning to bypass that which is being proposed by the government at this moment. So that is the set of visions.
This bill in particular is about truth and transparency, and there are two fundamental elements to it. Firstly, there is the notion that we must have a genuine business case. I know about the work of McKinsey. I am from McKinsey, and their work is good work but the constraints they were given in the scoping study were: how would you make something like this work? They were not asked to determine what would be the best model. They were not even asked to determine whether this model could work; they were only given the constraints: what assumptions would you have to make in order for the NBN to function? The assumptions they made were heroic in relation to, firstly, the take-up rate; secondly, the charge-out rate; thirdly, the ongoing costs; and, fourthly, the costs in relation to capital structure. So it is absolutely clear that in terms of truthfulness we must know the genuine business case and be able to compare it with an alternative use of the same amount of capital.
We must also be in a position to put this before the Productivity Commission in order to do just as the government has done today—that is, to ensure that we look at the most efficient way to deliver abatement of greenhouse gases within Australia. That is the principal of ensuring there is truthfulness. And we know, having met just this day with the CEO of the National Electrical and Communications Association, that the likely cost to homeowners will be anywhere between $2,000 and $3,000, or even up to $4,000, for wiring because when the box stops at the door that is not it; the home still has to be wired. In order to maintain parity of speed, it will cost between $2,000 and $3,000, and even $4,000, per home.
This brings me to the last issue. I have lived through the Home Insulation Program and the Green Loans program, and now we have the unfolding cash-for-clunkers program—witness the waste of those programs on a monumental scale. What we are beginning to witness here is the unfolding of a level of waste which will have an additional zero on the level of cost. This will freeze Australia’s telecommunications in a static format at a time when the world is moving to wireless. It is a structure that is frozen. It is a structure that has not been adopted in any other equivalent way. I know that in the United States they are moving increasingly to a wireless and satellite based network. That is the way of the future. There is no competition here in the technology or the provider. This bill is a start down the path to both those.
2422
20:26:00
Symon, Mike, MP
HW8
Deakin
ALP
1
0
Mr SYMON
—I speak against the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
and like the member for Moreton, who has already spoken in this debate, this is the first bill I have ever spoken against in this House. This private member’s bill presented by the member for Wentworth is nothing more than a politically motivated attempt to undermine the quantum leap in Australia’s communication network that is the National Broadband Network. This private member’s bill seeks the publication of a 10-year business case for the NBN and referral of the NBN project to the Productivity Commission for a cost-benefit analysis. The NBN has a clear plan to deliver broadband to 93 per cent of homes through fibre and seven per cent through other methods such as satellite.
A business case for the rollout of the NBN has already been made and verified. McKinsey-KPMG were employed to conduct a thorough, independent cost-benefit analysis of the NBN. As the member for Flinders very recently said in this place, ‘Their work is good work’. The $25 million report, the
National Broadband Network implementation study, reached its conclusion that the National Broadband Network can be delivered within the cost envelope proposed by the government. The report covers 11 chapters, looking into such issues as technology, the rollout time lines, competition, markets and funding. McKinsey-KPMG consulted with a range of experts and held extensive industry and stakeholder consultation to conduct this comprehensive analysis.
Why do we need another cost-benefit analysis? The NBN has delivered extensive plans and will continue to update the community on the plans for the rollout of the NBN. NBN Co. is a Commonwealth company and bears a statutory requirement to submit financial reports, directors reports and auditors reports on its operations. NBN Co. is obliged to prepare a corporate plan, at least annually, for the responsible minister and that plan must cover a minimum period of three years. Matters covered by the plan include assumptions about the business environment in which it operates, its investment and financing, strategies for managing financial risk, financial targets and projections from the company. The existing obligations on NBN Co. in terms of developing plans and reporting progress are extensive, and the bill presented by the member for Wentworth will only duplicate the extensive work completed and the future obligations on the NBN.
The member for Wentworth has indicated he will present a further private member’s bill to create a joint select committee drawn from both houses to oversee the rollout of the NBN. This will effectively duplicate the work already undertaken by the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network. It was back on 25 June 2008 that the Senate established the Select Committee on the National Broadband Network. This select committee has provided four interim reports to the Senate: on 2 December 2008, 12 May 2009, 26 November 2009 and 18 May 2010. Each report involved extensive consultation with stakeholders and the community.
So what is it that the member for Wentworth is trying to delay? The NBN, as I have said, will connect 93 per cent of all Australian premises with fibre-based services, with another seven per cent connected with next generation wireless and satellite technologies with speeds of up to 100 megabits per second. Recent tests held between April and September 2010 show the average home broadband connection in Australia clocked a speed of up to 4.2 megabits per second. For many households though, especially in the outer suburbs, it is way below this figure, very much dependent on how far away you are from your local exchange.
The NBN speed over fibre will be almost 20 times the current speed. The implications of that for home, business and study needs are quite remarkable. Recently there has been a lot of talk of economic reform. The NBN will deliver the massive boost that we need now and in the future to enable small-scale businesses to compete nationally and internationally. This private member’s bill, moved by the member for Wentworth, again highlights a short-sighted obsession with attacking the valuable economic reforms that the Labor government is delivering. The Liberal Party’s opposition to the NBN flies in the face of widespread support for this quantum leap in Australia’s communications network, and I urge the House to reject this private member’s bill.
2423
20:31:00
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
HWS
Grey
LP
0
0
Mr RAMSEY
—I rise to fully support the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010, which will require the government to prepare and publish a business case and a cost benefit analysis of the proposed National Broadband Network. The bill will allow for the application of some long overdue rigour and analysis of the assumptions behind the biggest-ever single project expenditure in the nation’s history. It is simply staggering that the government and the minister would be prepared to spend up to $43 billion of taxpayer funds without considering options or trying to quantify the benefits to the community.
The bill comes with impeccable timing, with information from the OECD advising the government to abandon the National Broadband Network government monopoly, because it locks out competition to fibre, and to put the NBN through a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, along with all big infrastructure projects. The OECD concerns echo the coalition’s: value for money, appropriateness of the system, the locking out of competitors and competing technologies, what a reasonable rate of return would be on capital and linked inextricably with the likely value of the network once it is established. I am particularly concerned about how my constituency in regional Australia will be affected. While the government now says it will focus on regional Australia, an examination of the detail of the proposed rollout shows the patchiness of the planned coverage with many towns and communities set to miss out on the fibre-optic network. And I would point out that a town like Streaky Bay, with a population in excess of 1,500, is not designated to join to the fibre.
It is worth recapping how we arrived at this place. You may recall a time in 2007 when Australia had a telco, Telstra, which was ready to roll out a new high-speed service to urban Australia at the company’s cost. The coalition government had committed to a wireless network to deliver speeds of 12 megabytes with the taxpayer paying just $958 million. The contracts were signed and OPEL was to match that. The Labor Party was not happy with this deal and promised to build a 12 megabytes fibre-to-the node network to 98 per cent of Australians. In the end that deal collapsed. After 18 torturous months, they then proclaimed—without even blushing—that failure as an outstanding success and committed the government to a $43 billion fibre-to-the-house network for 90 per cent of Australians. Had they learnt anything? Had they consulted industry? Had they commissioned a business case? Was anyone from private industry interested in a financial partnership? Not a bit. This was classic shoot from the hip to defuse a political problem of the day with no plan for implementation. It is worth remembering there are no more potential customers for the $43 billion project than the $10 billion model, and industry could not make the sums stack up on that. So here we are today with the government so committed to its rhetoric, so embarrassed by its failure to deliver on a wide range of policy areas, that it is determined to push ahead with a project that may yet be the biggest waste of public funds ever—even overshadowing the abysmal BER school halls project.
When the government spends money it does not spend its own money; it is spending taxpayers’ money and it is morally bound to make sure the money is being well spent—that the mechanics, building workers, shop assistants and nurses who pay tax are getting value for money and the services they need. The problem with this network is that we simply do not know that, and that is because the government has not been prepared to take due diligence on this project.
If we are to spend $43 billion, either that network will need to supply an adequate return on capital or we will need to accept the investment as taxpayer write-off. We have no real idea what the pricing structure for access is likely to be but we can be sure that the more expensive the service, the lower the take-up—and the lower the take-up the higher the price will be for the service. In effect, this process is self-defeating and it is inevitable. The other alternative I mentioned is simply for the taxpayer to write off the investment. The government has said that sometime after the NBN’s establishment it intends to sell off the network to a private operator. The question then will be: what will it be worth? It can only be worth what someone is prepared to pay and they will only pay an amount determined by the earnings. We cannot responsibly build this network without taking true regard for its worth and benefit. The government should immediately commission a cost-benefit analysis and I fully endorse this bill.
2424
20:36:00
Brodtmann, Gai, MP
30540
Canberra
ALP
1
0
Ms BRODTMANN
—I rise tonight in support of the National Broadband Network and to defend it from those who seek to destroy it. The NBN is a significant investment in the future infrastructure and technological needs of this nation. The Gillard government is committed to investing in the latest technologies so that all Australians can fully participate in the information revolution. To contrast with this, those opposite take pot shots at the NBN and feign concern about transparency and adequate process. They do this because they know they have no viable alternative. It is far easier for them to attack the NBN than to create an alternative vision that the Leader of the Opposition—by his own admission—does not understand.
