The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MOTIONS
Asylum Seekers
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (09:01): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the Government be required to immediately lay before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Migration Act, separate legislative instruments under s198AB of the Migration Act to designate the:
(1) Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country; and
(2) Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country.
Leave not granted.
Mr MORRISON: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Cook moving immediately—That the Government be required to immediately lay before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Migration Act, separate legislative instruments under s198AB of the Migration Act to designate the:
(1) Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country; and
(2) Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country.
This is a matter of urgency if ever there was one. I wrote to the minister last night asking him to reinstate Nauru under the legislative instrument and he refused—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member for Cook will resume his seat. The Minister for Defence.
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (09:02): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [09:06]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (09:14): Is the motion seconded?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (09:14): I second the motion. I do so because the government have no sense of urgency in implementing a policy which we know their heart is not in. Their heart is not in it because they vilified it for 10 years prior to being dragged kicking and screaming to have to do it because they were—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Stirling will resume his seat.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is indeed the opposition who delayed these issues for some period of time with their intransigent position.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The member for Stirling has the call.
Mr KEENAN: There is no urgency in the government doing this because the government have a history of making threats to people smugglers that they have refused to follow through. They have got form on this, and the people smugglers know it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Stirling will resume his seat.
Mr Pyne: People smugglers are putting up their prices!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sturt said he was going to be helpful a very short time ago.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:16): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [09:20]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (09:27): Order! The time for the debate has expired.
BILLS
National Portrait Gallery of Australia Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Crean.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (09:28): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time
Australians value a rich cultural life and more than 90 per cent of us participate in cultural activities. For this reason and for others, governments at all levels as well as private individuals and companies must invest in the arts in developing Australia's considerable creative talent.
Investment in the arts produces important social and economic dividends. Such an investment helps underpin respect for diversity and individual expression; it encourages team work; it supports the development of community cohesion; and it gives us pride in our culture and in the sharing of the exploration of our identity and our role internationally. The values that it underpins are those that we cherish as a nation—of inclusion, of expression and of freedom of expression—and they are values that we are respected for. In other words, the investment produces a social dividend. There is also an economic dividend—crucial as we face today's global challenges. Our comparative advantage and strengths are going to be determined by how innovative and creative we are in increasing our productivity.
Investment in the arts can also produce an economic dividend, because we know that more creative nations are also more productive ones.
It is for those reasons that we not only see the importance of continuing to invest in the arts but are developing a National Cultural Policy, the first in almost 20 years, to build the base for future growth in the arts, in our cultural heritage and the development of our creative industries. I look forward to delivering this policy later this year and setting out a strategic framework of support for individuals, organisations and communities, all of whom are involved in cultural expression. As Minister for the Arts I am also dedicated to finding every opportunity to tell our stories, educate and skill our workforce and enable our culture to connect with the rest of the world.
It is interesting that we had the opportunity last night not just to screen The Sapphires, which is going gang busters at the box office, but to welcome the great Indigenous talent that is acting in it, directing it and writing the story, as well as last night to announce an important training program to encourage further Indigenous involvement in the theatre industry. We also had a magnificent performance by Jessica Mauboy after the showing of the film—and she is some incredible talent.
This bill establishes the National Portrait Gallery of Australia as a statutory authority and supports and delivers on the goals of the National Cultural Policy. It will enable the home of the national portrait collection to develop and flourish as one of Australia's pre-eminent national cultural institutions.
The idea of creating a national portrait gallery for Australia is not new. In the early 1900s the painter Tom Roberts was the first to propose that Australia should have a national portrait gallery. But it was not until the 1990s, with the generous support of Gordon and Marilyn Darling, that the idea of a national portrait gallery began to take shape.
In 1998, when the Portrait Gallery was established, it was incorporated as part of the government department responsible for the arts. It was given the brief to develop a collection of quality portraits reflecting the breadth and energy of Australian culture and endeavour. The opening of displays and programs in the refurbished spaces of Old Parliament House in 1999 signalled the gallery's arrival as a national collecting institution. The dedicated home of the gallery was opened to the public in 2008 and since then the gallery, and its unique building, has won over 28 local, national and international awards.
Since 2008, the gallery has acquired an impressive collection of over 2,000 works of art. They encapsulate the essence of achievement and endeavour across Australia. It has become a place that brings history and art together, with the collection tracing our progress as a nation. It features portraits of the most famous Australians but also tells us about ourselves—who we read, who we watch, who we listen to, who we cheer for, who we aspire to be and who we will never forget.
The gallery has welcomed over 2.2 million visitors to view its collection in Canberra, with a similar number again participating in gallery exhibitions, virtual activities and community outreach and engagement programs across Australia and overseas. The popular appeal of the National Portrait Gallery is borne out in the high satisfaction levels expressed by visitors.
As part of the this year's budget, the Australian government announced that the National Portrait Gallery would be established as an independent statutory authority. This decision acknowledged the success and significance of the gallery and recognised that it should have a similar status to Australia's other great national collecting institutions, as a Commonwealth authority.
Establishing the gallery as a separate statutory authority subject to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 will ensure it is able to establish governance arrangements appropriate for managing a significant national collection. It will ensure the gallery is overseen by a governing board. It will provide for greater financial certainty and independence. It will increase its public profile and position it, importantly, more effectively to attract corporate sponsorship and philanthropy.
Establishing the National Portrait Gallery of Australia as a separate statutory authority will enable its functions to be enshrined in legislation for the very first time. The functions of the National Portrait Gallery of Australia will be to develop, preserve, maintain, promote and provide access to a national collection including portraits that reflect the identity, history, diversity and culture of Australia. The gallery will continue to develop and engage a national audience by providing access to its collection, other artworks and related material through exhibitions, publications and online programs.
The national collection will hold a unique sample of quality portraits of subjects who have made a major impact on Australia and internationally. The gallery will be in position to foster inquiry, research, discussion, interpretation, participation and enjoyment of portraiture. The gallery's program will continue to develop and be diverse, energetic and dynamic with constantly changing collections and exhibitions. It will also involve formal and informal learning activities delivered on site and online.
The bill gives the gallery a strong mandate and a clear and coherent purpose reflecting its cultural role and importance. The gallery will be expected to be a national cultural leader, responsive to emerging national and international opportunities and challenges, including technological innovations and changing audience preferences.
From its Canberra hub, the National Portrait Gallery of Australia will provide a national portraiture collection to serve all Australians, reaching the widest possible audiences in places where future subjects for the collection make their extraordinary contributions to Australian life. It will be a source of great pride to all Australians as well as a fitting tribute to Canberra, our national capital, particularly in its centenary year. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
National Portrait Gallery of Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Crean.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (09:38): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This is a companion bill to the National Portrait Gallery of Australia Bill 2012 which is also being introduced today. The National Portrait Gallery of Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2012 contains consequential amendments and transitional arrangements related to the proposed establishment of the National Portrait Gallery as a new statutory authority from 1 July 2013.
The key elements of the bill relate to transitional arrangements, including the transfer of assets and liabilities, matters in relation to the transfer of employees from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sports to the gallery and the closing of the National Portrait Gallery Special Account.
It is proposed that on the establishment of the National Portrait Gallery of Australia on 1 July 2013, those assets and liabilities of the Commonwealth which are related only to the National Portrait Gallery program under the department will be transferred to the National Portrait Gallery of Australia.
The bill also enables the smooth transfer of current employees to the new agency by ensuring that staff will not be disadvantaged as a result of the transfer. Transferring the new employees of the gallery will continue to be covered by the current departmental enterprise agreement until the National Portrait Gallery of Australia negotiates a new enterprise agreement in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009.
In line with the new governance structure, the existing National Portrait Gallery Special Account will be abolished and an equal amount will be appropriated to the National Portrait Gallery of Australia. This will ensure that the funds in this account, including donations, are retained and available to support the growth and development of the gallery.
The bill also provides for consequential amendments to the Archives Act 1983. This includes the classification of artworks in the national collection of the gallery as exempt material under the Archives Act, a measure that is in line with the exemptions granted to other such collections of historical and cultural material.
Establishing the National Portrait Gallery of Australia as a separate statutory authority will provide it with an appropriate governance framework to capitalise on entrepreneurial and fundraising opportunities. It will also give it commensurate standing alongside our other great national collecting institutions. This bill will ensure that the transfer is seamless.
Debate adjourned.
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bradbury.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (09:41): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill establishes the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission as a national regulator for the not-for-profit (NFP) sector.
The government believes in the importance of a strong and resilient charitable and NFP sector, and values the important contribution that the sector makes to building social capital and stronger communities right across Australia. The introduction of this bill represents a significant milestone in delivering reforms that will strengthen and support the sector, so it can continue to grow and flourish into the future.
Over the last 17 years, there have been six separate reviews of the charitable and NFP sector.
These have included the comprehensive 2001 report of the inquiry into the definition of charities and related organisations, the 2009 review into Australia's future tax system and the Productivity Commission's 2010 report, Contribution of the not-for-profit sector.
These reviews have recommended simplifying and harmonising taxation and regulation for the sector, with a national regulator and a statutory definition of charity.
The government is dedicated to supporting a strong, vibrant, diverse and independent NFP sector. At the last election, the government committed to introducing the most extensive national reforms the sector has experienced in our nation's history. These reforms reflect the importance of the sector and will support the ongoing growth, strength and sustainability of the sector into the future.
Following on from this, in the 2011-12 budget, the government announced a series of reforms to strengthen and support the sector.
The cornerstone of the government's reform agenda is the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC).
The NFP sector is diverse, with entities ranging from micro-sized sporting and recreational clubs to large national and multinational charitable organisations.
NFP entities play an important and unique role in Australian society. In recognition of this important role, the sector receives a range of funding, including donations from members of the public, and tax concessions, grants and other support from government.
Ensuring that the sector can consolidate its standing in the community through enhanced transparency and accountability is essential to its ongoing growth and sustainability.
A regulatory system that promotes good governance, accountability and transparency for NFP entities will help to maintain, protect and enhance the public trust and confidence that underpins the sector.
Equally important is promoting a reduction in unnecessary regulatory obligations on the sector. The sector is currently subject to overlapping, inconsistent and duplicative regulatory and reporting arrangements.
The lack of an independent national regulator within government, with a dedicated focus on the particular needs of the sector, has hindered and held back the implementation of more streamlined regulatory arrangements across Australia.
This bill establishes a national framework for regulation of the NFP sector. Initially the ACNC will focus on regulating charities only; however, in the future the regulatory framework will be able to be extended to all NFP entities.
The regulatory approach of the ACNC will be proportional to size and risk in order to minimise regulatory duplication and compliance costs.
The bill also establishes a publicly available online information register that contains details of entities registered with the ACNC. This register can be easily accessed by members of the public, including by donors and by volunteers. The public will be able to use the register as a source of reliable information, giving them confidence in their decisions to donate to, or volunteer for, a registered charity.
The ACNC will work to provide education and guidance to the sector to assist in their participation in the national regulatory framework. Likewise, the ACNC will play a key role in providing information and education to the public about the sector and how it is regulated. The educational role of the ACNC will help to improve public understanding of, and engagement with, the important work of the sector.
The ACNC Bill has three objects. Its first object is to maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in the NFP sector. Its second object is to support and sustain a robust, vibrant, independent and innovative NFP sector. The third object underlines the important role that the ACNC will have to promote the reduction of unnecessary regulatory obligations on the NFP sector.
The bill establishes the statutory office of the Commissioner of the ACNC (ACNC Commissioner).
The ACNC Commissioner will have the general administration of the ACNC legislation. In undertaking his or her role, the ACNC Commissioner will have regard to a number of factors, including the diversity and distinctive role of the NFP sector and the importance of providing education and guidance to NFPs.
The bill provides the ACNC Commissioner with the power to register NFP entities under their specific charitable type or subtype. Registration is voluntary; however, entities will need to be registered to access government support in the form of concessions, exemptions and other benefits.
The bill also sets out the processes and grounds for the revocation of registration by the ACNC Commissioner.
The ACNC Commissioner will maintain a public register, containing key details about registered entities. The commissioner may remove or withhold information from the register in specified circumstances.
Registered entities will need to comply with a set of minimum principles-based governance standards. Compliance with the governance standards is a condition of registration. Registered entities will also need to comply with external conduct standards.
The bill establishes a single reporting framework, which is proportional to the size of the registered entity, based on revenue thresholds. The differential reporting framework will minimise compliance costs, whilst ensuring appropriate levels of accountability and transparency.
The governance and external conduct standards, and the content of financial reports, will be set out in statutory instruments. They will be developed through a consultation process that will include key stakeholders and advisory bodies, such as the NFP Sector Reform Council, and the public more broadly.
Registered entities will be required to notify the ACNC Commissioner of certain matters, for example, any changes to its contact details, or any significant contraventions of the bill or governance standards.
There are a range of powers and sanctions available to the ACNC Commissioner, to enable him or her to respond appropriately to the facts of each case. These powers allow the ACNC Commissioner to conduct regulatory oversight in an effective manner.
These powers include information-gathering and monitoring powers, the ability to give entities warning notices or directions, the ability to accept enforceable undertakings, the ability to apply for injunctions and the power to suspend or remove a responsible entity.
There are preconditions and thresholds which must be met before these powers can be exercised.
To ensure the accuracy of information provided to the ACNC, the bill provides a proportional administrative penalty regime.
The bill establishes an advisory board, to provide advice and make recommendations to the ACNC Commissioner in relation to his or her functions under the act.
The bill establishes a secrecy framework to ensure appropriate protections for personal or confidential information while ensuring the ACNC is able to fulfil its functions as the NFP sector's central regulatory body.
An entity that is directly affected by a decision of the ACNC Commissioner will be able to utilise full merits based review and appeal a decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The legislation imposes certain obligations, liabilities and offences on entities that are responsible for managing the registered entity. This ensures appropriate accountability for complying with regulatory requirements.
The transitional provisions provide for a smooth transition to the framework, including providing for the automatic registration of charities that are endorsed by the ATO unless the entity opts out within six months, and grandfathers existing substituted accounting periods.
The government has worked in close consultation with the dedicated and passionate people and organisations that make up the sector to develop this legislation.
The government has been responsive to issues raised during the extensive consultation process. The government has also taken into consideration issues raised during the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into the draft bills.
The committee reported on 15 August 2012, and I thank the committee for their contribution. They recommended the bills be passed subject to a number of changes.
The government has reviewed the recommendations and agreed to make various changes in accordance with the recommendations.
A new clause has been added in the bill's objects, to make clear the important role the ACNC will have in promoting the reduction of regulatory burden. This will be achieved in part through initiatives such as the Charity Passport and the development of a 'report-once, use-often' reporting framework, and through the ACNC Commissioner working and cooperating with other government agencies.
Improvements have been made to ensure that registered entities have the opportunity to respond to compliance concerns, including the introduction of a requirement to issue 'show cause' notices unless the ACNC Commissioner, considering a number of factors, believes that immediate enforcement action is necessary.
A requirement has been introduced to provide that the ACNC Commissioner must not publish details of enforcement action on the register for a period of time after the action is taken, unless it is in the public interest to do so earlier. This provides time for a registered entity to respond before such information is made publicly available. Such information entered on the register will be removed after five years, unless the public interest requires that it be retained.
A new regulatory power has been included in the bill, to provide that the ACNC Commissioner must not include certain information on the register in prescribed circumstances. The government intends to use this power to make regulations to protect the privacy of private donors, such as those who maintain a private ancillary fund. The government strongly supports the role and importance of philanthropy in the Australian community, and will ensure that the ACNC provides a supportive framework for the important contribution of Australia's many philanthropists.
The provisions of the bill governing obligations, liabilities and offences of incorporated and unincorporated entities have been redrafted to give effect to the committee's recommendations.
These have been revised to remove any criminal liability for directors of incorporated charities. They now also make clear that where there is a non-criminal contravention of the bill, a director of an incorporated charity is only liable for any amount payable by the body corporate where this arises from a deliberate act or omission of the director involving dishonesty, gross negligence or recklessness.
Additional detail has also been added to the explanatory memorandum to clarify the ACNC Commissioner's discretion regarding the issuing of administrative penalty notices.
Transitional reporting arrangements have been included to allow the ACNC Commissioner to treat a statement, report or other document provided to another government agency as meeting the reporting obligations of a particular registered entity under the ACNC reporting framework. This arrangement will apply until the 2014-15 financial year and can be extended by regulation.
Consistent with the committee's recommendation, the legislation will be reviewed after five years. The review will focus on the operation of the legislation and the ACNC, and how the objects of the ACNC bill have been achieved, including the object relating to reducing unnecessary regulatory obligations on the Australian NFP sector.
In summary, the work of the NFP sector has a profound impact upon the lives of so many individuals and the communities that we all comprise.
The government is committed to working collaboratively with this important sector to implement a series of important regulatory reforms to support and strengthen the sector for the future. The establishment of the ACNC is a key step in this process.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Bradbury.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (09:56): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill accompanies the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012. This bill makes changes to the Commonwealth statute book necessary to give effect to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. It also provides transitional arrangements for entities to be transitioned smoothly to the new regulatory regime.
The Ministerial Council for Corporations has been consulted and has approved the amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 contained in this bill.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Tax Laws Amendment (Special Conditions for Not-for-profit Concessions) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bradbury.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (09:58): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill restates and standardises the special conditions for tax concession entities by ensuring that income tax exempt entities generally must be operated principally in Australia and for the broad benefit of the Australian community, subject to some exceptions. Further, the bill provides that deductible gift recipients (DGR) generally must be operated solely in Australia and for the broad benefit of the Australian community, subject to some exceptions.
The measure standardises the special conditions that apply to income tax exempt entities, making them easier for not-for-profit entities to apply.
Restating the special conditions provides support to the anti-avoidance measures in the tax law, which limit income tax exempt entities expending money offshore and ensure tax supported funds remain in Australia.
This bill also standardises the definition of 'not-for-profit', replacing the various definitions of 'non-profit' currently used throughout the tax laws, and applies it consistently across the tax laws.
The government announced in the 2009-10 budget that it would amend the 'in Australia' special conditions in division 50 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that parliament retains the ability to fully scrutinise those organisations seeking to pass money to overseas charities and other entities.
The announcement was prompted by the High Court's decision in the case of Federal Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Word Investments Limited, which held that charities may be pursuing their objectives principally 'in Australia' where they merely pass funds within Australia to another charitable institution that conducts its activities overseas.
This finding was inconsistent with the Commissioner of Taxation's interpretation and with the policy intent underlying the special conditions.
Traditionally, entities cannot be income tax exempt unless they are operated principally in Australia, are prescribed as exempt in the Income Tax Assessment Regulations 1997 or qualify as a deductible gift recipient (DGR). While both income tax exempt entities and DGRs are subject to 'in Australia' special conditions, they are subject to different thresholds, with the threshold for DGRs being stricter than that for income tax exempt entities.
The rationale for this is that publicly funded tax concessions are intended to be used for the broad benefit of the Australian community, with some exceptions. In addition, without appropriate oversight, there is a risk of funds being misdirected to inappropriate and unauthorised activities outside Australia, such as money laundering and terrorist financing.
There are a number of exceptions to the application of special conditions in the case of DGRs, allowing certain organisations to undertake overseas activities. These include:
those under the category of 'international affairs', including overseas aid funds approved by the Overseas Aid Gift Deductibility Scheme (OAGDS); and
those on the Register of Environmental Organisations, which the secretary of the environment department authorises as being exempt from the 'in Australia' special conditions.
These schemes are an exception to the longstanding policy of successive governments that DGRs should operate only in Australia, for the benefit of the Australian public. The government recognises that although organisations in this category are not operating in Australia, it is considered that helping these overseas aid objectives contributes to providing a broad public benefit to Australia.
The general DGR categories that provide for overseas projects, such as the OAGDS, have appropriate integrity requirements in place to ensure that this taxpayer funded concession is directed to the causes that it was donated for, and not at risk of being misdirected to other purposes that are inconsistent with Australia's charitable tax law. These integrity requirements are supported by special administrative arrangements because of the difficulties associated with monitoring activities undertaken outside of Australia.
The government undertook extensive consultation on this measure. The government has revised the bill in a number of ways in response to stakeholder feedback.
The bill has been revised to provide more clarity in the case of organisations, such as public benevolent institutions (PBI), which may operate a fund that is exempt from the special conditions.
The bill will not remove whole-of-entity PBI status for organisations that have a fund approved to operate overseas. The organisation would only need to consider its other operations (ignoring the approved overseas component) when assessing its activities against the special conditions.
The bill has also been revised to provide a regulation-making power to allow certain medical research institutions to be listed in the regulations, reflecting that medical research is an activity dependent on international collaboration. Listed medical research institutes will still be required to be established in Australia but will be exempt from the remainder of the 'in Australia' special conditions.
A review will be undertaken within three years to examine options for the development of a permanent DGR category for medical research institutions that undertake a significant part of their activities overseas.
Some arts organisations undertake activities overseas. In many cases, these overseas activities are merely incidental to the operation and pursuit of the entity's purposes in Australia, or the overseas activities are minor in extent and importance when considered with reference to the operations and pursuit of the entity's Australian activities. In these circumstances, their DGR status will be retained.
Given the Australian Chamber Orchestra Pty Ltd and the Sydney Dance Company are 'designated international touring organisations', the bill provides that these organisations will be exempt from the 'in Australia' special conditions. However, the overseas activities of these organisations must remain under 25 per cent of their overall activities.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:05): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Integrated fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office at the site known as 913 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill, Victoria.
The Australian Taxation Office proposes to undertake an integrated fit-out of new leased premises at 913 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill, Victoria. The ATO has a substantial presence in the Box Hill region and is currently located in a building at 990 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill, which has a lease in place that expires on 30 June 2014.
It is expected that relocation into a new building will provide the ATO with considerable advantages in terms of building design, operational performance and operating cost efficiencies, and long-term viability through improvements in building infrastructure. The estimated outturn cost of the proposal is $36 million plus GST.
The developer will commence base building works on site in September 2012, with the demolition and excavation of the basement areas being the first tasks.
In its report the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to proposed parliamentary approval, the proposed integrated fit-out works are scheduled to start in July 2013 and be completed by 6 October 2014. The ATO is expected to commence occupancy of the building in November 2014.
On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Work
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:07): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:
Development and construction of housing for Defence members and their families at Lindfield, New South Wales
Defence Housing, DHA, proposes to develop a 13.8 hectare prime property abutting the Lane Cove National Park in Lindfield, New South Wales. The site is about 3.5 kilometres from the Chatswood commercial centre and 14 kilometres from the Sydney CBD. This site has been used for tertiary education purposes—for a teachers college—since its development by the New South Wales government in 1969. When colleges of advanced education were amalgamated into universities it was transferred to the University of Technology Sydney, UTS, and became known as UTS Ku-ring-gai. DHA purchased the land by public tender from UTS in March 2011. The DHA development is adjacent to UTS Ku-ring-gai and will complement the area.
This proposal will involve road and civil infrastructure development, followed by the construction of 345 dwellings for an integrated residential community for the Department of Defence and their families. Following site development, construction will be undertaken to deliver the 345 dwellings in five precincts.
The site will provide housing for families of personnel posted to Fleet Base East, which is a major Defence establishment in the Sydney CBD, and to other units and formations scattered around greater Sydney. The site's close proximity to Chatswood, Macquarie Centre and Macquarie Park also provides Defence families with opportunities for employment, entertainment and shopping. The project cost of $202 million, inclusive of GST and escalation, but excluding the cost of land, will be met by DHA and recovered through the sale of surplus lots and the DHA Sale and Leaseback Program.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, civil construction is expected to commence in November 2012, with dwelling construction to be completed by November 2016. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Work
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:09): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:
Development and construction of housing for Defence members and their families at Weston Creek, ACT.
Defence Housing, DHA, proposes to develop an 8.3 hectare prime property at Weston Creek, Australian Capital Territory. Land is in reasonably short supply in Canberra and the rezoning of land to residential in the greater Molonglo area, of which Weston Creek is part, has opened up an opportunity for DHA to secure land and develop new housing that meets Defence standards in Canberra. The site is located approximately two kilometres from the Australian Defence College, within 12 kilometres of Canberra CBD and has quick access through the Tuggeranong Parkway.
The proposal is for the DHA to develop the site for residential construction consistent with the approved Weston Creek estate development plan. Following site development the proposal envisages construction of 50 dwellings for the Department of Defence over a 12-month period. The remaining sites will be sold for complementary development.
Development of the site involves the provision of infrastructure of 73 single dwelling lots, of which 50 will be used by Defence families, plus three multi-unit sites that are expected to yield up to 47 dwellings. The first stage will provide this infrastructure. It involves the design and construction of roads, stormwater drainage, sewer, water, natural gas, telecommunications and electricity. Once infrastructure is completed, construction of the 50 dwellings for Defence will be undertaken. The project cost of $39 million, inclusive of GST, but excluding land, will be met by DHA and recovered through the sale of surplus lots and the Sale and Leaseback Program.
In its report the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed, subject to the recommendations of the committee. DHA accepts and will implement those recommendations. Subject to parliamentary approval, civil construction is expected to commence in January 2013, with dwelling construction to be completed by December 2014.
On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Report
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:12): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the following documents:
Report 431: Review of Auditor-General’s reports Nos 24 to 32 (2011-12), and Report 432: APS—Fit for Service: Australian Public Service annual update.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made parliamentary papers.
Mr OAKESHOTT: by leave—The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, as prescribed by its act, examines all reports of the Auditor-General and reports the results of the committee's deliberations to the parliament. Report 431 details the findings of the committee's examination of two performance audits selected for further scrutiny from nine audit reports presented to parliament by the Auditor-General between February and May 2012.
The committee focused its inquiry on government procurement, an area of public spending that has been of ongoing interest to the committee due to the ongoing disconnect between procurement guidelines and procurement culture. Under the financial framework, agencies must ensure each procurement delivers the best value for money using public resources in a way that is efficient, effective, economical and ethical. It is in this context that the committee inquired into the audit findings regarding the Australia Network tender and the establishment and use of procurement panels.
Dealing first with the Australia Network tender, a key lesson highlighted by the Auditor-General's report on the Australia Network tender process is that clarity around the decision making, at the highest levels, is essential. This is particularly important for tenders involving multiple ministers or departments. In the case of the Australia Network tender, it took five months for issues around the approval process to be resolved. If the actual decision making process involved had been clearly agreed and documented at the very start of the process, the lengthy delays and associated issues that affected the tender would have been avoided. In future the public disclosure of tender approval processes, as early as possible, is one very obvious way of avoiding similar problems in the future.
Other key issues discussed in the Auditor-General's report concern the handling of confidential tender information. The committee heard that standard practices for handling and distributing sensitive information were not followed, leading to a wider distribution of information than was desirable. The committee believes there are benefits from further clear guidance being provided to staff involved in future tenders about when and how tender information should be disclosed to ministers, ministerial staff, and other departmental staff.
While the responsibility for the problems found in the audit report rests with the parties involved, the committee considered that lessons from the Australia Network tender process should be shared more broadly and has therefore made a range of suggestions for improvement in this regard.
The second issue is that of procurement panels. The committee also examined how government agencies establish and use panel arrangements to obtain efficiencies in procurement. Procurement panels involve agencies conducting an initial procurement process to establish a panel of suppliers and then undertaking individual procurements from the panel on an as needed basis. The Auditor-General's report found that, while agencies generally had sound practices for initially establishing panels, performance was less satisfactory when it came to selecting suppliers from the panel to undertake work. The committee was disappointed to learn that many of the issues that came up in this audit report had previously been identified in internal audits by the agencies themselves. We were, however, pleased to hear that the Department of Finance and Deregulation is taking a more active role in helping agencies to improve their compliance with financial management obligations. The committee also supports the role of central procurement units within agencies, which can serve as the link with Finance and take a proactive role in assisting procurers.
Another point made in the Auditor-General's report is that agencies should be performing evaluations of each of their procurement panels at appropriate stages in their life cycle. The committee supports this recommendation, and has asked the audited agencies for updates on how they are implementing panel evaluations. The committee also examined the cooperative use of single panels by multiple agencies, an increasingly popular practice known as 'clustering' or 'piggy-backing'. We learned that while clustered panels can lower costs, particularly for smaller agencies, care is needed to make sure the services being supplied are actually appropriate for the needs of each agency. Governments also need to be aware of the perspective of suppliers themselves, as there is a perception that large, multi-agency panels may disadvantage small and medium enterprises. The number of SMEs on panels is not currently being monitored by departments, or across the APS, so this is an area that warrants additional attention in future. The committee will continue to keep a close eye on government procurement activities to ensure that public money is being spent in a way that ensures value for money and compliance with the financial framework regulations.
Going to report No. 432, Fit for service: Australian Public Service annual update, the annual meeting with the heads of key agencies responsible for public sector governance and administration provides the committee with a regular opportunity to discuss whole-of-government issues and trends and review the overall performance of the APS. Previously held as a private briefing, to improve transparency the committee decided to open up this year's meeting to the public. This year, the committee was particularly interested in progress on the APS reform initiatives, the results of the latest State of the service report, the potential impact of the increased efficiency dividend and to hear about future improvements planned for the Public Service.
The committee is also responsible for approving annual report guidelines for Commonwealth departments on behalf of the parliament. Questions relating to the proposed 2011-12 Requirements for Annual Reports were discussed at the public hearing. In regard to the annual report requirements, we were pleased to see a continued focus on streamlining and minimising duplication of reporting. This year, a proposal was put forward to amend the reporting of consultancy contracts. While maintaining the summary data, reports would direct readers to AusTender, the centralised procurement reporting site, rather than reproducing static lists of contracts. The committee agreed to support this proposal, after being informed by the Australian National Audit Office and the Department of Finance and Deregulation of the potential for improvements to accuracy and currency of information.
On another aspect of procurement, we wanted to be sure that agencies continue to improve on-time payments to small and medium enterprises. Responding to our concerns, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet informed us that the Australian government payments to small business: performance report will be enhanced with the inclusion of information on the performance of individual agencies.
On the broader front of improvements across the Public Service, the committee noted the status update on the initiatives stemming from Ahead of the game: blueprint for the reform of Australian government administration. There are two key points we would like to raise in relation to the reforms. The first is APS policy implementation capacity. For some time now the committee has been raising concerns about the capacity of certain departments to implement policy. PM&C outlined the engagement and support strategy developed to improve guidance and communication and increase agency capacity. The committee will now be looking for a reduction in numbers of audit reports critical of implementation.
The second area of interest is the establishment of further agency review options. The committee welcomed advice that further scrutiny of cross-agency performance and strategic assessment of future capabilities was underway. In particular, the committee was pleased to hear that the capability review process would be rolled out across agencies and the results publicly disclosed. However, due to the complexity of the different review options available, we would like to see the development of a simple explanation, in layman's terms, of how these reviews fit together and avoid duplication.
While the underlying major reform takes place, APS agencies will need to be considering how to improve the 'state of the service' while at the same time finding savings to meet the increased efficiency dividend. Issues in need of attention include addressing the continuing decline in diversity in terms of Indigenous employees and employees with a disability, and improving the average overall employee satisfaction with senior leaders. Leadership drives the success of an organisation and allows these major reforms to succeed. And it was the same message that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner gave yesterday. Leaders are also pivotal in ensuring diversity is encouraged and valued in a workplace, so it is of particular concern that there is ongoing dissatisfaction with those steering the course. The committee will continue to monitor results in this area over the next year.
When looking to the future, the Secretary of PM&C suggested that the APS needs to become Asia capable. The committee agrees that engaging with regional counterparts is an important goal and looks forward to hearing about developments in this area over the next year.
The committee appreciates the important work of the APS and the effort that has been put into reforming the state of the service. In our report we have made some additional suggestions, largely aimed at improving the accessibility of information to assist parliamentarians and the public in assessing the performance of the APS.
By convention, the Public Accounts and Audit Committee regularly tables government responses to its reports in the form of executive minutes. So today I present several executive minutes received by the committee, constituting the government responses to the following recommendations: report 417, recommendations 6, 7, 15, 16 and 17; report 426, recommendation 4; report 428, recommendation 3; report 429, recommendations 1 to 3; and report 430, recommendation 4.
In closing, I would like to thank the numerous senior public servants who attended our public hearings for their time and for their frank and detailed engagement with the committee. Again, I thank committee members from a diverse range of political persuasions who continue to work in the national interest through this committee and I sincerely thank the committee staff and secretariat for their ongoing work. I commend the reports and the executive minutes to the House.
Publications Committee
Report
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (10:24): I present the report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
BILLS
Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (10:24): Yesterday I pointed out the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommendation, which has unanimous support, to remove the unsound-mind provisions in this legislation—and the government is proceeding with that. Today I want to look at other provisions in this bill before the House. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 contains provisions that will increase the sum to be deposited by or on behalf of a person nominated as a senator from $1,000 to $2,000; increase the sum to be deposited by or on behalf of a person nominated as a member of the House of Representatives from $500 to $1,000; and increase the number of nominators required by a candidate for the Senate or the House of Representatives who has not been nominated by a registered political party from 50 to 100 electors. There are other provisions which I will not go into.
The justification for these deposit requirement provisions is set out on page 3 of the explanatory memorandum, and it is important to read it onto the record:
The amendments to increase the required nomination deposit and to increase the number of nominators required for unendorsed candidates seek to strike the right balance between providing the opportunity for all citizens to take part in elections while at the same time putting in place some reasonable thresholds that candidates must meet.
The Senate election in New South Wales in 2010 provides some context for these amendments. In this election there were 84 candidates distributed across 33 columns. Of the 84 candidates, 42 candidates received fewer than 200 first preference votes or less than 0.005% of the total formal vote. The total of the formal votes polled by these 42 candidates was 2,697 or 0.06% of the total formal vote overall. None of them came from a group which had a candidate elected and all lost their nomination deposits.
The current requirement of 50 nominators for unendorsed candidates has been in place since 1998 and the deposit amounts were last changed in 2006. Since then, both the Australian population and Average Weekly Earnings have increased. Therefore it is timely to increase the figures at this stage to continue to balance a workable and timely electoral environment against the rights of individuals to take part in elections.
These provisions have bipartisan support—and so they should. The current provisions can be abused and can, in effect, allow the stacking of ballot papers to the detriment of people who want to cast a genuine vote and create a ballot paper that confuses people.