My electorate of Canberra embraces the NBN. The people of my electorate understand its potential and I am already fielding questions from them about how and when it will be rolled out in Canberra and what it is going to look like. The impact that this will have on people’s lives is well understood in my electorate. The people of my electorate understand the significance that the NBN will have in improving the delivery of health outcomes. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the efforts of HealthCube, which was founded by two Canberra doctors who believed IT services could be used to improve the outcome of patients in aged care. This service is already on the cutting edge of what can be done with technology. Just imagine what could be done if they had access to the NBN.
The people of my electorate also understand the impact that the NBN would have on education in schools, where students would be able to gain information quickly to collaborate with other schools and students not just down the hall but also around the world. Seniors in my electorate also understand the significance of the NBN. During the election campaign and since then I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of older Australians who have approached me and commended the government on the NBN. They speak to me about the potential of the NBN to connect them to their communities and to their families, their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren, to allow them to gain information and engage with the world in spite of their age and mobility. They speak to me about the ability of the NBN to link them to health care and to provide them with better health outcomes.
These are just some of the innovations and opportunities provided by the NBN, but there are many more. The NBN is not just important for the things that we can think of now; it is important for all the innovations and new ideas we have not thought of yet that will become a reality in the decades to come with just a little bit of imagination. Who would have thought the internet would turn into the powerhouse it is now? I remember that in India 15 years ago there was one service provider and 120 connections. Now look at what has happened. You can do your retail therapy on it. You can Facebook on it. You can do everything. Who would have thought that 15 years ago? Who would have thought when the telephone was introduced to Australia in the 19th century that we would have a global economy dependent on that little bit of copper wire?
The NBN is as much about the next 50 years as it is about the next five. The Gillard government is positioning Australia for the next wave of innovation in technology and communication. My electorate understands this. The people of Canberra understand this. Sadly, the opposition does not. While those opposite might like to say this debate is about transparency, it is in reality about one side having a positive vision for the future and one side trying to destroy that vision.
The NBN has been reviewed by McKinsey and Co. and KPMG. They both endorsed it. They found that it would transform the lives of Australians, that it is achievable and viable and that it would provide a good return on investment. This is an exciting opportunity and development for this country, and I am proud to be part of the government that has developed this vision. I am proud to be able to go back to my electorate of Canberra and talk about the positive change the NBN will bring to all sorts of people across the electorate. I am proud to be able to speak about the advances in the delivery of education and health care and the new jobs that will be made possible by the NBN—including jobs that we cannot even think of at the moment.
I have no doubt that these advances will stand up to the test of history. Then what will those opposite be able to say? How will history judge them? The NBN is too important a project to get bogged down in the standard partisan politics. I accept there is a place for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. However, that is not what this bill is for. This bill seeks to use legitimate parliamentary processes for illegitimate means. The
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
is about the member for Wentworth carrying out the mandate given to him by the Leader of the Opposition to destroy the NBN. The Australian people deserve better than that. The people of Canberra deserve better than that. I urge the committee to support the NBN and to reject this bill.
2426
20:41:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
0
0
Mr NEVILLE
—I am just gobsmacked at the attitude of the government to the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. I have a great deal of respect for the new member for Canberra, but how can she say that this is all about Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, trying to destroy the bill? Why would a study by the Productivity Commission destroy the bill, unless it is flawed?
Let’s have a quick look at the history of this bill. Before the election before last, Labor promised us a telecommunications system for the whole of this country for $4.7 billion. That was reasonable, I suppose, in the circumstances. We were offering a scheme at $2 billion. When they got into power, it suddenly became $43 billion. How can you get a cost that multiplies nine times and not be a bit suspicious about its integrity? If any reasonable person wanted to have a house built and the builder said, ‘Look, it’s going to cost you nine times that,’ they would say, ‘Jeez, I want to have a look at the figures.’ That is the first thing they would ask for.
Compare that with what we offered: first, OPEL. If OPEL had gone ahead back then, 90 per cent of Australia would now have 12 megabits of wireless coverage. It might not be the flashest, the biggest or the longest network, but how many people in Australia at that stage were getting more than three, two or one megabits, or half a megabit? The answer is 12 per cent. In the interregnum between the last election and when the government was formed, five telecommunications companies told the Independents they could do it for $3 billion—not $43 billion but $3 billion.
When you have variations of that magnitude, isn’t testing the right thing to do? Does the government want the system tested? Oh, no—it cannot be submitted to the government’s own Infrastructure Australia, which they lauded as begin the great testing model for all the big, national projects! Is there a bigger national project than this? ‘Oh, no, we can’t subject it to that.’ In the government’s bill, we find that the Public Works Committee is specifically precluded from examining it. Why would the government cut out Infrastructure Australia and their own Public Works Committee unless they had something to hide, something that was really wrong with this thing?
With what the government has offered, we will get about 93 per cent coverage. There is no mention of the other seven per cent, the people out in the bush. When will we get there? In eight years—assuming it stays on target and the costs do not blow out. Lots of people think the cost will not stop at $43 billion. Some estimate it might get to $60 billion.
What I like about the Turnbull bill is that in clause 5 of the bill you can see some of the things he wants to look at. One of the interesting things is in paragraph (b) to look at different options for broadband services at particular speeds across Australia. Would you not think that was fundamental? And then in paragraph (f) a consideration of what the likely realisable value of the NBN would be if you sell it. The test of whether $43 billion is the right figure is when someone like the Productivity Commission, expert in this field, is able to tell you whether or not you can get $43 billion or better when you want to sell it in five years time. Why would you not want to have that information? Then in paragraph (g) an examination of the design, construction and operating arrangements of the project. I remember them stringing the cables for pay TV and half Australia was up in arms about it. Now we are going to string the fibre-optic cable from telegraph pole to telegraph pole in hot weather, in cyclones, in storms—how long is that fibre-optic cable going to last? That is something else that could be examined under this Productivity Commission inquiry. The government has been caught out. This scheme that the government is putting up is a fraud. The examination bill should be considered.
2427
20:46:00
Smyth, Laura, MP
172770
La Trobe
ALP
0
0
Ms SMYTH
—I stand to speak against the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010, presented by the member for Wentworth. I am pleased to be able to speak in any debate on the National Broadband Network but it is terribly disappointing to be here this evening speaking on a bill which is quite clearly designed to delay the rollout of the NBN and to delay the consequent benefits that will come with an NBN being rolled out into our community. It is once again a delaying and obfuscatory tactic. It is quite at odds with the expectations of ordinary Australians, and certainly Australians with whom I have spoken in my electorate, both during the federal election campaign and since then, who are increasingly frustrated that the NBN will not be progressing as quickly as they had hoped, assuming that the opposition’s tactics displayed this evening remain.
During the election campaign La Trobe residents raised with me reliable, affordable internet access as being a core issue in our area. Those residents are very much aware of the significance of the NBN, in terms of both their children’s educational opportunities and the possibilities for business through efficiency and employment opportunities. Increasingly, they are becoming aware of the prospects for better healthcare delivery and the prospects for saving time, energy and considerable resources in what might otherwise be fairly lengthy travel to their employment or their businesses.
The NBN will allow La Trobe businesses to service effectively their local, interstate and international clients. Residents, and importantly local government representatives in my electorate, are very keenly aware of the need to try to minimise travel time and to minimise traffic congestion each day on major arterials. The NBN would enable more of those residents to tele-work from home and would enable improved workplace flexibility. It is also likely to mean that some of those living in more remote parts of La Trobe—bearing in mind that my electorate spans much of the eastern and south-eastern fringe of Melbourne—will be able to seek job opportunities and stay in their local communities without the need for extensive travel. I am thinking particularly of areas in my electorate such as Upper Beaconsfield, Cockatoo, Emerald, Menzies Creek, Officer and Pakenham on the outer reaches of my electorate who stand to benefit from the availability of optic fibre and substantially faster internet speeds. The frustration of people in those particular suburbs is raised with me quite regularly in relation to the existing standard of their internet services. It is particularly significant that in La Trobe the NBN could enable health services to provide residents in remote locations with specialist advice without those residents needing to travel long distances. I am particularly thinking of elderly residents and those who are transport limited on the outer fringes of my electorate.
The other thing that I know local residents in my electorate are keenly aware of is the prospect of jobs associated with the rollout of the NBN. We have had the Building the Education Revolution once again maligned in the debate this evening in comments from the other side—and I am sure that those who have commented negatively on the Building the Education Revolution also malign the jobs that were created by it. Similarly, in relation to the NBN, we know that its construction is expected to support on average 25,000 jobs each year over the life of the project. Of course, the opposition have not really been effective advocates for job opportunities in my electorate and in other electorates around the country. They still cannot appreciate the value of our nation-building stimulus package in creating and supporting local jobs at a time of financial crisis, so I suppose I should not anticipate that they are going to change their tack this evening. They might be more inclined to at least acknowledge the views of the Australian Local Government Association, which estimated in 2008 that around $3.2 billion and 33,000 jobs had been lost to Australian businesses during a 12-month period due to inadequate broadband infrastructure—but, then again, perhaps even that will not convince them. As so many of us have regularly observed, the opposition are simply intent on wrecking and delaying meaningful reform—and this is yet another example of that.
2428
20:51:00
Andrews, Karen, MP
230886
McPherson
LP
0
0
Mrs ANDREWS
—I rise to speak in support of the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. With any major project, it is important to understand the need to maintain a sound theoretical approach. Costs, benefits, safety and quality must be paramount, especially in the case of introducing a new technology. It is reasonable for Australians to expect that this occurs not only with the NBN but with all major projects. Listening to the speakers on this bill from the government side, it is not clear that the government understands what this bill is about. The government speakers have focused on the need for high-speed internet and its broad accessibility and adoption. The opposition do not disagree, but we on this side of the chamber know that a successful implementation of any major project depends on thorough analysis.