Back in 1974, which was the first election I participated in at a federal level, the Senate ballot paper in New South Wales was stacked. There were 74 people on the ballot paper. Twenty of those people were put on the ballot paper by a number of independent aldermen from Bankstown City Council. They were designed to go onto that ballot paper to frustrate, because in those days there was no above-the-line voting; you had to number every square. The informal vote in the Senate at that time was ginormous. We have also had instances in which ballot papers were stacked in the lower house. There was a by-election in the seat of Werriwa with over 20 candidates. We had a recent by-election in the seat of Bradfield, where one political party had nominated six candidates from the same political party—I think it was the Christian Democrats.
From time to time the parliament is required to refine some of these provisions so that they are not abused, because the truth is that shrewd political players can do that. We have seen changes in New South Wales to the tablecloth ballot paper, to group voting and to voting one above the line, to try to bring down the informal vote. In this day and age it is a very expensive exercise to run campaigns. In my first election, in 1990, it cost $55 million to run the national election. My pocketbook here shows that the 2007 election cost $163 million. The Werriwa by-election in 2005 cost half a million dollars, and the Aston by-election in 2001 cost half a million dollars.
So what these provisions before the House today are designed to do is make sure that we have legitimate candidates nominating for election. We do not want to stop the nomination of legitimate candidates but we should not allow stacking of our ballot papers that seeks to manipulate the result. In electorates where there is a large non-English-speaking population, it can result in a high informal vote. Increasing the number of nominators as suggested, and increasing the deposit, is in my view a very modest way of doing things but it has got the balance right.
The member for Mackellar said in her speech that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has not produced unanimous reports in the past—on this we are unanimous. So this is not designed to achieve political advantage; this is about integrity in our electoral system and in our ballots and not allowing people to abuse generous provisions in our Electoral Act to try and influence results in that way. I commend the bill to the House. I think it deserves bipartisan support.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:31): I rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012. The bill seeks to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1918) and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 with a number of technical and minor amendments. The bill is a response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report The 2010 federal election: report on the conduct of the election and related matters—specifically, recommendations 12, 31 and 32.
Schedules 1 and 2 of this bill are fairly straightforward and are welcomed by the coalition and me. The changes in schedule 1 reflect the fact that, in the 2010 election, the AEC received more than 800,000 postal vote applications. Parliament has previously accepted changes to the Electoral Act which would facilitate the Electoral Commission moving to the application for postal votes occurring online. This bill will allow for a more effective method of more expeditiously processing postal vote applications and of issuing postal vote ballot papers. The changes will also facilitate further adoption to any future changes in technology. Schedule 2 includes provisions that increase the deposit one must pay in order to be a balloted candidate for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is the first change to that amount in six years and it raises the limit for the House from $500 to $1,000 and for the Senate from $1,000 to $2000.
Some might be worried that this increase might dilute the plurality of candidates and consequently dilute the contest of ideas at each federal election—and it is easy to see, on the surface, why this is a worry. On the other hand, proponents of this change argue that it would be a positive move to reduce the number of frivolous candidates, the number of which has grown over the decades in both the House and the Senate. I agree that any change that could decrease the democratic nature of Australian elections must be scrutinised very heavily, and I am confident that this scrutiny has occurred during the committee process. I note that the nomination deposits for any candidate who receives more than four per cent of first preference votes are returned, which means the Electoral Act does recognise the value of those people who clearly are backed at some minimum level by the community. The original 2010 joint standing committee report noted that the nomination deposit 'should be an amount that does not unduly hamper participation but acts as a deterrent to frivolous candidates,' a statement with which I broadly agree.
The main practical consequence of this increase is that it may reduce the number of candidates at the election. Indeed, many who take the privilege of voting below the line in the Senate would welcome this change. At the 2010 election, the Senate ballot paper for New South Wales had 84 candidates across 33 columns; it was over one metre wide and had a font size of 8.5. As the committee has noted, that width is the maximum available that the AEC is able to use, so if there are more candidates or columns a further reduction in font size would be required.
Already at federal elections one hears many stories and complaints about electors having to decide whether to put Labor, Greens, the Socialist Party or the Communist Party last as their below-the-line preference and the anxiety that comes with making that decision. Clearly, having a metre-wide ballot paper with 84 candidates makes it unwieldy and overly burdensome, and complex for voters to decide which candidates they want to represent their state in the Senate.
However, today's bill includes provisions not directly related to those recommendations—that is, the changes in schedule 3 in relation to the 'unsound mind' provision, which was previously before the House in March this year as a part of the Electoral and Referendum (Protecting Elector Participation) Bill 2012. At that time, the Senate amended the bill and removed the changes to the 'unsound mind' provision. The bill was then passed in the House in agreement with the Senate's amendments.
Before I delve into those concerns, I want to record my appreciation on behalf of many constituents in Ryan for changes in items 8 and 9 in schedule 3. These items amend section 104 of the Electoral Act, which allows for the suppression of an elector's address if the safety of that person or their family could be at risk by having their address disclosed on the publicly available electoral roll. At present, if someone moves residences, they must make a new request to the Electoral Commission to have the new address suppressed as well. When someone with a suppressed address moves residences, the AEC should not presuppose that the reasons for the original suppression have changed. Some constituents have expressed their frustration with this process to my office. I certainly welcome these amendments, which will mean that, when moving, an elector will not have to make a new request, nor will their new address appear on the electoral roll at any stage.
Regarding the 'unsound mind' provision in section 93(8)(a) of the Electoral Act, the coalition remains concerned that the government plans to remove this provision from any final or amended version of this bill or indeed from any future bill which might seek to amend the Electoral Act and the Referendum Act. I would point out initially that the final recommendation of the joint standing committee's report was:
The House of Representatives and the Senate pass the bill after deleting the changes proposed in schedule 3 in relation to the 'unsound mind' provision and consequential amendments. The term 'unsound mind' and the current requirement for a certificate from a medical practitioner should be retained.
I acknowledge and appreciate the concerns among the community, and particularly of disability groups, that the term can be perceived as anachronistic and possibly construed as prejudicial towards those with a disability. I also understand that at face value a layman might see the wording and think that is a provision by which a government or the Australian Electoral Commission could exclude someone from their right to vote—a right we hold very dear in Australia and in other democratic countries around the world. I would like to point out, however, that this provision is not intended or designed in any way to target anyone specifically or disenfranchise any group of people. Indeed, the Australian Electoral Commission itself cannot by its own accord use this provision to exclude someone from the electoral roll.
While we might, in 2012, find it bizarre to say that someone is of an unsound mind, this measure is a convention of Australian democracy and was included in the original Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902. In practice, the committee noted that it is 'usually someone close to the individual who will have to raise an objection' such that the person be 'excused from the obligation of compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting'. In practice, a series of steps must be followed to ensure the integrity of the process, which I note includes the opinion of a medical practitioner on a medical certificate that the person is 'incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting'. Importantly, the divisional returning officer from the Australian Electoral Commission gives notice to the person and provides them with a chance to respond. Therefore, by design and in practice this measure has historically been used and is used today to ensure that someone who is genuinely of unsound mind does not have to vote.
Some submissions expressed their view that this provision be removed completely, but that would be a step too far. We must of course accept that someone, either for permanent or transient reasons depending on each circumstance, may be mentally incapable of enrolling or voting. What comes to mind is, of course, the many thousands of families in Australia who face the battle of having a parent or grandparent with Alzheimer's, whom they think may not have the mental faculty to fully appreciate the full meaning of voting. Nor would we want the integrity of the democratic process to be undermined by the vote of someone who might fall within section 93(8)(a) being unduly influenced by any other person. The 'unsound mind' provision in the Electoral Act should therefore be retained.
Another concern in this bill is about whether the list of qualified people should be expanded to include so-called paraprofessionals, such as social workers, as opposed to the limitation on qualified medical practitioners. Forgive me for using at length the words from the submission by People with Disability Australia, but they address so eloquently the concerns associated with expanding the qualifications of a person required to deem someone of unsound mind:
Universal suffrage is an integral part of democracy and the power to remove the right of a person to participate in the political process is a significant one. Would the "opinion of a qualified person" simply be a conclusion they make based on their own degree of experience and professional judgement? Alternatively, what mechanisms would exist to ensure that any assessment tool was used consistently across jurisdictions and across the professions of the "qualified persons", especially as they represent different knowledge and skill sets? Which body would provide guidelines and/or training to the professions on how to use the assessment tool and monitor standards, compliance and complaints or appeals? What would be the financial implications of running this system? Would these costs be proportionate to the policy goal of disenfranchising people deemed 'incapable', especially in light of the fact that the policy goal in itself is discriminatory?
All of the issues that People with Disability Australia mentioned in their submission to the inquiry are very important and all of their questions should be thoroughly addressed before making any changes to the Electoral Act.
Lastly, I would like to thank members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their commitment to the Electoral and Referendum Acts, and particularly the member for Mackellar for her decades-long commitment to the integrity of the electoral roll. I agree with the substantive intention of today's bill, and I appreciate that all members must be vigilant when it comes to amending the Electoral and Referendum Acts, such that Australia's democracy continues to serve Australians as it has done for so long. I do, however, place on the record my objections to schedule 3 of this bill, and I ask all members to consider these concerns and indeed those very same objections included in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into today's bill.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (10:42): It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 today. The right to vote is a very precious and valuable entitlement. It is the cornerstone of our democracy and a right we must cherish and respect. As a woman I am acutely aware of the value of the right to vote because it was so hard fought for by my sisters of the past. Over the centuries people have fought and died for the right to vote. It is a very fundamental, valuable and precious right, but I am concerned that it is not cherished as such. I am a strong supporter of the right to vote and a strong advocate of compulsory voting.
It really disappoints and saddens me that certain sectors in the Australian community take it for granted and do not value the right to vote. Recently, the Special Minister of State said that he was targeting the 1.5 million Australians who are entitled to vote but who are not on the roll. That is one in 10 eligible Australians who are not enrolled, representing an average of 10,000 people in each of the 150 federal divisions. It disappoints me at so many levels because of the fact that so many people have fought for the right to vote and for democracy over the centuries, and particularly my sisters over the last 150 or 200 years.
It disappoints me because Australia has a long and proud history of assisting in the governance of democracy and in elections. One of my earliest memories of being in foreign affairs is in 1994 when I spoke to a woman who had just returned from Mozambique. She had been part of a group of 18 Australians who were there on behalf of the UN to observe the first democratic elections, held in October 1994. She told me amazing stories of how people were so excited and grateful for the opportunity to vote that they had been queuing up for days, so much did they cherish that right, because it had been such a hard-fought-for right. The queues wended their way around little towns and cities.
I also had friends from the AFP, the ADF and DFAT who were involved in the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia, the UNTAC operation, which was established to supervise the ceasefire and subsequent general election in Cambodia. That was the first election held in Cambodia after more than 20 years of conflict. A large force was sent: 12 infantry battalions, support units, military observers, civilians and police, totalling 22,000 personnel from 32 different countries. Those who were around at that time will have memories of the fact that the military component was commanded by Lieutenant General John Sanderson. Australia's contribution increased as the election came closer. Between May and September 1992 we sent a movement control group with members of the three services. Between May and July 1993, the period covering the general election, we sent an additional 115 Australian troops and six Black Hawk helicopters. It was a tense deployment.
By July 1992, the Khmer Rouge had effectively withdrawn from the peace agreement and it was feared that they would disrupt operations. There were a number of small skirmishes and mortar attacks. An Australian signaller was taken hostage when he and three Thai military observers were captured by the Khmer Rouge and detained for several hours. This is what I mean about the value of democracy: it is a very, very valuable and precious right. Australians were out there, getting themselves into strife at times, to ensure that, after 20 years, the Cambodians could have the right to vote.
The AFP also sent a detachment to UNTAC to serve with the civilian police component. Personnel from the Australian Electoral Commission were there to help prepare for the general election. Much of their work related to voter education and registration—so important. As I said, Cambodia had not had a free election since the early fifties and did not have that democratic tradition. By January 1993, 96 per cent of those eligible to vote had registered. That is an extraordinary figure. I will soon talk about some figures relating to young Australians' views on democracy. When the general election took place in May, 90 per cent of those who were registered to vote voted. That was a considerable success. Those are two fantastic examples of Australia's active involvement in assisting in the governance of democracy and the right to vote in other countries, which is why it really does sadden me that so many Australians have not enrolled when they have the right to vote: 1.5 million is a significant number.
The figures for young Australians are rather sad. In 2011 the Lowy Institute conducted opinion polls in Indonesia and Fiji which included questions on democracy and human rights. They wanted to see how their views compared with views in Australia. The results suggested some Australians—not surprisingly, given the figure of 1.5 million—are quite blase about democracy. Participants were presented with three statements about democracy and asked, 'Which one of these three statements comes closest to your personal views about democracy?' Just 60 per cent of Australians say that democracy is preferable to any other kind of government, similar to the proportion of Indonesians, at 62 per cent and Fijians, at 53 per cent. Interestingly, only 39 per cent of Australians aged between 18 and 29 hold this view, with support increasing with age to 74 per cent for those 60 years and older. Nearly a quarter of Australians—23 per cent—say that in some circumstances a non-democratic government can be preferable. That figure is higher than that for Indonesians, at 16 per cent, but is similar to that for Fijians. Most tellingly, 15 per cent of Australians say, 'For someone like me, it doesn't matter what kind of government we have,' with a quarter—23 per cent—of 18- to 20-year-olds holding this view, while 17 per cent of Indonesians and 21 per cent of Fijians say that.
As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, these figures are incredibly alarming given the fact that women have fought so hard for the right to vote, given the fact that so many people have died for the right to vote and given the fact that Australia has such a strong track record in assisting people in other nations to have the right to vote. It is quite tragic. I do encourage young Australians particularly to enrol and to take part in their democracy.
The amendments presented today bring into force changes that have been unanimously recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I understand, from listening to previous speakers, that coming to a unanimous decision is telling. It is not often that we see unanimous outcomes from committees, and these outcomes reflect the considered views of all sides of the parliament. These unanimously endorsed minor amendments make sensible and necessary changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.
There are some important changes here that address the size and complexity of ballot papers. Having a large number of candidates on expanded ballot papers does create difficulties for voters. I speak from experience here, having scrutineered many an election, including during the early days of the ACT self-government elections, where we had the modified D'Hondt system and very large ballot papers. Scrutineering was a real challenge and not too good for the eyes. So establishing requirements is a useful way to make sure prospective candidates recognise the seriousness of participating in the electoral process. As I said, this is a valuable and precious process. There are measures here that increase the deposits required for nominating as a Senate or House of Representatives candidate. These changes have been made on the basis that it is reasonable that unendorsed candidates are able to show a level of community support for their candidacies.
One of the amendments will delete the changes proposed in the bill in relation to the unsound mind provision and consequential amendments. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters proposed that the term 'unsound mind' and the current requirement for a certificate from a medical practitioner should be continued. The concept of unsound mind has not always been properly understood.
The references to 'unsound mind' were going to be removed from the bill in its original form on the basis that the term was considered by some people to be outdated; there was some concern in the community about this term. The bill, as originally introduced, removed existing references to 'unsound mind' which were included in the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902. These references have been maintained in the current Electoral Act as a reason for disqualification from being enrolled. In their place, the bill in its original form provided for a disqualification from enrolment if in the opinion of a qualified person the potential elector does not understand the nature and significance of enrolment and voting.
It is important to note that the definition of 'qualified person' was adopted from the Freedom of Information Act 1988 and includes medical practitioners, psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers. On the subject of this definition the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters carefully considered submissions from the Australian Electoral Commission as well as from other interested organisations. The committee examined submissions from disability advocacy groups and others before unanimously recommending that the existing references to 'unsound mind' and provisions for electoral disqualification should remain as currently provided for in the act.
The joint standing committee certainly recognised and acknowledged the views of those in the community who find the term 'unsound mind' outdated. However, the proposed amendments, in their current form, could serve to broaden disqualification and potentially disenfranchise some electors. That is why the committee recommended that the term 'unsound mind' and the current requirement for a certificate from a medical practitioner be retained. Based on the evidence received, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters found that there was not a pressing need to remove or substitute the phrase 'unsound mind'. The committee also confirmed that professions other than medical practitioners should not be able to make determinations about a person's capacity to understand the nature and significance of enrolment and voting. Under Australia's system of compulsory enrolment and voting, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters decided that it is worthwhile having in place a mechanism that is able to address any concerns about individuals who are incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting. These government amendments protect the integrity of elections and help those who might otherwise have to find out from the Electoral Commission why they are not complying with their enrolment and voting obligations.
In closing I come back to the preciousness of the right to vote and to the fact that it deserves respect. I encourage all those who can vote to enrol to vote. As I said, voting is a precious, hard-fought-for right. In my latest electorate bulletin I promoted the fact that people, particularly those who are about to turn 18, need to enrol to vote in order to take part in the ACT elections and the federal elections next year. The right to vote is precious, and we should cherish, protect and promote it. To all of you in the gallery I say: I do not know how old you are, but please enrol to vote when you can.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (10:55): The key word in the title of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 is 'improving'. If, as its title suggests, that is what this bill will achieve, then the bill represents a positive and sensible step. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 is before us and has support from both sides.
However, I will make a few points on this legislation. Much of this bill has to do with postal vote applications. The bill centralises the power or the authority to deal with postal vote applications—in other words, packages will be sent out in a centralised manner once an application has been made. Also, the bill empowers the Electoral Commissioner, rather than the district returning officer, to be responsible for postal vote applications.
The coalition believes that the determination and processing of postal vote applications ought to stay with the district returning officer for each electoral division. At present, political parties send out applications and voters respond. The forms then come back to the office of the candidate and are taken to the district returning officer. This enables people to receive the same political information as they would receive if they were attending a polling booth and getting it as they went in to vote. The commissioner has given the shadow Special Minister of State an undertaking that the necessary authority would be delegated to district returning officers so that at the next federal election—which will most likely occur in 2013, though it cannot come soon enough for many—postal vote applications would be handled in exactly the same way as they are now. The centralisation legislation will not alter the way in which postal votes applications are dealt with, because in 1999 the Electoral Commissioner obtained legal advice about the centralising of postal vote applications and that the issuing of PVA packages was permissible.
There is agreement about the increase in the nomination fee for both the House of Representatives and the Senate and the need for 100 people—as distinct from 50, as the law now provides—to nominate for an ungrouped individual. The government tried to redefine the term 'unsound mind' earlier this year when introducing the Electoral and Referendum (Protecting Elector Participation) Bill 2012. This bill was amended in the Senate to take away the 'unsound mind' provision, and it was passed as amended in the lower house.
Voting in a democratic election—having a say in how your country is governed—is one of the most important things that anyone 18 years of age and over can do. It is a birthright of being an Australian. It is a privilege also bestowed upon those who have come to this country and been granted citizenship. The way the Commonwealth was formed in 1901 is unique—we as a nation were established with a vote, not a war. Any improvements to the system through which Australians exercise their democratic voting rights are desirable and, as time progresses and technology changes, further ways of bettering the voting system will be adopted.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:58): I rise to make a few brief comments on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012. Full participation in elections either as a candidate or as a voter is fundamental to democracy. That is why I and the Greens are pleased to support the postal voting provisions in the bill.
Schedule 1 of the bill will modernise postal voting provisions to facilitate the use of technology, improving the way in which postal vote applications are made and processed by directing all applications to either the Electoral Commissioner or an assistant returning officer. We accept the Australian Electoral Commission's position that the legislation updates existing laws to bring them into line with current practices.
However, there is one matter in this bill that is not supported by the Greens. We will of course be supporting the bill's passage through this House, but my colleagues in the Senate will be raising this matter further when it arrives there—that is, the provisions of the bill which increase nomination requirements for candidates. We as the Greens have serious concerns that the proposed increased nomination fees and increased number of nominators required to nominate as a candidate are undemocratic and will unfairly disadvantage smaller parties and candidates.
The doubling of the nomination fee to $1,000 for a House of Representatives candidate and $2,000 for a Senate candidate and increasing the number of nominators for an unendorsed candidate from 50 to 100 create, in our view, an undue barrier to small parties, and potentially to Independents as well, seeking to participate in the electoral system. It can create an equity issue for small parties, Independents and people on low incomes. It can also make the cost of running a full ticket in the Senate appear prohibitive for a smaller player.
The Greens acknowledge that the size of the Senate ballot paper getting larger is a problem, and we can see why a higher threshold for nominating in the Senate has been considered. A candidate should be able to demonstrate that they have a genuine pool of supporters, especially on the Senate ballot. But, in our view, these measures combine to potentially create a difficult hurdle for smaller parties and candidates to clear and will likely discourage participation in the electoral system.
I want to be clear: I do not believe that these provisions are likely to be a barrier for Greens candidates. We are not raising this on behalf of ourselves as a party. We have the resources, membership and number of supporters which will mean that for us these provisions will not pose a great difficulty.
However, we are concerned that for many other smaller parties and individuals these new provisions may be a major barrier. In our view, it should be a fundamental feature of any democracy that a citizen should be free to run for political office. Surely the number of candidates participating in an election is a measure of the health of the democracy, not something to be curbed. As such, the Greens do not support this aspect of the bill, and we will seek to address it when it comes before the Senate, but I will be supporting the bill in this place.
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (11:02): I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012. Clearly, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has done an excellent job in its deliberations on the bill. It follows on from the excellent work that it has done in previous matters relating to the electoral system of our nation. Indeed, it was only a few months ago that we were considering those amendments which related to franchise and ensuring that we have a suitable approach for ensuring that our electoral roll truly represents the full complement of persons entitled to vote in Australia. I commend again the member for Banks for his efforts as chair and the committee for its consideration of the details in this legislation before us today.
As many of the speakers in this debate have remarked, some of the reforms that have been put in this bill really are very sensible and go towards giving the Electoral Commission an opportunity to continue doing the fine job that it does in a very practical way. The amendments in the bill before us today, as many members have remarked, facilitate online applications to ensure that the Electoral Commissioner may use an automated system to receive and to process applications for postal votes. In addition, the bill considers arrangements relating to the requirements for those nominating for election and some of the practical arrangements which will ensure that ballot papers in future do not become things that confuse potential voters and make it more difficult for voters to have their say at election time. Certainly all members of the committee and all members of the House are concerned about ensuring that that is the case.
The bill will require that those nominating for election are given the support through the nomination process of an increased number of citizens. This is a very important measure that has been considered thoroughly by the committee and by the minister. The nominating process obviously is seeking to strike quite a fine balance. We do not want to prevent those seeking to nominate from having the opportunity to present themselves for consideration by the Australian people, nor do we want to see the circumstances that, for instance, we have seen in jurisdictions such as New South Wales, where we have had quite unwieldy ballot papers. I note that in evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters the AEC discussed the expansion and complexity of ballot papers and did consider it to be a problem. I note that, at 2.49 of its report, the committee cited the words of the AEC:
… 'we are reaching a point where, if the candidates increase in New South Wales with the restrictions that we have on the size of the ballot paper, the type size will become so small that it will cause considerable difficulty'.
The committee went on to say:
The size of the ballot papers also increases the complexity of the task of voting.
So, while the committee and all members of the House want to ensure that those who wish to nominate for election have the capacity to do so and have the capacity to be considered by the Australian people, the committee is seeking to strike a balance. Indeed, the committee, at 2.58 of its report, said:
While having a variety of candidates is a feature of Australia’s democracy, having a large number of candidates leads to an expanded ballot paper and increases the complexity of the voting task for electors.
It went on to say:
Setting appropriate nomination requirements is one way to help ensure that prospective candidates appreciate the seriousness of their participation in the electoral process, and that they can demonstrate … community support for their candidacies.
The bill before us will have the effect of increasing the number of people who are required in order to nominate a candidate from 50 to 100. The committee noted:
At the core of discussions on changes to nomination arrangements must be the objective of striking the right balance between providing the opportunity for Australians to take part in elections and having reasonable requirements to reflect that political candidacy is a serious matter.
The bill before us today also contemplates arrangements whereby the fees associated with nomination will be somewhat increased. Once again, this is a practical measure designed to ensure that those who seek to nominate are appropriately serious and are prepared to put themselves forward in a considered way for potential election.
The bill in its original form had considered arrangements for those considered to be of 'unsound mind'. I know that the committee did consider in some detail those provisions in its deliberations and took advice from a range of people including disability advocates. Accordingly, while it has been considered that there may be some offence associated with the term used in the legislation it was considered on balance that it was appropriate not to amend the bill further to remove those provisions relating to persons of unsound mind and their participation in elections. It was felt that there should not be any further amendment to the legislation on that issue.
The bill before us today, as I said, reflects ongoing considerations by both the committee and by the minister to give effect to very sensible and practical reforms to our electoral system to ensure that the AEC can continue to do its job effectively and to ensure that we strike the right balance between getting proper representation and maintaining the robustness of our electoral system.
One of the changes made in the bill before us today ensures that there may be a centralised and automated system to receive and process applications for postal votes. Postal voting, as we know, is becoming increasingly popular, as is pre-poll voting and that is the case in electorates such as mine. It is increasingly popular in electorates where there are people living in quite remote locations, where elderly people may find it difficult to come to the ballot box and where, for a range of reasons, people are working hours which make it difficult for them to attend a polling place on election day. To ensure that people are given franchise and to ensure that they have the opportunity to vote, the postal voting mechanism and pre-poll are becoming increasingly popular. I understand that the AEC received over 800,000 postal vote applications at the 2010 election. So this bill will ensure through its measures that the Electoral Commission can use automated systems to deal with applications for postal voting in a timely way.
I note in the committee's report the AEC was keen to emphasise that these were really practical changes in the bill which reflect its practice at present. The report stated at 2.7:
The AEC stressed that the changes proposed to postal voting are ‘not about changing fundamentally any of the current processes for dealing with postal vote applications’. These changes are intended to have the current practices reflected in the Electoral Act.
The AEC advised:
This is primarily an amendment that is designed to reflect the fact that the application for postal vote information system is now highly centralised while the act reflects a postal vote processing system which was designed 100 years ago. All we are trying to do here is get an act that reflects the practice.
The bill in many ways is designed to facilitate better processing of arrangements by the AEC, to ensure that current electoral practices are reflected in the text of the act and to ensure that the AEC is able to go about its role in the most efficient way possible. The bill reflects a very timely set of measures to enable the AEC to undergo the processes it needs to in the lead-up to the next election. I hope the measures in the bill will assist it in fulfilling its role. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (11:12): I take very seriously electoral reform. I take very seriously the fact that as a democracy we want to ensure that as many people as possible can participate in the democratic process. I also take very seriously the democratic process. Our electoral system is designed not only to enfranchise voters but also to ensure that it operates in a fair, effective and efficient way. That is why this government has embraced electoral reform. That is why this government has introduced a number of pieces of legislation, as did the previous Rudd government, to streamline the electoral system with the underlying premise that the system will not only operate better but maximise the franchise of voters throughout Australia.
The legislation we have before us today, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012, was subject to an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The committee tabled their report on Thursday, 7 July. It made recommendations that have been accepted by the government and are included in this legislation. I would like to congratulate the committee on the fine work that they do. I have read all their reports with great interest.
This bill serves three main purposes. It simplifies and facilitates the application of technology in postal voting. I will concentrate a little bit more on that further into my contribution to this debate. It discourages candidates who are not in serious contention—candidates nominate for various reasons—from nominating, which just leads to complexity on the ballot papers, especially in the Senate. And it modernises the act.
The bill will increase the deposit required upon nomination from $1,000 to $2,000 for Senate candidates and from $500 to $1,000 for candidates for the House of Representatives. I think that every voter in Australia has been confronted with enormous Senate voting papers. I remember one occasion in New South Wales when the ballot paper for the Legislative Council was referred to as a 'tablecloth', and it certainly would have covered a small table. A few very stoic individuals actually went in and filled it out from '1' to whatever. A couple of them came and told me so afterwards. But that really disenfranchises a lot of voters. Older voters or people from a non-English-speaking background may become confused when they are confronted with an enormous ballot paper, as is often the case for the Senate and is sometimes the case for the House of Representatives—I think the Bradfield by-election was an example. Sometimes the number of candidates who nominate really creates complexities on the ballot paper—complexities that do not achieve anything other than, in many cases, disenfranchising voters. Increasing the deposit that people are required to pay at the time of nomination means that candidates are more likely to be serious about standing for the Senate or the House of Representatives because they will have to make a significant financial contribution. Whilst $500 for the House of Representatives and $1,000 for the Senate may have been a significant amount in the past, I believe that raising that to $1,000 for the House of Representatives and $2,000 for the Senate is a very timely measure.
The other issue in relation to candidates is that, instead of unendorsed candidates having to have 50 signatures to nominate, as is currently the case, each candidate will now be required to have their nomination signed by 100 electors. I would argue very strongly that, if you cannot find 100 people that are prepared to sign your nomination, then nominating will only cause frustration. On many occasions when I have scrutineered, some candidates have received under 100 or just over 100 votes. Once again, this is timely. It will lessen the confusion on the ballot papers and make it easier for people to cast a valid vote.
The other aspect of this legislation—and it is an aspect that is very close to my heart—is the change in the postal voting system. I have an older electorate, and we have a number of registered postal voters. The divisional returning officer at one stage went around to all the aged-care facilities within the electorate and had the elderly people in those aged-care facilities placed on the registered postal vote list. There has been an active campaign within Shortland electorate to encourage people who would find it difficult to attend a polling booth on the day of the election to register for a postal vote. When an election is called, I always spend a considerable amount of time contacting people and ensuring that those who should have a postal vote actually get that postal vote, because a postal vote is so much easier than having a frail aged person come to the polling booth on the day.
Other levels of government do not encourage the same level of postal vote applications. At the last local government election in my area, I was handing out how-to-vote cards for one of the candidates, and I had an irate voter come up to me because I had not sent them out information on how to register for postal votes. This was a frail aged person. After that, I not only sent that voter an application form to become a registered postal voter, but I also made a conscious effort to ensure that, every time I meet with older people or go along to groups where older people gather, I provide them with information on postal voting. With an ageing population, in many cases we are encouraging people to register for postal voting.
Invariably some people will be absent from the electorate on polling day and will choose to cast a postal vote rather than have to find a polling booth outside their electorate. If they are interstate, their choice is very limited, so they will seek to use postal voting.
In fact, in the 2010 election, over 800,000 postal vote applications were received. This bill will ensure that the AEC can use an automated system to deal with the applications for postal votes. That process will happen in a more timely way, which will benefit those people who are seeking a postal vote, particularly those who may be going overseas or those who are travelling on election day and are not sure of their destination or the place they will be on the day of the election. If the AEC can ensure that voters can receive their postal votes in a more timely manner, it can only benefit voters and ensure that people are not disenfranchised.
So, whilst this is not a very complex bill and whilst the changes it makes are only fairly minor, the changes are really about ensuring that our electoral system works in a much better way than it has. The bill ensures that a candidate that is nominating is serious about nominating. It ensures that candidates are prepared to make a significant financial investment when they nominate. It ensures that, for unendorsed candidates, at least 100 voters are prepared to sign their nomination form. Those are minor changes but important changes.
I think that postal votes are only going to increase in popularity. More and more people will be needing postal votes, particularly as our population ages, and particularly given the nature of our society, where people tend to be a lot more mobile. It is important that the AEC is able to process those postal votes in a very efficient way. We need to ensure that they have an automated system that will process them in a very timely manner.
I believe this is very good legislation. I thank the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the report they tabled on 7 July. I believe that the opposition will be supporting this legislation. I congratulate them on saying yes. It is always really good when they say yes to a piece of legislation that the government puts before the House.
The beneficiaries of this legislation will be the people of Australia. I commend the legislation to the House.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (11:25): I, too, speak in support of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012. The bill makes common-sense changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act to better reflect practices in today's society. In particular, the changes which facilitate on-line postal vote applications recognise that we have an ageing and increasingly mobile population for whom postal voting is practical, and that the internet is very much part of life and we should make use of it.
Not surprisingly, we are seeing an increase at each election in the number of people who apply for and use postal votes. In the 2010 federal election over 800,000 postal vote applications were requested. I looked back to 1998 and I found that in that year the figure was 489,000. We have almost doubled, in the space of just over a decade, the number of people requesting the use of postal votes. And I suspect that that trend will continue. I suspect it will continue, not only because people are living longer but because people today are travelling a lot more than they used to in years gone by. And if they happen to be away, and know that they are going to be away, at the time an election is called, then they will apply for a postal vote.
It should be the intention of any government and every government to make voting as easy and as practical as possible for the people of Australia. After all, we have compulsory voting and, if we are going to have compulsory voting, let's do our best to ensure that everybody genuinely has the opportunity to vote. The use of postal voting is one of the mechanisms by which we are able to do that.
The same applies with respect to the increase in the deposit required for Senate candidate nominations from $1,000 to $2,000 for each nomination. For House of Representatives candidate nominations the fee rises from $500 to $1,000. Those amounts better reflect today's real costs in terms of the administrative expenses that are incurred by the government and the community broadly when someone nominates to stand for election. Importantly, they also reflect real costs in terms of what people can afford to pay today as compared with years gone by.
The two changes—that is the use of the postal votes and the increase in nomination fees—are linked to trying to ensure that we have a much better system. Both changes seek to strike a reasonable balance between ensuring all Australians can stand for election and weeding out those who simply nominate for mischievous purposes.
The member for Banks, in his remarks earlier today, made extensive reference to this very issue. I believe he used some examples of how elections can be manipulated by using frivolous candidates. I am sure that all of us in this House have seen that occur from time to time over the years. We should not allow the system to be in any way abused and misused, as has often occurred.
I want to refer particularly to a matter that other members of the House have also referred to and which was covered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report—the issue of whether people are of sound mind. This is a matter that was canvassed at length and initially there were some proposed changes intended for the act but, on reflection, those changes were not proceeded with. This is a matter I do not have a great deal of experience with because in all my time in politics it is not an issue that has been raised with me and therefore I cannot speak on the merits of changing the current definition. I do want to quote a section of the act that deals with who is eligible and who is not eligible to vote. Section 93(8) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act states:
A person who:
(a) by reason of being of unsound mind, is incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting; or
(b) has been convicted of treason or treachery and has not been pardoned;
is not entitled to have his or her name placed or retained on any Roll or to vote at any Senate election or House of Representatives election.
Section 118(4) then goes on to say:
The Electoral Commissioner shall not remove an elector's name from the Roll on the ground specified in paragraph 93(8)(a) unless the objection is accompanied by a certificate of a medical practitioner stating that, in the opinion of the medical practitioner, the elector, because of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting.
I expect that this is an issue that will arise even more in the years to come. I said earlier that people are living longer, and that trend will continue. Regrettably, however, we also know that as people continue to live longer some of them end up with illnesses such as dementia. Whether they are capable of making up their mind about who to vote for then becomes an issue. I expect that people being of sound mind is an issue that will not go away, and we may have to deal with it at a future time.
I want also to talk a little more about the provisions requiring increased deposits by candidates. I said earlier that it should always be our intention to make voting as simple as possible, ensuring that we do not disenfranchise people. It would be common for informal votes in both state and federal elections to be in the order of four to five per cent. Some of those informal votes are deliberate but many of them are not. They are informal votes because people have unintentionally made a mistake when filling out their ballot paper. Unintentionally making a mistake when you fill out your ballot paper is more likely to occur if you have a long list of candidates, which in turn complicates the ballot paper. This is particularly unfortunate when some of those candidates are deliberately putting their name on the ballot paper and nominating because their surname may be similar to that of another candidate on the list. Confusing and complicating ballot papers has been a tactic used to win elections over the years. This is particularly of concern in electorates that have high numbers of new citizens who are new to the Australian voting system and the processes required and who quite often are the ones who intended to lodge a formal vote but regrettably were unable to do so.
Given that we also know that so many elections hang on a handful of votes—Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, you would know that better than anyone else in this House—every vote does count. Those informal votes which are not intended to be informal votes could quite often make the difference to an election outcome. So, we need to take every step we can to make ballot papers as simple and as easy to complete as possible. That is what I believe these amendments propose to do—to weed out mischievous candidates and ensure that candidates nominate only if they are genuinely seeking election to public office and not simply putting their name on a ballot paper to complicate the process.
The electorate of Makin was established in 1984. My understanding is that since that time there has been an Australian Electoral Commission office located in the electorate. Up until a couple of months ago it was located adjacent to my own electorate office. A couple of months ago the office closed and relocated to the Adelaide CBD as part of the Australian Electoral Commission office there. I accept the undertaking that when an election is called the Australian Electoral Commission will temporarily establish an office within the Makin electorate. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that that office has been closed. Given that it was located adjacent to my own office for the nearly five years I have been the member for Makin, I know just how many people used the services of that office. I know that because more often than not they would in fact come into my own office first and then we would redirect them to the office next door.
My real concern is simply this: given that the office has been relocated, if people in the Makin electorate want to make changes to their enrolment, they have to go into the Adelaide CBD, unless of course they can do it online. I am not sure if they can, but assuming that they can, that might be of assistance to them. But more often than not people want to personally go in and ensure that the details they are providing are correct and the forms and the changes they are proposing to make are all in accordance with the requirements of the act. I just hope that that does not result in a higher informal vote or that it does not result in a high number of people who simply do not vote because they have not taken the time to make changes to the electoral roll in respect to their own individual circumstances.
The next election will be the first election since the Electoral Commission office in Makin was closed, so it will be interesting to see just what kind of an impact it does have on future elections. I understand that the Makin electorate is not unique in that but that it has happened across the board in many other electorates. But it will be an interesting exercise to evaluate what impact it has had on electoral registrations and the like, particularly in some electorates. I am referring to electorates where there have been a lot of new citizens, who will go into the office to register so that they can be placed on the roll. Not having an office presence could be a problem. I know that the Australian Electoral Commission—and I commend them for this—always provide a presence at citizenship ceremonies and the like. But nevertheless not everyone takes advantage of that opportunity. For those electorates that have high numbers of new citizens it will be an interesting exercise to see what happens in the future.
In referring to the offices of the Australian Electoral Commission in Makin, I close by thanking the officers who were there during the time I have been the federal member for Makin. I always found them to be of great support not only to my office but to the people we in turn referred to them. I believe they did provide a very valuable service over the years, particularly during election times, and for that I am very grateful. This legislation brings in some common-sense changes and I commend it to the House.
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (11:40): The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 is designed to improve the operation of our electoral system. It is one of a series of bills that has come before the House in this term. I would like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate my friend the Special Minister of State for his diligence in ensuring that we maintain an up-to-date and effective electoral system, an electoral system that ensures we have free and fair elections and that everyone has the right to contest, but at the same time also puts a responsibility on people to be good citizens within the electoral process. I note once again that the system is organic and requires updating and changing at times to ensure it keeps up with the developments and changes occurring within our society. This legislation is part of that. It is another example of the government taking up opportunities to ensure we have and continue to have one of the best electoral systems in the world. I would also like to take this opportunity in that respect to thank the Australian Electoral Commission, Commissioner Ed Killesteyn and his officers for the work they do in ensuring we do have free and fair elections and an electoral system we can all be proud of.
With respect to this particular legislation, there are a couple of points I would make about the changes it introduces. The two points I will particularly focus on go to the questions of postal voting procedures, the deposits required for nomination and the number of nominators required for unendorsed candidates.
First is the issue of postal votes. This is an example of what has been happening within our electoral system over the last 20 years. When I first stood for federal parliament, in 1993—what feels today roughly a hundred years ago, but I am told is only 19½—postal voting was very much for those who were travelling and the elderly. A very important part of what you needed to do as a candidate was to ensure that people had the opportunity to make a postal vote, but it was only one of a number of things. In relative terms the number who utilised that means of casting their vote was quite small.
Now, the best part of 20 years later, with an ageing population and a more mobile population, postal voting has been steadily on the increase. In fact, in more recent times that increase has been exponential. More than 800,000 postal vote applications were received by the AEC for the 2010 election. That was a significant increase of, I think, between 15 and 20 per cent on the 2007 election. What it shows is that it is becoming a means for more and more Australians to exercise their democratic right, and in those circumstances we need to be very conscious of ensuring they get that opportunity.
Also, over time we have seen new technologies develop. The one thing we need to ensure is that those new technologies are opportunities to improve the electoral system and are not impediments to ensuring that people are able to exercise their democratic right.
These amendments will ensure that the AEC is able to better centralise the casting of postal votes and the processing of those postal votes—so, applications coming in and postal vote packages going out. That centralised approach is necessary, given the volumes we are talking about and given the times that we are now facing.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say that I think there is more we could do in this area, and I think it is something the government should look at—the fact that, if you like, postal voting has become a very important part of the electoral system and, when we look to the future, I think there are other reforms that could be made that could ensure the system is improved even further. I would urge the minister to consider some of those questions in the future; they are important questions.
On the question of the figures in relation to deposits required to nominate for a seat in the House of Representatives, which is proposed to be increased from $500 to $1,000, and with an equivalent amendment for the Senate from $1,000 to $2,000: these figures have not been changed since 2006. In conjunction with the complementary amendments to increase the number of nominators for an unendorsed candidate from 50 to 100 electors, as well as requiring each candidate to have the nomination form signed by 100 electors, these are also important reforms. But it is always a balancing act. The argument—and you will hear it sometimes from minor parties or from Independents—is all about the question of ensuring we have an electoral system which gives people the opportunity to stand, the opportunity to take part and the opportunity to test the will of the people. And that is a very important principle in any democracy.
But, again, you go to the question of when is it a right and when is it a responsibility. There is no doubt that we have seen, for example, in the Senate—and certainly, at times in some individual lower-house seats—a proclivity for people to stand in a situation where they have no reasonable expectation of any electoral success. We have seen in New South Wales, for example, Senate ballot papers basically a metre long. Also in the New South Wales upper house we have seen people accused of endeavouring to 'farm' preferences in order to try and achieve electoral outcomes. So I think it is an important reform, to ensure that those who would stand are able to exhibit (1) some financial willingness to, if you like, 'put up', and (2) that they are in a situation where there is some indication that they may have some electoral support. Through those means we should be able to ensure that we do not take away from people the right to stand, while ensuring that those who do stand are in a situation where they can actually show they have some level of support within the broader community. That point of balancing those rights is an important point from an electoral point of view, with respect to the operation of our system.
There are a number of other, minor, amendments which I will not go into at this stage. What I would say, though, is that our electoral system and our Electoral Commission are something that the parliament can be proud of and that the community can be proud of. We have a luxury in this country, compared with many other parts of the world, in that we can actually be confident that when we have an election—even if they are really close sometimes—we end up with a democratic outcome that we can all live with and work with into the future. And we can be confident that, when our Electoral Commission undertakes those elections, they do it fairly, they do it honestly and they do it with integrity. These measures, which arguably on their face are not significant, are part of an ongoing process of amending a system that has worked well, a system which provides us with the opportunity to test the will of the people and to come to a conclusion which will lead the nation into the future.
The commission, as I have said, does a very good job with respect to administering the system. These changes are a small part of ensuring that that system keeps up with the times, that the system is able to adjust to the requirements of modern technologies and, through those processes, ensure that we get a good, sound electoral system in place on an ongoing basis.
I again congratulate the minister for coming forth with this legislation. It is one of a number that he has brought forward in his time as minister. I think all of that has led to the system adjusting to the needs of the future and, in those circumstances, ensuring that we can all be confident with the electoral system we have. In that respect, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) (11:50): The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 is going to amend the Electoral Act and the referendum act. It makes some machinery reforms and I am pleased to see that it is being supported by the opposition. In particular, it is going to ensure that the Electoral Commissioner can use automated systems to receive and process applications for postal votes. As a number of speakers have commented, postal votes have become increasingly popular in recent elections. I think every member of this House would be familiar with the increasing number of postal votes that are cast. At the last election, in 2010, the Australian Electoral Commission received over 800,000 postal vote applications. What these amendments do is not only recognise what has become the practice but they have been written in a way that will allow for future technological changes.
There is a very helpful report by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the bill that is now before the House. As the chair of the committee, the member for Banks, commented in his foreword to the report, which approves this legislation and recommends that the House does pass it, most postal vote applications are already processed centrally and postal vote packages are distributed through the Australian Electoral Commission's central print system. It is no longer the case that the divisional returning officers are primarily responsible for postal voting activities, as was the case some decades ago. The electoral commissioner is going to continue to delegate his powers in relation to postal votes to divisional returning officers, and the change in this bill is not going to affect the way individuals or political parties interact with the divisional returning officer on postal voting matters. As is the current practice—and these amendments recognise this—political parties are still going to be able to distribute postal vote applications with campaigning material, receive the completed postal vote applications and forward them to the relevant divisional returning officer.
The committee was at pains to reiterate the advice it had received from the Australian Electoral Commission in relation to this proposed amendment about postal voting. It said—and this is recorded in the joint standing committee's report—that the AEC stressed that the changes proposed to postal voting are 'not about changing fundamentally any of the current processes for dealing with postal vote applications' and that these changes are intended to have the current practices reflected in the Electoral Act. The committee thought it useful to set out another statement by the Australian Electoral Commission:
This is primarily an amendment that is designed to reflect the fact that the application for postal vote information system is now highly centralised while the act reflects a postal vote processing system which was designed 100 years ago. All we are trying to do here is get an act that reflects the practice.
The other important changes that are included in this amending bill are some changes to the deposit requirements for nomination for a seat in the House of Representatives and for nomination for a seat in the Senate—an increase in the deposit for a seat in the House from $500 to $1,000, with the matching amendment for nominations to the Senate involving an increase from $1,000 to $2,000. It is some time since the deposit was increased; the last time this sum was increased for candidates for election to both houses was in 2006.
There are complementary amendments that are intended to—and will—increase the number of nominators for an unendorsed candidate from 50 to 100 electors as well as requiring each candidate to have the nomination form signed by 100 electors. There is no change to the law with respect to endorsed candidates. The government's view is that these amendments, in increasing the deposit requirement and increasing the number of nominators required, strike the right balance between providing an opportunity for eligible Australians to stand for election to this parliament while putting in place some reasonable thresholds that candidates must meet.
I think all of us have become familiar in recent years with what the committee described as the 'expanding size' of ballot papers for the Senate. I would suggest that we should perhaps describe it as 'exploding size'. For example, the committee referred to the 2010 federal election, when the New South Wales Senate ballot paper contained the names of 84 candidates distributed across 33 columns. It was 1,020 millimetres wide, which is the widest ballot paper that can physically be printed as a single sheet. I think we have all seen voters at polling stations wrestling with the scale of ballot papers that look like that. It involved reducing the font size on the ballot paper to 8.5 point. As the committee also commented, if we were to see any increases in the number of candidates appearing on ballot papers or the number of columns appearing on future ballot papers, it would be necessary—because we have already reached the physical limit of the size of the ballot paper—for the Australian Electoral Commission to further reduce font sizes and hyphenate names and for voters to cast their vote on over a metre of paper.
It is obviously undesirable that there be a proliferation of candidates in certain circumstances. This is not to be suggested as any wish on my part or on the part of the government to reduce the number of people who are standing for election. Nevertheless, we need to ensure that standing for election to this parliament is taken as the serious act that it is. Where candidates are endorsed by political parties, it can be taken that they have the support of a substantial number of people in the community already, through the endorsement process in their political parties. These amendments seek to look at the position of candidates for election to the Senate and candidates for election to the House of Representatives who have not received the endorsement of a political party. It is really to impose on unendorsed candidates a requirement that shows that they are intending seriously to participate in an election campaign and stand for the high public office of membership of this House or membership of the Senate.
I would suggest to the House that the way these amendments have been framed will impose some small brake on the scale of the ballot papers we have come to see in recent elections. They do lead to an increase in the complexity of the voting task for electors. These amendments will simply ensure that prospective candidates do appreciate the seriousness of what they are about in standing for election, in participating in the electoral process. It imposes some requirement that they can demonstrate some level of community support for their candidacy. I commend these practical amendments to the Electoral Act and the Referendum Act to the House.
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (11:58): The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 implements three of the recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—specifically, recommendations 12, 31 and 32. I note that opposition members of the committee did not oppose these recommendations in their dissenting report, and I thank those members. I thank all members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the work they have done to ensure that these amendments arrive in this chamber with the support all our respective members.
That is important because modernising postal voting provisions, as we will do through these amendments, is a task which the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has had under consideration for quite some years. Schedule 1 to the bill will modernise the postal voting provisions to facilitate the use of technology to improve the way in which postal voting applications are made and processed. These amendments implement the government's response to recommendation 12 made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its report into the 2010 federal election.
We have heard many speakers speak on this bill. I appreciate that and thank all of them for their contributions. At the 2010 election the Electoral Commission processed over one million postal votes, which was nearly 18 per cent higher in volume than the number of postal votes which were processed at the 2007 election, which itself saw an increase in the number of postal votes processed at the 2004 election. This rapid escalation in postal votes allows the Electoral Commission to think through the measures which it might like to introduce that would create efficiencies in the counting of those postal votes.
The amendments in schedule 1 to the bill simplify postal vote arrangements by directing all applicants to either the Electoral Commissioner or an assistant returning officer. Assistant returning officers, who may receive postal vote applications from overseas voters, will be located outside Australia at places such as Australian high commissions and embassies and certain Australian Defence Force operations. Upon receiving an application, the Electoral Commissioner or an assistant returning officer will then send, or arrange for the sending of, a postal vote package to the applicant. Directing the majority of postal vote applications to the Electoral Commissioner will enable the centralised processing and centralised dispatch of postal vote packages. The amendments do not fundamentally change the existing policy underpinning the current arrangements for postal voting.
The amendments made by schedule 2 to the bill seek to address concerns arising from the increasingly large number of Senate groups contesting elections. They are proposed as a means of discouraging candidates who are not seriously in contention for election, thereby reducing the number of candidates on ballot papers.
We have heard many comments in this debate about the size of the New South Wales Senate ballot paper at the 2010 election. I have a copy of that ballot paper here at the table. The ballot paper was in excess of a metre wide and, as we have heard on many occasions, reached the printing logistics capability of those printing firms that supply ballot papers for elections. At that election there were 84 candidates distributed across 33 columns on that ballot paper. Of the 84 candidates, 42 receive fewer than 200 first preference votes, none of them came from a group which had a candidate elected, and all lost their nomination deposits. Only 2,697 people voted for such candidates.
The increasingly large number of Senate groups contesting elections has an impact on formality due to a ballot paper that is growing in complexity and size and a voting system that requires that every box below the line be numbered if the voter chooses that voting option. At more than a metre wide, the Senate ballot paper for New South Wales is already the largest that can be printed. If more Senate groups contest the next election than did the 2010 election, the font for the ballot paper will have to be reduced. Reducing the font will further affect readability, and that increases the risk of informal voting.
Schedule 2 to the bill will increase the nomination deposits that must be paid by or on behalf of the candidate from $1,000 to $2,000 for all Senate candidates and it will increase the nomination deposit that must be paid by or on behalf of all candidates for the House of Representatives from $500 to $1,000. The last time the deposits were increased was in 2006. The increases were recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, recommendations 31 and 32, as supported by the government and the opposition—and I thank them for that.
Schedule 2 to the bill will also increase from 50 to 100 the number of electors required to nominate an unendorsed candidate. Unendorsed candidates are candidates who are either not endorsed by a registered political party or not sitting independent candidates. Further, for unendorsed Senate candidates who have made a request to be grouped, each candidate will require 100 unique electors to nominate them. For example, if two Senate candidates make a request to be grouped, that group will need 200 unique electors. There is no change in the number of nominators required for endorsed candidates of registered political parties or for sitting independent candidates as defined in the act. The amendments to increase the required nomination deposits and the number of nominators required for unendorsed candidates seek to strike the right balance between providing the opportunity for all eligible citizens to stand for parliament and, at the same time, putting in place some reasonable thresholds that candidates must meet—thresholds that will contribute to ensuring the effectiveness and integrity of the electoral process.
There are also a number of minor and technical amendments to both acts. One of the proposed amendments sought to make a change to the law relating to who may be enrolled and who may vote at elections. There has been a longstanding prohibition on people who are described as being of 'unsound mind' such that they are 'incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting'. Following the introduction of the bill on 27 June 2012, that matter was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for consideration. The joint standing committee report does not support amending the Electoral Act to omit the use of the term 'unsound mind'. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, in its unanimous report, considered that the amendment could result in some persons using the change to circumvent the compulsory voting obligations contained in section 245 of the Electoral Act. In reviewing that matter, I am persuaded by the reasoning contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. These amendments are found at items 3, 4, 10 and 11 of schedule 3 of the bill and they will be omitted. The government amendments to the bill will remove the proposed amendments.
I would like to thank all members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their deliberations on this bill and for the work that they have done in providing the reports on the 2010 election and on subsequent matters. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is a unique facility of our parliament that allows members of parliament, political parties and interested political participants to make their views known on the execution of elections and it allows this parliament to maintain an Electoral Act and an elections culture, which is both up to date and which allows for immediate response to problems as they arise and opportunities as they become available. I believe that in the matter of postal votes, in the matter of deposits and in the manner of candidates standing for public office that these amendments respond in a timely fashion to the outstanding work that has been done by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (12:09): by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together:
(1) Schedule 3, items 3 and 4, page 21 (line 17) to page 22 (line 2), omit the items.
(2) Schedule 3, items 10 and 11, page 22 (lines 21 to 29), omit the items.
The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 implements three of the recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its report into the 2010 federal elections, specifically recommendations 12, 31 and 32. One of the proposed amendments sought to make a change to the Electoral Act relating to who may be enrolled and who may vote at elections. Following the introduction of the bill on 27 June, it was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and I thank the members of that committee for their extensive review of the bill and of the matters that relate to it.
In reviewing the bill I am persuaded by the reasoning contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that the change to the act should not proceed as described in the original bill. I move government amendments to accept recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to omit items 3, 4, 10 and 11 of schedule 3 to the bill.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (12:10): I am pleased to see that the government has accepted the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, to which I referred this bill for investigation on the question of the use of the term 'of unsound mind'. It was an important issue to be dealt with. As I have said before, this was a unique occasion on which the government, the Greens and the opposition members all agreed on a single report. It is usually a very partisan report where we are clearly divided on political lines. On this occasion we came together and saw the sense of having this term, which has a determined meaning, remain in the act unchanged. I commend the government for accepting the report and for moving the amendments, which we, of course, accede to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (12:12): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (12:12): I move:
That orders of the day Nos 2 and 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (12:13): The majority of Australians, especially the younger generation, frequently share their personal information online through everyday tasks, such as paying bills, purchasing concert tickets, online shopping, entering competitions and social networking sites. In fact, in today's technologically driven society, most people no longer think twice about the potential dangers of constantly sharing private personal information in the online world, but there are serious risks to doing so. That is why it is so vital that there are rules and restrictions placed on companies and organisations that specify how they can collect, use and disclose customers' personal information. The Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 seeks to make Australia's privacy protection framework relevant to the modern era of online information sharing.
I turn now to the specifics of the bill. The bill seeks to amend the Privacy Act 1988 to implement the first stage response to the Australian Law Reform Commission's report, For your information: Australian privacy law and practice, published on 25 June 2006. That report contained 295 recommendations, 197 of which are addressed in this bill. The principal amendments proposed in this bill are to (1) establish the Australian Privacy Principles, a single set of privacy principles applying to both Commonwealth agencies and the private sector, to replace the existing Information Privacy Principles for the public sector, and the National Privacy Principles for the private sector; (2) introduce more comprehensive credit reporting with improved privacy protections; (3) introduce provisions on privacy codes and the credit reporting code, including powers for the Privacy Commissioner to register codes that are binding on specified agencies and corporations; (4) clarify the functions and powers of the commissioner, including those to resolve complaints, encourage the use of external dispute resolution services and conduct investigations; and (5) insert a new part to deal with civil penalties for contraventions. Maximum penalties are $220,000 for an individual and $1.1 million for a corporation, for serious and repeat contraventions.
This bill is lengthy and complex and contains important changes to the regimes governing credit reporting and the use of personal information. The aspect that has generated most stakeholder comment concerns the transition from negative to positive credit reporting. Industry stakeholders strongly support positive credit reporting, which enables lenders to assess the maintenance of credit accounts rather than simply instances of default. Positive credit reporting is seen as a much more reliable guide to a person's ability to service a loan and is likely to have considerable value to consumers. However, there are reservations with the proposed regime: for example, access to new data by telecoms and utilities is excluded, despite the value this should represent to them and to consumers.
The proposed restrictions on access to data by offshore entities has also been criticised as overlooking potential safeguards, and stakeholders suggest that there should be a carve-out for trans-Tasman data flows, given the interconnectedness of the Australian and New Zealand economies. In addition, the civil penalties regime is seen as unduly harsh, especially in the case of human inadvertence, despite the existence of secure and tested data management systems.
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs are both inquiring into the bill but have not yet reported, which is surprising given that we are debating it here today. It does seem to be part of an increasing practice by the government to bring bills on for debate in this chamber without the House committee even having a chance to report. To the opposition, that does seem like putting the cart before the horse.
One of the more notable submissions to the Senate inquiry was from the Australasian Retail Credit Association, who represent Australia's credit reporting agencies and major banking and financial services organisations. They had four key areas of concern, which are shared by other industry stakeholders who submitted to the Senate inquiry. The first area of concern to the association is the issue of cross-border data sharing. They recommended that the bill be amended so that:
In the case of offshore disclosure, APP8—
Australian Privacy Principle 8—
applies to credit information in the same way it applies to other forms of personal information; and
If there is a privacy breach, in respect to data disclosed offshore, liability for the breach rests with the disclosing entity and individuals are able to seek redress for the breach through the regulator, unless that breach has been made despite reasonable steps taken by the disclosing entity to prevent a breach, and the offshore entity improperly discloses the data.
The association's second area of concern is restrictions on the use of de-identified data. They note in their submission:
De-identified information is, by definition, credit reporting information that is no longer personal information. ARCA considers it unnecessary and inappropriate for the use and disclosure of this information to be regulated by the Privacy Act.
The third area of concern addressed in the association's submission is commencement arrangements. They explain:
… the Bill provides for the commencement of the new credit reporting regime nine months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. By trying to implement the reforms in a nine month window, there is a risk that consumers will experience real negative impacts from the credit reporting changes …
The fourth, and last, area of concern to the Australasian Retail Credit Association is corrections and complaints. As they detail in their submission:
Unless the complaints handling process in the Bill is amended, it will require a complex system to be developed between the multitude of Credit Providers and CRBs—
credit reporting bodies—
who use the credit reporting system to manage the finalisation of consumer complaints. Such a system would increase the risk of inadvertent disclosure, remove the ability of the consumer to deal directly with the cause of the complaint, and is against industry practice and good business practice regarding customer service.
The coalition urges the Senate committee to further investigate the recommendations made in this submission and made by others who had similar concerns about the bill and who took the time to make submissions.
This is a very important bill with significant implications for the financial sector. While the coalition welcomes the bill and key stakeholders have welcomed the introduction of positive credit reporting, there are serious concerns as to cross-border data sharing and the use of de-identified data. The concerns are likely to be reflected in the House and Senate committees' reports, and amendments are likely to be recommended. In these circumstances, you really wonder why we are debating this bill in the House today, when those committee reports have not been finalised. When stakeholders make submissions to committee inquiries, which is often a very time-consuming process that they put a lot of effort into, I think they could reasonably expect that the parliament would not discuss the legislation until it had had time to consider the committee reports. This is yet another bill that we are debating this week where we have not had the chance to do that.
I call on the government to take the parliamentary committee process seriously. Obviously, a lot of government members sit on committees—for example, committees are chaired by government members—and I am surprised that the government has so little regard for the committee process whereby we are debating bills here before the relevant committees have had a chance to report on references that they have been given or that they have chosen themselves.
On behalf of the opposition I thank industry stakeholders who have contributed to the important reforms in this bill. I apologise that the parliament is looking at the bill before some of the concerns of these stakeholders can be readily examined. We support the aims of the bill as an opposition; however, considering the number of amendments it is making, we believe that it is important that the bill be thoroughly and properly examined. It would have been far better if we could have had a look at the pending House and Senate committee reports before we examined the bill. Doing this would have been particularly essential given this government's well-earned reputation for incompetence. Rushing legislation through without proper consideration and attention to detail is just a recipe for incompetence to be perpetuated and is not good legislative practice. While the opposition supports the bill and its aims, I urge the government, when it is moving legislation that is obviously complex and is going to impact on particular industries very heavily, to let this House and the Senate do their job properly.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (12:23): Personal information is becoming more sensitive and valuable in the expanding online world. Protecting the privacy of personal information is a real concern for consumers and business. On one estimate, identity theft and fraud affects half a million Australians every year. In 2007, my friend Joshua Gans wrote in his blog about his own experience of identity theft. He wrote that somebody had obtained his details using his birthdate, which was available on his CV. They then obtained a Medicare card and began to open bank accounts in his name. He discovered later that he was among the victims of a large scamming operation which has since been shut down by the authorities. He was pretty shocked by the experience. Joshua's experience shows the importance of privacy protection and why we need strong legislative protection of personal information.
The Labor Party has a tradition of consumer protection, and it is in this tradition that we are strong believers in protecting privacy. We understand that to protect individual freedoms you need appropriate privacy laws. Consumers deserve protection from the disclosure of credit reporting information and its use in direct marketing. Businesses will benefit from a credit reporting system that is accurate and up to date. In this bill, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012, we are striking a balance between the needs of consumers and businesses to operate and adequate protections of the disclosure of personal information and credit reporting.
It was the Labor Party which, in 1990, introduced credit reporting. The Privacy Amendment Act was directed at the activities of credit reporting agencies. A number of other bodies, such as consumer groups, have expressed concern about the potential for breaches of privacy by the users of the agencies and about the inaccuracy of some of the information held by agencies. This inaccuracy has usually resulted from incorrect information being passed to the agency or from a failure to update information under such circumstances—for example, when a person has subsequently paid a debt on which they had previously defaulted.
Labor is committed to containing the growing level of unmanageable personal debt, and we want to make sure that credit providers have access to a wider range of information about an individual's financial situation. Credit providers themselves are an important check on individuals taking on unmanageable debt. So, in reforming credit reporting, we introduced requirements that records be kept of inquiries made by credit providers for payments that are overdue by at least 90 days. We limited the maximum period for which information can be kept to no more than seven years. We empowered credit consumers by enabling a person to request that their information be altered if they disagree with the information held by a credit reporting agency.
This government also introduced the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, which implemented a new consumer credit regulation framework to replace the state based regulatory framework known as the Uniform Consumer Credit Code. That reform addressed the problems that emerged with the operation of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code to guarantee consistency among jurisdictions. We knew that there were risks associated with the continued lack of comprehensive government supervision of finance-broking practices, and that is why we took action to protect consumers from onerous mortgages.
The Law Reform Commission's 2008 report For your information: Australian privacy law and practiceinforms the measures proposed in this bill. The report argued:
As a recognised human right, privacy protection generally should take precedence over a range of other countervailing interests, such as cost and convenience.
It noted that rapid advances in information, communication and surveillance technologies have created a range of previously unforeseen privacy issues. It also noted that regional political and economic blocs, such as the EU and APEC, have created pressure for Australia's privacy protection regime to align with those of Australia's key trading partners.
The Australian retail industry has noted the rapid rise of online shopping. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics data, in 2008-09 just under two-thirds of Australian adults had used the internet to purchase goods and services in the previous 12 months. The wife of one of my staff has said that, when she wants to buy new clothes for her baby daughter, she does it through Etsy. Etsy is a perfect example of the interconnectedness brought about by online retailing. Dresses from the United States, toys from Italy and hairclips from Turkey can all be purchased online—and, of course, online retailers are holding email addresses, credit card details and other personal information.
While it is terrific to be able to have access to a wider range of goods—and a wider range of goods is as important a benefit of trade as lower prices—it is also important to make sure that we manage the risks regarding the protection of private information. The Australian Crime Commission have described identity theft as one of the fastest growing crimes in Australia. They highlight how identity crime causes financial damage to consumers, lending institutions, retail establishments and the economy as a whole because of the confidence-sapping effect of identity crime and the tendency for victims to then cease engaging in online transactions.
Identity crime fuels other criminal activities. Criminals will sometimes use identity crime, for example, in order to rent a car to carry out another offence. It erodes the trust consumers have in service providers. It causes emotional distress for victims. Someone ultimately has to foot the bill, whether that is a business or an individual. It can even threaten the safety of people who have had their data exposed. We have seen some of these instances in the world of online socialising.
The sophistication and speed with which hackers can breach online security systems is, frankly, breathtaking. Here is a story from Wired magazine demonstrating how easily and quickly this was done to Matt Honan through breaching Amazon and Apple security systems. He related how in the space of just an hour his 'digital life' was destroyed. Here is his chronology:
At 5:02 p.m., they reset my Twitter password. At 5:00 they used iCloud's "Find My" tool to remotely wipe my iPhone. At 5:01 they remotely wiped my iPad. At 5:05 they remotely wiped my MacBook. Around this same time, they deleted my Google account. At 5:10, I placed the call to AppleCare. At 5:12 the attackers posted a message to my account on Twitter taking credit for the hack.
All of that happened in the space of 12 minutes. When we are up against hackers like that, it is critical that the law adapts as well, that we enhance the protections around the collection, storage, security and use of personal information in today's digital world.
With so many Australians conducting business online, dealing with identity theft through the internet and cybercrime are substantial concerns for this government and law enforcement agencies. On an online forum I found one story about somebody who had been a victim of internet identity theft. Told anonymously, it read as follows:
Not too long ago, I made a disturbing discovery. I received a statement in the mail for a department store credit card that I hadn’t authorized, and noticed a shipping address that was not my own. My name was listed on the bill, and my home address was recorded as the billing address – but the shipping address was for a location in an entirely different state.
I immediately called the credit card company to find out what was happening, thinking there must be some kind of mistake. I was connected with a helpful customer service representative who was able to quickly determine that I was a victim of fraud. Thankfully, she believed me when I insisted I had not authorized this card to be opened.
Once the customer service representative had notified her company’s fraud department, I asked if she might be able to give me any further information. She was very helpful and gave me the name of the person who had opened the account.
After hanging up with the credit card company, I immediately did a quick Internet search. Having the name of the women who opened the account, and knowing the state where the products were sent made my search rather easy. Soon I was able to locate a telephone number for the person who had opened this credit card in my name, without my permission.
I dialed the number and was a little surprised to hear an older woman’s voice on the phone. She was clearly unnerved when I told her my name and asked why she had opened an account using my identity. Out spilled her story of meeting a man with my name in an Internet chat room.
Nervously she shared how he had convinced her to open a few credit card accounts on his behalf. He gave her the necessary information and directed her to make store credit purchases at a major department store, a clothing store, and a toy store. I was a bit alarmed – the major department store was not the only place where an unauthorized credit card had been issued.
The woman continued to tell me that the impostor had convinced her he wasn’t able to purchase products from the United States on his own and needed her help. He told her she would be doing him a big favor if she would order items on his behalf, and have them sent to her address. Then, she was directed to ship the items to him at an address outside the country.
… … …
It did take a few weeks and some follow-up phone calls for the matter to be completely resolved with all the stores. However, it took longer to shake the feeling of being violated. It was unnerving to know that someone else had used my name and information to open a line of credit without my knowledge. It could happen again, and it could happen to anyone.
And it does.
The extent and severity of identity theft and fraud in Australia are difficult to pinpoint, but one estimate from the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre found identity fraud costs $1 billion every year. That estimate is from 2003, so the cost is almost certainly higher now. The ABS conducted a personal fraud survey, as I noted earlier, and estimated about half a million victims of identity fraud over the prior 12 months.
We are tightening the rules on sending personal information outside Australia. Before an agency or organisation discloses personal information to an overseas recipient, it will have to take reasonable steps to make sure the recipient does not breach the Australian Privacy Principles. Under the reforms in the bill, the agency or organisation will remain responsible for the personal information even when it is in the hands of the overseas recipient. The security of personal information will be the responsibility of the overseas recipient only in limited circumstances.
This bill is part of the government's response to the For your information report. It introduces three key reforms to the Privacy Act 1988: new unified Australian Privacy Principles that will apply equally to the private and public sectors; more comprehensive credit reporting that will include positive information in consumers' credit reports; and new powers for the Australian Privacy Commissioner to handle complaints and give remedies to consumers. These three reforms will deal with the handling of personal information and include provisions for the collection, storage, security, use, disclosure and accuracy of information.