The National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 will require the publication of a 10-year business plan for the NBN and refer the NBN project to the Productivity Commission for a thorough cost-benefit analysis. This is the largest investment of taxpayers’ dollars in our history. We must ensure that taxpayers receive value for money; to simply guess that they will be receiving good value without the figures in front of us is irresponsible and a dereliction of our duty as their representatives. The largest investment that most private investors make is the family home. As individuals we would quite rightly be critical of someone making such an investment without due diligence, and we would be unsurprised and perhaps unsympathetic if things did not work out as they expected. We must hold ourselves to the same standard as individuals themselves would, or should, with their own hard earned funds. Taxpayers’ funds are not to be experimented with; expenditure on their behalf is not to be rushed.
The NBN is the single largest infrastructure investment in Australia’s history. This extraordinary outlay has been justified on the basis of its contribution to our economic future. But where is the evidence of this future economic contribution? The government has repeatedly justified the enormous cost on the basis of the project’s claimed contribution to our economic growth—and does so without real evidence, without examples and without the analysis behind them to back up its claims. The government cannot point to its own success in the small rollout in Tasmania as an example. If the Tasmanian experience is a microcosm of a nationwide rollout then it is hard to argue that further investigation is not required. This project is full of unanswered questions. It is not clear how the project will be commercially viable and the costs for the consumer are unclear.
We have seen this government’s fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants style of governance many times before. Their failed projects, which were much less extravagant than the NBN, failed partly because they were designed with haste, without due diligence and without proper consultation. The Green Loans scheme has left individual’s dreams in tatters, with their faith in this government irreparably damaged and no tangible evidence of improvement to our environment. The school halls that had to be built right now, whether the schools really wanted them or not, suffered from cost blow-out after cost blow-out. Worst of all was the roof insulation scheme, which resulted in true tragedy for several Australian families.
It seems ludicrous that the government would make the case that cost is one of the prohibitive factors in delivering a proper investigation into the NBN. We are looking at a $43 billion project here. Surely the government would acknowledge that, in a project of this size, there is the potential for costs to blow out. When a cost blow-out of as little as one per cent places a half billion dollar impost on the Australian taxpayer, there is no excuse for lack of proper planning and research. A figure of one per cent of the estimated outlay for the NBN resembles a figure not unlike that committed to the expansion of the Pacific Motorway in my electorate of McPherson, firstly by the Howard government and then matched by the then opposition.
The economic impact of these funds was quantifiable—and easily so. It meant doubling the capacity of the M1 in the south of the electorate right through to the New South Wales border. It would have meant faster and therefore less costly transport as semi-trailers entered Queensland. The impact on the lifestyle of residents may not be as easily quantifiable but it is easily identified, especially by those who sit daily in slow-moving traffic. This is but one example of the opportunity cost of the outlay on a project such as this. The government must justify the opportunity cost of the NBN—not only the already outlayed expenditure but also the possible differential from the budgeted figure. No project of this size should ever occur without oversight. We owe the Australian taxpayer the greatest care with their dollars and I urge the House to support this bill.
2429
20:56:00
Mitchell, Rob, MP
M3E
McEwen
ALP
1
0
Mr MITCHELL
—The issue of the National Broadband Network is about our future. It is about understanding the great opportunities and the benefits for all areas of the economy as well as for personal and social development. The debate on the NBN and the
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
is about a contrast of thinking. As I said in my speech on the address-in-reply, mankind is divided between the party of conservatism and the party of innovation and between the past and the future. The NBN is further evidence of this. It is a contrast between believing that a high speed broadband network is crucial for a prosperous future, as the Labor Party does, or that communicating using two Milo tins joined by a piece of string is good enough, which is what the opposition believes.
The German government, led by the conservative CDU Party of Chancellor Angela Merkel—the sister party to the opposition—stated last year that high-speed broadband networks that enabled the rapid exchange of information and knowledge are crucial for economic growth. Angela Merkel was right. The coalition, in opposing the NBN, are plainly wrong. They claim they want transparency and scrutiny, but at every step they have blocked and delayed reforms that will benefit all Australians.
Let us recognise the opposition’s stunts for what they really are: they are causing delay for millions of Australians in getting a fairer deal on broadband and telecommunications services. During election doorknocking in South Morang in my electorate, almost every single person I spoke to raised with me the issues they were having getting access to fast, reliable high-speed broadband. I recall Mr Joe Cilmi, a resident of South Morang. He runs a small business at home dealing with education. Mr Cilmi faces exorbitant prices using a substandard wireless connection while trying to run his business and feed his family. The NBN rollout to South Morang is a huge win for this growing suburb. It will also open up the competitive landscape to retailer service providers that have not been able to extend their broadband services to our area. Let us remember that South Morang is only 26 kilometres from Melbourne’s CBD.
Many sectors of the community, including local government, are already making decisions based on NBN’s future. In my own electorate, the City of Whittlesea is using its planning powers to encourage developers and telecommunication carriers to build a fibre-optic network in new estates. The council should be commended for its progressive thinking and planning, because it just does not make sense to build new homes that use all the latest approaches to save energy, technology and water and not be fibre-optic ready.
There are so many other important benefits to the NBN program. For example, it will allow better emergency service and disaster relief systems to be developed and put in place. In my bushfire-prone electorate, this may help save lives if disaster strikes. The government must be commended for its forward-thinking innovation and its understanding of how high speed broadband will be crucial for social and community development in rural and remote Australia as well as for our long-term economic thinking. I stand proud in support of the NBN. I note it is of great benefit to the people of McEwen and other regional Australians across the country.
10000
Vamvakinou, Maria (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms Vamvakinou)—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.
Ms SMYTH
(La Trobe)
00:00:00
—I move:
That further proceedings on the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
2430
Grievance Debate
Debate resumed from 29 October.
10000
Vamvakinou, Maria (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms Vamvakinou)—The question is:
That grievances be noted.
Hasluck Electorate: Small Business
2430
2430
21:00:00
Wyatt, Ken, MP
M3A
Hasluck
LP
0
0
Mr WYATT
—I rise to speak on small businesses within Hasluck. The Midland Redevelopment Authority in the electorate of Hasluck is celebrating its 10th anniversary. The authority is one of the most significant bodies that Midland has seen in its 100-year history. The Midland Redevelopment Authority is led by Kieran Kinsella, whose leadership capacity brings together the key stakeholders in a shared vision. Its ultimate purpose is to facilitate and attract investment for the purpose of developing vibrant businesses and, in turn, communities to create commercial and residential opportunities which will see the emergence of Midland from its current historical context into a centre that is able to provide for the citizens living within that proximity and become a significant hub within that region. It continues to work tirelessly to improve the social and economic conditions of Midland. Due to the work of the Midland Redevelopment Authority and its partners, a significant level of progression has been achieved through both their vision and their plan. They have injected over $1.22 billion into the community and created over 7,500 jobs.
Contrast this positivity to the handbrake that Labor is pulling on our economy. There are real impacts on small businesses in the electorate of Hasluck from Labor’s failed policies. When I was doorknocking and meeting with small- to medium-business owners, this was a common theme. They spoke of the uncertainty in planning for expansion against the economic constraints that they were facing in respect of government borrowings being $100 million a day, thereby reducing their capacity to draw down on loans to expand their businesses. One business in Hasluck told me that, once the mineral resource rent tax was announced, his company’s worth plummeted from a turnover of $25 million to under $7 million. In making some tough decisions, he has had to lay off staff and reduce the remaining staff to part-time positions. This means people have been laid off and families’ futures are hanging in the balance, particularly with mortgages, costs for education and daily living requirements. Additionally, a carbon tax will hurt local businesses even further. These are real people employing real families. They are not numbers taken from a focus group.
It gets worse under Labor. A carbon tax would mean that pensioners in Hasluck, many of them veterans and people who have paid taxes all their lives, will face rises in electricity bills and the flow-on costs that would come from that for all manufactured items and other goods and services.
Another example of Labor’s ill-advised policies is GP superclinics. These impact on viable practices that already exist within the region. These practices were built up by dedicated general practitioners over a number of years and the capital infrastructure was developed by them—no-one subsidised them. They were not gifted a government building. These practices have a number of elements that in essence are the making of a GP superclinic. What is disappointing is that they were not considered in the mix during the establishment of the Midland GP superclinic and, to that end, they now face competition from a government sponsored GP superclinic practice that impacts on their many years of hard work building up a client base that they have served very effectively and efficiently over a period of two or three decades.
Their approach to engaging with their clientele is premised on family centred and individual focus practice but also providing an opportunity for high-quality care. Why should established decades-old practices be placed at risk of financial ruin if proposed government funded GP superclinics open in direct competition to them? Why not negotiate for expanded services that meet the proposed requirements for a GP superclinic? That would be in a very different context that allows private enterprise and their hard work and good will to be harnessed to be part of a new direction. Why is Labor so keen on reinventing the wheel at a cost of millions and to the detriment of taxpayers and to business owners? GPs and practice managers in Hasluck have told me and Dr Andrew Southcott, who visited recently, that they are best placed to take care of their patients and not corporate GP superclinics looking at profits as opposed to the primary care that they provide. The facilities are already there. The patients already go to that practice. All they need is a comparatively minor injection of cash to add to their infrastructure and the range of services they provide. Instead, millions upon millions will be given to anticompetitive businesses to the detriment of established practices. This type of government intervention only hurts GPs. Why should they spend their own money to build a practice in an area with the threat of Labor dropping a government backed competitor across the road? This is just another example of the failure of Labor’s economic policies.