A new principle will give more power to consumers to opt out of receiving direct marketing materials—an issue that I know, Deputy Speaker Georganas, is close to your heart with your strong advocacy for a 'do not knock' register. This reform more tightly regulates the use of personal information for direct marketing. Companies will have to provide a clear and simple way of opting out. The reforms to consumer credit reporting, as I said earlier, sit very much in a Labor tradition.
These are reforms that will benefit consumers and benefit businesses. By minimising identity fraud and maximising confidence in online trading, we will ensure that Australians are able to continue socialising online and communicating with businesses with confidence that the laws that underpin their dealings are advancing as the technology of hackers moves on. We are providing new powers to enable the Australian Privacy Commissioner to accept enforceable undertakings and, if warranted, to pursue civil penalties for a serious breach of privacy. We understand that individual freedoms require the protection of well-made laws, and that is in the great Labor tradition of protecting private information and standing up on the side of consumers. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (12:38): I am particularly pleased to be able to speak on the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012. I really want to put this bill into its historical context, to look at the principle it is addressing and then to deal with the substance, in those three phases.
Let us begin with the context. In a perverse way, this bill traces its way back to Italy in the 15th and 16th centuries, to the waves of history which came from the Renaissance. The first wave, of course, was the knowledge revolution and the democratisation of knowledge through the printing press and the gradual period of enlightenment where there was a physical ability to transmit ideas on a relatively mass scale. There was a willingness and an openness which emerged from the closed period of the Dark Ages in terms of the intellectual culture. That in turn contributed in no small way to the industrial revolution, the steam age and the way in which production was spread through mechanisation, with all of its upsides and all of its downsides. But in my judgement there has been an extraordinary march of history through the mechanisation of food production, through the massive productivity gains and through the electrification process, which is arguably the single biggest indicator of longevity and quality of life in our world today.
That then leads us to what I would regard as the third of the great ages, which is the age of communication. We have the technology in terms of the equipment, the democratisation of communication and the ability for each and every person to become an active publisher. People can be engaged in the process, which spreads across many different aspects of our lives. That historic context leads us to the great issues of privacy and protection. In a sense, we have to be honest about the trade-offs that we face. In many cases they align so that we can ensure that privacy and protection are given. Sometimes they conflict. I want to briefly place this bill in the context of weighting and the principles that apply to the balance between privacy and protection across the fronts of national security, commercial information and social engagement.
In terms of national security, mass communication and the democratisation of publishing through phones, iPads and all of the different online platforms as well as the general world allows us to know what is going on. We simply need to look at the fact that any person anywhere in the world with access to internet capabilities, from whatever platform, can now zoom in and be aware that there is a submarine base at Hainan, which would previously have been known only to a few. Only a few years ago this was unknown, inaccessible. Maybe the powers that be in the conclaves of US and other security agencies had the information, but now any person anywhere can tune in to much of what is happening with Chinese security in terms of the new submarine base that is being constructed in a subterranean cavern. They can access material about the United States.
It is an interesting question. There are strengths and there are weaknesses in that. But we also need to be aware that the national security issues in relation to the transmission of information through forces that seek to undermine society are real. So this is a great balance. There is a role for the ability to tap that information where it is in the national interest, but there have to be fundamental protocols around that. This bill is not so much about that space, but it moves into the second and third spaces of the commercial and the social.
The commercial benefit which flows from this era of instantaneous and ubiquitous communication capacity is this: it allows us to have access to the broadest range of goods at the cheapest possible prices from the widest range of sources. That is an unalloyed good. It may make it difficult for certain firms in certain places, but the net process is about democratising the process of buying, giving people access to the things that they seek and the ability to acquire them. It can be a great challenge for our retail community, but we have been through the transition from horse and buggy to car. We have been through the transition from black and white to colour. It is simply a historic fact through which we will have to pass and adapt.
But what in particular this means is that the process of online acquisition leads to the transmission of credit details, and it is absolutely critical that those credit details are protected, that they are not to spread around, precisely because of the examples that many have given. There can be theft, abuse and spreading of information. The information that is fundamental to our lives is at risk of being spread throughout the world, to be misused for criminal purposes. It is at risk of being easily and lightly given to those who would exploit it for their own commercial ends. They simply break down individual privacy, in terms of people's purchasing habits and the sanctity and the freedom of their own personal space on the net and in their own homes. The stories of people receiving unwanted, pestering calls are legion. That is the great challenge. I firmly, clearly, absolutely come down on the side of privacy in that space.
The third of the areas in which we need to weight principles is social media. Again the foundation principle is privacy, but there is a criminal practice in relation to engaging in the online abuse, potentially leading to real-world abuse, of underage people. The practice of grooming is all too real. It is a significant problem, and every parent will be concerned about it. I have a three-year-old son who has mastered many of the details of the iPad. He is not alone; he is indicative of kids of that age. The technology has them engaged right from the start. That generation will evolve at a faster rate than we could ever imagine. There is a trade-off between privacy and security. Where there is any risk of younger people being exposed to risk to their personal security, that is where we must breach the veil of privacy and allow agencies to have access to material—to peek behind the veil of privacy—so there can be no risk at any time of an impact on any children that puts them in harm's way, whether in an online and digital sense or in a real-world and physical sense.
Those are the principles to which I apply the balance between privacy and security. I come down on the side of a slight erosion of privacy in relation to national security and personal security, but I do not see any basis for breaching privacy in relation to commercial security unless there is clear and manifest evidence of criminal activity.
Of the three areas I have spoken about, this bill deals overwhelmingly with the commercial. The bill seeks to do five things which are desirable. Firstly, it establishes the Australian Privacy Principles. They are a single set of privacy principles that apply to both Commonwealth agencies and the private sector. That is a good thing. Secondly, it introduces more-comprehensive credit reporting with improved privacy protections. I am particularly focused on the improved privacy protections, which fit the elements and principles that I laid out earlier. Thirdly, it introduces new provisions on privacy codes and the credit reporting code, including powers for the Privacy Commissioner to register those codes and to ensure that they are binding on specified agencies and corporations. In short, it is making sure that the watchers are watched. It is building in a layer of protection against state abuse. Fourthly, it clarifies the functions and powers of the Privacy Commissioner, including those used to resolve complaints, encourage the use of external dispute resolution services and conduct investigations. Finally, it ensures that there are penalties for contraventions by those who are custodians of commercial information and who seek to abuse that custodianship; in particular, it ensures that there is a duty of care and a responsibility for making sure that that information is not lightly or improperly passed on. If it is, there is a chain of custodianship that imposes obligations. I think that is entirely reasonable.
We are disappointed, however, that the government has not seen fit to allow to run the full processes whereby the House and the Senate can conduct their inquiries. I think that is a mistake and a breach of faith. We reserve our right to move amendments in the Senate on the basis of the great instruments of the people that are the parliament and committees examining and considering the bill and suggesting improvements to it. We will reserve our judgement on that front. At this point we think that the bill is worthy and valuable but that it can potentially be improved with the insights to be gained. I cannot see why the government has breached the faith and failed to allow those committees to have adequate time to conduct their investigations and present their findings and, therefore, potentially to make their recommendations. I think that is a mistake.
Having said that, this bill is part of a historic context. It fits in the course of action over the last 400 years, from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, through the Age of Knowledge, the Age of Steam and the Industrial Revolution to, now, the mass democratisation of communications. We have the challenge as representatives in this parliament of ensuring that the balance between privacy and protection is right. This bill tilts the balance in the commercial sector more in favour of privacy and less in favour of those who might wilfully or even inadvertently misuse the commercial information that has been given to them. For those reasons, I support and we support the bill.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (12:51): As a former practitioner in this area I have believed for quite some time that the issue of privacy and privacy law is the big frontier for not only Australia but the world. When amendments made to the Privacy Act 1988 came in more than 10 years ago to extend privacy protections to the private sector, I believe there was a tendency to regard privacy as an issue you would tack on to the end of a commercial deal. You would consider it at the last minute. It was on a checklist of things you knew you were going to be able to tick so you did not pay very much attention to it. It is largely thanks to the amendments in 2000-01, when the Privacy Act was extended to cover organisations as eligible entities, that we have had a very strong commercial focus on privacy and its importance to people.
Even prior to that, I remember in the late 1990s, when the term 'e-commerce' was only starting to emerge, there were a number of government institutions and advisory committees set up to advise on how Australia would be able to harness this relatively new thing called the internet; and, consistently, people's ability to trust the way their personal information would be collected, used and disclosed was rated as most important. It was considered to be the single most important factor in enabling participation in the online economy to flourish, and I do not think that has changed. The comments from other speakers this morning are consistent with that as well.
In terms of the collection, use and disclosure of information, there is a broader challenge today, and that is where someone has, so to speak, acquiesced to disclosing information—that is, the participation of individuals in the social media space and our willingness to give over personal information. If we counted the number of times a day that we give our personal information to complete strangers, both individuals and organisations, I think we would be alarmed—or, maybe, in some cases, not even surprised by the number of times we do that. And I think we would be horrified if we found out the exact ways in which organisations were going to use our personal information, if we had actual knowledge of how that information would be treated. Most of us probably would not know what those uses would be.
When I was first engaging in privacy law—again, this in the late 1990s—the first principle by which privacy would be explained was not only in terms of the UN convention upon which our Privacy Act is based but also in terms of the principle, harking back centuries, of privacy being the right to be left alone. I do not think there would be too many people in the information age who believe they have a right to be left alone or who would even concede that they wanted to be left alone—that is, locked out of the digital age. It is also important to remember that, back then, we would only deal with the issue of privacy as law if it came within the Privacy Act following 1988. In addition, privacy was largely dealt with in terms of civil claims. There is a celebrated case that all law students learn in torts where lights being shone on someone's backyard was a so-called interference with privacy. But a lot of these were simply cases of trespass.
I think a lot of people in Australia, when they think about the right to privacy, are largely informed by what they hear and see from overseas, such as the case in the UK of Naomi Campbell being photographed here or superstars having their weddings photographed by someone when they had signed up to an exclusive arrangement with another organisation for the photos. A lot of people in Australia think about privacy in those terms. However, I think you would find most people consider privacy in terms of what is going to happen to their personal information when they disclose it, and what means of redress they have if they believe those rights have been infringed.
And so we come to the legislation before us today, the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012. It is worth reminding ourselves that there are whole other regimes of privacy law that cover a number of different areas. For example, even before the amendments to the Privacy Act that included private sector organisations, the telecommunications industry had its own, telco-specific privacy regulations and has for as long as I can remember. They include things like part 13 of the Telecommunications Act, dealing with how data could be used; the integrated public number database, the IPND, which contains the numbers of everyone in Australia with a telco device; and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. There are specific schedules in the Criminal Code Act which deal with privacy in telecommunications. We have surveillance legislation covering things like listening devices, not only federally but across state and territory jurisdictions. Further, there are specific privacy laws relating to things like tax file numbers, and, under the Corporations Act, how you can use shareholder details. So privacy protections are not novel, which is something I am very proud of. We have very specific privacy rules around information that are always considered to be important.
I think that what a lot of people are particularly concerned about today, when I talk about privacy being the next big frontier, is the way in which sensitive information is dealt with. The National Privacy Principles, as they previously stood, did recognise that sensitive information, which includes health information, warranted its own set of standards. That is something I have always believed, because, when you think about it, sensitive information includes not only health information but also things like sexual orientation. Those are factors that can be distorted or used to exclude people from certain things, and that people have a right to consider even more important than their name and address.
I thought about this recently when my baby was born: within a week, her personal information had been disclosed to any number of entities. She had her blue book and a tag around her leg which gave her a specific number, and we also chose to have a sample of her cord blood stored. This baby was barely a couple of weeks old and already she had so much personal information, and sensitive information at that, being stored.
It also goes to the very important issue of data profiling, something which has not been looked at closely in Australia compared to in the US. I would hope we could minimise and avoid in Australia the opportunity to undertake often insidious activities such as data profiling based on personal information.
Some of the issues I raised in the inquiry into this bill by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs arise from my experiences as a practitioner in this area. One of the areas on which I often had cause to reflect was the practical implications of potential or actual breaches of data disclosure. Mr Pilgrim, the Australian Privacy Commissioner from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, confirmed a lot of what I believed operated in a very practical sense—that is, often, if there is a data breach by an organisation, the key steps of demonstrating that that breach was inadvertent lead to the Privacy Commissioner not pursuing the matter. Some people might think, 'That defeats the whole purpose of having a law; it should have very strong enforcement powers for any breaches, particularly breaches by large organisations.' We have seen a number of those large organisations in the media in the past, from the financial services sector even to telecommunications. But it is very important for the Privacy Act to continue to operate to provide a very strong incentive in the two respects I mentioned earlier. If a consumer has confidence that an organisation is going to treat their personal information with appropriate collection, use and disclosure practices, I believe that provides a very strong incentive for consumers to want to continue doing business with that organisation. Also, we need to bear in mind that there are often cases in which data breaches are inadvertent which need to have a proportionate response from the Privacy Commissioner in those respects. It is also very important to recognise that the Australian Privacy Commissioner continues to take a very active role in educating organisations as to their obligations.
I would like to end by talking about some of the credit reporting provisions mentioned previously. As someone who quite often had to advise on this area, as they currently stand today I believe the provisions in the Privacy Act regarding credit reporting are some of the most complicated and onerous provisions you could deal with. The Privacy Commissioner and others involved in legislative drafting would agree that it is not the clearest law possible. I welcome the amendments in relation to credit reporting, again recognising that someone's credit record can follow them around for the rest of their lives. We have all heard of cases where someone with a poor credit record from having forgotten to pay a mobile phone bill when they were 18 years old has followed them through life and maybe even prohibited them from getting a home loan. It is essential that these reforms go through.
I would also like to say something about the transborder flow of information. Again this is something people do not have visibility of in everyday transactions because companies engage with offshore providers in providing back-end office services and there is no privity of contract as between the consumer and the outsourced entity.
As a practitioner—and I was taught very well by Peter Jones, a partner at Gilbert + Tobin—whenever we were advising clients on determining whether or not a transaction involving the offshoring of personal information was to occur, we had to ask ourselves what this was going to do to our reputation. Peter's starting point in any advice to clients was always, 'We will do everything we can in other areas to improve services, but if you believe that we will not be able to obtain the best and most robust security and guarantee as to how this information would be used, you might want to rethink entering into this transaction.'
I was even involved in cases where the exchange of data would occur between companies. When acting for multinational corporations, this was par for the course. Often people on the other side and the lawyers acting in other countries could not understand how robust the Australian privacy regime was. That bodes well for our Privacy Act. This bill will only add to that, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:06): I rise to speak in support of the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 and I particularly commend the contribution by the member for Greenway. I am chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, and, as discussed by earlier speakers, my committee is looking into this bill; nevertheless, I am going to make a contribution to this debate.
Consumer protection is a topic of importance to people in the Moreton electorate and throughout Australia. As noted by the member for Greenway, whilst we do have a good regime and we can hold our heads up high in terms of looking after people's privacy, perhaps second only to the French in some areas in protecting people's rights, there are always opportunities to look at the legislation and improve it. Every day people are faced with handling or disclosing personal information or trying to gain access to credit. Credit is obviously one of the great opportunities for people without money to generate wealth. It is the boon of the middle class, and in Australia where we have such strong banks it is an opportunity for people with secure employment to give their children a greater opportunity in life. So anything that secures good credit is to be commended and endorsed. Obviously we have seen in the United States the problems that come with bad credit, so we do take this area of law very seriously.
The bill before the chamber will implement key aspects of the government's first-stage response to the Australian Law Reform Commission's report into strengthening consumer protection. There are three key reforms in the bill. The new unified Australian Privacy Principles will apply equally to both the private and public sectors. The member for Greenway talked about this because of her previous calling as a privacy lawyer, and I thank her for her contribution because it was a great expose of some of the pitfalls that might confront people. The new unified Australian privacy principles will continue to deal with the handling of personal information, which includes the collection, storage, security, use, disclosure and, most importantly, accuracy of information.
A new principle will be introduced to deal specifically with direct marketing. Stronger protections for consumers will be included in the bill for the disclosure of information to overseas companies and organisations. This is something that people are aware of. We saw Telstra announce the other day—yesterday, it might have been—that they were outsourcing some of the jobs that were undertaken in Australia to overseas entities. It does happen in the banking sector. I met with the Financial Services Union, who talked about their members' jobs being exported overseas and the protections being enforced by contract and Australian law rather than only Australian law. Whilst lawyers can do many things, there is obviously that element of risk associated with any overseas contractual relationship enforcing Australian law.
More comprehensive credit reporting will for the first time include positive information in consumers' credit reports supported by strong privacy protections for this information. For example, a credit card report will show when a debt is paid on time and paid on time regularly, not just when it was in default or overdue. I used to be an articled clerk and a lawyer who had the joy of going through some of these processes, especially in the low-level articled clerk procedures, where you would trawl through some of these things, and standard lawyer procedure in terms of setting up companies and the like, as any lawyer would do. So it will be great to see that people have a positive credit history rather than just looking at the black marks.
These reforms are expected to improve responsible lending and reduce levels of indebtedness and defaults. It does not happen every week but it is not uncommon for people to come into my office to talk about the black marks that are on their credit report, that are on their credit history, which then mean that they cannot move into housing, they cannot buy cars—the things that set you up in life. As anyone who has dealt with homelessness knows, as soon as someone loses that roof over their head and starts couch surfing or, heaven forbid, living in their car, the whole world can fall apart for that individual or for a family when the family has to change schools and face all the stresses that come with such things. So I particularly commend the minister for this initiative in getting rid of the black marks that too often have been indelible. Black marks for what someone thought was normal behaviour when they were a university student can stay with them into their 40s and 50s.
There are new powers for the Australian Privacy Commissioner to handle complaints and to give remedies to consumers. The new powers will include the ability to accept enforceable undertakings as well as the ability to pursue civil penalties for serious breaches of privacy. In terms of the carrot and stick approach to legislation, modern legislation seems to have different sizes of stick, and enforceable undertakings have been an important part of that in changing behaviour. There are gradual steps up in the enforcement process so that you can come down very hard on the rogues at the end of the process if need be or just give a guiding hand to someone early on in the process so that they are on the straight and narrow and good corporate citizens.
The Privacy Amendment Bill will modernise Australia's privacy law framework by creating a single, technology-neutral set of privacy principles for both the private sector and Australian government agencies. Importantly, this will benefit consumers by promoting transparency in the handling of personal information by requiring organisations to develop and publish more competitive privacy policies. This makes it easier for everyday people to access and correct their credit reporting information. Bolstering the Privacy Commissioner's powers to enforce compliance with the act will further protect victims of identity theft and fraud by providing them with the ability to prohibit, for a specified period, the disclosure of credit reporting information about them with their consent. This is an interconnected world and a world of social media. The NBN being rolled out around the nation will bring incredible benefits and is a big part of our productivity agenda, but it does mean that identity theft and fraud can take place anywhere now. We were down in your part of the world recently, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, speaking to seniors about the benefits and the challenges that come with the interconnected world. I thank you for that contribution. It was a great community area. I have forgotten the name of it but it was a great experience.
This bill will also protect minors by prohibiting the collection of credit-reporting information about individuals under the age of 18.
This bill will more clearly and tightly regulate the use of personal information for direct marketing by introducing a specific privacy principle directed at direct-marketing activity and will prohibit the use of credit information for direct marketing. Too often, people are disrupted by the telephone or a knock at the door, with telemarketers trying to push a certain product—and I note that the member for Hindmarsh, who has spoken on this topic as well, is in the chamber. This bill will more tightly regulate the use of personal information for direct marketing. It will give more power to consumers to opt out of receiving direct-marketing materials, with the onus on companies to provide a clear and simple way for consumers to opt out.
The movement of information across borders offers significant social and economic benefits, particularly in the context of e-commerce. The existing Privacy Act regulates the disclosure of personal information to people outside Australia. The reformed Privacy Act will enhance that protection by requiring an agency or organisation to have in place, before any disclosure occurs, arrangements to ensure that any overseas recipient will protect the personal information—for example, by making appropriate contractual arrangements. However, the agency or organisation will still remain responsible for the personal information even when it is in the hands of the overseas recipient. This will strengthen the protection for an individual's information where it is disclosed outside Australia.
The bill will also reform the consumer credit reporting system. This is the first reform since Labor introduced credit reporting in 1990. Along with our responsible lending reforms in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, these changes will mean that the banks see more accurate information about the types of accounts families have and when they were opened and closed; the current credit limits of accounts, but obviously not the day-to-day balance, as that privacy will still be protected; and the positive information about repayment history, as I touched on before—when a credit card was paid off on time, not just the default sort of information about overdue payments.
Access to more accurate information will mean that the banks can assess credit risks more accurately. Normally, the more accurately they can price the risk, the cheaper it is. It is expected that it will enhance existing responsible-lending obligations, leading to decreased levels of overindebtedness and lower credit default rates. It is also expected to create more competition and efficiency in the credit market, which may in turn lead to more affordable credit and mortgage insurance for consumers. I know that some mortgage insurance companies have some concerns, but I am optimistic that those concerns will be addressed in this process.
Consumers will now also have more power to manage and check their credit report, including improved rights to access and correct their credit report. Credit providers will have positive obligations to help consumers correct their credit information. It will be easier to make complaints about incorrect credit-reporting information. The bill will also prohibit the collection of credit-reporting information about individuals reasonably known to be under 18.
This bill will not only further protect consumers but will provide businesses with a more flexible and less prescriptive credit-reporting regime by emphasising industry-led complaint resolution. The new privacy principles are technology neutral and relevant to a technology-driven environment and have the flexibility to adapt to new technology as it develops. This bill will modernise the credit-reporting provisions to address the significant changes that have taken place since they were first enacted in 1990 and will allow more comprehensive credit reporting to ensure that the credit-reporting system includes accurate and up-to-date information.
This bill will not only make it easier for people to appropriately access credit but will give people the opportunity to make businesses and banks aware of their positive credit history. As a member of parliament with 19,000 small businesses in my electorate, I know how important that is—how people with the right opportunity, the right idea and the right support can then go on to create jobs. The millions and millions of jobs and employees in the small business sector need as much protection as possible.
The bill will also further protect consumers by tightening regulations for people's personal information and by giving consumers the ability to opt out of direct-marketing campaigns. This is a very interconnected world. Whilst I personally am not moved too much by ads, obviously direct-marketing campaigns are a boon in that they talk about things that you are interested in, whether it be through Facebook, your magazines or the like, so that is a good thing. If you are not interested in golf, there is no point in your being bombarded with ads about golfing, but, if you are, obviously that sort of direct-marketing campaign would be more appropriate.
This bill, in terms of having a logical approach to direct-marketing campaigns, will give a bit of protection, particularly to the vulnerable whom we hear of who can be targeted in some direct-marketing campaigns, particularly Indigenous communities or the CALD, or culturally and linguistically diverse, communities and also the elderly. This bill will keep pace with the ever-changing nature and modernisation of the consumer industry by placing more stringent conditions on access to offshore personal information. Obviously it will not stop every rogue. Knowledge about people is sought after by rogues, be they criminals or people who utilise sharp practice in their selling of products. But the bill before the chamber is delivering on the Gillard Labor government's response to the Australian Law Reform Commission's report, and I welcome any reform that seeks to strengthen consumer protection. I commend the minister for this bill and I also commend the bill to the House.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (13:21): I am very happy to be here to support the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 and to speak on the bill, which is about protecting people's personal information. That has been a very topical discussion in South Australia, especially in my electorate. Many people have been concerned about it. We hear about banking jobs being offshored and about telcos and a whole range of people offshoring. Only the other day we heard that Telstra will be sending approximately 600 jobs offshore, which will mean that when you pick up the phone to give details about your personal information a lot of it will already be over there. It is always good for the consumer to know that that information is being sent overseas. This bill will require companies to let consumers know that their private information is being sent overseas. It is very important in the context of a lot of the financial institutions, insurance companies and telcos offshoring. A lot of our private information is in call centres in India, Manila and a whole range of other places. This is a good step in ensuring the privacy of that information.
Privacy has been a particular topic on radio in South Australia. On talkback radio Leon Bynder took up the case of privacy and the many overseas call centres. He contacted me a while back to see what could be done about it. Back then I remember speaking to the minister about this particular issue and I am very pleased to see this bill come to fruition here today. It has been ongoing for a couple of years since this was first discussed. I know that Leon Bynder has been a very strong advocate on 5AA for the protection of people's personal information, especially when it is going overseas. I congratulate Leon Bynder for taking the initiative on his program in South Australia to raise this issue and make it topical. I am very pleased that the minister took it on board and today we see this bill.
It would be preferable for all of us if our information did not go overseas. When you talk to people in the community they usually say that they would prefer for their information to stay here rather than be stored overseas. I can understand that, especially when it comes to our bank accounts, our telephone bills, our insurance bills and a whole range of other things. It is very personal and private information. You would not want it going into the wrong hands. We heard earlier some stories from the member for Fraser of identity fraud that had taken place.
In today's modern world are huge credit companies, insurance companies and all sorts of multinational companies which operate in every country and have offices all over the world. Whether the companies are overseas or in Australia, it is impossible to avoid some of your information going offshore. What this bill will do is make sure that, if your information does go overseas, for whatever reason, the company will be held to account for what happens to it, which is very important. This bill will mean that an agency or organisation that sends your information overseas will have to make sure they have strong protections in place to ensure they keep your data safe. It is very important for consumers to know there are strong protections in the place where that information is going to keep your data safe.
But more importantly—and this is a big thing—under the new reforms, customers will now have to be told if their information is going overseas and where it is going to. I think every consumer of any service has the absolute right to know if their private information is going overseas. The onus will now be on those companies to tell their customers that the information they are giving them about their dates of birth, credit card numbers, where they work and a whole range of things is going overseas and where it is going to. This is a huge win for those consumers and customers. Before, companies had no real obligation to tell their customers when they were sending details overseas, even bank details. Many of us have picked up the phone to find that we are talking to someone in Mumbai, Manila or somewhere else.
I am delighted to be speaking here today on these real reforms delivered by this Australian government that has listened to the community's concern, taken it into account and taken action. That is very important. Again, this is something that has been big in South Australia on talkback radio through Leon Bynder's program. It is something that has been in discussion for a long time. I know that it is strongly supported in my electorate, in South Australia and across Australia. Ensuring that every action is taken to keep your private information safe is very important.
I would also like to thank some of the trade unions that have been involved in this debate. I know the FSU, the ASU and the CPSU, all of which cover members in the insurance, banking and telco industries, are very pleased with these privacy reforms because all too often when information is sent overseas it is because the jobs have been sent overseas as well in many cases. This is the first step in ensuring that consumers are aware that, when they are doing a transaction or doing business with a particular company, it is the consumer's right to know that their information is going overseas and then they can make a choice. If they do not want that information going overseas then they can seek another company that services the industry and its customers here in Australia.
The temptation for companies to send jobs offshore, we know, will only increase. But there has never been a more important time to support Australian jobs. A part of the problem lies in the fact that until now consumers had no way of finding out if their data and the jobs were going overseas. So I am very pleased that the consumer will be told that their information is being sent overseas. The best thing about this bill is that it will help to give consumers more choice. They will be able to make a decision when they are told that their private information is going overseas and can then support the companies they wish to support. If you can walk into a bank and see the terms and conditions on which your personal information will be sent overseas, that gives you the chance to say, 'No, thanks,' and walk into a credit union or the bank next door that is not sending information and its workforce overseas. It will give the consumer the choice. This bill actually has a lot of benefits in addition to protecting your privacy. It is quite a good new tool for the consumer. I will be doing all I can do to promote this bill in my electorate so that consumers know what their rights are when it comes to their privacy.
Another important aspect of the new bill is that it gives more power to the Privacy Commissioner. This is very important because then the Privacy Commissioner can sort issues out more quickly when they arise and can investigate better. This is great because too often we hear about an issue and take it to the authorities, whoever they may be, but for one reason or another they cannot actually investigate it. Giving the Privacy Commissioner new powers to sort these issues out more quickly is very positive for the consumer. This bill will give the Privacy Commissioner the teeth to take swift action when things go wrong, which will also encourage businesses to do the right thing in the first place.
There are a couple of other aspects of the bill which will make people's lives a bit easier. One is the new provisions about credit reporting, which are a real shake-up in favour of consumers. The bill will implement more comprehensive credit reporting, which will for the very first time include positive information in consumers' credit reports. For example, a credit report will show when a debt is paid on time, not just when it was overdue.
Secondly, the bill makes it easier for people to access their credit reports and to fix up mistakes when they occur. For example, quite often people come into my office—and I am sure all of us in this place have had the same experience—and tell me they have been denied a service, whether it be a new phone contract, a small banking loan or a credit card, because of a bad credit report. Even though that bad debt may already have been paid off and fixed, they still have it on their record. When they actually get their hands on a copy of the report, they find that the information is not correct. That has happened many times to constituents of mine. I have seen lots of cases where people have been given bad credit ratings and have fixed the issue by making the repayment or paying the bill but the credit report was never updated—that old information is still on there; there was never any onus to update it. Then they run into problems down the track—maybe many years afterwards—when they go to sign up for a new service. This bill will make it easier for those people to get their credit report and make sure that it is all correct. If it is not, the company will have the obligation now to help you fix it. They cannot just say, 'Go off and get the information.' They have the duty to help you fix it, and that is very important.
The last thing I wanted to mention is the new privacy principle in this bill that specifically deals with direct marketing. This bill will more clearly and tightly regulate the use of personal information for direct marketing by introducing a specific privacy principle directed at direct marketing activity. It also prohibits the use of credit information for direct marketing. This is going to go a very long way towards ensuring responsible lending, so that vulnerable people do not get offered credit they cannot afford. In my electorate, someone with a disability came to see us who had racked up close to $50,000 worth of debt on a credit card because he kept on accepting the offers that the bank was sending him. This was a very sad case. This person was on a disability pension and could not afford to make the payments. He should never have been made those offers. His contract should never have been accepted by the bank, because he had an intellectual disability that affected him making contractual arrangements. This poor person came to see us and we finally assisted him. It took months and months to sort this problem out. This part of the bill is going a long way towards ensuring responsible lending, so that vulnerable people do not get given credit that they cannot afford. This is very important when there are vulnerable people in our community such as people with disabilities, as I said, and people from non-English-speaking backgrounds.
This is a very important bill for the consumer. The bill will set out new unified Australian privacy principles which will apply equally to the private and the public sectors. The principles will continue to deal with the handling of personal information, including its collection, storage, security, use, disclosure and accuracy. The provisions about disclosure and accuracy of the information are very important. A new principle will be introduced to deal specifically with direct marketing. Stronger protection for consumers will be included in the bill for the disclosure of information to overseas companies and organisations, and the bill will implement more comprehensive credit reporting, which will for the very first time include positive information for the consumers' credit reports. It is so important that we have that positive information for the consumer credit reports. As I said, a credit report will show when a debt is paid on time, not just when it was overdue, as we have seen in the past. This will be supported by very strong privacy protections for this information. These reforms will improve responsible lending and I am sure they will reduce levels of indebtedness and default. Very importantly, the bill will provide new powers to the Australian Privacy Commissioner to handle those complaints, to provide a wider range of enforceable remedies to the consumer and to direct government agencies to perform privacy impact assessments, which is all for the credit of the consumer. I congratulate the Attorney-General on her far-sighted reforms and thank my constituents, the listeners who rang in on the many, many times we raised this issue on FIVEaa, and Leon Byner for their support for privacy reform. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:36): The Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 will amend the Privacy Act 1988 to put into operation over half of the recommendations in the Australian Law Reform Commission's report 108, of 2008, called For your information: Australian privacy law and practice.
The aim of this bill is to create a new set of unified Australian privacy principles. These privacy principles will apply equally to the private and public sectors. The principles will maintain the handling of personal information, which includes the collection, storage, security, use, disclosure and accuracy of information. Importantly, there will be the establishment of a new principle that will specifically address direct marketing, which was applauded by my colleague the member for Hindmarsh just now.
It is very important to have in place stronger protections for consumers, such as disclosure of information to overseas companies and organisations. This bill will also put into practice more comprehensive credit reporting, which will, for the first time, include positive information in consumers' credit reports. I welcome this initiative because it rewards good behaviour.
I have spoken many times in this House on the issue of credit cards and people getting into serious debt as a result of credit cards, which is why I have been such a strong advocate for financial literacy training in my electorate, and why I have welcomed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer coming to the electorate a number of times. He has presented to a seniors group in Tuggeranong and also a group in Griffith, about financial literacy, the responsible use of credit, and, most importantly, scams.
These seminars have been a huge hit in the electorate. I am very much looking forward to having many more in the future, subject to the parliamentary secretary's diary and availability. I would particularly like him to come out during MoneySmart Week. I do not know whether that is going to be possible but I am very much looking forward to holding a number of these financial literacy seminars between now and the end of the year because they have been so popular. Not only do people get a raft of information on a range of areas, including scams, responsible use of credits cards, budgeting and superannuation, but they also go away with a fabulous show bag.
I will just go back to MoneySmart Week. MoneySmart Week is coming up in the first week of September. I strongly encourage all Australians, but most importantly Canberrans, to take part in MoneySmart Week. It is an independent, not-for-profit national initiative and it promotes the importance of financial literacy. Knowing how to make sound money decisions is a very important skill for people in today's world, regardless of their age. That has been obvious from my financial literacy seminars. I have had people from all ages, from all walks of life, coming to these seminars and trying to find out how they can better control their money and improve their financial management as a result of that.
There are a range of activities that are being held during MoneySmart Week including a call to action for Australians to take the next step in their financial health through 'Do a money health check!' I did the money health check the other night, during one of the late night sittings. It only takes a few minutes. It gives you a really good idea about your wills, mortgage management, savings and a whole range of areas in terms of making yourself more money smart. So I do encourage people in the electorate—and Australians who are listening—to take that money health check. It is on the www.moneysmart.gov.au website. As I said, it takes a few minutes and it gives you a good, quick readout of your financial situation. It also gives you a number of tips and actions you can take to address the issues that are raised in the report card.
We also have a national awards program that recognises outstanding achievements in financial literacy and we are promoting existing money management programs, tools and resources, as well as conducting a special range of activities and events in workplaces and the community.
I just want to draw attention to one of the activities taking place in my electorate. On 5 September, from 10 to 11, the money health check, which I have just mentioned, and the Saver Plus information session will be held by the Smith Family in Woden. As I said, the money health check is a really useful tool, which I have been promoting through Twitter and Facebook, to help people to understand their financial state.
I also want to bring attention to the fact that the parliamentary secretary recently launched a TrackMySpend smart phone app. Again, this is available; you can download the app off the MoneySmart web site. It just means that when you are out in the shops with your smart phone you can link into the app—it is free—and you can put in how much you are spending on groceries or dinner and track your spending. You can work out how your spending goes against your budget and your savings. It is just another way that people can improve their understanding of their financial situation.
The ABS household expenditure data shows that the average Australian household spends about $1,236 per week, yet only 54 per cent of 1,400 people who completed the money health check tool that I just mentioned said that they knew exactly where their money is spent and what it is spent on. So this little smart phone app will help people gain a greater understanding. Having a greater understanding of what you are spending your money on gives you more power and control over your money.
Finally, I want to talk about scams. They come up a lot. I am sure that every member in this parliament has had constituents coming to talk to them about the fact that they have been scammed. My own mother has been scanned. My father-in-law, tragically just shortly after my mother-in-law died, was scammed. Many years ago I was scammed trying to get a US visa, when I thought I had to get a US visa. So many members of my family and many in my electorate have been the victims of scams.
The Australian Institute of Criminology recently released the results of the 2010-11 online scam survey that was held in partnership with the Australasian Consumer Fraud Taskforce. Australians who participated in the survey had lost almost $7 million in 2011. The annual survey gives a snapshot of our exposure to consumer scams and can help identify scams as they happen.
Most importantly—this would be of interest to many Canberrans and Australians listening—dating scams were the most likely to result in financial loss or the disclosure of personal details, with almost half of victims reporting they had lost money. So, I ask all of those who are looking for love to be aware of some of the scams that are out there.
Also, in 2010, people aged between 45 and 54 reported the highest percentage of victimisation in terms of scams. In 2011 the age group with the highest victimisation rate shifted to those aged 65 years and over. That is definitely borne out by the experience of those in my electorate. It is definitely that demographic coming to me and talking about how they have been duped in scams. Many of them have lost a lot of money. Again, I have spoken in his House about my—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Belmont City Medical Centre
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:43): I rise to update the House on my local campaign to see a medical centre open on Abernethy Road in my electorate of Swan. Belmont residents, formerly serviced by the Healthpoint Belmont Medical Centre, were left in the lurch after the centre suddenly closed its doors due to commercial difficulties earlier this year. Once alerted, I immediately launched a local campaign with the support of the doctors and Councillor Glenys Godfrey to see a medical centre opened in the area.
I am pleased to inform the House that, thanks to the hundreds of community members who put their support behind the campaign, the hard work of the doctors and the tireless efforts of Councillor Godfrey, the campaign has been a success. The Belmont council approved plans for a new centre on 26 June and the new Belmont City Medical Centre is currently registering patients, ready for the centre's opening in the next three weeks.
I often champion local issues in my role as the federal member for Swan, and I particularly enjoyed working on this campaign in my dual role as local member and deputy chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. This is a great example of a community working together to achieve a common goal. The community lobbied the council and all their local members and, dare I say, they did not get any response from their local state member for Belmont, but the community and the council all came to an agreement and the council approved the work. It was a great success for the community.
Poppies
Mr LYONS ( Bass ) ( 13:46 ): I rise to express my concern about the decision of the state government in Tasmania to allow the importation of poppy straw into Tasmania from Turkey. TPI have been operating in Tasmania for eight years but have been unable to recruit enough growers to fill their required processing volumes. At the opening of the Winnaleah Irrigation Augmentation Scheme I indicated that the $140 million pumped into irrigation schemes in Tasmania by the federal Labor government would provide the infrastructure needed to encourage farmers to grow new or additional poppy crops. Poppies are a good rotation crop and only Labor has provided this vital infrastructure to make this increased cropping viable.
I am aware that GSK and Tas Alkaloids have turned growers away, so the question that needs to be asked is why TPI could not pick up those extra hectares. The honourable member for Lyons and I had a conversation with the Tasmanian minister in an attempt to get enough growers for processors in Tasmania. We suggested a meeting between poppy growers and processors but unfortunately that never eventuated and this importation from Turkey was approved.
Tasmanian farmers are doing it tough, with potatoes, other vegetables and forestry experiencing difficulties. Where are the TFGA, who should be fiercely lobbying their members to grow additional poppies and the state government to insist on refusal of importation. After all, this importation does place downward pressure on prices for our hardworking poppy growers. TPI may get away with this once but it will not in the future. I will be fighting them all the way. (Time expired)
Forde Electorate: Community Events
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:48): I rise to recognise the efforts of two organising committees of local festivals. Over the past two weekends I have had the privilege of attending the Ormeau Lions Fair, held by the Ormeau Lions Club, and the Eagleby Festival, held by the Eagleby Community Association. My congratulations go to Norm Jessen, the president of the Ormeau Lions Club, for organising the sixth annual fair. Many of the locals call it the 'Mini Ekka'.
From the Ormeau fair one weekend to Eagleby the next, I was fortunate to be able to experience yet another great community event in my electorate. The Eagleby Community Association, which organises the annual Eagleby Festival, did another fantastic job this year—it was bigger and better than ever. I even noticed, coming out to check out the festival, a few people I had seen the previous weekend in Ormeau.
The great thing about the Eagleby Festival is that it is a free event, which means that families are able to have a good time with free rides and free entertainment. There is heaps for families struggling with cost-of-living pressures. I would also like to thank the members of the Eagleby Community Association for their hard work, which brought smiles to the faces of the many thousands of people.
Canberra Electorate: Public Sector Employment
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:49): This morning on Canberra radio 2CC, during a debate I had with Liberal Senator Gary Humphries, talkback host Mark Parton asked us about the coalition's plan to slash thousands of jobs from the ACT and outsource an unknown number more. This is splashed across the front page of the Canberra Times. Senator Humphries accused me of only caring about the people of Canberra. It may come as a surprise to Senator Humphries, but as the member for Canberra I have been elected by the people of Canberra to represent and advocate for the people of Canberra, and to advocate for a strong, stable public service and a strong, stable private sector for growth, prosperity and jobs. As the member for Canberra, that is my job.
The electorate of Canberra—my electorate—is under threat from the impact of up to 20,000 job losses which will be brought about by the coalition should they win government. I admit, I am not as concerned as Senator Humphries about jobs in other electorates because, quite frankly, that is not my job. I am here to represent the people of Canberra. I will fiercely protect and represent the people of Canberra.
Mark Parton, the host of the 2CC morning show, also seemed bit taken aback when Senator Humphries talked about the big picture and refused to say if he supports or opposes the comments made by the member for Goldstein that thousands of jobs will be taken out Canberra or axed altogether. (Time expired)
Royal Queensland Show
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:51): As a Queenslander, one of my favourite times of the year is when the Royal Queensland Show comes to town. Originally it was called the Brisbane Exhibition, and it is now known as the Ekka. It shows the best Queensland has to offer over 10 very exciting days. This year's Ekka has just finished, and there was something for everyone—arts and crafts, agricultural displays, wood chopping, equestrian ring events, spectacular nightly fireworks shows, the Toyota four-wheel-drive precision driving and the daring motorbike riders, the sideshows, the show bags and fast food. There was even an LNP stand, and I had some time to spend there as well. I was very pleased to be joined by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, as he walked through the crowds with me and I showed him around.
I want to congratulate Mr David Thomas, the President of the RNA, and Brendan Christou, the CEO of the RNA, and other RNA committee members on the superb organisation of this year's event. I want to thank the volunteers who worked at this year's Ekka, particularly the volunteers from the Prince Charles Hospital Foundation, who manned the strawberry ice cream stand, for the brilliant job they did.
Each year more and more people come to the show for this wonderful people's day. Again, it was an outstanding success, with more than 70,000 people attending people's day. I want to thank all of the Queenslanders for their wonderful support for the Ekka. I am already looking forward to another spectacular Ekka for next year.
International Development Assistance
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (13:52): Earlier this week I raised the issue of poverty in regard to letters I received from Pastor Louise Shanks and young people in my electorate who were inspired to speak out about the issue of poverty and injustice in our world. I shared with the House how the teacher found that she was educated by the young people rather than the young people being educated by her. She talked about a young girl aged seven who gives 30 per cent of her pocket money to help poor children and a boy aged nine who runs a garage sale every month to raise money to send to poor people in other counties. Then there is Ned, who is 10 and has already been to Canberra with his dad for a demonstration to try to raise awareness about the issues surrounding world poverty. A young girl of 11 said, 'I make sure I only have as many clothes as I need. The rest I give away.' These are inspiring young people.
On Monday I read out some of the letters that I received from young people in the electorate who were begging me and the members of parliament to think about people living in poverty throughout the world. I seek leave to table the letters from the young people who attended the Lakeside Baptist Church.
Leave granted.
Hughes Electorate: Revesby Centrelink Office
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:54): I would like to raise an issue that is of concern to many residents of Hughes, one that will adversely affect in particular residents of Revesby, Panania, Picnic Point, East Hills and Milperra, not to mention Padstow and other surrounding areas in the neighbouring electorate of Banks. The issue is the announcement by this Labor government of the closure of the Centrelink office at Revesby.
However, upon investigating I find that the Centrelink office is actually not closing. They are merely slamming their doors shut and locking out members of the public, but it will remain an administrative office. By having the door slammed shut in their faces, many elderly pensioners and the disabled will now be forced to make the journey to the Bankstown office, where there is a lack of parking and no provision to be dropped off out the front of the centre, forcing many with mobility issues to walk a considerable distance and cross a busy road.
This closure is not even designed to reduce costs, in an attempt to start paying back Labor's record debt. It is simply a bureaucratic decision that will inconvenience the elderly and the disabled, who are already paying the price of this dysfunctional and divided government.
I also note that this Centrelink office in Revesby is directly opposite the electorate office of the member for Banks. I call on him to join in protest with me and the local community against this Labor government for slamming the door shut on our local community.
Ipswich Tenancy Advice and Advocacy Service
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:56): I rise to express my disgust and dismay at the decision of the Campbell Newman LNP government to cut off all funding to the Ipswich Tenancy Advice and Advocacy Service. Every month 600 tenants will be denied the opportunity to call this service. There will be no frontline services in tenancy across Queensland, the only state not to have it. This service cared for 158 tenants in court since January this year, saving 20 of them from being evicted.
TAAS coordinator in Ipswich, Arlene Lewis, said six workers at the 22-year-old Ipswich service will lose their jobs, including herself. She said:
We believe that homelessness in Ipswich will double because we won't be here to sustain tenants in private rentals. We will be the only state—
that is, Queensland—
without a tenancy service.
And that service is at the front line. This is a disgrace.
Chris Day, who rents privately in Ipswich, said that he could not understand his rent ledger so he turned to TAAS in Ipswich. And guess what the state LNP member for Ipswich said? He acknowledged that TAAS had assisted many tenants. He said:
It would be nice to be able to continue to fund this program.
It is not only nice; it is the right and decent and honourable thing to do. I call on the LNP government to reverse this decision.
Carbon Pricing
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (13:57): Those opposite like to claim that our concerns about the carbon tax have been exaggerated. But as part of the carbon tax this government has a plan to use taxpayers' money to shut down 2,000 megawatts of coal-fired power stations and just sack the workers. I notice that we never get a dorothy dixer on contract for closure. They never mention contract for closure, because it is a dud of a policy and I think the Minister for Resources and Energy knows it. The negotiations have failed miserably. The negotiations were meant to be concluded on 30 June, but now the minister has an unlimited extension to try to get this done.
The contract-for-closure policy is causing a crisis of confidence throughout the regional communities that are exposed to it. In the Latrobe Valley, 580 workers at Hazelwood Power Station would lose their jobs. That is about $100 million in lost wages to one community alone if this government has its way with contract for closure.
So I call on the minister to abandon this dud policy. At the same time I call on members of the Labor Party to start standing up for blue-collar workers in my electorate, to actually start standing up for the workers you used to represent. Reject this stupid policy. You know it is a dud policy. You know contract for closure will not work. You know you are wasting taxpayers' money. Start standing up for Latrobe Valley blue-collar workers before you wreak havoc on the economy of my region.
Bonnyrigg Trade Training Centres
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (13:59): Last week I had the opportunity with the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Peter Garrett, to attend the opening of the trades training centre at Bonnyrigg High School. We were warmly welcomed by the school principal, Michael Bryce, the school captains, and SRC representatives as well as a number of other students. We enjoyed the food prepared by the year 11 and 12 hospitality classes.
The Bonnyrigg Trade Training Centre represents a $1.5 million investment by the Gillard Labor government as part of the Education Revolution. It is part of a number of initiatives designed to deliver quality education to Australian schools and to build a qualified, well-trained workforce for the future.
As a traditional strong supporter of vocational education and the trades, I am particularly happy that a trades training centre is being opened in my electorate. The centre in Bonnyrigg will give local secondary students access to industry-standard trades training facilities, which will assist them in the future.
The availability of adequate facilities that provide pathways is welcomed in my community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. Before I call the Prime Minister, I have been asked by various groups to inform the House that tomorrow is the Day for Peace. Numerous groups have asked whether we could perhaps show a bit of peace and tranquillity during question time today. I said I would inform the House of their desire!
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Fred Hollows Foundation
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:00): on indulgence—earlier today it was a great honour to join Gabi Hollows, many of our parliamentary colleagues and other distinguished guests to celebrate 20 years of the Fred Hollows Foundation. I can see Gabi and so many of the supporters and members of the Hollows family in the gallery, watching as we speak about this matter today. I was joined by the Leader of the Opposition and far too many members of the House of Representatives and Senate to name them individually.
We were all there because the Fred Hollows Foundation, by any measure, is a remarkable organisation—restoring vision to millions around the world but also teaching people in developing countries to undertake cataract surgery and manufacture eye lenses for themselves. Empowerment, not dependency, is where the Fred Hollows Foundation takes people.
The foundation embodies the compassion and vision of a very great Australian: the late Fred Hollows. Ray Martin described him as 'a man who believed only in solutions, not obstacles; a bloke who never took no for an answer'. When it was clear his incredible life was about to end, he refused to accept that the good work had to end. So Fred left us with one last act of wisdom—and that was to set up his foundation. Today the foundation marks two decades of work, beautifully recorded in a commemorative book called In Fred's Footsteps which has on the front the very famous photograph of Fred assisting a small boy in front of a crowd. The photographer of that iconic image is in the gallery with us today as well.
The book, the image—all of it—shows how the good work has continued, saving sight and changing lives forever. This is a moment for this House to join together and to say congratulations to the Fred Hollows Foundation on 20 years of achievement. With his no-nonsense outlook and rough humility, Fred wouldn't have said much if he could see us here today, but in his heart I think he would have been quietly proud—and so are we. More than anything else, we are very thankful.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): I too was happy to be with the Prime Minister at the launch of In Fred's Footstepsand I too wish to acknowledge to this House that Fred Hollows' dream has not died and should not die. Thanks to the Fred Hollows Foundation, which he established and is still inspired by his memory, over one million people around the globe have been saved from avoidable blindness. With the Prime Minister, I pay tribute to Gabi Hollows for pursuing her late husband's dream, I pay tribute to Brian Doolan and everyone else associated with the foundation, and, above all else, I pay tribute to a great Australian, whose life made a difference to so many, and express the hope that many more of us should walk in Fred's footsteps.
Honourable members : Hear, hear!
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:04): by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence on the Fred Hollows Foundation be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
I very much associate myself with the positive comments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on this outstanding work.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): On behalf of the House, I welcome Gabi Hollows and other members of the foundation to the chamber today.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Mining
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Minister for Resources and Energy that 'the resources boom is over'?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:05): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The Minister for Resources and Energy today has been talking about the prices we have been seeing for commodities. He has indicated that prices have come off a bit—or, if you like, that the commodity price boom has passed its peak—but that there is a huge investment phase which still has some way to run and that the export boom in resources still has a very long way to run. The point that the resources minister made—and indeed I am making it myself now—has been made repeatedly and it is actually in the government's budget papers as well.
The fact is that Australia's terms of trade peaked about a year ago after reaching 150-year highs, but they still remain at historically high levels. What that means is that we will continue to see this nation earn a great deal of prosperity and wealth from exporting resources. We will continue to see billions of dollars invested in our resources sector. We will continue to see the opening of new projects and we will continue to see investment decisions made for those new projects. So the mining boom—the amount we are earning from exporting minerals—will be with us for a long time to come.
But we need to prepare for our long-term future. I have certainly said consistently in this parliament, and as recently as yesterday, that the government is managing the economy to keep it strong and running it in the interests of working people. But we understand that nothing is guaranteed about the future; you always have to build it, and part of building it is making sure that we are continuously upgrading the skills and capacities of the Australian people. That is why we have made record investments in education and we are continuing that journey of change.
You always have to be prepared to invest in infrastructure and bring in the new technologies of the future. That is why we have invested more than $30 billion in infrastructure projects and why we are delivering the National Broadband Network. We have to be ready for a future in which we tackle climate change and seize the benefits of clean energy sources, and that is why we have priced carbon. These are the preparations the government is making today, including some very hard decisions, so that we have long-term prosperity.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. If, as the minister for resources says, the resources boom is over, just seven weeks after the introduction of the mining tax, then where is the Prime Minister going to find the $15 billion of mining tax spending that appears in the budget over the next four years?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:08): We can see from the Leader of the Opposition's question that he understands absolutely nothing about our resources sector. And why on earth should we be surprised? This is a man who is so dangerously negative that last night he went on national TV about a big employment project like Olympic Dam without even having bothered to read these two pages before—on national TV—making false claims about Olympic Dam and BHP. It is apparently beyond him. I just said it was these couple of pages, but what I really should have said is that he could have stopped at the first, because the other section is about—
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked a very simple question. It was: where is the money coming from?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Prime Minister will refer to the question before the chair.
Ms GILLARD: On this side of the parliament we go to great trouble and care to understand the resources sector and understand the drivers of prosperity in our country. So we can say that we factored in the minerals resource rent tax on those resources projects that would be in production now. We are continuing to work with companies to see investments in the future, and we will see further investments. We have a strong investment pipeline. And we will continue to manage the Australian economy so that it is strong for the future, is ready for the future and offers working people the benefits of jobs. To do that, you have to do a lot of hard work and some reading. Unfortunately, that is beyond the Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired)
Economy
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (14:10): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government keeping our economy strong while making sure that all Australians share in the wealth created by our natural resources?
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:10): I thank the member for Parramatta for her question and would note that it seems quite remarkable to me that, when a member in this parliament asks about a strong economy, what we get from the opposition are laughter and jeers. It is not clear to me whether they are laughing at the question or whether they are nervously laughing because they are so embarrassed to sit behind a leader who cannot read one page of material about a project as big as Olympic Dam. But, whatever is motivating the laughter over there, on this side of the parliament we believe that keeping the economy strong and running it in the interests of working people is serious business. We believe it is such serious business that we as a government have worked hard to ensure that we continue to create jobs, with over 800,000 jobs created since we came to office; that we continue to make the right choices to bring the budget to surplus in 2012-13; and that we continue to do the right things with fiscal policy, which enables the Reserve Bank to do what it does, independently of government, with interest rates.
We have seen job creation—800,000 jobs created. Despite a reckless, destructive, hysterical fear campaign, we have seen 14,000 jobs created since the carbon price and the minerals resource rent tax started on 1 July. We are investing in major infrastructure projects that will be the backbone of future growth. We are ensuring that we have the infrastructure of the future, including the National Broadband Network. And, as we keep our economy strong, we are finding new ways to distribute the benefits of a strong economy. You keep it growing and you use it for the interests of working people, including improving schools around the country and creating a national disability insurance scheme.
The opposition are conducting themselves as if these things are somehow luxuries—as if they do not matter to working people and to families around the country, as if they are not necessities. We understand that creating jobs is a necessity for working people, that doing things like tripling the tax-free threshold so people move from paying tax to paying no tax is a necessity for working people, and that helping people out with increased family payments and pensions is a necessity for working people. We understand that doing what we need to do to keep spreading the benefits of the boom is important to working people.
We will get on with that hard work, keeping the economy strong, always seeing what we can do to assist working people, dealing with the facts and doing the hard work. Over there, the Leader of the Opposition will continue to present to media conferences, sounding like the equivalent of a robocall. He only has one line. It does not matter what the question is; he will say the same thing, because he cannot be bothered doing any work or any reading to inform himself of the facts. (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (14:14): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement from the CEO of BHP Billiton, Marius Kloppers, just two months ago, that 'carbon taxes and so on have all conspired to turn this from a fairly low-cost environment, and therefore competitive, to a higher cost environment'. Does the Prime Minister seriously expect Australians to believe that her government's policies have had no impact on BHP's decision to shelve the Olympic Dam mine and the Port Hedland harbour expansion?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:14): Can I suggest to the member that he does something that the Leader of the Opposition was incapable of doing before he presented for a national TV interview last night. It will not take him very long; it is just one page. You do not even have to bother going to page 2, because that just has names and contact details on it. And when you do, instead of misrepresenting BHP's position, you will be informed by the facts. And instead of misrepresenting BHP's position on issues like carbon pricing, I would refer him to statements of—
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the shadow minister asked a serious question and South Australians expect a serious answer. The Prime Minister should answer the question about how she explains the decision that was made by BHP Billiton.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Going to the member for Sturt's point of order, I grew up in South Australia and that is why I am personally offended by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition cannot be bothered spending one minute reading 600 or 700 words about the future of South Australia.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business is warned.
Ms GILLARD: I am offended as someone who grew up there that he cannot take a minute of his time to read one page about something as important as Olympic Dam. Every South Australian should be asking themselves: why is it that the Leader of the Opposition can spend some time reading controversial books but he cannot be bothered reading one page about the future of Olympic Dam? They might well be interested in his choice of reading material. He has determined not to read anything that matters to the future of South Australia.
On the misrepresentations by the member who asked the question, I refer him to the statement of the BHP boss, Marius Kloppers, which ran in the Australian under the heading 'BHP boss Marius Kloppers: it's time for carbon tax'. It read as follows:
We do believe that such a global initiative—
a carbon price—
will eventually come and, when it does, Australia will need to have acted ahead of it to maintain its competitiveness.
There was never a truer word spoken.
Mining
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (14:17): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Will the minister update the House about the BHP Olympic Dam decision and Australia's pipeline of resources investment?
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman—Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (14:17): I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. As a proud South Australian—unlike the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Sturt—the last thing he would do is talk down the South Australian economy. Let us be clear—
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: as a fifth-generation South Australian, I demand that the minister withdraw that slur on me and my family.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister has the call. To assist the chamber, I was going to ask him to withdraw.
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON: I withdraw the reflection. Let us be frank, Olympic Dam is not lost to Australia. The decision of BHP Billiton yesterday was a commercial decision. They have clearly indicated that, in terms of the South Australian and Australian governments, they could not have asked for more. Every regulatory approval was in place. This was a potential investment of $30 billion, almost twice the outlays of the South Australian government each year in terms of its budget. BHP Billiton must get this project right.
Let us have a frank talk about where Australia is at. In every resources boom there are two opportunities. First, there is the benefit of record commodity prices—and we have had that as a nation. The second and most important opportunity is attracting and implementing a pipeline of investment of $270 billion. The Australian community is proud of that. The only person who was very, very pleased with the Olympic Dam decision not going ahead in the immediate future yesterday was the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Abbott: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it is offensive to be accused of taking pleasure in this, and the minister should withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister has the call—and, for the benefit of the House, will withdraw.
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON: To assist the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will do a few facts. The $270 million is a great achievement.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He has withdrawn.
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON: Yes, I have withdrawn. The facts hurt.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mayo is warned.
Mr Abbott: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it is offensive to be accused of taking pleasure in what has been a tragedy for the people of South Australia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON: The facts speak for themselves—$270 billion, an ongoing pipeline of investment, creating wealth for Australia and, perhaps more importantly, creating real jobs for Australia. Let us think about these opportunities. Up at Gladstone, in the hinterland, there is a $55 billion investment under construction at the moment—12,000 jobs. We are proud of that achievement. Let us go to Gorgon, on Barrow Island—a $43 billion investment, with 4,000 jobs in construction. Think about the multiplier impact on the rest of the Australian economy—marine services, aviation, legal services, financial services, cleaning and catering.
The difference on this occasion is that we have got a pipeline of investment on an ongoing basis. The opposition, when it was last in government, merely spent a free kick from record commodity prices. Two opportunities—commodity prices and a pipeline of investment—and we achieved both. The Australian community is delighted at us spreading the benefits of this boom, not only in terms of what we are doing in infrastructure and skilling but also creating real long-lasting jobs. We are proud of it and it is about time the Leader of the Opposition was honest. He is very, very pleased with the setback with Olympic Dam yesterday.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney is warned—that was totally inappropriate behaviour.
Mining
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:22): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the statement in London just nine weeks ago by the chief executive of Glencore, the biggest commodities trading company in the world. He said:
… Australia does have its risk, yes. We saw the carbon tax, we saw the mineral resource tax.
Does the Treasurer seriously expect Australians to believe that the government's tax policies have no impact on the investment decisions of BHP and other resource companies?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:22): I do thank the shadow Treasurer for his question, because it gives me an opportunity to build on the answer that has been given by the resources minister. The facts do not match the critique and they do not match all of the talking down of our economy that we are seeing from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister. They should be ashamed of what they have done—talking down our economy—because, as the resources minister has pointed out very clearly, we have a record pipeline of investment in the resources sector. There is nothing announced by BHP yesterday which indicates anything of the sort that was just raised by the shadow Treasurer. This is what the head of BHP said yesterday:
The South Australian Government, the Federal Government and all of the agencies that have worked with us to make this a reality have been absolutely wonderful partners and I can't put that in more strong terms …
That was Mr Kloppers yesterday. He went on to say: 'The tax environment for this particular project has not changed at all. The MRRT only covers coal and iron ore, not copper, not gold, not uranium. The tax environment has not changed since we started working on this six or seven years ago.' That is what Mr Kloppers has said. What we have is a record pipeline of investment in resources—an additional $90 billion in the past year alone and, as the resources minister said, $270 billion at the advanced stage. What do we get? We get the continual trashing of our economy by those opposite to hide their embarrassment at the fact that there is a $70 billion crater—
Mr HOCKEY: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I referred to the CEO of Glencore, the biggest trading company in the world and one of the largest miners, who said:
… Australia does have its risk, yes. We saw the carbon tax, we saw the mineral resource tax.
I ask him to answer the question.
Mr SWAN: I was making this point very clearly: that since we announced both a carbon price and a resource rent tax, investment has gone through the roof. That is the truth of it. The decision that has been taken by BHP on Olympic Dam has been taken for entirely commercial purposes and it has absolutely nothing to do with carbon pricing or the MRRT. But for their own base political purposes there is nothing they will not do to talk down our economy. They do it day in, day out, and they demonstrate how unfit they are to be an alternative government.
Reserve Bank of Australia
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:26): My question is to the Treasurer regarding the Reserve Bank bribery scandal. The former Treasurer Peter Costello has said today that any government agency that becomes aware of evidence of criminal activity has a duty to inform the relevant minister and to take the evidence to the law enforcement authorities. Does the Treasurer agree with this statement? Given the latest evidence that the Reserve Bank knew about allegations of criminal activity for two years before going to the police, will the government now put in place a full inquiry—an inquiry that will not cut across the criminal prosecutions currently on foot but will deal with the growing cloud over governance within the RBA?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:26): I thank the member for Melbourne for his question, because I do acknowledge there is strong community interest in ensuring that all of our public institutions meet the highest standards. The government does take these matters very seriously, but so too does the Reserve Bank. The RBA has responded to the matters that were raised on 7.30 on Tuesday night and they have rejected the central implications of that report on 7.30. This is what the RBA has had to say:
On any reasonable reading, the NPA Board at that time sought the appropriate information, sought appropriate advice, responded appropriately to the information it received, and reasonably relied on the advice it received.
The RBA also stands by its previous statements to the House Economics Committee in respect of both NPA and Securency.
I am confident that Governor Stevens has handled these matters with complete integrity. The RBA has taken steps over the past few years to tighten controls and to strengthen governance. As the member would be aware, many of these matters are still before the courts. The RBA is fully cooperating with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions as part of these proceedings. Given that that court consideration is still ongoing, it is obviously inappropriate for me or the government to comment any further.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (14:28): I want to welcome to the House today a delegation from the Republic of Albania and hope they enjoy their visit to the parliament. I also wish to inform the House that we have present in the gallery today Global Voices Australian Youth delegation, who are attending the World Trade Organisation, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Myanmar Security Dialogue. On behalf of the House I warmly congratulate them and welcome them here today.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (14:28): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the strength of investment underway in our economy?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:29): I thank the member for Fremantle for that very positive question. I notice the laughter on the other side of the House, because they do not appreciate the importance of the investment pipeline in our country. Nor do they appreciate the importance of the strength of our economy. They have absolutely no idea how to manage a $1.5 trillion economy. This government put in place policies to avoid the global financial crisis and to avoid a global recession. The consequence of that is: something like 800,000 Australians are in employment because of the policies that this government has put in place. What we have seen in our economy is the biggest investment pipeline in our nation's history.
I was talking before about the increase in investment. In our time in office, there has been $919 billion of private business investment. As I was saying before, the investment pipeline in terms of advanced resource projects has increased by $90 billion in the last year alone. Today we have seen environmental approval from the minister for the environment for the Alpha project, which could create up to 3,500 jobs in the mine's construction alone.
These are the facts. These are the cold, hard facts of investment in Australia, and that investment has been taking place in the full knowledge of a price on carbon and an MRRT. We know that the opposition is having a bit of trouble with the facts. We saw the Leader of the Opposition on 7.30 last night, and didn't that one just take the cake! It was the biggest train wreck since his last appearance, where he said you couldn't believe anything that he said; you would have to have it in writing. It was that bad. On 7.30 last night he was claiming that this project was not going ahead because of the carbon price. But when asked by the interviewer whether he had read the statement from BHP, the answer was no, he hadn't. Let's be very clear what BHP has said. This is what BHP has said:
As you know the tax environment for this particular project has not changed at all since we started working on it six or seven years ago.
That was bad enough, but what was really bad was the bald-faced porky he told at his press conference today, where he actually denied that he had said it—denied the very fact that he had not actually read this material. That was just a bald-faced lie at his press conference today.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Treasurer will withdraw 'lie'.
Mr SWAN: I will withdraw. This is a bloke who spends all his time talking about honesty and the truth but he is out there lying every day. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Treasurer will withdraw.
Mr SWAN: I withdraw.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (14:32): Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The Treasurer has spoken about using facts and drawing on the experts. Will the Treasurer outline why this is important?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:32): Our economy does walk tall in the world and one of the reasons it walks tall in the world is that we have put in place reforms for the long term, reforms which are based on facts, reforms which are based on evidence from experts. I noted before the refusal of the Leader of the Opposition to use facts and to listen to the experts. I will go through what he has ignored in recent times. He has ignored the Stern report, a report based on facts, a report which goes to the core of how we secure our future prosperity. He has ignored the Houston report on asylum seekers. He chooses to ignore that as well. And, of course, he chooses to ignore the report from experts—the Gonski report. The latest refusal has been to refuse to take any notice of what BHP is actually saying, because those on that side of the House would rather run a reckless scare campaign than face up to the facts.
The one thing we know he has not read is The Boy Who Cried Wolf. He certainly has not read that, because all the chickens are now coming home to roost. It just goes to show how unfit for office this Leader of the Opposition is.
Mining
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (14:34): My question is to the Treasurer. With regard to the facts, I refer the Treasurer to this statement from the Chairman of BHP just six weeks ago, when he said:
… I cannot overstate how the level of uncertainty about Australia’s tax system is generating negative investor reaction.
… … …
… on a global basis we are at the upper end of overall taxation levels. That means we are not competitive …
Will the government now review the impact of its mining and carbon taxes on resources to investigate whether shelving of the— (Time expired)
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:35): I was asked about the MRRT. The government will absolutely continue to proceed with the MRRT in the form that we agreed with the mining industry. We on this side of the House understand the importance of putting in place a tax such as the MRRT, which makes sure that Australians receive fair value and full value for the resources that they own 100 per cent. We also know that royalties are very inefficient taxes and they penalise many mines which are not as profitable. It is common sense to say that having a resource rent tax where those resources are superprofitable gives a fair return to the Australian people, and for us to spread that right around our community, and that is what the government intends to do.
I have also been asked by the member about the views of BHP on the investment environment in Australia, so I would like to quote from what Mr Kloppers said last night:
The South Australian government, the federal government and all agencies have worked with us to make this a reality. They have been absolutely wonderful partners to have and I cannot put that in more strong terms.
That is what the Chief Executive of BHP said yesterday. I will quote again from what he said yesterday:
… the tax environment for this particular project has not changed at all since we started working on it six or seven years ago.
So it should be pretty clear to those opposite what BHP thinks about the environment. The fact is that they are investing an enormous amount of money in our country, an enormous amount of money.
Mr Robb: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the question was absolutely clear and explicit. It was about the President of BHP's statement that we are not competitive. Can you answer that question?
Mr SWAN: I will conclude on this point: investment in the resources sector in this country has been growing strongly. Private sector investment in our economy during our period in office totals $919 billion, and investment as a percentage of GDP is at its highest level in 40 years—all of that in the environment where we have been implementing a resource rent tax and carbon pricing. That indicates enormous faith among the international business community in investing in this country because it is a great place to invest. We have an opposition who want to talk our economy down every day, tell untruths about the economy and junk the economy for their own base political purposes. But the Leader of the Opposition was shown up on 7:30 last night, where he indicated what an ignorant person he was, that he did not care about the facts and that he would say anything and do anything for political advantage.
Carbon Pricing
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation. What are the facts about how the economy—and business in particular—is dealing with the introduction of the carbon price? What does it say about the accuracy of predictions and modelling regarding the impact of the carbon price?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (14:38): I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. The carbon price has now been in operation for seven weeks, and the fact is that the economy continues to grow. Yet the opposition leader, who is surely the master of mendacity, continues to come in here with his campaign of deceit. Yesterday, he plumbed new depths. Without even reading—by his own admission—BHP Billiton's statement, he blamed the Olympic Dam decision on the carbon price. It is important to note that, in the 36-page BHP Billiton investor update, carbon is not even mentioned—it does not even rate a mention in a 36-page investor update. What breathtaking mendacity and deceit the Leader of the Opposition engages in! He does not read it; he just makes it up—he goes out to a press conference and makes it up.