Hasluck has many small to medium businesses that support the minerals and energy sector, and they play a crucial role in contributing to the WA and Australian economy. They also provide employment opportunities, training and skills development for apprentices. This key role is supported by the community within Hasluck. Adverse policies will kill off the goose that helps to lay the golden eggs that establishes a strong and vibrant economy in this country. These are not just words; they are real people with real lives paying very real taxes to a government that makes policy on a whim and treats their money with reckless abandon. Small businesses within Hasluck provide the supporting infrastructure to the mining sector and contribute to the development of significant projects within Western Australia. On the announcement of the mining tax these companies felt the reverberations of that proposed decision.
Small business provides the backbone to the Australian economy. There are also new businesses in Hasluck that look at new opportunities and develop technology that supports the mining sector. In that expansion they are also looking at partnerships and collaborative arrangements with overseas companies who also want to be involved in the economic boom and growth of Western Australia’s economy. Many of the negotiations that they undertake are premised on two things: one is growing a business so that they are effective and can contribute, but secondly there is also a social dividend that they want to give back to the communities they serve and in which they provide resources and services. Government decisions can impact with negative flow-on effects that undermine the growth of businesses.
Hasluck has a number of small businesses. It has GP practices and has families who premised their undertakings in an economy in which policy is consistent and supportive of what they wish to develop as part of their future. It is to this end that I would certainly ask that the Labor government consider the flow-on impacts to small businesses, because it is they who feel the immediate impact. I do not think that we, at a time of global economic change, can afford to have our businesses being affected by decisions that are sometimes taken at the whim of a government. I strongly support and will work closely with the small businesses of Hasluck to ensure that they get access to the right level of advice, the resources required and the opportunity to expand so as to contribute to the community in which they work but more importantly to continue to support the economic growth of both Western Australia and Australia within a global economy.
Page Electorate: Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Page Electorate: Telstra
Page Electorate: Clarence River
Advertising
Food Additives
Media Violence
Coal Seam Gas Projects
2432
2432
21:10:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—I have a whole range of grievances that I want to raise tonight. There are so many that I am not sure where to start. Some are local and some are international. First of all, I am aggrieved that
Rural Reporter
has been taken off the ABC radio in Lismore. I have a long letter explaining how the area is still going to be covered from Port Macquarie et cetera, but I am not sure that that can happen in practice, and that aggrieves me because a lot of rural people—not just farmers but particularly farmers—rely on that. Having a dedicated
Rural Reporter
program every morning is something that we have had for a long, long time. So that is one of the things that aggrieve me.
I am also aggrieved—and I have spoken about it in this place before—that Telstra is axing 108 jobs out of its Grafton business call centre, one of the best call centres. They say the jobs are going to Melbourne and to Brisbane. You can imagine how aggrieved I feel, as a rural resident, about that going to the big city. I am not even sure they are going there. That is an ongoing issue.
I am also aggrieved about all the people who want to get their hands on the Clarence River. You might have heard that there is a lot of debate about the Murray-Darling Basin. To be sure there is a lot of work to be done there, but people have waxed and waned for years about wanting to divert the Clarence, take it overland and do all sorts of things to get water out of it. I have spoken before but it does not go away. People keep talking about it here. What we say in the Clarence Valley is: not a drop. It was the
Daily Examiner
that coined that phrase. There are stickers everywhere: not a drop. I note in today’s
Daily Examiner
that the Clarence Valley Council meeting last night again registered their strong opposition to plans to divert water from the Clarence River catchment. The mayor, Councillor Richie Williamson, said:
The result of any crazy scheme to divert the Clarence would be that instead of having one river system that is on its knees environmentally, socially and economically (the Murray-Darling) you would instead have two systems in a similar state.
It is one of those options that I know will go before the parliament, but it is just really silly to be looking at that system.
Another issue in my local area—and particularly with families and mothers—is junk food and, pertinently, junk food advertising aimed at our children. There is a bombardment of advertising for junk food. Wouldn’t it be lovely to see a bombardment of advertising for really healthy food, the foods that we need every day? Instead it is just junk food ad after junk food ad after junk food ad—lots of ads. It is everywhere you go. I know it has received lots of coverage in the media and in various newspapers and on TV as well. One of the things that I always find amusing is that the advertising companies always say they have research that shows that it really does not have a great impact on the take-up of children buying it or their parents buying it for them. Why do they do it? Why do they spend millions on advertising that does not work? That is just absolute nonsense—nonsensical. It does not make sense. We know that we are all influenced by the power of the media and particularly advertising. You know that when you have heard a song and it stays in your head all day. That happens to all of us—you cannot stop singing or thinking the last line you heard. That happens with our children as well. You have mums and dads and families trying to promote healthy eating and make sure that the kids eat those foods, yet they have to contend with this absolute bombardment, because that is all that they have.
Sticking with what happens with children—our kids—there is the issue not only of the junk food but also of the poisons and colourings that are put in food. We have seen recently that Food Standards Australia New Zealand, FSANZ, along with its American counterpart, the Food and Drug Administration, are looking at the findings of some research that was conducted by the Centre for Science in the Public Interest. That is a US body that recommended common colours be banned. Think of all the foods. I am sure you go to the supermarket to do your shopping, Mr Deputy Speaker, and when you are there I know that you would see all of those foods and all of those wonderful bright colours. When you walk past a doughnut—not that I like doughnuts—you can look at all that bright colouring. A lot of us spend time in airports and we see lots of doughnuts with pink, green and yellow colouring. We know that for some children those colours really affect their behaviour. That is known. There is documentation about that. How can this stuff be good for you? I am not telling adults what they should or should not eat but in terms of our kids it really is a problem. There is always the research, and this particular research is also saying that there may be a link to cancer. I say that with some degree of hesitation, because we read headlines in the paper telling us that nearly everything we do, eat or look at can be linked to some ill health or cancer. But the principle here has to be the precautionary principle—we are talking about our kids’ health. If in doubt, we have to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to keep them safe. I am not saying that we should bring them up just on carrots and celery alone, but they need a healthy diet.
Something else that aggrieves me and, I know, a lot of parents, and it is something that is a matter of great debate in the community, is the violence in lyrics and games, and coming through phones, subjecting children to lots of violence. Again, I read research from people who have done studies on it and they talk about the impact that it can have on children’s cognition when they are exposed to that on a regular basis. Given that our children do watch a lot of television and do have a lot of games and access to phones—we live in a sort of techno-connected world—there is even more of that bombardment coming through. We cannot ban everything but we really have to debate these issues more and look for solutions. The people who make these things have to be more responsible, as advertisers do. Everybody is saying that we have to legislate everything—and yes, there is a place for legislation; that is absolutely clear—but there has to be some responsibility put back on others who make these things and make money out of them.
Another issue that has come up in my electorate is the issue of coal seam gas. I know that is erupting all over Australia and it is hard to work out what is fact and what is fiction in the debate, but there are certainly issues raised around the issue of fracking. Fracking is not a new thing; it is a rather old process but there is clearly—
M3A
Wyatt, Ken, MP
Mr Wyatt
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Is the member for Page willing to give way?
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms SAFFIN
—Yes, with pleasure.
M3A
Wyatt, Ken, MP
Mr Wyatt
—Thank you. You made comments about food additives and their impact on children. Is there an intention by you to take that up with Minister Roxon so that the Australian Health Ministers Council can look at a direction with respect to the issues you raise?
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms SAFFIN
—In answer to the honourable member, everything I raise in parliament I have either taken up or do take up, but it is on the agenda as well. It is a serious issue.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Allow me to congratulate both honourable members because this chamber is supposed to be more spontaneous and I think this is a good procedure.
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms SAFFIN
—I have 15 seconds for fracking. It is clearly one of those issues where we need scientists and informed debate about it so that we know what the impacts are, but it is certainly a process we are worried about.
The Right Start
2435
2435
21:20:00
Schultz, Alby, MP
83Q
Hume
LP
0
0
Mr SCHULTZ
—There are a tremendous number of people in communities across Australia who are working tirelessly to effect change for the better in the lives of others. The Right Start is one such group of people I am proud to say are living and working to effect positive change for young families who face the joys and challenges of having children born with Down syndrome. The Right Start was established in 2009 as a support group for parents who had given birth to children with Down and enables mothers and fathers to share in the highs and lows of raising a young child with Down. This organisation is small and, although it has its beginnings as a support group run by mothers of children with Down, for mothers of children with Down, this marvellous group of women, refuse to accept that more cannot be done.
I will give you a small illustration of what these women have achieved so far. Mrs Glenda Graban, the founder and voice of The Right Start in the Wollondilly and Macarthur region, came to the office of the former member for Macarthur, the honourable Pat Farmer MP, in early 2009 to discuss a technical issue she was having with a government department at that time. She just so happened to mention to the staff that she had just given birth to a little boy, Jake, who she discovered had been born with Down syndrome. Jake was a blessing and that he had Down syndrome made absolutely no difference to the love she and her husband felt for him. It just meant that they would have to make some adjustments to their lives that they had not expected to make.
She told the staff that several weeks after she had come home from the hospital she received a letter from the New South Wales Department of Health. The letter contained a certificate that stated that Jake had been placed on the birth defects register to acknowledge that he had Down syndrome. She showed the staff the document and said that she felt very strongly that this sort of letter from the government did not seem right and she could only imagine what effect the receipt of such a document would have on a young family who were struggling to cope with the discovery that their child had Down syndrome or any other form of disability, such as cerebral palsy.
The staff advised her to make representations to the New South Wales health minister and that if she was unsuccessful in that she should rally community support through the media, as the New South Wales Labor government had up to that point not made any moves to change the insensitive wording of such an important document. As Glenda has said, the term ‘defect’ is something that you refer to if something is wrong with your car, not a child who is born with a condition that is out of their control.
So Glenda had to pursue her fight through the media to change this document. As an aside, it is disappointing to note that in this modern political landscape an ordinary citizen has to go to the extreme of having to generate her own media campaign because bureaucrats in government departments lack the common decency and sensitivity to right a wrong. Thankfully, her media campaign was successful, and in New South Wales parents will no longer have the government deem their children as defective. Instead, parents will be informed that their child has been placed on what is now called the congenital conditions register and they have Mrs Glenda Graban to thank for that.
I think the whole House would agree that this was a victory for common sense and decency, but Glenda’s experience of giving birth to a child with Down syndrome shaped her call to action with other mothers in the Wollondilly-Macarthur region. Their shared experiences are as one and tell a story of a system in New South Wales where there is a lack of early intervention support dedicated to children with Down syndrome. It is a system that provides minimal, if any, support to new parents who may be struggling with the notion of having a child with Down syndrome. It is a system that fails to adequately inform families of children with Down syndrome about programs and assistance that is available to them, aside from their local paediatrician or general practitioner.
The recognition that there was a dire need in communities such as the Wollondilly-Macarthur region for a service for families with Down syndrome is what led Glenda Graban and other just as dedicated mothers to form the organisation The Right Start. I have had had several meetings with The Right Start—one of which was with the then shadow minister for child care and women, the member for Murray—and the current member for Macarthur in which The Right Start has outlined its future plans to expand the purview of the group to incorporate government recognised and approved early intervention programs for children with Down syndrome in conjunction with establishing a centre to operate these programs from. Thus far, through the tireless work of the men and women involved in The Right Start, the organisation has managed to raise just on $25,000 in their own right and are pleased to announce the staff from Coles grocery stores in the region have matched that effort by raising an equivalent $25,000, bringing the total fundraising effort in one year to $50,000, with the aim of reaching $150,000 for the purchase of a house to establish a centre by March 2011.
Considering The Right Start has only been up and running for just over 12 months, it is a tremendous effort and all involved ought to be congratulated for their efforts. However, more can be done, and I believe that more can certainly be done from a federal government perspective, to assist these brave women in any way we can. According to the New South Wales Department of Health, 53 of the 171 children born with Down syndrome in 2008-09, or nearly one third, lived in the south-west Wollondilly-Macarthur region. If there is ever to be a centre for families who have children with Down syndrome, it should be in the region I and the member for Macarthur represent.
I have alerted the Minister for Families, Housing and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Jenny Macklin MP, to the work of this outstanding organisation and have commended to her the benefits of directing federal government funding towards making the centre The Right Start wishes to establish a pilot program. These discussions will hopefully continue, and I wish to acknowledge the minister’s open-mindedness to this proposal thus far. It is encouraging to see that the federal government made a commitment to early intervention for children with disabilities in the A Better Start in Life for Children with Disability commitment that directs funding of up to $12,000 up to their sixth birthday to children who have conditions such as blindness, fragile X syndrome and Down syndrome. This commitment from the Labor government at the election was for this money to be spent on early intervention programs such as the one that The Right Start is proposing.
I am significantly impressed with the efforts that The Right Start have made themselves to establish their own centre for over 30 per cent of the families in New South Wales who have children with Down syndrome. Glenda Graban and her team of dedicated individuals and families have recognised there is a gap in support for families with children with Down syndrome and have made tremendous strides to ensure this gap is closed. Their work ought to be encouraged and rewarded by government, which has the capacity to provide that support. I look forward to continuing my representations along with the member for Macarthur to have The Right Start given the support and the funds necessary to have its programs and centre established with government assistance as either a pilot program or as a program recognised for funding under the federal government’s A Better Start for Children with Disability program. Either way, Glenda Graban has certainly shown what can be achieved when recognising that a wrong should be righted, and her commitment should be a healthy reminder to all Australians of the need to assist our own.
Braddon Electorate: Hospitals
2437
2437
21:29:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—Tonight I want to talk about health in Braddon. This is always an issue in my electorate, as it is in many other members’ electorates, but I want to focus in particular on hospitals and, even more particularly, on the lack of cancer services in my region. My region has some of the poorest health indices not only in Tasmania but also, unfortunately, in Australia—comparable in some instances to the Northern Territory. Generally, the issue of health is associated with hospitals. There is a decided relationship between being crook and going to the outpatients or the emergency ward of our hospitals.
You may well remember that, in the 2007 election, an iconic, if you like, election issue was made out of the former Prime Minister John Howard coming to the electorate of Braddon and announcing that the federal government, the Howard government at that stage, would take over the Mersey hospital—with all the implications that that had. Ironically, I suppose, that was a precursor to what the Rudd government looked at, and the Gillard government is now looking at, as part of the health and hospitals reform. Unfortunately the issue in 2007 was essentially, and forgive me for saying this, a political ploy—a stunt—to help the coalition retain the seat of Braddon.
I understand that in politics all things are possible. I thought, however, that the idea was not good health policy. However, that is what happened and the Tasmanian state government acceded to that political demand and, for one dollar, sold the Mersey hospital to the Commonwealth. There was no planning associated with it—plenty of rhetoric but no planning—and the then Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, knew nothing about the region and was against it but, like a good political party acolyte, set to work to try and make it happen.
There was some talk of $45 million per year—not that we knew many of the figures—associated with the Commonwealth takeover. Whatever the case may have been, the Rudd opposition—soon to become the Rudd government—acceded to the Tasmanian government’s wish and to the Commonwealth government’s wish and honoured the agreement. In government, we set about to implement Commonwealth ownership of the Mersey Community Hospital. We have committed $180 million over three years to that hospital. It was nothing like the $45 million that was originally talked about.
In time and through a very cooperative approach, finally with the state government rather than with a private provider, the Mersey Community Hospital has been integrated into the Tasmanian health plan and most especially into the North West Area Health Service for health and wellbeing in my region. I am really pleased that we have been able to achieve that. So from straight out political stuntsmanship there has been a good outcome. The Mersey Community Hospital has grown and evolved. The suspicions—which I cannot relate now, but they have a long history—between Mersey Community Hospital and the North West Regional Hospital, formerly Burnie Regional Hospital, have melted away and there is tremendous cooperation between the two. The Mersey Community Hospital is now playing a really important and significant role in the provision of good and safe health services for the north-west coast of Tassie. I congratulate everyone who has played a part in making this happen.
The Mersey Community Hospital has now gone on to develop a terrific reputation for the surgery it does. It provides an HDU, which has been relocated, through a funding arrangement and in partnership with the state government, to provide very good high-dependency-unit services and I congratulate them. Endoscopy also is a specialist area of the Mersey Community Hospital—and indeed statewide. So that has been a good story but full of a lot of political angst.
The other area that has been full of political angst has been the provision of cancer services. In 2007, Kevin Rudd as opposition leader came to Braddon and committed $7.7 million to the provision of a linear accelerator to the north of Tasmania with a preference to the north-west. Unfortunately the north-west was not able or capable of providing those services without a lot more investment both from the state and the Commonwealth. That linear accelerator went to the north of Tasmania and it was viewed as a broken promise, particularly on my part, and I can understand a lot of the community angst associated with it.
More recently, the federal government committed about $5.4 million along with the state government to provide a regional cancer centre for the North West Regional Hospital, and I congratulate them for that. It was intended to try and provide a range of chemotherapy chairs, service provision and a million dollars, also by the Commonwealth, for an MRI machine. We also committed $3 million to the provision of new residential care units at the North West Regional Hospital in Burnie.
During the last election campaign, Tony Abbott arrived and promised $7 million for a linear accelerator. As I mentioned earlier, it is not possible to provide a linear accelerator for $7 million without the bunker and the physical infrastructure that goes with it. The Liberals also then made a promise to provide it by 2013, which beggars belief and reaches the height of cynicism in terms of politicising health.
The federal government, through Minister Roxon and particularly through Prime Minister Gillard, made a further commitment of $16.5 million to provide a linear accelerator and a bunker and associated services to bring about comprehensive cancer services to the north-west. So that was on top of what was essentially $16.5 million from the state and federal governments prior to this to provide a north-west cancer centre and the provision of comprehensive radiation services when it is safe to provide these services. An expert committee has been appointed to advise on the provision of these services.
I look forward, along with the people of the north-west coast, to the provision of more comprehensive services. I congratulate everyone for the integrated health services that we have been able to bring about because of the north-west health area plan. I also thank the federal Labor government for the $10 million towards the Tasmanian patient transport scheme along with other important investments in health in my region. I hope we can continue to work together to bring about safe and reliable services into the future.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Before I call the next speaker, I gently remind the member for Braddon of standing order 64, which provides that he ought not to refer to other honourable members by their personal names; they should be referred to by their electorate or title.
Gippsland Lakes
Landcare
2439
2439
21:39:00
Chester, Darren, MP
IPZ
Gippsland
NATS
0
0
Mr CHESTER
—I join the grievance debate this evening to raise several issues of concern to the people of Gippsland in relation to both the federal election and the current state election that we are faced with in Victoria. The first issue I wish to raise relates to the future management of Gippsland Lakes and the catchment of the lakes system.