Here is a fact he will not like. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that 45,000 jobs would be lost in the mining industry when the carbon price came in. We are up 49,000 jobs in mining-related activities since the carbon price was announced. That is an uncomfortable fact. They come in here day after day making claims about the impact on electricity bills of carbon pricing. They falsely attribute all network costs to carbon pricing. They never complain about the 50 per cent increase in electricity bills from state government network investments. They only use off-peak rates so that they can inflate the percentage increase. They assert that no costs are ever passed through to consumers—totally false. They hide the fact that electricity bills only account for about two per cent of turnover for most businesses, and that means that the carbon cost increase for most businesses is only about 0.2 per cent of turnover. For a typical small business, that is about $5 a week increase in costs.
The master of mendacity over there has gone from the people's revolt to the python squeeze to the cobra strike to the wrecking ball. What is next? I will tell you what is next—the deceit will go up and up, and it is going to clean out your credibility big-time.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (14:41): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that the Northern Territory parliament has unanimously passed a resolution condemning your carbon tax. Can the Prime Minister please explain to the people of the Territory if this is why she has not visited them during the Territory election campaign to explain why everyone has to pay more for everything because of her toxic carbon tax?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:42): To the member for Solomon, who asked the question: No. 1, I have a lot of respect the intelligence of Territorians, and they know that they are voting in a Northern Territory election for who will be the Chief Minister and who will be the Territory government. Then I go to the assertions that are in the member's question. The problem for the member is that, because the Leader of the Opposition has been out there peddling dishonesty and deceit, she feels that she needs to be out there peddling dishonesty and deceit. Unfortunately for the member, recycling the Leader of the Opposition's claims just gets you in the same problem as the Leader of the Opposition, which is that at some point you collide with the facts and it becomes clear that what you have been saying is not true and not truthful.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order for it to be directly relevant, the answer must adhere to the substance of the question, which was asking the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister for mendacity—why she has not attended Darwin during the campaign for the Northern Territory.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Prime Minister is answering the question. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: The problem for the member in following the Leader of the Opposition's campaign of deceit is that sooner or later you run straight into the facts. The Leader of the Opposition was out there yesterday preaching doom and gloom and telling everybody that the economy was broken. He was out there making representations about Olympic Dam. He had not even bothered to read a statement which explained what was happening in Olympic Dam. But the member who asked the question about the Northern Territory knows that all of this from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong because she knows that in her electorate she is seeing the $34 billion INPEX project.
So how has she felt as the Leader of the Opposition has been going around the country saying, 'That's it; the economy's history; there'll never be a new investment; no more coal; no more resources; no more anything'? How has she felt, given that peddling of deceit, when she has gone back home to Darwin, which is getting itself ready for this $34 billion?
To the member who asked the question: the way she should feel is embarrassed. To the Leader of the Opposition: the problem he has is that every overblown, ridiculous claim he has ever made is now coming back to haunt him, and not one of them will stand up to scrutiny because not one of them is true. It is of no surprise that not one of them is true, because the Leader of the Opposition well knows that, when he sat around a cabinet table and decided that he wanted to be party to putting a price on carbon, he would have been informed of the real impacts of a price on carbon. He has always supported putting a price on carbon. He knows that these claims are false, and his fear campaign is running out of steam every day. He is continuing to conduct himself like a mouse on a treadmill, round and round and round, but it does not get any more true or any more credible just because he keeps saying it. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Solomon on a supplementary?
Mrs Griggs: No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the motion that was put to the Northern Territory parliament and was unanimously passed, condemning Julia Gillard—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Solomon will resume her seat. Is leave granted to table the document?
Leave not granted.
Mr Albanese: I table the Leader of the Opposition's interview transcript from the 7.30 report last night, given that he has not circulated it.
Taxation
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness. Minister, why is it important for Australia's competitiveness and for the viability of major projects to have certainty about the level of company tax rate?
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness) (14:47): I thank the member for Makin for his question as a proud South Australian. Of course the mining industry and Australian industry more broadly would be assured that they have a political party that does not want to, nor does it have plans to, increase the company tax rate. Indeed, the Australian Labor Party, the government, has a plan to reduce the company tax rate, thwarted by the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition, the so-called 'party of low taxes'. But there is a proposal to increase the company tax rate, and that proposal comes from none other than the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition. The purpose of this 1½ percentage point increase in the company tax rate is to pay for the extra paid parental leave scheme that the coalition took to the last election. Indeed, everyone knows about that.
Everyone knows about the 1½ percentage point increase in the company tax rate, except that the Leader of the Opposition came to the dispatch box yesterday afternoon seeking a personal explanation, saying that he was misrepresented by the Treasurer and that there is no policy to increase the company tax rate by 1½ per cent. Well, why is it in the documentation? Why did the Leader of the Opposition, when asked by Greg Cary, 'It's still a tax, though, isn't it?' say, 'Well, it's a levy'? It is a levy; it is not a company tax rate increase—it is a levy. Greg Cary said, 'That's a tax.' The Leader of the Opposition said:
I accept that it is going to raise the costs for those businesses with taxable incomes in excess of $5 million a year …
That sounds like a tax to me, yet the coalition come in and say: 'We never said it. We weren't here. It wasn't us. We've been blamed. It's the Treasurer's fault.'
We heard yesterday one of the most sensational, phenomenal performances that we have ever seen, ever witnessed, when the Leader of the Opposition came in to the 7.30 report and he blamed the carbon price and the minerals resource rent tax for the decision on Olympic Dam. He was asked by Leigh Sales:
Have you actually read BHP's statements?
And his answer was no. Across the table, he said, 'I never said that.' It was on national television. He said, 'No, no, I never said that I hadn't read it.' And then today he was asked to clarify and he said, 'Yes, I had.' So, between the 7.30 report last night and today, he has changed his story. Between 3.45 yesterday afternoon and 7.30, he read it, then he forgot he read it, then he said he had read it, then he said he had not read it. I will tell you what he has been reading. He has been reading soft porn books. He has enough time to read soft porn books—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Minister—
Dr EMERSON: but not a two-page statement from BHP Billiton. This man is mendacious. He is deceitful. He is misleading. He is untruthful. He is a purveyor of untruths. He is economically—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat! The member for Mackellar on a point of order?
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will not give the call to anybody until I have some order. The member for Mackellar is seeking the call and her colleagues are denying her the opportunity.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order—I rise to move to give the member an extension of time, and perhaps he could give us a song while he is at it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar is out of order. This is her second abuse of points of order today. She will remove herself from the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Mackellar then left the chamber.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (14:51): Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, what would the impact on interest rates and therefore international competitiveness of unfunded spending commitments be?
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness) (14:51): An appropriate song for the member for Mackellar would be 'Wish you luck as you wave me goodbye'—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The minister will not—
Dr EMERSON: but goodbye anyway.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will withdraw. He is not assisting.
Dr EMERSON: I withdraw. I was asked about the impact of unfunded election promises—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He did.
Dr EMERSON: and that is the only other way of going about this, isn't it—to increase the $70 billion black hole to $82 billion? Again, the coalition stood up yesterday with personal explanations, saying that they never said anything about $70 billion. The shadow finance minister said this:
It’s not a furphy. We came out with the figure, right?
And, indeed, the coalition did come up with the $70 billion, which has just blown out to $82 billion because of this unfunded scheme.
This is a test of character. When the Leader of the Opposition is called to a long-form interview, he cannot perform after he goes past that script. When he is off script he does not know what he is doing. When the issues of asylum seekers and of carbon pricing fade from the political horizon, he thinks he is on to something big. He goes in; he misleads the Australian people. This is a test of character and I can tell you this, buddy: you failed.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that the most recent determination from the New South Wales pricing authority clearly states that the carbon tax makes up 80 per cent of all recent increases in electricity prices for Integral Energy customers. With customers of Integral Energy in western Sydney already hurting due to the rising cost of living, why is the government hitting them with a carbon tax that forces up prices but does not reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:53): As we can see, the opposition's campaign of fear and distortion continues. The member who asked the question apparently never asked herself: what was the impact for her constituents and businesses in her electorate as electricity prices went up 70 per cent because of factors associated with investment in the poles and the wires and the operation of the electricity system in New South Wales? She never asked herself the question as the current state Liberal government delivered its budget with big dividends from state electricity assets. She never asked herself the question: what does that mean for my constituents or businesses in my electorate? She never concerned herself about the huge rises in electricity—presumably because, at that point, she was following the Leader of the Opposition down a false and misleading path and pretending either these increases had not happened or they were the result of carbon pricing, even though they predated when carbon pricing started.
Unlike the member who asked the question, I am concerned about those electricity price increases. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I do not deny that they exist. We are determined to act on them and we will be working, hopefully cooperatively, with state and territory colleagues, including the New South Wales government, to act on them.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To be directly relevant, doesn't the Prime Minister need to refer to what she said about the New South Wales Labor government when it was in power and was raising electricity prices?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I thank the member for Sturt for proving my point that people know that there are other sources of electricity price increases apart from carbon pricing. I thank the member for Sturt for proving that point for me. He must have got the memo from the Leader of the Opposition that they have suddenly repositioned though they started this parliamentary fortnight saying such increases did not exist. Now they have been forced to acknowledge them because their state colleagues were talking about them and all of the experts were talking about them.
For the cost-of-living pressures in the member's electorate including from electricity prices, when it comes to carbon we always said that households would see, on average, an increase of $3.30 per week and that is why, on average, we provided assistance of $10.10. When it comes to assisting the people in her electorate with cost-of-living pressures, we have increased their support for child care because what was left to us by the former Howard government and the Leader of the Opposition was not good enough for Australian families. We put in place the schoolkids bonus to help with the costs of getting the kids to school. We have delivered tax cuts including now making sure you can earn $18,200 without paying a cent of tax. We have delivered a historic pension increase because we understand that older Australians can do it very tough. We will continue to work with Australians on their cost-of-living pressures. What we will see from opposition is more fear and more— (Time expired)
Mrs Markus: Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table page 4 of IPART's fact sheet headed 'Changes in regulated electricity prices from 1 July 2012—
Leave not granted.
Mr Albanese: I table the BHP Billiton statement from yesterday to help the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Dawson is warned.
Environment
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Will the minister update the House on the decisions taken for environmental approval of coal projects in the Galilee Basin? Why have additional environmental standards been put in place as a result of Commonwealth intervention to protect the environment and in particular the Great Barrier Reef?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (14:58): I want to thank the member for Capricornia for the question and note her strong concerns about the protection of the Great Barrier Reef and for jobs in her electorate. This is an approval that should have been able to be dealt with by the federal government some months ago. Members may remember that at the time the Queensland government refused to finish their part of the job and left us with a situation where, having said that they would conduct the environmental assessment, ultimately, they did not.
The federal government has now concluded by working directly with the company through the necessary environmental approvals and I have given them today. Those approvals have been welcomed by the company. I think it is important to note that as recently as today the Queensland Premier has claimed that there are a number of projects sitting on my desk that I am holding back. In fact, there are now none from Queensland awaiting environmental approval, notwithstanding the comments from the Queensland Premier today.
It is important to note the standards that have been imposed by the Commonwealth are welcomed by the company. In a statement from GVK today it said:
GVK chose to invest in Australia because of its low political risk coupled with strong environmental and safety standards which align with GVK's corporate philosophy and values.
These additional environmental standards, which would not have been imposed if we had done what Campbell Newman wanted us to do, include management plans for the Caley Valley wetlands for water quality, taking into account the impact that run-off can have on the Great Barrier Reef and taking into account the impact that coal dust can have on the Great Barrier Reef.
While the Premier of Queensland continues to say that the Commonwealth, and in particular I, should simply get out of the way on any coal projects that are coming forward, I will make clear my position and that of the federal government on this. If what the Premier of Queensland wants is for me to give approvals without conducting checks, then I will stand in his way. If he wants us to trash the Great Barrier Reef and to let him trash the Great Barrier Reef, we will stand in his way. If he wants to clear-fell every acre of koala habitat in South-East Queensland, we will stand in his way. It does not matter. We will continue to work with industry, we will continue to get good environmental outcomes and good employment outcomes for Queensland, but, no matter how many times he asks, if the Premier of Queensland wants to indulge in environmental corner-cutting, shambolic process and environmental vandalism, we will have none of it.
Workplace Relations
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I refer the minister to the approach by Mr Andrew Grech to former clients of his law firm 'asking that they agree to waive their right to legal privilege attaching to lawyer-client communication so that we can respond to the public allegations that have been made' about the Australian Workers Union. In his capacity as minister with responsibility for registered organisations, including the Australian Workers Union, what steps has he taken to ensure the secretary of the AWU, Mr Paul Howes, complies with this request?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (15:01): I have been asked a question about some comments in the media. What I have done to ensure that unions and employer organisations are complying with the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act is: I was proud to sponsor the strongest laws that have ever been passed in the history of the Commonwealth. Let me just remind the House. Those opposite need to be reminded because they voted against what I am about to say. Of course they do not want to say that they voted against it, but the record reflects that. What I have done to approve accountability of registered organisations is, first of all, in the legislation passed on 29 June this year, improved the Fair Work Australia investigation process. We have increased the civil penalties. We have required that registered organisations disclose remuneration and board fees paid to officials. We have required that officials disclose material personal interests. We have required that officials of registered organisations undertake training in financial management.
Ms Julie Bishop: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was: what steps has he taken to ensure Paul Howes complies with the request to waive legal professional privilege? What steps has the minister taken? He should—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat.
Mr Melham: Completely improper!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Banks is being improper as well.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With every single question asked by those opposite, they stand and raise a point of order—seeking to repeat the question, to change the question or to add to the question. It is quite disorderly and it is done as a conscious strategy by those opposite to break up question time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not enter into a long debate. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. We have now introduced a very stringent time for question time, and continual points of order eat into that. I believe the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question warrants an answer.
Mr SHORTEN: Those opposite are more predictable than the outcome of a race between Black Caviar and Mr Ed. All they ever want to do is attack trade unions. Those opposite are notorious union baiters. Why do they hate unions? Because they hate anyone who stands up for workers. They have never voted to improve the standard of registered organisations.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will return to the question before the chair.
Mr SHORTEN: I have been asked about registered organisations and what I have done to make sure that good, strong organisations like the Australian Workers Union comply with registered organisations rules. What I have to hand—because my crystal ball did tell me that the opposition would do their usual union baiting—is a quote about registered organisations and what the government has been doing:
The Government’s changes to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act are clearly warranted and industry is supportive of the reforms. Registered organisations play a very important role … but recent events have highlighted deficiencies in the current laws.
Memo to self: the 'current laws' were the Abbott laws. So we have increased the penalties. They say it is appropriate. What is really good is that the person who said it is not—
Ms Julie Bishop: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I put it to you that the minister is defying your ruling. He has not answered the question.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question was a very long one. You raised many issues to respond to, including issues about union registration and the like. The minister will conclude his answer.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I back up my previous point of order. There have been a number of occasions where, contrary to the standing orders, those opposite raise points of order for one of their questions not once but twice. That is clearly out of order. It is clearly designed just to disrupt question time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Mr SHORTEN: In my answer about registered organisations and what I have been doing, I refer not only to the legislation. It is only the people on this side, plus the crossbenchers, who did anything; those opposite cried crocodile tears about registered organisations but, when it came to actually voting for reforms, did they? No. They could not do that. But we know that they don't do their homework, don't we? I was quoting from Innes Willox. But we do not need much reminder about the homework they don't do. Who is going to forget National Lampoon's Vacation last night on 7.30? Not only don't they do their homework on registered organisations; the Leader of the Opposition could not even read BHP's statement.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:07): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Has the minister referred these public allegations about the misuse of union members' funds in the AWU to Fair Work Australia or any other authority; and if not, why not?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (15:07): I am grateful for that question. I genuinely mean it in this case. When we talk about the matters to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring—I note that when there is a hard question Mr Abbott leaves it to the deputy opposition leader; at least she will ask the question—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will get to the question before the chair.
Mr SHORTEN: In terms of the ancient matters to which I believe the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring, I can report that, whilst I was a very junior official for some of the time, I do know that my predecessors in the leadership of the AWU detected the problem and reported the problem—they reported it to three different police jurisdictions and they also reported it to the regulator. They also commissioned Ernst & Young to do a report, which was provided to the regulator. They took all steps.
The union detected the problem and they took all steps. If the opposition leader or, rather, Deputy Opposition Leader—I was getting ahead of myself there, sorry—is saying that she has something new to offer then, by all means, put it forward. What I would say—I am trying to think of an elegant way of saying it—is, 'Put up or,' you know the rest, 'leave it.'
We do our job. We believe in the role of registered organisations. Not only do we do that; we on this side of the House believe in standing up for workers. That is why we do not support Ted Baillieu's cuts to TAFE. That is why we do not support Campbell Newman cutting 25,000 jobs.
Economy
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (15:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in your answers earlier you outlined the government's plans to keep Australia's economy strong into the future. Are you aware of any risks to the strength of Australia's economic future?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:09): I thank the member for Robertson for her question and I thank her for the advocacy of the interests of her constituents in this place. She understands, in representing her electorate, which is home to so many families, the importance of having a strong economy so that people can make a life—so they have the benefit of a job, so they have the benefit of a pay packet and so they can get on with doing the hard work of raising their families and supporting their families. In order for people to have the benefit of jobs we need to keep the economy strong. And this government is always focused not only on the strength of today's economy but on what we need to do today so that the economy will be strong in the future.
Much of this work requires action today, and it will show benefits over the longer term. But it must be done—investments in infrastructure, investments in national broadband, investments in a clean energy future. But the future of our country and the strength of our economy will be defined, more than anything else, by the skills and capacities and strengths of the Australian people. What that means is that there is nothing more important to the future of our nation than what is happening in education. There is nothing more important to the strength of our future economy than what is happening in classrooms in schools around the country today. That is why, in a parliamentary fortnight where the government has dealt with a range of issues, including commencing to implement the work of the Angus Houston review into asylum seekers, we have also been squarely addressing the most important issue for our nation's future, and that is what is happening in schools today.
We are determined to keep improving schools to give our kids the chance that they deserve. We are determined to keep improving teacher quality, to keep improving each and every school around the country for each and every child. And in this area, where there is nothing more important to our nation's future, we leave this parliament with the battlelines drawn. We go out of this parliament knowing we are determined to make a difference for every child in every school—to give them the ability to have a great education and to shape their prosperous futures.
The opposition leaves this parliament with the Leader of the Opposition pursuing a hit list to rip money out of public schools around the country. The opposition leaves this parliament determined to say that there is not one school in the country, in any school system, that deserves an extra dollar. The opposition leaves this parliament wanting to rip one in seven teachers out of our schooling system and to see larger class sizes. The battle lines are drawn on education and our nation's future, and we will be fighting for it. (Time expired)
Ms Gillard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Matters of Public Importance
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:12): Mr Speaker has asked me to read the following statement to the House:
The matter of public importance debate is one of the primary avenues for private members of the House to be able to initiate immediate debate on a matter which is of current concern.
If more than one matter is proposed for discussion on the same day, and this occurs regularly, it is my responsibility as Speaker to select the matter that is to be debated.
As honourable members should be aware, my decision is always made on merit and is not influenced by any political party or person.
As noted in House of Representatives Practice, the choice of the matter to be debated is a discretion for the Speaker and the Speaker cannot be required to give reasons for choosing one matter ahead of another.
However as Speaker I have regard to the relative urgency and importance of the matters proposed and whether they have been the subject of recent discussions.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Matters of Public Importance
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:13): Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a question through you to the Speaker based on the statement that you have just read to the House. Could you ask the Speaker how he could explain that, in 2011, 96 per cent of matters of public importance went, as is the tradition, to the opposition. Yet in 2012 only 61 per cent have gone to the opposition, which seems to coincide with other events.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:14): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ABBOTT: I do.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr ABBOTT: Several times, the Prime Minister in question time today claimed that I had not read the BHP statement issued yesterday. This is false. I read it at about 3.45 yesterday afternoon. My 'no' in an interview last night was a denial of assertions that the interviewer was making about the statements of Marius Kloppers. I made this position absolutely crystal clear on three occasions this morning, and the Prime Minister and minister should not assert to be true what they know is false.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:12): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr PYNE: Most grievously, Madam Deputy Speaker, and repeatedly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member may proceed.
Mr PYNE: The Prime Minister insists on claiming that the opposition has a policy to reduce funding to public and private schools when in fact we are the only political party that has a policy to increase spending on public and private schools. I seek leave to table the front page of the Sunday Tasmanian—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. He does not have the call. He needs to demonstrate where he has been misrepresented. Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:16): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following document:
Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee—2011-12 Regional telecommunications review—Regional communications: Empowering digital communities—Government response.
Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Schubert, Ms Misha
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:16): Madam Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence I note that today is the last day on which House of Representatives proceedings will be covered by Misha Schubert of the Age. She has been a splendid member of the press gallery and a welcome visitor to our offices, as so many members of the press gallery are, for many years. I have known Misha Schubert since she first joined the press gallery about a decade ago.
As I have to say about all the members of the press gallery, sometimes they say things that we would prefer they did not, but the great thing about Misha Schubert is that she has always been fair and she has always sought to advance public debate. I am sure that she will have much to contribute to our public debates in the future, and she will certainly be missed by members on this side of the House and I suspect by members on the other side of the House as well.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:18): on indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—on behalf of the government I wish Misha Schubert and her family all the best. I have known Misha Schubert for much longer than the Leader of the Opposition but I am sure that Ms Schubert does not wish me to divulge the circumstances of our first meeting—I will just leave that hanging!
Ms Schubert will no doubt continue to have a successful career in journalism. She brings to her profession a diligence and professionalism that is clearly respected across the House. I will also say that as a human being she deals with members in a way which is polite, which is frank, which is determined and which brings, I believe, a great deal of respect to her very noble profession—the noble profession of journalism.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:19): Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence—I join with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House on behalf of the Greens. I first met Misha Schubert probably 20 years ago as a student conference—and I am definitely not going to recount the details of that encounter. There was then an interregnum where I did not have any interaction with Misha other than seeing her in the paper wrapped in the Australian flag. I am disappointed she has not done that in her time here in the press gallery. On behalf of the Greens, I thank Misha for her dedicated work and her excellent journalism, and wish her all the best for the future.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:20): I present Report No. 63 of the Selection Committee relating to private members' business and referral of bills to committees. The report will be printed in the Hansardfor today. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to private Members’ business and the consideration of bills introduced on 22 and 23 August 2012
1. The committee met in private session on 22 and 23 August 2012.
2. The committee determined that the following bills be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services for inquiry and report:
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012;
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2012; and
Tax Laws Amendment (Special Conditions for Not-for-profit Concessions) Bill 2012.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
Significant changes to the not-for-profit and charity sector in Australia.
Needs a long detailed inquiry with opportunity for hearings throughout Australia from a wide range of not-for-profit and charity groups.
Referral of exposure draft to the Standing Committee on Economics for a rushed inquiry over the winter recess revealed significant concerns from the charity and not-for-profit sector.
The legislation requires further and more detailed consideration.
3. The committee recommends that the following items of private Members’ business listed on the notice paper be voted on:
Orders of the Day
Pension assistance (Ms Owens)
Victorian education system cuts (Ms Smyth)
Australia-Serbia relations (Mr Hayes).
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Mining and Taxation Policies
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:20): The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The adverse impact of the Government’s mining and taxation policies on industry investment and Government revenue.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (15:20): I add my best wishes to Misha Schubert, and I will have more to say to her privately about that later today. I do not think, for the people of South Australia and the families of South Australia, any issue could be more important than the destiny of our economy and where we are going as a nation. Today the Treasurer will attempt to trivialise the announcement yesterday by BHP in relation to Olympic Dam and its failure to commit to the $20 billion expansion of Port Hedland. The Treasurer has already trivialised the issue by saying that investment has surged with the carbon tax and the mining tax. That begs the question: why does the government not just double the tax, if it is so good for the economy?
There are $40 billion worth of new taxes. It is not a flippant remark from the chairman of BHP or the chief executive of BHP, or a flippant remark from the head of BC Iron or Glencore or anyone else, when they suggest that Australia is now emerging as a nation of considerable risk for international investors and specifically investors that create the jobs that are going to drive the economy over the next few years.
And, of course, the mining tax and the carbon tax are having an impact on investment confidence. The irony was dripping as they uttered the words that we have record investment, yet $50 billion was cancelled yesterday and somehow the government is continuing to run out the same old lines, like an old broken record, that they believe the mining boom is going to continue. Well, it was the Minister for Resources and Energy who belled the cat today when he said the resources boom is over. He is dead right. The resources boom is over. He would know. He is the minster responsible for the industry that is generating the income. He was contradicted within minutes by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Penny Wong, who said, 'No, no, no, the mining boom is not over.' So the government could not even get their narrative right after the comments from the member for Batman, who is known for being a straight talker. This is very important.
No-one believes what the Prime Minister utters today and no-one believes what the Treasurer utters today, because they deliberately misled the Australian people before the last election about the carbon tax. But people do still have trust in the Minister for Resources and Energy, the member for Batman. So when he says the resources boom is over he is dead right. Why would he say that? We recognise that the higher Australian dollar is having an impact and that commodity prices have been coming off. We have been warning about that. In fact, in a National Press Club speech I warned about a deterioration in the terms of trade. In fact, in the last two National Press Club speeches, after the last two budgets, I warned the Australian people that this budget was a house of cards built on record terms of trade, and that should that house of cards start to come down so too will the government's budget.
But let it be known that it is part of the deliberate strategy of this government to slow down the mining boom. That was the whole intent of the mining tax, in its original form. It was intended to slow down the mining boom. But we know that when it comes to modern times the people who are running the parliamentary Labor Party, the Australian Workers Union, have a similar view. Only a few weeks ago, on 12 April 2012, Phillip Coorey reported in the Sydney Morning Herald that:
The Australian Workers Union wants the government to expand its minerals resources rent tax to slow the mining boom …
He further said:
The proposal to boost the mining tax by reverting to the original resources super profits tax 'would slow down the mining boom, take pressure off the terms of trade and boost government revenue which could be placed in a sovereign wealth fund'.
Phillip Coorey was quoting from a document the AWU prepared.
It is interesting. The minister who represents the AWU in here is the Treasurer, Wayne Swan. He is a member of the Australian Workers Union. The Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Bill Shorten, is a member of the Australian Workers Union. Their own union, the AWU, which they are so determined to protect in this place in relation to matters that are currently being discussed about the credibility of the Prime Minister, said: 'Let's have a higher tax to slow down the mining boom.' Well, they are getting their wish—a $50 billion mining investment, the heartbeat of the future of South Australia, was closed down yesterday and this government was so indifferent about it that there was not a single statement from the government in question time today. There was not a word of disappointment. They are totally indifferent to the lost jobs.
Instead, they are living in this false world that suggests everything will be fine. But it is not fine. The reason they are so determined to continue to talk up the mining boom is that it underpins their budget. They know, we know and the Australian people know that when the mining boom is over so too is this government's largesse—politically motivated largesse with which they are trying to get an incompetent Prime Minister and an incompetent government re-elected. They are doing it from house to house. They are trying to create envy by attacking the people who generate the money. In fact, the Premier of South Australia yesterday went so far as to blame BHP for not proceeding with Olympic Dam. He said it was all their fault. What a stupid comment.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: Listen, old sunshine, why didn't you ask a question today about Olympic Dam? You are from South Australia. You do not care. Instead you just do the bidding of your mates in the union. This is a door-to-door proposition from the Labor Party—create envy, create jealousy, attack the miners, attack the people who are out there and say that we are going to redistribute it like a modern-day Lenin.
I came across a recent letter the Treasurer sent to his own constituents. He said:
I was talking to a local resident the other day who asked, 'Wayne, at a time when we are in the middle of a massive mining boom, why aren't people like me sharing more in its benefits?' It is a question being asked by many people in our area. That is why federal Labor and I have put in place laws to use some of the huge profits in mining to help the small businesses and workers.
The reality, as this minister said, is that the mining tax, together with the mining boom, is over. Even the architect of the original mining tax, Dr Ken Henry, said:
It is probably true that the original proposal was too complex …
He added that the new one.
… is actually more complicated than what was originally proposed.
… … …
And the obvious question it raises is one that I dare not ask, really, which is whether it's worth bothering at all.
He is referring to the mining tax. He is the person who argued for the original mining tax. He says why bother.
Do you know who else is asking why bother? I will tell you: it is the former chairman of BHP, Don Argus. On 11 July this year he said:
We've entered an era without political leadership and the courage to address difficult issues.
Graham Bradley, the former Chair of the Business Council of Australia and current Chairman of Anglo American Australia, said:
… the substantial pipeline of new projects that has been talked about is by no means assured. I've been myself talking to international investors in recent days who have expressed the view that they are seriously underweight in Australia as a result of what they term sovereign risk, which includes the unpredictability of regulation, taxes on key industries and concerns about industrial co-operation.
So, those are the views of the chairman of Anglo American and the former chairman of BHP. Ivan Glasenberg, the chief executive of Glencore International said:
So Australia does have its risk, yes. We saw the carbon tax, we saw the mineral resource tax—
and then the chief executive of Glencore said:
At least in the Congo they need you. They want you there. And if they start changing the rules on you, you may not continue investing.
Jac Nasser, the Chairman of BHP-Billiton, just a few weeks ago said:
… uncertainty about Australia's tax system is generating negative investor reaction. People don't know where it's going.
And David Peever, from Rio Tinto—
Mr Champion: God, you're good at talking the place down, aren't you, Joe!
Mr HOCKEY: I tell you what, mate: if you haven't got the guts to ask a question about Olympic Dam and South Australia, I'd button up right now, old sunshine! Mike Young, the managing director of BC Iron, neatly summed it up. He said:
When you look at the juniors—
that is, the junior mining companies—
they are suffering because there is a new sovereign risk in Australia. I know guys in New York who will not invest in Australia until this government is gone.
These are the people making the investment decisions. And the government says, 'Everything is rosy; everything is fine'.
Yesterday BHP announced that their net profit was down 34 per cent. Today Qantas announced a loss for the first time in two decades—$245 million for the 2012 financial year. But the Treasurer says everything is fine. BlueScope Steel posted a net loss of $1.04 billion this year. The Treasurer says everything is fine. Santos's profit of $262 million in the six months to 30 June was down 48 per cent. But the Treasurer says everything is fine. Westfield's half-year revenue of $1.213 billion was down 10 per cent. The Treasurer says everything is fine. Fairfax saw a net loss of $2.732 billion. But the Treasurer says, 'We're the best in the world.' Sims Metal, the world's biggest scrap metal recycler, has announced a $521 million loss. But, again, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister say, 'Everything's fine; it's all okay—our taxes are growing jobs and growing the economy.' Rio Tinto has announced a 22 per cent slump in first half profits to $5 billion. Stockland, a major property developer in Australia, says profit for the year fell by more than a third to $487 million, in what it describes as 'tough conditions'. But the Treasurer says everything is fine. Cochlear have slashed their profit by 68 per cent.
Some of these things might be being caused by company specific issues, but there is a trend. Corporate Australia is saying something very different to this government, because this government does not live in the real world. This is a government living in a bubble, a bubble that they keep fantasising about, because that bubble is the only thing that is holding up their litany of new promises—the promises that are funded by the mining boom, by a mining tax which is destroying jobs and by a carbon tax which is destroying jobs. So they go on a spending spree on small business asset write-offs of nearly $3 billion; on infrastructure of $3 billion; on superannuation at $1.8 billion; on concessional caps on super of $1.3 billion; on phasing down the withholding tax of $200 million and on a range of other things—loss carry-back, and of course their School Kids Bonus. All of this is to be paid for out of the mining tax and they do not want to admit the money is not there. Do you know why? The moment they do that, they have to admit they are going to increase taxes. And one thing we know about the Labor Party is that, when it comes to tax, you can't trust the Labor Party. They lied before the last election to the Australian people about a carbon tax—
Mr Champion: Maybe they've got something to do with the low economy, Joe.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat.
Mr HOCKEY: Don't cover it up: it is a reality!
Mr Dreyfus: You should withdraw! You should withdraw now!
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The parliamentary secretary did not have the call. The parliamentary secretary how has the call.
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for North Sydney should withdraw. We have had great clarity given to this by the deputy speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have heard the point of order.
Mr HOCKEY: I withdraw
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank you on behalf of the House.
Mr HOCKEY: With reporters out at the front doors of Parliament House every day, you ought to know you cannot keep lying about tax to the Australian people. (Time expired)
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) (15:35): Before I rise to speak, and before the member for North Sydney runs away, scurries away, he should withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for North Sydney has used a word that all members in this House know should not be used in this House.
Mr HOCKEY: I withdraw.
Mr DREYFUS: It is no wonder that the member for North Sydney is scurrying out of the House after the nonsense he has just forced us to endure. I have to admit that I am somewhat amazed by the topic of today's MPI. Members in this place, particularly on our side, are used to nonsensical, patently false statements from those opposite. We are used to debating with those who have long ago lost touch with reality—or probably never had much contact with reality in the first place—but most of the time there are a couple of members on the other side of this House who have the good sense not to call a debate on an issue when their claims are as ridiculous and as ill-formed as those that we have just heard from the member for North Sydney.
Last night the Leader of the Opposition, a man who has made it to the top of the Liberal Party, primarily as a result of his capacity to bend the truth, had a meltdown on national TV. He had a meltdown when he was unable to explain his patently false and increasingly desperate position. I would recommend that every member of this House and indeed every Australian have a look at that interview Leigh Sales conducted with the Leader of the Opposition on ABC TV last night, because it shows something of the character of the Leader of the Opposition. It shows, in fact, why he is not prepared to regularly give long-form interviews—he has given only a couple in the last couple of months: one to Barry Cassidy on Insiders, which was a disaster, and the one last night—rather than doing his 10-second doorstop and scurrying away so he does not have to submit to questions. Last night he was so delighted at the bad news of the shelving of the Olympic Dam expansion. You could also see the delight of members opposite from South Australia, who stood behind the Leader of the Opposition during his press conference yesterday, that there was bad news for South Australia. Those members opposite should be ashamed of themselves.
Dr Southcott: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member speaking has just made an imputation against the South Australian members which is not true, and I ask him to withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): For the benefit of the House, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to withdraw.