Under the current arrangements, the Victorian state government has primary responsibility for the Gippsland Lakes. The Gippsland Lakes Taskforce was, I believe, established in 2002. At that time, the Victorian state government allocated in the order of $3.2 million per year to assist in practical environmental projects to enhance the environment of the Gippsland Lakes and to reduce the amount of nutrients entering the system. The CSIRO had undertaken an audit of the Gippsland Lakes and its catchment areas and had found that the system was in dire need of funding support to reduce the amount of nutrients that leave the agricultural land but also which run off our streets and towns and enter the waterways and then go down through the lake system. The target was set to reduce the amount of nutrients by 40 per cent by 2020. To its credit, the state government allocated $3.2 million per year over a four-year period to target that type of work.
It is fair to say that the landholders, particularly in the Macalister Irrigation District, and our farmers in the dairy sector made an enormous effort with that seed funding provided by the state government and then used their own capital to invest in whole-of-farm plans to find ways to reduce the amount of fertiliser, for example, that was leaving their properties and entering our waterways. Over that period of four years, a lot of great work was done by our landholders leveraging off the amount of money that they had been provided by the federal government.
From 2006 to 2009 the state government reduced that amount of funding to $6 million, or $2 million per year, and then in 2009 the recurrent funding was ceased altogether. This was from a state Labor government that claims to care about the future of the Gippsland Lakes and its catchment areas. There is no recurrent funding in the current Brumby Labor state government budget for the Gippsland Lakes Taskforce. It is a disgrace, and the people of Gippsland know when they are being short-changed.
The federal government has in the past also made commitments to the Gippsland Lakes. Under the previous coalition government, there was money allocated through the Natural Heritage Trust and under the previous Rudd government there was $3 million allocated over a period of three years. That funding has been exhausted as well. So we are faced with the situation where the Gippsland Lakes and its catchment areas have no recurrent funding on offer from either the federal Labor government or the state Labor government. These are wetlands, lakes and rivers which are recognised internationally. The wetlands of the Gippsland Lakes system are recognised in the Ramsar convention and, under that, there are obligations for the federal government and, of course, our state colleagues in terms of protecting and maintaining the environment.
As I referred to earlier, we are in the middle of a state election campaign in Victoria. To me, the future health and the management of the Gippsland Lakes system are critical issues facing the people of Gippsland. The state Labor government has made no policy commitments whatsoever in relation to the Gippsland Lakes. I am very mindful of the fact that we are going to go to the election in about 10 days time, and the people of Gippsland will have no idea what this Brumby Labor government is prepared to do in terms of practical environmental works to protect and enhance the Gippsland Lakes system.
To their credit, the state Liberal and National candidates have met with local community groups, environmental organisations and the agencies involved in delivering services in Gippsland, and I believe they will be making a positive announcement in the days ahead. I cannot pre-empt that announcement but I am well aware of the fact that they have been meeting with different agencies and community groups with a view to making an announcement to provide some recurrent funding for the Gippsland Lakes system. So I am very hopeful that that will happen in the days ahead. It will give the people in the state seat of Gippsland East, the people in the state seat of Gippsland South and the people in the state seat of Morwell a clear choice between the Liberal and National candidates and a Labor Party which talks a lot about the environment but delivers precious little in terms of direct action on the ground. This is the same Labor Party that comes in here and lectures us day after day about the great moral challenge of climate change and indulges in propaganda advertising campaigns on climate change but in the same budget cuts the funding for Landcare by $11 million over the forward estimates.
I refer to Landcare quite deliberately, because it is another area that I grieve for in this House. We have in Australia 100,000 volunteers from different Landcare organisations. I think there are about 4,000 different Landcare organisations across Australia. Last year we celebrated the 20th anniversary of Landcare. There probably is not another environmental organisation in Australia that has contributed more in terms of direct and practical environmental action than Landcare. If you happen to get a chance to look at the brochures or the newsletters sent out by members opposite, you will see plenty of photos of them with their local Landcare groups, planting trees and joining in that sort of activity. But when it comes to actually providing the funding to support Landcare into the future the government goes missing in action again.
Eleven million dollars was cut from the budget this year for Landcare—$11 million which could have been used to hire the facilitators, who then leverage their good work and work with the volunteers to deliver that practical action on the ground. I condemn the Labor government for its failure to invest in the future of Landcare and deliver those valuable projects in regional communities. It is the people who live in those rural communities—the landholders, the farmers—who are prepared to give up their time and do that direct action in terms of planting trees, erosion control, eliminating pest weeds and doing their best to reduce the impact of feral animals on our national landscape.
On a more positive note, in the time I have left to me I would like to refer to a recent community action day that I organised in my community with the support of the Nationals candidate for Gippsland East, a gentleman by the name of Tim Bull. Tim and I organised a clean-up day on the Gippsland Lakes because we wanted to prove to the government that the people of Gippsland are so interested in the future health of this system that they are prepared to give up their time to clean up after other people who neglect their responsibilities and leave rubbish lying around. We had about 50 people join us in this clean-up activity. While you would say that having 50 people who are prepared to turn up and help clean up rubbish was a success, the fact that we were able to find so much rubbish in such a short time along the foreshore at Lakes Entrance and at Metung and Paynesville was quite disheartening.
Of greatest concern to me was the state of our riverbanks—we went to the Tambo River and the Mitchell River. A local volunteer and I walked along a 200- or 300-metre section of riverbank and we filled six 30-kilo bags with beer bottles, nappies, newspapers, plastic cans and assorted debris that had been left behind by, I assume, recreational anglers. I believe that the vast majority of recreational anglers using our waterways and our river systems do so in a responsible manner, but when you can find that much rubbish lying around in one small section of riverbank I am greatly worried about what we would find if we went along all the popular riverbanks throughout Australia and started picking up the rubbish that has been left behind. My concern is that our riverbanks in many parts of our community are being treated like tips. If the results from that small section of riverbank are repeated in other parts of our community it would be fair to say that we have an enormous task ahead of us.
We have a problem in Victoria in that the responsible agencies have taken away a lot of the rubbish bins from most of the riverbanks. It is a deliberate public policy, the view being that, if you take the rubbish in, you should take it out yourself. That might work well for the responsible people in our community, but there are some irresponsible elements who will just throw the rubbish up on the bank—and it seems to me that, once you get a little bit of rubbish there, you will accumulate more. It is nothing to go along to a tree and find 20 or 30 empty stubbies sitting there or a pile of plastic bags in the one place. It seems to me that, once people see a bit of rubbish, they are prepared to keep adding to it.
I have raised these issues tonight in the context of urging both state and federal governments to invest more in practical environmental action. We have groups like Landcare and the volunteers who were prepared to join me on a community action day. These are people in our community who are prepared to do the responsible thing but there will always be an element in our community who will treat the environment with contempt. The government needs to work with the people who have the interests of our waterways at heart. So I urge both the Victorian and federal governments to start backing up their rhetoric with direct action by supporting Landcare and other organisations which protect and maintain the environment of the Gippsland region.
Shortland Electorate: Aged Care
2441
2441
21:49:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—I have a second-year social work student, Sara Lambert, on placement in my office at the moment. She has been working there since September. During the time she has been on placement in my office she has done some constituent work. She has also organised two forums—one on breast cancer and the other a seniors forum—both of which were attended by about 300 people.
In addition to that she had a major project, which was to complete a study within the electorate. She has done that and has put together a fantastic report,
You are only as old as you feel. It is 29 pages, well researched, footnoted and an excellent piece of work. In addition to that, I have asked her to write a speech for me that talks a little bit about her study. The words I am about to read are not my words; they are Sara’s. You will not believe that she is a second-year social work student. You would think that she was a fourth-year student. The quality of her work and her ability to handle the many tasks that she has been given in the electorate office have shown that she will be a fantastic social worker when she completes her studies. These are Sara’s words:
Australia has seen a 167 per cent growth in the proportion of older people in the population in the past two decades. This has been especially felt in the Shortland electorate where people over the age of 65 currently make up 17 per cent of the population compared to the national average of 13 per cent. This places stress on the provision and accessing of aged-care services in the Shortland electorate as well as on where funding and planning needs to be focused both now and the future.
This project aimed to investigate the main barriers to services in both the Shortland electorate and Australia wide and figure out where the gaps in service provision and access lie both presently and in the future. After countless hours of reading, integrating and drawing conclusions, it became clear that the older population in the Shortland electorate is at a severe disadvantage due to ageist attitudes throughout all levels of societal structures. Unfortunately, in Australia ageing is socially and culturally defined. Local newspapers and programs in the Shortland electorate and throughout Australia classify all older people as dependent and frail, individuals who contribute little to society. This project however sought to dispel these negative stereotypes and focus on promoting the attitude that each and every individual will live their lives at their own pace whilst coping with natural and biological changes that occur to each and every person throughout their lives.
When looking specifically at health, older people encompass a large part of the disease and injury burden in Australia and in the Shortland electorate. Whilst figures clearly show this and attitudes in society reflect this, many older people suffer from at least one type of chronic illness and actually report their satisfaction with life as fairly high. These types of points especially highlight the need for an attitudinal shift in society to reflect these individuals are capable of living independently within their means and the sooner this shift can occur the sooner more services can be upgraded, expanded and catered to meet the rights and needs of every older Australian in the Shortland electorate and the wider Australian community.
Another large concern this report found was in relation to mental health problems in the older population. In 2007-08, mental health was recorded as the ninth most common long-term health condition in the over-65 population. When looked at next to the fact that suicide rates in people over the age of 65 are higher than any other age group, it becomes obvious that there needs to be a significant increase in services which target older people as well as younger people. Unfortunately today’s society has seen mental health focus switch to prevention and early intervention. These mainly target younger individuals and whilst new services have been emerging in recent years most are catering towards youth. This blatantly ignores the older population and their mental health problems. Policies and planning need to shift the focus in the near future to providing long-term commitments to mental health services catering at servicing the older population as well as the younger if it is to decrease the impact of mental health problems in the older population.
In promoting these types of attitudes there needs to be acknowledgement paid to the many care services that operate in the Shortland electorate. Community based assessments and services promote independence and individuality by recommending and providing access to services which will help older people remain in their own homes and maintain a satisfactory quality of life as long as possible. These services are also successful in upholding the rights of every older person they come into contact with by allowing them to retain autonomy and independence by leaving all final decisions in their hands and not forcing them into situations which they may be uncomfortable or unhappy with. If these attitudes can be spread through society and the work and help of these services be promoted, then it is very likely the Shortland electorate could undergo some substantial attitudinal shifts towards celebrating the older population for what they are and what they offer, not devaluing them for their perceived and stereotyped detriments.
The major issue when looking at maintaining the level of service community care agencies offer is how the community care system can continue to function if there is not adequate recognition and provision for informal forms of care and support, most importantly those who offer their time and energy to care for older people without financial incentive. In 2006 there were an estimated 2.6 million carers Australia wide. Of these, around half received a government pension as their principle source of income, and many found their caring role created a barrier to employment they could not surmount. By 2031, the number of old people estimated to require informal care will grow by 60 per cent whilst the number of carers will grow by 57 per cent.
If adequate informal supports for older people who require assistance—whether it be social, physical, psychological or financial—cannot be ensured, the impacts will resonate through both the formal community care services and residential care options. To ensure the success of community care packages and ageing-in-place strategies, we need to begin to focus on this most basic pillar of the system: looking after and acknowledging those who put the most time and effort into ensuring the older population is afforded the best quality of life. I strongly believe the work done by local and federal governments towards meeting this goal is exceptional, and hopefully this is representative of changes already beginning in providing adequate recognition for carers throughout all structures from governmental to organisational to societal.
Whist the societal attitudinal change will be gradual and can only occur with the support of the majority, the attitudes within the aged-care service provision industry have begun to lay roots in this area which over time should continue to grow. These attitudes encourage autonomy and self-determination in all older people and enforce the positive, realistic view that older people are generally independent human beings who are capable of making decisions for themselves and going after what they want. They are simply at a different stage of the human lifespan to the remainder of society and consequently are experiencing different medical and physical ailments. This does not mean they are not still the unique, autonomous individuals they have been throughout their lives or that they do not deserve to be treated as such. We can change perceptions and lives for the better if there are enough people willing to put the effort in—and really, one day it will be all of us. What better incentive do we need to act now?
You can see from those words that Sara is an exceptional young woman and that the social work profession will be very privileged to have her as one of their number. I seek leave of the House to table a copy of Sara’s report,
You are only as old as you feel: impacts on Australia’s ageing population.
Leave granted.
2443
22:00:00
Main Committee adjourned at 10.00 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
2444
Questions in Writing
Ministerial Staff: Separation Payments
2444
2444
8
2444
Briggs, Jamie, MP
IYU
Mayo
LP
0
Mr Briggs
asked the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 30 September 2010:
What is the total cost of ministerial staff separation payments following (a) the change of prime ministership on 24 June 2010, and (b) the swearing in of the Government on 14 September 2010.
2444
Gray, Gary, MP
8W5
Brand
ALP
Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity
1
Mr Gray
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
As a result of the change of prime ministership on 24 June 2010, a total of $1,294,923.61 in separation payments was paid to personal ministerial staff whose employment was terminated under the
Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984
following the change.
As at 22 October 2010, a total of $5,430,162.84 in separation payments has been paid to personal ministerial staff whose employment was terminated following the swearing in of the new Government on 14 September 2010.
Ministers and Ministerial Staff: Taxpayer Funded Flights
2444
2444
11
2444
Briggs, Jamie, MP
IYU
Mayo
LP
0
Mr Briggs
asked the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 30 September 2010:
-
Since 3 December 2007, what are the names of the ministers who have taken tax-payer funded flights using Frequent Flyer points, and for each of these ministers, (a) on how many occasions did they take such flights, and (b) what was the date, time and destination of each trip.
-
Since 3 December 2007, how many current ministerial staff have booked tax-payer funded flights using frequents flyer points, and on how many occasions.
2444
Gray, Gary, MP
8W5
Brand
ALP
Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity
1
Mr Gray
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Airlines do not provide information to the Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) regarding the accumulation and usage of airline loyalty points by Ministers and
Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984
(MOP(S) Act) employees relating to travel undertaken in the performance of their official duties.
Airline Loyalty Points are confined to the relationship between the traveller and the airline.
However, every month, Ministers and MOP(S) Act employees are requested to notify Finance of all travel undertaken during the period for which Airline Loyalty Points were used. Ministers and MOP(S) Act employees are not required to provide arrival and departure times relating to these flights.
In addition, the information provided to Finance does not distinguish between Airline Loyalty Points used for entire flights or for upgrades to class of travel.
The attached table lists the Airline Loyalty Points usage of Ministers and their employees between 3 December 2007 and 30 September 2010, as notified to Finance:
Usage of Airline Loyalty Points - Ministers
Passenger
Number of trips
Date
From
To
Senator the Hon Mark ARBIB
2
06-Nov-09
Sydney
Brisbane
08-Nov-09
Brisbane
Sydney
The Hon Dr Craig EMERSON MP
4
25-Sep-09
Brisbane
Canberra
08-Nov-09
Brisbane
Sydney
09-Nov-09
Sydney
Perth
11-Nov-09
Sydney
Brisbane
Senator the Hon John FAULKNER
64
18-Sep-09
Canberra
Sydney
29-Sep-09
Canberra
Sydney
06-Oct-09
Sydney
Canberra
18-Oct-09
Sydney
Canberra
29-Nov-09
Sydney
Canberra
01-Jun-08
Sydney
Canberra
11-Jun-08
Canberra
Sydney
08-Apr-08
Canberra
Sydney
30-Apr-08
Canberra
Sydney
09-Jul-08
Canberra
Sydney
19-Aug-08
Sydney
Canberra
10-Sep-08
Canberra
Sydney
12-Oct-08
Sydney
Canberra
19-Oct-08
Sydney
Canberra
29-Oct-08
Sydney
Canberra
30-Nov-08
Sydney
Canberra
10-Dec-08
Canberra
Sydney
12-Dec-08
Sydney
Canberra
05-Mar-08
Canberra
Sydney
27-Mar-08
Sydney
Canberra
18-May-08
Sydney
Canberra
28-Jan-09
Canberra
Sydney
01-Feb-09
Sydney
Canberra
08-Feb-09
Sydney
Canberra
18-Feb-09
Sydney
Canberra
14-Apr-09
Sydney
Canberra
27-Apr-09
Sydney
Canberra
07-May-09
Sydney
Canberra
09-May-09
Canberra
Sydney
10-May-09
Sydney
Canberra
15-May-09
Canberra
Sydney
20-May-09
Melbourne
Sydney
24-May-09
Sydney
Canberra
29-May-09
Canberra
Sydney
21-Jun-09
Sydney
Canberra
05-Jul-09
Sydney
Canberra
13-Jul-09
Sydney
Canberra
15-Jul-09
Canberra
Sydney
21-Jul-09
Sydney
Brisbane
02-Aug-09
Sydney
Canberra
09-Aug-09
Sydney
Canberra
16-Aug-09
Sydney
Canberra
26-Aug-09
Canberra
Sydney
30-Aug-09
Sydney
Canberra
13-Mar-09
Canberra
Sydney
15-Mar-09
Sydney
Canberra
13-Sep-09
Sydney
Canberra
10-Dec-09