Mr DREYFUS: I withdraw. Those members opposite from South Australia ought to have been ashamed at standing up behind the Leader of the Opposition when he was doing his press conference yesterday and making patently false claims about the reason for the Olympic Dam expansion being shelved. You might say this is a bad MPI based on an untruth. I want to thank the member for North Sydney, who has now scurried out of the chamber, for the opportunity to have this debate, because it is a debate that is much needed. At the heart of this are some bizarre and discredited claims that those opposite have been making for many months about the mining tax and that those opposite have been making for many months about the carbon price—that these measures are somehow reducing investment.
Let us just have a look at the impact of the mining tax. The Australian quoted Gloucester Coal chairman, James MacKenzie—an eminent figure in the mining industry—as saying:
In the last 12 months I've done two overseas roadshows with investors for Gloucester Coal and I haven't heard a grizzle about the MRRT and carbon tax.
You can see from the pipeline of investment into the mining industry in our country the nonsense of these discredited claims those opposite have been making about the impact of the mining tax or the carbon price. Just go back to 10 July last year, when we announced the framework for the carbon price which we have now legislated and which, I am happy to say, came into force on 1 July this year. On 10 July the Leader of the Opposition made the same sorts of claims he has been making about the coal industry for a long time, saying that the carbon price is going to kill the coal industry. The very next day, Peabody made what was the largest ever bid for an Australian coalmining operation when it bid over $5 billion for MacArthur Coal. That is what gives the lie to the nonsense that those opposite have been going on with about the effects of the mining tax and the carbon price.
Let us just go to the other outrageous claims behind the stunt of this particular MPI that we see today. It is a desperate attempt to justify the crazy claims that were made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition about BHP Billiton's decision to shelve the Olympic Dam expansion. It is a crazy claim to suggest that somehow—and this is the direct claim made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday—it was a result of the mining tax or the carbon price. BHP Billiton made a statement to the exchange.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr DREYFUS: I know those opposite are not particularly familiar with what the requirements are for the stock exchange or what listed companies like BHP are required by law to do. They are required by law to accurately and truthfully inform the exchange so as to inform the investment community of Australia and the world of the factors underlying their decisions. That is why, when they made their statement to the exchange and when the CEO of BHP Billiton yesterday held a press conference, BHP Billiton said absolutely clearly that the reasons for the decision were softer commodity prices and higher capital costs. The company's statement to the exchange did not mention the carbon price, and the CEO, Marius Kloppers, did not attribute the decision to the carbon price in his teleconference. In fact, what he said yesterday was:
The decision is almost wholly associated with in the first instance capital costs.
Then he said:
As you know the tax environment for this particular project has not changed at all since we started working on it six or seven years ago.
Then we read today other quotes from the CEO of BHP Billiton, Marius Kloppers, in the West Australian, which reported: 'But Mr Kloppers denied that the taxes had anything to do with the Olympic Dam decision.' There is not too much to not understand about that. I will quote directly from what he said:
The MRRT only covers coal and iron ore—not copper, not gold and not uranium—so the tax situation for this project has not changed.
And I quote again:
What has changed is the capital cost of construction. What has changed also is that post-Fukushima there is a different and still developing outlook on uranium.
So those opposite are so desperate to make false claims about the effect of the mining tax, so desperate to make false claims about the effect of the carbon price, that the Leader of the Opposition thinks he can blame any bad news—anything adverse that happens in an economic sense in Australia—on the mining tax or the carbon price. There is nothing in that statement by the CEO of BHP Billiton that leaves any room for doubt. After the Leader of the Opposition stood up and made his false claims about the real reason for the shelving of the Olympic Dam expansion, CEO Marius Kloppers has stood up and made it absolutely clear that it is not the mining tax and it is not the carbon price. But we should not be surprised by this Leader of the Opposition.
This is a Leader of the Opposition who will say and do anything to further his interests. He cannot be trusted—and we know that to be a fact. We need only recall the comments made by the member for New England in this chamber last week. The member for New England confirmed that the Leader of the Opposition 'begged' him to support the coalition to form a government after the last election. And, as the member for New England said, this Leader of the Opposition was prepared to do 'anything'—and we know that includes putting a price on carbon, including introducing a carbon tax if it came to that, or introducing an emissions trading scheme.
And why wouldn't he? This Leader of the Opposition, along with every living Liberal leader, has supported putting a price on carbon and has supported an emissions trading scheme—and, of course, that was the policy he supported when he was a member of cabinet in 2007 and that is the policy that the Liberal Party took to the 2007 election.
Another one of the Leader of the Opposition's bizarre, false claims is that the carbon price would be a wrecking ball across the economy. He is the wrecking ball, and he and his party are the source of the uncertainty in the economy that he so deplores. It is available to him to give certainty, to get back to the program, to get back to the policy that the Liberal Party supported in 2007 and indeed supported right through to almost the end of 2009—which was, of course, to introduce an emissions trading scheme in Australia.
You have to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether this statement that he has been making about the carbon price is one of his so-called core promises—is it 'the gospel truth', is it 'written in blood'? Whatever you call it, these are false statements. We have seen again that this is a Leader of the Opposition who cracks under the pressure of a serious interview—it is no wonder he avoids them like the plague. I will quote something that the Leader of the Opposition said:
I know politicians are going to be judged on everything they say but sometimes in the heat of discussion you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark, which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth are those carefully prepared, scripted remarks.
So who would know when this Leader of the Opposition was telling the truth? Who would know whether it was true or not when he admitted to Leigh Sales that he had not read the statement by BHP Billiton before he went out and held a press conference about the reasons for the shelving of Olympic Dam? Who would know whether what he is saying is true—because he himself is all over the place, he barely knows what he was saying and he is someone who is prepared to talk down the economy. I say again that he delights in job losses, in any closure and in any setback that business experiences—because he believes it suits his political interests.
We are not, as the member for North Sydney suggested, totally indifferent to the Olympic Dam mine expansion being shelved—far from it. We are working with BHP Billiton, just as the South Australian government is working with BHP Billiton, to see whether or not the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine can take place in some other way—because, of course, that was the starting point of the BHP Billiton announcement yesterday.
In the time that remains to me I want to talk about something other than the direct effect of the mining tax or the carbon price, and that is the state of our economy. You will not hear those opposite actually talking about the state of our economy. Under this government, the Australian economy continues to outperform other advanced economies. That is because of our investment in skills, our investment in infrastructure and our investment in education. It is because we acted to stimulate the economy when we needed to.
In the year to March—this is another fact that those opposite choke on—our economy grew by 4.3 per cent. That is more than twice as fast as the major advanced economies as a whole. So far this year, our economy has created almost 100,000 jobs. In aggregate, that is over 800,000 jobs since we came to government. Unemployment is at 5.2 per cent. This is while in parts of Europe we have mass unemployment—millions of people, regrettably, thrown out of work and stuck there. How different could Australia be over the year to March from that particular situation! Over the year to March, private business investment has grown by 20 per cent—another fact that those opposite choke on—to be now at its highest percentage of GDP in 40 years. And in the past year the advanced stage of the investment pipeline in resources has grown by nearly $90 billion to be a staggering 350 per cent larger now than when those opposite were last in government.
And these increases over the past year have come in the full knowledge that we are putting a price on carbon, that we were going to legislate last November—which we did—and that, having legislated, the price on carbon would come in. The most recent economic data—all of it, every indicator you care to look at—puts a wrecking ball not through the Australian economy but through the Leader of the Opposition's aggressive and untruthful scare campaign. We are not, as everybody in this House now knows, seeing the predicted results of the carbon price. (Time expired)
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (15:51): I rise today to speak on the MPI in regard to the adverse impact of the government's mining and taxation policies on industry investment and government revenue. I could have just omitted the words 'mining and taxation' and left 'government policies', because, apart from a government in complete denial about the reality of what is going on in the resources sector, the mining boom is over. I know that the Minister for Resources and Energy had a moment of honesty this morning which did not fully encapsulate what he meant to say. What he meant to say was that, under the Labor government, the mining boom is over. I heard him say as clear as a bell on the radio—I know that some of my colleagues over there wish he had not said it—that the mining boom is over.
This government are working hard towards that. They are doing everything they can to stop future investment. They talk eloquently about the investment pipeline being full, but I challenge the people on that side of the House to show me who is refilling the pipeline five years from now when the gas projects in Queensland are finished and when the construction phase is over for the investment that is already committed to, more than half of which was committed to under our government—for more than half of it, including Olympic Dam, the initial investments were made when the Howard government was in power. When that construction phase is over, where are the next projects? So bad is the situation that the Minister for Resources and Energy attacked the unions—he attacked his own. In order to divert attention away from the government's policies, he attacked the unions about the fact that there were not going to be projects in five years time if things kept going the way they were.
It is not the unions' fault solely. The fault lies here with the constant attack on the resources sector which comes from those on the government benches and which is turning investment away from Australia. They may skite about the current investment pipeline and about investments that were set up when I was the minister for resources, but the reality is that when those projects finish there is nothing. There is a black hole, because we have a Treasurer who spends his time attacking the resources sector and the people in it. We have a Premier in South Australia who wants to blame mining companies like BHP when they do not make the decisions that he wants. We have an attitude in the Labor Party that the mining industry is simply there to be taxed and when you are not taxing it you talk about taxing it more.
I heard the member for Isaacs say that these investment decisions over the last five years have been made in the full knowledge of a carbon price. Maybe he was not here when the then Prime Minister, the member for Griffith—with the encouragement of the current Prime Minister—abandoned carbon pricing. Maybe he was not here when the current Prime Minister stood up on television days before the election and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and the Treasurer said the same thing. Maybe he was not here, but let me assure him that it did happen. There is actual proof of it. May I assure the member for Isaacs that, when companies are making decisions about billions and tens of billions of dollars, they need consistency, and there has not been one moment of consistency from those who sit on the other side. One minute we are going to have a carbon price; the next minute we are not. One minute we are not going to have a carbon tax; the next minute we are. One minute we are going to have an RSPT. Remember the RSPT, the resource super profits tax, that disaster? Again it was under the stewardship of the existing Treasurer, who took a huge chunk out of the confidence of the resource industry by announcing a tax that they knew nothing about and then spent the next four months not only knifing his own Prime Minister in the back but also trying to find an easy way out. He went from an RSPT to an MRRT. We have gone from a situation where we were going to have a carbon price to one where we were not going to have a carbon price. We were not going to have a carbon tax; now we are going to have a carbon tax. There is no consistency.
The only thing that is consistent from those who sit on the other side is their attacks on the mining industry. We have seen an attitude from this government that every time they are short of money they put their hand in the pockets of the one sector that is underpinning Australia's economy at the moment. The reality is that, when you talk to the financial brokers, the financiers and the stock exchanges overseas, they look at Australia and they say, 'What the hell is the government trying to do?
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: Calm down, Amanda.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): The member should ignore the interjections.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: Madam Deputy Speaker, if you are not going to control the other side, I will have to give them some free advice.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you are going to recognise the interjectors, make sure you recognise them by their correct titles.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: That is far too hard. The reality is that, when you talk to the international financiers of the resources sector, they think Australia has gone crazy. They have seen a country that had it all in front of it, with a resources sector ready to supply the huge demand to the north of us, and it has just been ripped to pieces by a government that cannot manage its own money. I notice that the member for Isaacs did not mention the huge explosion in government debt when he was trying to talk to us about the economic management that we have seen. The reality is that every time this government overspends it turns to the mining sector to take money from it.
We have seen the carbon tax and we have heard the comments of Marius Kloppers on the impact that that had. For the benefit of the member for Kingston—I have remembered the name of her seat—I will read what Marius Kloppers said about the carbon tax:
But aside from that, all of the other things like increased operating cost, carbon taxes and so on have all conspired to turn this from a fairly low-cost environment and therefore competitive to a higher cost environment.
That was Marius Kloppers, the CEO of BHP Billiton, on 6 June 2012. There are other quotes here from Jac Nasser, who is an extraordinarily successful Australian CEO who headed Ford globally for a time. He just shakes his head in dismay at the way this government has taxed and treated the Australian resource sector.
In the time allocated I will not be able to explain the fact that these projects are funded by these companies themselves and they are funded out of profits, and so when you introduce extra taxes on profits you reduce the capability of those companies to fund new projects themselves. The reality is that these changes are impacting not only on the profitability of companies and therefore their ability to fund these projects but also on the investment profile in Australia.
The reality is that yesterday we saw a clear signal, accepted by the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism, that under a Labor government the resources boom is over, that under a Labor government resources companies simply do not want to invest. It is not just Olympic Dam and it is not just Outer Harbour. It is coalmines at Peak Downs that were already signed off. Because this government has proceeded with its carbon tax and the mining tax, it has got itself into a position where it has said to investors around the world: 'We don't want you anymore and, if you happen to come here, we have got a Treasurer who will personally abuse you, who will pick you out and abuse you for being a successful Australian. He will say to you, "We don't want you either."'
The biggest concern I have is about the pipeline that keeps being talked about—not in the next two or three years, not projects that were already locked in four or five years ago, but the ones that should come after that, the ones that guarantee jobs for people in five and 10 years time, the ones that guarantee jobs for our children. My question to this government is: what are you going to do about it? What encouraging signals are you going to send out to the investors of this globe to come to Australia and invest here? The answer is none. The minister for resources runs up the white flag and says, 'Under the Labor government the resources boom is over.' Can I assure those potential investors that, under an Abbott government, we will do everything we can to get that investment back and create jobs for Australians in the resources industry.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (16:01): I remember the days when, under the former leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Wentworth, the member for Groom was rushing around this building doing deals, talking to everybody, trying to get a carbon price in place. That was back when the Liberal Party had a rational, reasonable, sensible market based approach to dealing with climate change and carbon emissions. But those days seem long ago. Those opposite seem to have embraced the lunar Right—the Tea Party, the Birthers, the nutters on the internet. That is who they are driven by now.
What has ended up happening is that the community are demanding from all of us, from everyone in this House, a decent, reasonable debate. That is why Nigel McBride from Business SA was on Belinda Heggen's show on FIVEaa radio today calling on politicians to end the blame game. He was saying that we need to take a fact based approach to this, reminding everybody that Olympic Dam is still operating, reminding everybody that this is a deferral and that BHP is looking at a less capital-intensive way of doing things. The problem with the sensible approach from Business SA is that it collides with the political opportunism of those opposite. We all know that what the Liberal Party want to do is have a scare campaign. They had a scare campaign over carbon pricing and now they are going to have a scare campaign over mining investment.
In particular, in my state they have been trash-talking the South Australian economy. Tony Abbott went to the Liberal Party conference only a week ago and compared South Australia to Tasmania, managing to insult both states in the process. Here is a man who is going to declare war on South Australia and Tasmania through GST collections. He is going to rob a billion dollars in taxes that are coming to South Australia at the moment, forcing state governments to sack nurses, teachers and police.
We know what they are going to do with the car industry. From reading an article by Lenore Taylor on 13 January 2012 headed 'Hockey's line in the sand on cars', we know what they are going to do. They are going to shut Holden down, jeopardising 16,000 jobs. But we do not hear a word about that from those opposite.
We know what they are going to do with submarines too. The Labor government wants to build submarines in South Australia. We know what the member who submitted this matter of public importance to the House said. He said, 'We want to see what the benefit is in actually building these submarines here in Australia rather than getting cheaper versions from overseas.' That is what the member for North Sydney wants to do. He wants to get our subs from a slow boat coming from Europe or elsewhere. That is what his plan is—not to manufacture them in South Australia. It is the same with our cars. He wants to send the car industry on a slow boat to China and bring submarines in on a slow boat to Australia. It is a curious thing.
We heard a lot about mining. They have moved on to trash-talking the mining industry in South Australia. There are a few points that need to be acknowledged. First of all, we have gone from having four mines to 20 mines in South Australia. There has been an explosion in mining activity, in exploration in particular. There are another 30 mines in the pipeline. We are No. 2 in the country for exploration, second only to Western Australia. We are actually No. 1 in terms of greenfields sites. The independent Fraser Institute rates us as one of the most attractive mining destinations in the world. That is what is happening in South Australia. There is a boom in mineral exploration that has been promoted not only through world conditions in commodity prices and demand but also because we have the PACE exploration scheme and because there was a geological survey done way back at the time of the Bannon and Arnold governments. But people do not talk about these things. All we know is that mining investment is a very long time coming. You have to work very hard to get mining investment going. There are long lead times. They look for investment certainty and the like, and that is what they are getting in South Australia.
We have heard a lot about the carbon price and, in particular, BHP's attitude to carbon. I point out to those opposite that on 16 September 2010, in an article titled 'BHP boss Marius Kloppers: it's time for carbon tax', Marius Kloppers is quoted as saying:
We do believe that such a global initiative—
a carbon price—
will eventually come and, when it does, Australia will need to have acted ahead of it to maintain its competitiveness.
The head of BHP, in other words, is saying that it is important to have a carbon price in advance of what the world is doing. The member for North Sydney went to the National Press Club a year ago and admitted there was going to be a global carbon price, saying, 'Oh, well, it will happen eventually.' He, like the member for Groom, was in favour of pricing carbon in the previous parliament, under a previous leader, before the Liberal Party was taken over by the lunar Right and the nutcases on the internet who drive this stuff.
The reality is that the companies look for investment certainty and that carbon pricing provides it. The decision made by BHP in recent days on the Olympic Dam project was based on BHP's own commercial interests. It was based on the capital intensity of the project. We and those opposite know that the project is capital intensive because there is a lot of dirt on top of the minerals in South Australia—these are not shallow pits; these are deep pits, and that means that it is expensive to get at the minerals. The position of the Australian dollar, actual economic activity, the skills available in the economy and the company's own disposition towards making very large investments in this internationally unsettled time also played a role in BHP's decision.
If those opposite were being honest and sensible and were trying to make sure that the South Australian economy kept growing and that consumers had confidence rather than trying to scare people, they would be saying, 'We'll be a loyal opposition, and we'll work with the government to make sure the project happens.' Instead, they come in here and try to perpetrate a fraud: that the carbon tax is responsible for the halting of the project and that the mining tax applies to it, even though the mining tax does not apply to gold, copper or uranium mines. That is the one fatal and obvious flaw in their logic, but it does not stop them going out there looking like a bunch of gargoyles and talking down the South Australian economy. It pains me to say this about the member for Grey, because he is a distinguished fellow and a man of the land and I have a fair bit of affection for him, but he looked like a gargoyle standing next to the member for Sturt and others—these grim gargoyles talking down the South Australian economy. It is not good. If you think that voters are going to be impressed by your gleefully high-fiving one another about not getting an investment, you've got another think coming.
They could not wait to get out of their offices—they burned outside, Abbott's army—but the member for Warringah, although we were not meant to know this, had not at that time even read BHP's statement. He did not care a lick about that; what he really cared about was mounting another scare campaign. This is because the little scare campaign that they have had going for six months about the carbon price has fallen flat on its face, and people are saying, 'What was all the fuss about?' Now the member for Warringah has to cast around for something else to hang his hat on, but there is not much available. There is no industrial relations policy on the other side. There is no policy on how they are going to fund super. There is no policy on how they are going to fund the member for North Sydney's $70 billion black hole. There are no costings or any policies from them. They do not have a sane or rational policy on how they are going to deal with climate change, because they want to appeal to the lunar Right and the nutcases and the Tea Party people who are now populating the fringes of the Australian Right. The scare campaigns that those opposite mount are an absolute disgrace, and they will not be received well in the state of South Australia.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (16:11): Yesterday was a very sad day for South Australia, and one would think that the member for Wakefield would at least come in here and show a little compassion for the people who are already losing their jobs. In the two weeks before BHP's announcement yesterday about the Olympic Dam project more than 600 jobs went in Roxby Downs, and the sackings have already started as a result of the Olympic Dam decision. All of this is an absolute catastrophe for our economy. So much had been staked on the future of the Olympic Dam project in South Australia. The South Australian government was intending to use the project to bankroll its future. It had already factored in the royalties from this mining project, which is now not going to eventuate—not, at least, in the short or medium term.
The member for Wakefield said that the project has only been deferred. That is not right, Member for Wakefield. This project is being totally reassessed because it is being deemed unviable, and it is being deemed unviable because the costs of development are too high. We know that the costs of development in Australia in the last few years have blown out exponentially—and there are a number of reasons for that. But the government is implicated in raising the costs because it has added to the degree of difficulty. When I was interviewed earlier today, I said: 'It's like a pole vault—when you put the bar at 5½ metres, is it the first five metres that mean you miss the jump, or is it the last half-metre on the top? It does not really matter—if the bar is higher, it's harder to get over.' In this case, the government has been complicit in making doing business in Australia that much more difficult.
For the last five years, my community, the electorate of Grey, has been through the community consultation, the debate over the desalination plant and the debate on the unloading platforms in the Spencer Gulf. Councils have talked about the increased strain on the Port Augusta Bridge. We have talked about energy supplies and electricity for Roxby Downs. We have talked about expenditure to accommodate the freight task. All the towns in my electorate have been preparing so that they can participate in the supply of fly-in fly-out workers for Roxby Downs. Business has positioned itself to take advantage of the opportunities. Moreover, BHP and the South Australian government have been out there spruiking, urging businesses on and telling them to get ready for the boom that is coming—and now it is not coming. They have been encouraging businesses to invest their hard-earned dollars so that they do not miss out when the boom starts starts—but, of course, now the boom is not starting. We are going to have to pick ourselves up off the floor and see what this means for the electorate of Grey and the economy of South Australia as a whole. In the short term, at least, all the talk has come to nought and we are all suffering. The member for Wakefield accuses me of being gleeful, but I can tell you that to me this is like losing a member of the family; the member for Wakefield has no understanding. He says he cares for the 16,000 workers at GMH, and so he should, but we lost 20,000 jobs yesterday, and there are more to come.
The South Australia government have been out there huffing and puffing—Tom Koutsantonis has been out there—saying: 'We'll stand up to BHP. We won't extend their indenture bill.' Give me a break! For a start, who else has got $30 billion? And, incidentally, there is just a little problem: BHP already own the leases. There has been this hairy-chested thumping and blaming of BHP instead of actually having a look at some of the root causes of this increase in the degree of difficulty of doing business in Australia.
It is time that the Prime Minister took a little bit of responsibility. She will never admit that the carbon tax, for instance, might have just added a little bit of difficulty to this—not even one iota. In fact, if you listened, once again, to the member for Wakefield, you would think everything is rosy: the South Australian economy is just rolling along fine! He talks about all the new mines we have had. There have been some new mines in South Australia, but a lot of them are not all that big. There are a couple of beauties. There is one at Prominent Hill, in my electorate, and there is Arafura Resources out in the west, but there are a whole string of others that we were hoping to get off the ground.
There is Rex Minerals, down on York Peninsula, and the Arafura refinery in Whyalla. I cannot tell you how important that refinery is to Whyalla, because we need to diversify. A lot has been said about Whyalla, mainly by the government in this place, and particularly by that clown of a minister who sang to us with his beat box out in the yard. A lot has been said about Whyalla, but we need to diversify. The investment platform that this government has supplied in Australia is actually putting those projects under more strain. We are looking to develop the iron ore resources of the Eyre Peninsula, and yet in all this time, when we talk about the mining boom, not one new port has been constructed in South Australia—but, boy, we need them—and not one new railway line. And now the Minister for Resources and Energy says the boom is over. The boom is over, so we have missed the boat.
I come to the comments of BHP. BHP say that this project, Olympic Dam, is not going ahead because of two reasons. Let us look first at commodity prices. Yes, commodity prices have come off, but remember this mine was not to produce any ore for another five years, so, if BHP are talking about commodity prices, they can only be talking about profits today that are financing the investments of today. So, if their profit has come off, you know that is one of the reasons. Another reason their profit has receded is that they have been hit with two new taxes, and they have announced a 35 per cent write-down in profits, so they are nervous. Their profits are slipping away. They do not have the money to invest. The government cannot claim that they have not put their hand into that pile of money, saying, 'Yes, we want a bit more for us, because we promised all this stuff to the Australian electorate and we don't know how to pay for it.'
And then of course the BHP executive says it is capital costs. Well, it is capital costs, and we know what makes up capital. It is not just a piece of steel. It is not just a roof on a donga. It is not just a backhoe or a truck. It is all those things that go into making those products. It is the transport costs. It is the labour costs. It is the cost of building anything in Australia. It is inclusive of the taxes, because they become incorporated in the capital costs, and it is capital costs that have blown out substantially, excessively, in Australia in the last few years—and pretty much in the time frame that coincides with this government.
BHP are not fools. The government has been making much about the fact that they have not implicitly named either the carbon tax or the mining tax in this particular decision. I understand. I know quite well that Roxby Downs is not going to be subject to the mining tax, at least in the government's current form, but that mining tax has been affecting their other profits. But they are not fools. They know that they have to go on and deal with the government tomorrow and the day after and the day after—for a little less than 12 months, I hope—so BHP are not likely to go out there and be so critical and so honest with the government in public as to say, 'Your taxes have helped kill off this project.' They are careful with their language. They are diplomats. What would we expect them to do? None of us would do any different.
Ms Marino: It is a vindictive government.
Mr RAMSEY: That is the case. It is the case that business are worried about the repercussions if they stand up publicly and criticise this government, and that is a terrible condemnation.
The government talks of this pipeline, this $170 billion worth of investment in the pipeline, but yesterday we lost $50 billion, and that pipeline is not filling up. There are concerns in Western Australia about the Oakajee port. There are concerns about a number of projects which I am aware of, about whether or not they can now be delivered on. I am hopeful that this does not send a signal to the rest of Australia that there is no confidence left. I am hopeful that we can get some of these projects over the line. But if we look to why, if the people of Roxby Downs in South Australia want to know why this project has not gone ahead, they should look no further than the Prime Minister, because the government has added to that extra burden and she was, after all, the architect of Fair Work, she was the negotiator of the mining tax and she was the Prime Minister who promised us that we would never have a carbon tax, but that is just what she delivered.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:21): Twenty-four hours from the concerning announcement by BHP, we still have the opposition peddling mistruths about the Olympic Dam announcement. We still see them making up things, shooting from the hip and not actually listening to what BHP had to say. Some would think, if they listened to this debate, that opposition members actually knew more about BHP operations than BHP itself—that in fact the opposition knows more about what is going on within BHP than Marius Kloppers himself. Unfortunately we have a situation where the opposition either have not read the statement, which is what the Leader of the Opposition had not done yesterday, or they have not understood it, and they have not caught up with what is actually happening in South Australia—and when it comes to a Olympic Dam in particular.
Two mistruths have been spoken in this debate. The first was that it is the mining tax that stopped Olympic Dam. I am glad the member for Grey acknowledged it, because he is the only member on that side to actually acknowledge that the mining tax does not apply to copper, gold or uranium, and they are the things being mined at Olympic Dam. It is a pity the Leader of the Opposition has not bothered to acknowledge that.
The second mistruth was that somehow the carbon tax stopped Olympic Dam from going ahead. The opposition used to think a price on carbon was going to go ahead. They advocated for it and were negotiating for it and then, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition squashed that on its head when many members wished it would still go ahead. Mr Kloppers also made it very clear that he believes there will be a price on carbon and that if Australia does not act we will be left behind. Mr Kloppers said Australia will need to 'look beyond coal' powered electricity and 'towards other energy solutions'. He said:
Failure to do so will place us at a competitive disadvantage in the future where carbon is priced globally.
He has also said:
… we do believe that such a global initiative will eventually come. And we do believe that when it does come Australia will have needed to act ahead of it coming in order to maintain its competitiveness.
For the opposition to suggest that carbon pricing was not something BHP had considered and that suddenly, when it came in, it stopped Olympic Dam is misleading this parliament. You do not have to take it from me. You could take it from the words of Marius Kloppers who said:
The decision is almost wholly associated with, in the first instance, capital costs, which is not only an Australian issue - if we look at Chile and Colombia and so on, where you've had similar exchange rate issues and cost increases …
Unlike what the opposition would have us believe, this is not an Australian government conspiracy that has shut down Olympic Dam. In fact, BHP looked at the project and found that exchange rates and capital costs made it difficult.
BHP Billiton also made it very clear that 'the tax environment for this particular project'—meaning Olympic Dam—'has not changed at all since we started working on it six or seven years ago'. For the opposition to come in and say that the issue is the putting of a price on carbon or that it is the minerals resource rent tax is completely at odds with what the company itself said. Quite frankly, I am not sure where the opposition's logic is. They obviously have not read BHP's statement. I am happy to provide it to the members of the opposition. I think the Leader of the House did provide it to members today. I would encourage them strongly to actually have a look at the facts.
It is not surprising that we hear the Leader of the Opposition talk down South Australia and the South Australian economy. He regularly supports policies that are not in South Australia's interest. We have seen a number of announcements which will hurt the South Australian economy if that side of the House ever sits on the government benches. In particular, we have already heard the Leader of the Opposition, when he runs over to Western Australia, say, 'I am seriously going to think about changing the GST distribution. I am going to look at that. I think I will cut it from South Australia. I think I will cut it from Tasmania and give a bit more to you'. That is effectively what he said. That would have a disastrous effect on a small state like South Australia and shows that the Leader of the Opposition has no regard for South Australians and no regard for ensuring that we have adequate services like the bigger states do.
It does not stop there. The car industry is of particular importance to South Australia. The government's Automotive Transformation Scheme has been really important in ensuring that the car industry has a long-term exciting future in South Australia. What do we get from the Leader of the Opposition? 'We will scrap it.' That is what he said. He is not interested in long-term investment in jobs in South Australia. I heard the member for Grey say 'It is only a few jobs; it is only a few thousand jobs'. It is not, Member for Grey, it is a lot of jobs, not just the direct jobs at Holden but the indirect jobs that come to my electorate, to your electorate and to every electorate. There are 200,000 jobs in this country that are supported by the car industry and what would those on that side do? They would scrap it.
Let us get onto the submarines. The defence industry is, once again, a very important industry to the South Australian economy. Labor, this side of the House, are committed to jobs in Australia. We are committed to ensuring that there are jobs in Australia and we will assemble the submarines in South Australia. What does the opposition say? They say we do not think we will give it to South Australia. We will look at buying it off-the-shelf overseas. We will go overseas and do our shopping for our submarines. We will not invest in the jobs in South Australia. This equals an indifference to South Australia and its people by the Leader of the Opposition. I could get onto water, where the Leader of the Opposition said, 'We will not buy back water.' It is a shame that they would treat South Australians like that. But South Australia does have a bright future. There is a lot of mineral exploration going on.
Mr Secker: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. The member for Kingston has not referred to the MPI one bit for the last five minutes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member for Barker will resume his seat. He has been here a long time to know that MPIs are wide-ranging debates.
Ms RISHWORTH: I am responding directly to what other speakers in this debate have been saying.
In his speech, the member for Grey condemned the Prime Minister for the Fair Work Act—the Fair Work Act that restored wages and conditions to many people who lost them under the coalition government. I have to say he has belled the cat on this one. He said, 'Blame the Prime Minister for the Fair Work Act.' I do not. I commend the Prime Minister for the Fair Work Act. She has restored wages and conditions in this country for many who had them ripped away by the previous government.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (16:30): Order! I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Gageler, Mr Stephen, SC
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (16:30): Regrettably this House is made famous for those things that divide us rather than those things that unite us. The evening news is filled with stories of bitter conflict and fierce rivalry in our parliament rather than a commentary on those matters that have been concluded in the national interest without fuss or fanfare. I rise in the House to commend the Attorney-General for her appointment of Stephen Gageler SC as the next Justice of the High Court. I note that this appointment has been welcomed by the shadow Attorney-General, George Brandis, and the opposition. It is an appointment which I also welcome personally, having known Stephen for almost half a century.
Stephen Gageler has had a stellar legal career and is the first Commonwealth Solicitor-General to be appointed to the High Court since former High Court Justice Sir Anthony Mason. It is coincidental that Stephen served as an associate of Justice Mason. This appointment exemplifies what makes Australia great, that a man of humble beginnings can rise to the highest office not as a birthright but on the basis of hard work, talent and commitment. Stephen grew up in the small village of Sandy Hollow in the Hunter Valley in New South Wales. He came from a hardworking family—his mother, Pat, a hairdresser and his father, John, a sawmiller. I can recall Stephen's father returning to the family home after a hard day's work in the heat—dusty, hands blackened with hardwood stains.
Stephen attended the one-teacher Giants Creek school and was the first student from that school to attend university. I understand from media reports that the school is no longer open. For such a small village to have been the childhood home of a High Court justice does seem quite remarkable. As a small boy, Stephen played cricket for Sandy Hollow. It is my recollection that he had to. The selection process was a little less than rigorous; if Stephen did not play, the Sandy Hollow team could only muster 10 men. He did say he was not an overly talented batsman and that his bowling left a little to be desired. He modestly claimed to fulfil the role of 'specialist fieldsman', whatever that might mean.
He completed his high school education at Muswellbrook High School, where he was school captain. He was an outstanding student who excelled at his studies and was a great school leader. He completed a first-class honours degree in economics and law at the Australian National University and obtained a Master of Laws from Harvard. He entered commercial practice in 1992, becoming an SC in 2000 before taking up the role of Commonwealth Solicitor-General in 2008. It would seem that Stephen needed all his skills as a black belt in taekwondo to meet the challenges of the role of Solicitor-General in recent years.
Former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason said of his young associate:
I thought he was outstanding and I thought he would rise to the top of the profession.
The predictions of Sir Anthony Mason have proven correct and Stephen has indeed risen to the very top of the profession. The Attorney-General noted that Stephen is a person of enormous integrity and went on to say:
Mr Gageler's name was on the top of many, many lists from the profession … from those across the political spectrum.
It would come as no surprise to anyone who knows Stephen that he would be a man at the top of so many lists—a hardworking and decent man, a great Australian. Stephen has modestly said: 'My perception is that at any time in Australia there would be 50 people quite capable of performing the role of High Court Justice.' I could think of no better candidate for such a position than Stephen Gageler. I wish Stephen well in his demanding role on the High Court. I know the judiciary will be enhanced by the presence of Justice Gageler on the bench. It is an honour to be able to call Stephen Gageler a friend, and those with a matter before the highest court in the land will be in good hands with the boy from Sandy Hollow presiding.