Sydney
Canberra
11-Dec-09
Brisbane
Sydney
13-Dec-09
Sydney
Canberra
17-Dec-09
Sydney
Canberra
15-Feb-10
Sydney
Canberra
16-Feb-10
Canberra
Sydney
21-Feb-10
Sydney
Canberra
31-Mar-10
Sydney
Canberra
02-Mar-10
Sydney
Canberra
08-Mar-10
Sydney
Canberra
14-Mar-10
Sydney
Canberra
25-Mar-10
Sydney
Canberra
28-Apr-10
Sydney
Canberra
09-May-10
Sydney
Canberra
17-May-10
Canberra
Sydney
28-May-10
Canberra
Sydney
20-Jun-10
Sydney
Canberra
The Hon Martin FERGUSON MP
10
12-Oct-08
Melbourne
Canberra
30-Oct-08
Canberra
Melbourne
08-Mar-09
Melbourne
Canberra
13-Mar-09
Canberra
Melbourne
25-May-08
Melbourne
Canberra
30-May-08
Canberra
Melbourne
05-Sep-09
Melbourne
Canberra
05-Sep-09
Canberra
Melbourne
07-May-10
Canberra
Sydney
07-May-10
Sydney
Melbourne
The Hon Julia GILLARD MP
2
19-Jan-09
Sydney
Melbourne
15-Dec-08
Canberra
Melbourne
Senator the Hon Joseph LUDWIG
5
13-Jul-09
Brisbane
Canberra
14-Jul-09
Canberra
Brisbane
22-Jul-09
Brisbane
Canberra
18-Sep-09
Canberra
Brisbane
27-Jan-10
Canberra
Brisbane
The Hon Jenny MACKLIN MP
41
28-Aug-08
Canberra
Melbourne
29-Oct-08
Melbourne
Canberra
30-Oct-08
Sydney
Melbourne
06-Nov-08
Sydney
Melbourne
17-Nov-08
Melbourne
Brisbane
17-Nov-08
Brisbane
Sydney
17-Nov-08
Sydney
Canberra
28-Nov-08
Brisbane
Sydney
05-Dec-08
Sydney
Melbourne
19-Dec-08
Melbourne
Canberra
19-Dec-08
Canberra
Melbourne
28-Jan-09
Melbourne
Canberra
04-Feb-09
Canberra
Melbourne
05-Feb-09
Melbourne
Canberra
02-Mar-09
Melbourne
Sydney
01-Apr-09
Melbourne
Canberra
03-Apr-09
Canberra
Melbourne
20-Apr-09
Broome
Perth
14-May-09
Canberra
Melbourne
20-May-09
Melbourne
Adelaide
20-May-09
Adelaide
Melbourne
21-May-09
Melbourne
Sydney
21-May-09
Sydney
Melbourne
18-Jun-09
Canberra
Melbourne
06-Jul-09
Canberra
Sydney
07-Jul-09
Sydney
Melbourne
17-Jul-09
Brisbane
Melbourne
21-Jul-09
Melbourne
Brisbane
21-Jul-09
Brisbane
Canberra
27-Jul-09
Broome
Perth
28-Jul-09
Perth
Adelaide
29-Jul-09
Adelaide
Sydney
01-Aug-09
Sydney
Melbourne
27-Aug-09
Melbourne
Canberra
05-Sep-09
Melbourne
Canberra
22-Oct-09
Canberra
Melbourne
28-Oct-09
Melbourne
Canberra
09-Apr-10
Melbourne
Canberra
15-Apr-10
Melbourne
Sydney
15-Apr-10
Sydney
Melbourne
30-Apr-10
Sydney
Melbourne
The Hon Brendan O’CONNOR MP
1
28-Jun-09
Melbourne
Canberra
The Hon Tanya PLIBERSEK MP
3
22-May-09
Melbourne
Sydney
28-Jan-09
Sydney
Adelaide
28-Jan-09
Adelaide
Sydney
The Hon Nicola ROXON MP
17
13-Jun-08
Melbourne
Sydney
15-Jun-08
Sydney
Canberra
08-Jul-08
Sydney
Melbourne
13-Dec-08
Melbourne
Canberra
14-Dec-08
Canberra
Melbourne
11-May-09
Melbourne
Canberra
10-Aug-09
Melbourne
Canberra
17-Aug-09
Melbourne
Canberra
07-Sep-09
Melbourne
Canberra
14-Sep-09
Melbourne
Canberra
19-Oct-09
Melbourne
Canberra
22-Oct-09
Canberra
Melbourne
26-Oct-09
Melbourne
Canberra
29-Oct-08
Canberra
Melbourne
16-Nov-09
Melbourne
Canberra
23-Nov-09
Melbourne
Canberra
22-Jun-09
Melbourne
Canberra
The Hon Wayne SWAN MP
10
16-Feb-10
Brisbane
Melbourne
17-Feb-10
Melbourne
Hobart
31-Jan-10
Brisbane
Canberra
19-Oct-08
Brisbane
Sydney
20-Oct-08
Sydney
Canberra
29-May-09
Canberra
Brisbane
09-Aug-09
Brisbane
Canberra
13-Aug-09
Canberra
Melbourne
14-Aug-09
Melbourne
Brisbane
08-Mar-10
Brisbane
Sydney
Senator the Hon Penny WONG
6
13-Apr-08
Sydney
Adelaide
06-Nov-08
Melbourne
Adelaide
21-May-09
Adelaide
Sydney
28-Jun-09
Adelaide
Melbourne
28-Jun-09
Melbourne
London
29-Jun-09
London
Copenhagen
Usage of Airline Loyalty Points - Staff
Employer
Passenger
Number of trips
Date
From
To
Senator the Hon Mark ARBIB
MOP(S) Act
employee 1
1
07-Dec-09
Sydney
Cairns
Senator the Hon Mark ARBIB
MOP(S) Act
employee 2
2
28-May-10
Canberra
Sydney
30-May-10
Sydney
Canberra
Senator the Hon John FAULKNER
MOP(S) Act
employee 1
7
29-Nov-09
Sydney
Canberra
08-Feb-09
Sydney
Canberra
21-Jul-09
Sydney
Brisbane
15-Mar-09
Sydney
Canberra
17-Dec-09
Canberra
Sydney
14-Mar-10
Canberra
Sydney
09-May-10
Sydney
Canberra
Senator the Hon John FAULKNER
MOP(S) Act
employee 2
1
21-Dec-09
Lismore
Sydney
The Hon Robert MCCLELLAND MP
MOP(S) Act
employee
1
11-May-08
Melbourne
Canberra
The Hon Brendan O’CONNOR MP
MOP(S) Act
employee 1
4
17-Jul-09
Darwin
Adelaide
23-Oct-09
Canberra
Melbourne
21-May-08
Perth
Melbourne
12-Jun-08
Cairns
Melbourne
The Hon Brendan O’CONNOR MP
MOP(S) Act
employee 2
2
21-Apr-09
Melbourne
Canberra
03-May-10
Melbourne
Perth
The Hon Brendan O’CONNOR MP
MOP(S) Act
employee 3
1
12-Dec-08
Canberra
Melbourne
The Hon Brendan O’CONNOR MP
MOP(S) Act
employee 4
1
19-Feb-09
Melbourne
Perth
The Hon Brendan O’CONNOR MP
MOP(S) Act
employee 5
5
05-Aug-09
Canberra
Melbourne
05-Feb-10
Canberra
Melbourne
29-Mar-10
Sydney
Canberra
28-Apr-10
Melbourne
Canberra
21-Jan-09
Melbourne
Canberra
Senator the Hon Penny WONG
MOP(S) Act
employee
2
28-Jun-09
Melbourne
London
29-Jun-09
London
Copenhagen
Asylum Seekers
2449
2449
16
2449
Morrison, Scott, MP
E3L
Cook
LP
0
Mr Morrison
asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 30 September 2010:
In respect of asylum seekers processed on Christmas Island from 1 September 2008 to
30 September 2010: (a) by origin of country, how many (i) have been processed, (ii) arrived with some form of travel/identity document; and (b) of those without travel or identity documents, how (i) was their identity established, and (ii) how many of these have been given permanent resident status.
2449
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
McMahon
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Mr Bowen
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is:
-
-
In the period from 1 September 2008 to 30 September 2010, a total of 4110 refugee claims from
irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs)
have been processed.
The table below gives a breakdown of the source countries for all people who had refugee claims assessed and finalised during this period.
Country
number
Afghanistan
2437
Sri Lanka
701
Iraq
281
Stateless
468
Iran
164
Kuwait
4
Pakistan
21
Burma
12
Bangladesh
2
Vietnam
8
Yemen
3
Syria
2
Indonesia
4
Djbouti
1
India
1
Somalia
1
TOTAL
4110
-
-
Approximately
18% of IMAs have been found to have some form of documentation
which has assisted with establishing their identity.
IMAs carrying identity documents within key caseload groups included:
Afghanistan
13%
Iraq
35%
Iran
20%
Sri Lankan Tamil
32%
Burmese
40%
-
The Afghan Taskera identity document and the Sri Lankan Identity card have been the most common documents provided by IMAs.
A small number of passports and documents issued by the UNHCR, some including personal identifiers, were also provided for identity purposes.
-
-
For people without identity or travel documents, a range of methods are used to establish their identity.
All irregular maritime arrivals have their biodata and biometrics captured upon arrival.
This data is tested and checked during the entry interview, and then is further explored during the Refugee Status Assessment (RSA) interview by the RSA officer.
The information is also compared with other countries as part of the data sharing arrangements discussed below.
RSA officers are trained to investigate all aspects of an asylum seeker’s claims, including questions of identity, through in depth questioning at interview.
RSA officers must assess the credibility of all claims, including those relating to identity, as weighed against other information relevant to the case, including country of origin information.
Australia has also developed strong relationships and information sharing practices with a number of countries to help to verify people’s identity, nationality, possible prior protection or criminal records and to ensure that only people who need and deserve protection are afforded protection through the refugee status assessment process.
An example of these information sharing practices is that earlier this year the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship announced that Australia has signed an agreement for biomentric data sharing between Australia, the United States of America, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom.
Under this partnership, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is able to securely and confidentially cross check fingerprints with Canadian, US, NZ and UK databases.
These data sharing arrangements allow the Department to undertake more detailed identity enquiries if necessary, and to confirm if a client has had dealings with these countries.
-
DIAC does not collect or aggregate statistics on people who arrive without some form of travel or identity documents in a way that can track through to identify those who are ultimately found to be refugees and are granted permanent residence.
Refugee claims are considered on a case-by-case basis and while identity issues form an important part of the process, the absence of documentation is not uncommon and may not adversely affect the outcome of the case.
Protection Visas
2451
2451
31
2451
Morrison, Scott, MP
E3L
Cook
LP
0
Mr Morrison
asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 30th September 2010:
In respect of people smuggling, have any charges been laid against permanent protection visa holders concerning (a) the provision of false or misleading statements to Commonwealth officials, and/or (b) obstruction of Commonwealth officials in relation to their inquiries; if so, can he indicate the specific charges and associated outcomes, including penalties.
2451
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
Mr McClelland
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Since I previously responded to this question on 11 May 2010 there have been no further charges.