Petrie Electorate: The Lakes College
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (16:34): I rise to pay special tribute to the great work being done in one of my local schools, the Lakes College at North Lakes, particularly in the field of languages. The Lakes College, or TLC, first opened in 2005 with only students from prep to year 3. Since 2005, TLC has expanded to cater for students up to grade 11, and next year will mark TLC's full development as a prep to year 12 college.
At TLC, Chinese is a compulsory subject from prep through to year 8. Adding to the diversity of its language program, the college also offers students the opportunity to learn Japanese, French and Spanish through the Brisbane School of Distance Education. TLC offers its comprehensive language program not only to accelerate the skills of its own student body but also for students from other local schools working in close partnerships. TLC recognises, as we in this chamber recognise, the challenges and opportunities of our increasingly global world and the importance of connecting with our Asian neighbours. The language program at TLC employs a philosophy that students need an authentic language-learning experience complete with real-life scenarios to instil in students an intercultural understanding and an awareness of other cultures. To help achieve this, in 2008 TLC established a sister school relationship with the I-Shou International School in Taiwan.
The sister school relationship endeavours to build an appreciation of languages and cultures and develop mutual understanding. Each year, I-Shou students visit TLC in July, and TLC students go to southern Taiwan in September. Through the student exchange program, students are integrated as much as possible into classroom learning and they experience a different home and school life. The visits strengthen the bonds between the two schools. At the end of 2011, TLC signed another memorandum to continue the commitment with I-Shou International School.
I was delighted recently to join the Lakes College in welcoming 10 young I-Shou students, accompanied by teacher Amanda, for the 2012 visit. The success of TLC's language learning was evident as we heard the prep students sing The Rain is Coming in Chinese, year 4 students recited a Chinese poem and two senior students officially welcomed our Taiwanese guests in fluent Chinese.
I was pleased to return to the Lakes College to farewell the I-Shou students and present them with gifts as mementos of their visit to Australia. We heard the I-Shou students practice their English—which I must say was excellent—by telling stories in assembly of their time with host families, at the Lakes College and on their travels throughout their stay. It was touching to hear the students talk about the new friends they had made—friendships that in many cases, I am sure, will last a lifetime.
Nine students, one parent and one staff member from TLC will soon depart Australia as part of their 2012 Asia tour. The group will leave on 16 September, visiting Hong Kong and the I-Shou International School in Taiwan, before returning home on 6 October.
In the past few years the Lakes College has received a number of language grants through the Australian government's National Asian Languages and Studies in Schools Programs, and I am proud to say it is because of our grants, along with financial assistance from the Independent Schools Queensland language program, that the Lakes College is excelling in this area.
Last year, the college was one of 116 schools nationwide that were successful in round 3 of the Becoming Asia Literate: Grants to Schools program, receiving a further $20,000 from the federal government. These funds have significantly supported the teaching and learning of Chinese culture and language at TLC and enabled the purchase of cutting-edge technology in classrooms, such as online language learning programs, teaching resources and iPads.
I was excited to learn this month that the Lakes College has just established an additional sister school arrangement in China, signing an MOU with Beijing Primary School. That student exchange program will commence in March 2013 and the college already has plans to expand this program to include parents from both schools and a six-month reciprocal teacher exchange.
I know that each year the college also nominates students to participate in the regional Chinese speaking and writing competitions; celebrates Chinese Cultural Day with a wide variety of Chinese cultural activities such as calligraphy writing, brush painting, fan dancing, Chinese kung-fu and Chinese food tasting; and facilitates regular interaction between students and Chinese business people from the local community.
I would like to congratulate the Lakes College Principal, Simon Armstrong; Head of Primary, Sharon Lollback; Simone Harvey, the Chinese teacher and student exchange program coordinator; and all teachers, parents and students who open their minds, hearts and homes to these language programs and deliver them brilliantly. I commend the college on their innovation and dedication in building and nurturing partnerships, here at home and abroad, to make the language program such a success, to the great benefit of TLC students.
Petition: Fisheries
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (16:39): I rise to present a petition that has been found to be in order by the Standing Committee on Petitions and which has been signed by 6,272 Australians.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned Australian residents, and sustainable users of our marine resources, draws to the attention of the House of Representatives the proposed network of marine parks throughout Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone. The current process of establishing marine park boundaries has failed to include genuine consultation, and has failed to recognise that Australian fisheries are already amongst the healthiest and best managed in the world, as highlighted in the latest Commonwealth Fish Status report released November 2011.
We ask the House of Representatives to urge the Government to halt the current process of establishing marine parks and to ensure that any future marine park boundaries are:
Based on science, and that this science be made available to all stakeholders;
Based on assessments of all risks to the environment by marine activities;
Accompanied by socio-economic research to show impacts on commercial fisheries, charter businesses, recreational anglers, and associated communities and industries, including tourism; and
Considerate of Australia's future food security needs.
from 6,272 citizens.
Petition received.
Ms GAMBARO: The petition, which has become known as the 'voice your choice petition', draws the attention of the House to the government's proposed network of marine parks throughout Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone.
The current process of establishing marine park boundaries has failed to include genuine consultation and has failed to recognise that Australian fisheries are already among the healthiest and best managed in the world, as highlighted in the latest Commonwealth Fishery Status Reports released in November 2011.
These 6,272 Australians ask the House to urge the government to halt the current process of establishing marine parks and to ensure that any future marine park boundaries be based on science, and that this science be made available to all stakeholders; be based on assessments of all risks to the environment by marine activities; be accompanied by socio-economic research to show impacts on commercial fisheries, charter businesses, recreational anglers, and associated communities and industries, including tourism; be based on appropriate consultation with relevant stakeholders; and be considerate of Australia's future food security needs.
There are some alarmist myths emanating from the Greens and Minister Burke about this issue that need to be debunked. Let's deal with the facts. First, we do not need to lock up our oceans to protect them. Second, there is no doubt that we need to conserve our oceans and be conscious of breeding grounds and seasons to sensibly harvest the seas. Our fishing industry understands this only too well and is at the forefront of managing sustainable fisheries. Third, Australia's fisheries are among the best managed in the world. We have legislation that deals specifically with environmental protection and the conservation of biodiversity, as well as with fisheries management.
So how and why has all of this happened? We cannot be duped by fake frowns and hand-wringing from people like Minister Burke and the Greens. Make no mistake, this lock-out is about political science not real science. This is all about that fact that the Prime Minster and Labor will do anything and everything they can to stay in power—and that means paying homage to and lying down to the agenda of the extreme Greens. Something stinks here and it is not the fish.
As a measure of just how desperate Labor is to stay in power, the Australian Marine Alliance has undertaken peer reviewed analysis of the economic impacts of this science-free decision, and here are some horrifying comparisons from that modelling. Under the lock-out, 1.5 million square kilometres will be closed versus 6.8 million square kilometres that are already being effectively managed. This measure will lose $4.35 billion in revenue, whereas without it you would have the $4.35 billion as well as the benefits from an economic multiplier of 1 to 3. This will impact on 60 regional communities. There will be 36,000 jobs lost instead of 36,000 jobs saved—and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
This analysis and the signatures of 6,272 Australians were not enough to prove just how out of touch Minister Burke and Labor are on this issue. The minister covered himself in the glory of his own incompetence with his comments on this issue in the House on Tuesday this week when he falsely accused Senator Boyce of using fake information and deliberately using an incorrect map to illustrate the vast amount of Queensland's marine resources that this government is locking up in marine parks. Apparently, the minister was not even aware that the map that was being referred to comes from his department's own website. And in case the minister is still unaware of those details the address for that website is www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/reserves/index.html.
But Minister Burke's lack of knowledge on this issue does not stop there. The minister has repeatedly claimed that the proposed marine reserve network will displace only $11.1 million worth of commercial fishing production per annum, just over one per cent of annual catch. But 36,000 jobs will be lost. The industry will take a $4.3 billion hit. This is something that a responsible government should be concerned about. The minister and Labor should be on notice that— (Time expired)
Fisheries
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (15:22): I respectfully but strongly disagree with the member for Brisbane. I want to urge the ministers for transport, fisheries and the environment, who each have a role in this matter, not to approve the supertrawler Margiris fishing in Australian waters. I regard it as very significant that yesterday the Tasmanian parliament passed a motion opposing the operation of the Margiris in Australian waters, and that each party—Labor, Liberal and Greens—voted in support of the motion. This very clear statement by the Tasmanian parliament should carry weight with us here, and it no doubt reflects public concern in Tasmania, just as there is public concern in Victoria.
On 11 August, I attended a protest rally against the Margiris at St Kilda Beach in Melbourne. In Victoria there is concern not only from marine conservation groups but also from recreational fishermen. In the western Victorian city of Warrnambool, following a public meeting of recreational anglers, two Warrnambool city councillors said the federal government should 'ban these trawlers raping our oceans', and said there was potential for the trawler to take most of the food supply for fish targeted by recreational anglers. Councillor John Harris said Victoria has a $1.2 billion a year fishing industry and in the south-west region it is worth $200 million.
The object of concern, the Margiris, is twice the size of other commercial trawlers. It can stay at sea for 60 days and can catch, automatically sort and pack 250 tonnes of fish a day. It can carry 6,000 tonnes and is in effect a mobile factory.
I am concerned that globally we have been overfishing, that many fish stocks are dangerously depleted as a consequence, and that supertrawlers, which scoop up whole schools of fish and leave nothing behind, are a major part of the problem. Supertrawlers from Europe and China, and the Margiris specifically, have been accused of plundering the fisheries of developing countries, especially in West Africa. Senegal has banned them from its waters. In December last year Margiris and other EU trawlers were ordered out of Western Sahara waters. As recently as March this year the Margiris has been fishing off Mauritania and Morocco, where most targeted fish stocks are considered fully exploited or overexploited and local fishermen find it increasingly hard to catch fish. European supertrawlers were responsible for the collapse of the South Pacific mackerel fishery, where fish stocks have collapsed to less than 10 per cent of original estimates.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation concluded in 1998 that global fishing capacity was 2½ times greater than global fish stocks could sustain. As recently as June, at the Earth Summit in Rio, Australia reaffirmed its commitment to work towards cuts to fishing subsidies, which the Margiris is a beneficiary of.
The Margiris is planning to come to Australia to fish a quota of 18,000 tonnes of jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait. A key issue in this debate is the role of redbait, jack mackerel and blue mackerel in the marine food chain. They are the food source for larger fish such as tuna and dolphins, and the food source for sea birds and sea lions and fur seals. Not only does the supertrawler threaten these larger species by taking away their food source; it also threatens dolphins, seals and sea birds by catching and drowning them in its huge nets. People in Warrnambool have expressed concern that southern bluefin tuna stocks off Victoria's south-west coast could be affected—the annual tuna run there is a major drawcard for anglers.
The jack mackerel quota has been doubled, at the request of the fishing company Seafish Tasmania which wants to bring the Margiris here. I think that using the Margiris to catch these fish brings with it a real risk of localised depletion of these species, with ongoing negative consequences for both recreational fishermen and the marine environment, and I urge the ministers concerned not to allow this to happen.
In saying this let me make it clear that I am not against fishing, and this is not some plot or conspiracy to put an end to commercial or recreational fishing. Some of my family members are very keen fishermen. I think the description Tim Winton gave to MPs in May of his happiest moments, his most vivid memories, as always involving standing on a beach, beside an estuary, on a jetty, holding a fishing rod or a net, was a cracker. He also says, 'We all know we're pushing the ocean too hard'. I want to be true to his vision that one of the things we in this parliament will be able to quietly let slip to a granddaughter as she reels in her first flathead, or our grandkids after they have been snorkelling in a marine sanctuary, is that we, in this parliament, helped saved Australia's oceans.
Swinburne University of Technology
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:49): The decision by Swinburne University to close its Lilydale campus is a decision that they should not have made. Recently Swinburne, which has a number of campuses, announced it would close its Lilydale campus. It said that the decision for this closure was largely to do with a refocusing of funding by the state government with respect to TAFE courses. A close examination of Swinburne's recent history demonstrates some other very significant factors and I would say at the outset that a refocusing of funding by the state government that focuses funding on courses where students have a greater chance of getting a job, as opposed to courses where that is not the case, is something anyone with an interest in sensible public policy would support.
Swinburne's history tells the story, unfortunately, of a university with its heart not in the Yarra Valley campus. In 2006, six years ago, they removed their vice-chancellor from the Lilydale campus. Over the last six years, enrolments are down 16 per cent. Over the last five years, their profit is down 20 per cent. All of these points of fact, outlined by my state colleague Christine Fyffe, indicate that Swinburne had been looking for any excuse to depart the Lilydale campus. That track record over the last six years is unfortunate given the history. All these things—the 16 per cent fall in enrolments and the withdrawal of the vice-chancellor in 2006, all long before any change in state funding for vocational education and training—have been used as an excuse, in my view, for Swinburne to do what it had been planning to do all along.
The Lilydale campus was brought about through a great community contribution around 20 years or so ago. Six large industrial blocks of land were compulsorily acquired and offered for the new facility. Commonwealth, state and some Swinburne capital was used to develop the site, but essentially the land was obtained through the compulsory acquisition and gifted at a peppercorn rate to Swinburne.
If Swinburne is blind to the opportunities of the Yarra Valley and want to leave, which they are doing, let them leave, I say. But let them leave what they were gifted by the community. If they have been gifted land by the community to create an educational precinct in the Yarra Valley, leave behind what they were given. Do not sell what was gifted. If we in the Yarra Valley cannot appeal to their common sense, let us at least appeal to their conscience, because this precinct must remain an educational facility in the Yarra Valley.
I think Swinburne are backward looking in leaving a most dynamic region like the Yarra Valley, with all that it offers. But if they wish to leave let a more forward-looking institution—and there are so many of them in Australia—with a greater capacity to seize the opportunities of our dynamic region come in and be gifted what Swinburne was gifted. Do not use the opportunity of a state budget announcement to cover a plan that has clearly been there for those many years when their heart was not in the Lilydale campus. Let an educational facility remain.
School Funding: ACT Liberals
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:54): I rise today to talk about a problem the Liberals in the ACT seem to be having with getting their facts straight. I am so concerned about this that I want to use my brief time here to help them overcome their confusion and their problems distinguishing fact from fiction. In this case I want to help the Liberals in Canberra understand the issue of school funding.
After the sky did not fall in on 1 July, the Liberal senator for the ACT, Gary Humphries, seemed at a loss to understand the government's policy on school funding. Not letting the truth get in the way of a good story, he decided to make up a piece of fiction. Senator Humphries went on 666 ABC Radio and told presenter Alex Sloan about a leaked document which, he alleged, showed that some Canberra schools would lose thousands, even millions, in school funding. Senator Humphries said:
… tens of millions of dollars will be systematically ripped out of Canberra's education system …. Parents will pay more, or class sizes will rise, as funding is cut to government, Catholic and independent schools across the ACT.
When Senator Humphries was asked where this document he was quoting from came from, do you know what he said? He said, 'I do not know'. The Liberal senator told the ABC he read it in the paper. After having read something unsourced and without legitimacy in a newspaper, he went round and round like Chicken Little screaming that the sky would fall in, just as he did on carbon pricing. Then, when he was asked to clarify his wild claim that tens of millions of dollars would be ripped out of the ACT education system, Senator Humphries said, 'I have not said this is definitely going to happen.' Senator Humphries does not know the basis for his allegation and he does not even know if it is going to happen. The Liberals read something written somewhere by someone and from that they predict the end of the world. That is the fiction.
Now let me help my ACT Liberal senator with some facts. The Gillard government has said that no school will lose funding. In fact the ACT education minister, Chris Bourke, was so aghast at this piece of fiction from Senator Humphries that he issued a media statement saying:
Under ACT Labor, the Territory government will not permit any future federal school funding reform that is detrimental to ACT students—government or non-government.
As the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Peter Garrett, said, we want an education system that means every school has the best teachers, has access to the latest technology and can offer things like sport, art and other activities that help our kids get a well-rounded education. We know that achieving these goals requires effort and money.
But, instead of supporting education in the ACT, Senator Humphries is trying to scare Canberra parents into thinking there is some secret plan to cut funding to schools. I find this the height of irresponsibility. It creates unnecessary concern and stress for parents, and it is just plain wrong. Under Labor's plan no school will lose funding, and that is because we are the government that delivers on education.
Education is a priority for Labor. I visit a lot of schools in my electorate and I see first-hand the benefits of the Gillard government's education policies: new computers, new school halls and new libraries—$245 million has been approved for 257 BER projects, including the building or upgrading of 41 classrooms, 33 libraries and 59 multi-purpose halls. There have also been 16,100 computers installed; $17 million approved for trades training centres, benefiting 12 schools; 30 schools participating in the Smarter Schools national partnership; and 59 schools receiving funding for chaplaincy services.
The changes in ACT schools over the past few years are truly impressive, and these improvements are in government schools, Catholic schools and independent schools. Already, the Gillard government has modernised facilities in schools across Canberra and, indeed, across all of Australia. We are implementing a national curriculum and national teacher standards. We are investing in better teacher training and giving more decision-making power to principals. Our investment in education has doubled that of the Howard government. We have always said no government, independent or Catholic school will lose a dollar of funding per student, and that is what we will deliver.
I would have hoped that there would have been bipartisan support for measures that improve our schools and the education of school students. If Senator Humphries or indeed any Canberra Liberals are unaware of the improvements and benefits that Canberra schools have experienced these past five years, I am happy to show them, although, I suspect many of them know it—because even though they have condemned the Building the Education Revolution program, they do not seem to have any qualms about turning up to the openings.
Finally, I would just like to acknowledge the Canberrans who have been appointed to the Advisory Council to the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority: Dr Helen Watchirs, Ms Anne Cahill Lambert and Mr David O'Leary.
Ungarie: Flood Assistance
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (16:59): I am pleased and relieved to report the Riverina village of Ungarie will finally receive federal assistance after almost being washed away by a flood at Humbug Creek on 4 March. I acknowledge the federal government for the fact it will provide a special payment to help affected residents, many of whom are still displaced from their homes. The government responded to any New South Wales request for assistance as soon as the call came, yet in Ungarie's case the damage across the Bland Shire was not considered, under state criteria, to be sufficient to receive Category C assistance. Thankfully common sense has prevailed and I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister for Emergency Management, and of the Attorney-General and her staff, in listening and acting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Ms Rowland to move:
That this House:
(1) calls on the Sudanese Government and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement—North, to:
(a) promptly implement the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the United Nations, African Union and Arab League on allowing unrestricted humanitarian access to all areas of the Blue Nile and South Kordofan states in Sudan; and
(b) immediately conclude a ceasefire agreement;
(2) supports the involvement of an international mediation team to assist in negotiations for a ceasefire agreement;
(3) calls on:
(a) the Sudanese and South Sudanese governments to cease any support for armed rebel militias in each other's territories; and
(b) both sides to urgently work towards a final, negotiated agreement on outstanding issues arising from separation, including Abyei;
(4) notes that the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudan's President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, on five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape), two counts of war crimes (attacking civilians and pillaging), and three counts of genocide; and
(5) acknowledges the:
(a) contribution of the Sudanese and South Sudanese Diaspora in Australia to our economic and cultural diversity; and
(b) excellent work being undertaken by the international community in assisting the 170,000 refugees who have been displaced from Sudan's Blue Nile and South Kordofan states since late 2011.
Mr Bandt to move:
That this House directs the Prime Minister to establish immediately, a full and independent inquiry with:
(1) powers equivalent to a royal commission to investigate the bank note bribery scandal concerning the Reserve Bank of Australia, Securency and Note Printing Australia; and
(2) terms of reference that require it to do at least the following:
(a) investigate and report on:
(i) allegations of corruption in securing note printing contracts and payments to overseas agents into offshore tax havens;
(ii) what the Reserve Bank of Australia, Austrade and the Australian Government each knew about the alleged behaviour, and when they knew it;
(iii) what due diligence was applied and what investigations were conducted into the allegations;
(iv) whether there has been appropriate governance by public institutions and companies;
(v) what action has been taken to prevent improper dealings occurring again, and whether that action is sufficient; and
(iv) any related matters; and
(b) make recommendations on future actions that should be taken by government and agencies to prevent similar problems from occurring.
Mr Chester to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that with more than 150,000 members and 310 affiliated surf lifesaving clubs, surf lifesaving is the largest volunteer movement of its kind in Australia;
(2) recognises the outstanding contribution made to health and safety of beach goers by volunteer and professional surf lifesavers;
(3) highlights that the economic value to the Australian economy of surf lifesaving's coastal drowning and injury prevention efforts in 2009-10 was independently assessed to be $3.6 billion;
(4) supports the important role played by surf lifesaving clubs in developing young people's health, fitness and leadership skills through an extensive junior program; and
(5) acknowledges the Coalition's commitment to implement a $10 million fund if elected into government to:
(a) assist clubs to purchase vital rescue equipment, first aid and medical supplies; and
(b) extend the Beach Drowning Black Spot Reduction Program.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 09:34.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Petition: Human Trafficking
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (09:34): I rise today to discuss and present later the Stop the Traffik petition from about 2,914 signatures on behalf of the Uniting Church of Australia. The petition seeks to condemn the practice of human trafficking and prevent people continuing to be bought and sold. Human trafficking is the acquisition of people by improper means, such as force or such as fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them.
This petition has been brought to my attention by Dr Mark Zirnsak, Director the Justice and International Mission unit of the Uniting Church of Australia. The petition promotes the need for a consistent approach to compensation for survivors of human trafficking in Australia.
This would be the fulfilment of article 6.6 of the Protocol to Prevent Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which states:
Each State Party shall ensure that its domestic legal system contains measures that offer victims of trafficking in persons the possibility of obtaining compensation for damage suffered.
In order to be compliant with the international obligations Australia has accepted, it should either create a compensation scheme at the federal level for survivors or ensure survivors of human trafficking can receive compensation under current state systems.
In contemplating this petition, one of the testimonies of someone who is actually on the petition is mentioned and recorded by the project research—one of the people who had been trafficked: 'We were made to feel like animals. Customers were violent. Some of the customers were crazy. They treated us like animals. We were sexually abused, we were drugged, we were hit. Some of us were given drugs so we could work all the time. Some of the women we know have become drug addicts and now they have to keep doing prostitution to pay for drugs.'
Virtually every country in the world is affected by crime such as this, and I would like to point out that on 13 August 2012 the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Hon. Bob Carr, asked the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to inquire into and report on slavery, slavery-like conditions and people-trafficking. The committee invites interested persons and organisations to make submissions addressing the terms of reference by Friday, 28 September 2012. The trade of men, women and children through force or coercion is one of the fastest growing criminal activities in the world, and as I understand it the committee wants to examine Australia's efforts to combat the problem. The United Nations estimates that 2.5 million people worldwide are victims of this crime, and 1.2 million of these are children. International efforts to tackle the problem will also be examined. Australia has not escaped this serious form of exploitation—between 2004 and 2011 over 300 investigations and assessments of human trafficking and slavery offences were conducted by the Australian Federal Police. Thirteen convictions resulted. In the time I have left I am seeking to present this petition, which has been through the Petitions Committee.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
In 2005 Australia ratified the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime.
Article 6.6 of the Protocol states:
Each State Party shall ensure that its domestic legal system contains measures that offer victims of trafficking in persons the possibility of obtaining compensation for damaged suffered.
However, Australia has failed to provide direct avenues for survivors to pursue compensation.
While Australia has recognised that there have been over 175 victims of human trafficking to Australia since 2004, only a handful have been able to obtain compensation through State Government crimes compensation schemes.
Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:
Fulfil Australia's international obligation through the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children to provide compensation to survivors of human trafficking as victims of a serious crime. This should be done through a legislated Commonwealth compensation scheme for the purpose unless an adequate alternative arrangement can be made.
from 2,914 citizens
Petition received.
Flynn Electorate: Dairy Farming
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (09:37): I rise today to support the dairy farmers of Central Queensland. I recently met with representatives of the Port Curtis Milk Suppliers Co-operative Association in the North Burnett region of Flynn. The Deputy Premier of Queensland, Mr Jeff Seeney, and I attended that meeting, where we were briefed on the extremely difficult situation that is facing their industry at the present time. Prices per litre of milk are declining for farmers in Flynn and right across Queensland—and probably the rest of Australia. This can be attributed to issues such as ever-increasing input costs, but predominantly the biggest threat is coming from the recent price wars between our major supermarkets, Woolworths and Coles.
This issue not only threatens the future of the dairy industry in Queensland but goes to the heart of issues of food security in our home state. Since 1999-2000 the number of dairy farmers in Port Curtis has declined by 64 per cent, and milk production has decreased by 59 per cent over that period from 70 million litres to 30 million litres. Port Curtis Milk Suppliers Co-op identifies the key causes of this reduction as follows: suppressed prices, environmental factors such as drought and floods, rising costs of production, a carbon tax on the input cost and supermarket price wars. Generic labelling of milk—$2 for two litres—is identified as being the single biggest problem for the industry.
Central Queensland dairy farmers are vital to the local economies of many towns in the regional areas of Flynn—Monto, Wondai, Biloela et cetera. A dairy farm often supports several families. Farmers habitually purchase everything from tractors to feed for livestock from local suppliers and are therefore a vital part of any community. Once the farmer is out of the industry it is most unlikely that they can return to dairy production—they are lost forever. The Port Curtis dairy factory in Rockhampton relies totally on milk from around the region and it is also a big employer of people. Australia produces five billion litres surplus every year—five billion litres are exported. So the production is there. Queensland produces five per cent of Australian milk supplies. Queensland will need to increase its dairy production by 22 per cent by 2020 just on growth rates in Queensland. The dairy industry in Central Queensland is absolutely vital to our regional communities and the security of our food supply as we continue to grow. It is an absolute imperative that we have a dairy industry in Central Queensland. Therefore, I implore this government to appreciate the needs of such industries, and I also implore the people of Australia to genuinely support their local farmers.
Makin Electorate: VIEW Club
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (09:40): On Friday, 3 August I attended the meeting of the Tea Tree Gully VIEW club—one of two VIEW clubs in the Makin electorate; the other being the Golden Grove club. VIEW stands for Voice, Interest and Education of Women. I understand that there are about 400 VIEW clubs nationwide with a total membership of about 20,000. The Tea Tree Gully club was formed around 12 years ago and has grown to 84 members. True to its name, the club provides an excellent forum for giving voice to and broadening the interests of local women. In addition, the club actively supports deserving community groups and engages in much fundraising in order to do so. I particularly commend VIEW clubs around Australia for their support of the Smith Family charity organisation.
What particularly caught my interest at the meeting were the four resolutions that VIEW club members throughout the country were being asked to consider and vote on, they being, firstly: VIEW clubs of Australia call on the Australian government to implement the recommendations in the Gonski report to achieve rural equality in educational opportunity for all Australian children; secondly, VIEW clubs of Australia call on the federal and state governments to develop a long-term national housing plan which is gender aware and responsive to combat Australia's housing affordability crisis; thirdly, VIEW clubs of Australia resolve that the importance of the Advance Health Directive document be promoted and that a nationally recognised advance health directive form be made readily available in appropriate public places throughout Australia; and, fourthly, that VIEW clubs of Australia lobby the state and federal governments to initiate an opt-out or presumed consent regulation whereby organs may be removed from a diseased person for the purpose of transplantation if they have not expressed an objection to donating their organs.
The arguments for and against each proposition were clearly summarised to assist members with their decision. Each of these resolutions deal with very important contemporary social issues. Unlike governments and politicians, VIEW club members considering the four propositions are not constrained by political or budgetary consequences and therefore are likely to reflect more accurately community attitudes on these matters. I urge decision makers to take note of the VIEW club members' responses to the four propositions, as a poll of 20,000 members should not be dismissed.
I also acknowledge the meeting's guest speaker of the day, well-known and respected ABC personality David Bevan, who provided an entertaining and fascinating insight into his radio career and the background work that goes into preparing each program. I am grateful for David's presence as it was good to have a fellow male at an otherwise all-women's event. I thank President Helen Allen and Tea Tree Gully VIEW club members for the community work that the club engages in and for the warm reception I have received when I have attended their meetings. I also wish VIEW club members well with their upcoming national conference.
Aston Electorate: Community Groups
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (09:42): A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of joining many more disadvantaged residents of my electorate for a meal put on by the Foothills Community Care. This is a church-based organisation that runs a program called the Mountain Gates Meals Night. Every Tuesday night it provides about 40 meals for people who are very isolated and very lonely and who often struggle to afford to feed themselves. It is a terrific program that they put on. There were 30 or 40 people having a meal there and I sat down with them. It was actually quite joyous. People were happy. They were pleased to be there and connect with others. For some, I think, it was one of the main forms of connection with others that they have.
I commend the organisers of the Mountain Gate Meals Night for putting this on. They do so voluntarily without any government assistance. I particularly commend Reverend Steve Barrington, the program director, Andy Philips, and the coordinators, Donna Krenn and Greg Krenn, for the work that they do in this regard.
My electorate is blessed with fantastic local community organisations such as this one. Many are church based, but many are not. They provide tremendous support and service to people in need. They provide the types of things which the nation state can never provide here from Canberra. We as parliamentarians should always support such organisations and do what we can to give them whatever support that we can.
Of course, these organisations create tremendous community spirit, as well as serving the need. The volunteers go there to serve those people in need but they serve not only the people in immediate need but also the broader community. Sometimes we bemoan the fact that we are becoming a consumer society, but what we actually do know is that real happiness and satisfaction comes from the relationships that we form and from service to others. This is a terrific example of that.
Melbourne Ports Electorate: Schools
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (09:45): Caulfield Primary was the first school to be built in Caulfield after the Education Act of 1872, giving children access to free education. It gave me great pride to be part of the government who helps continue this legacy of giving first class education to children regardless of means or background when on 6 August I opened their new multipurpose hall, the last of my BER programs. Under the National School Pride Program, the school invested $76,000 in the refurbishment of buildings and playgrounds, and $807,000 for its new multipurpose hall. Far from the denigration the program received from certain quarters, the hall is now used for assemblies, presentations, performing arts, a tuck shop, instrumental tuition, meetings and community occasions. Previously the kids of Caulfield Primary met in the garden or had to take over the library, where all 200 kids could not fit.
The Australian government's Building the Education Revolution, as we know, spent $16.2 billion—the single biggest investment in government schools in Australian history—including $65 million across 36 schools in Melbourne Ports. Across the country, across Melbourne Ports, our students can now use new libraries, science labs, multipurpose halls and above all classrooms. In my electorate, we have a growing population. We have had to have a redistribution, because we have got so many people concertina-ing into the particularly beautiful part of Melbourne where I live. The pressure on classrooms has been well handled in the government, Catholic and independent sectors. I particularly want to praise Caulfield Primary for its Japanese language program, led by Miho Suzuki-Bevan and her dedicated team. The school is one of only 11 bilingual schools in Victoria. It is wonderful to see primary school students at a government school learning a foreign language, in this case Japanese.
When I was at the Japanese school last year, I opened their BER building and cited the importance of education in Japanese culture. This is exemplified by the high ranking adviser to the Nagaoka clan, Torasaburo Kobayashi, in the play One HundredSacks of Rice, by Yuzo Yamamoto: 'The spirit of one hundred sacks of rice'. This is the Japanese attitude to education that I think is seen in both of these schools.
The prosperity of a country, the growth of cities, everything, depends on people. Build schools and develop people of ability. Caulfield Primary's motto, 'Learn, create and participate', embodies this. It is an honour to represent in the federal parliament today such a fine, dedicated, small but passionate school. I want to thank the principal of Caulfield Primary, Peter Gray, and everyone who worked hard to deliver this important project— school staff, parents, tradespeople and the wider community. Their efforts have improved Caulfield Primary School's facilities, as the facilities at all of the schools in Melbourne Ports have been improved. They have been very carefully supervised by their federal member!
Mining: Olympic Dam
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (09:48): I rise on a matter of extreme importance to my home state of South Australia. It was a day of economic infamy yesterday in my home state, when BHP announced that due to increased pressure on them in relation to capital expenditure and the downturn in commodity prices they would not be proceeding with the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine up in Roxby Downs in South Australia. This, of course, has been the project that the state Labor government has been spruiking for some 10 years as the great saviour for the South Australian economy. In part, they were right to have been spruiking that, because the project itself in its construction phase alone would have created some 10,000 additional jobs in South Australia, with a huge economic flow-on, giving South Australia a real leg-up for the future.
Sadly, for months and months and months, BHP, Rio Tinto, the Minerals Council and other organisations, as well as some in the federal parliament, have been raising concerns about the increasing cost of doing business in Australia, making it harder for companies like BHP to go ahead with these investments to create the circumstances for prosperity in states like South Australia. We saw the outcome of that yesterday, when the BHP board decided not to proceed at this time with the current project and indeed to recalibrate the project. It is very sad that Jay Weatherill, the Premier of South Australia, and his little sidekick, the resources minister, who have been assuring South Australians for months that this would not be the case and that this project would go ahead, have been completely blindsided by their federal colleagues and the appalling way that the federal Labor Party is managing the economy.
Jac Nasser, the Chairman of BHP, made very clear in May this year that there were four factors that were impacting on investment decisions in Australia, making Australia a high-cost economy. We hear these members over here on the Labor side, who have no care for the people of South Australia, and they sit there and put their carbon tax on, they put their mining tax on, they reregulate the labour market and they make it harder for investment to be made in South Australia and in our country, and this will be the legacy of your government. The legacy of the Gillard-Rudd government will be that there is less investment—this lack of investment in the mining sector. When big companies like BHP, who are worldwide companies, look to invest across the globe, cost factors in one of those countries impact, and they have impacted on us; they have impacted on South Australia. Long be the shame on the federal Labor government for delaying this project and for delaying the benefits that would have flowed to my state through this investment from BHP, all because of the Gillard Labor government and its policies.
Robertson Electorate: Aged Care
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (09:51): In contrast to that vitriolic, relentless negativity that we have heard, I have a few things to celebrate that are happening in the Australian population—
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms O'NEILL: Well yes, but perhaps we need to get on with the positive things that are being done. Australians need that kind of leadership. In July, the seniors in my electorate had a great opportunity to be part of the discussions about how aged-care services will be delivered in the coming years. More than 45 locals turned out to speak with the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, during his visit to the coast, to tell him what the system should look like and how it should run to provide the best care possible for our older Australians. This was the second visit by the minister to my electorate to discuss matters for aged-care, and he had about 100 who attended on the very first occasion as well. It is a testament to our community that so many people have taken part in these important dialogues with the federal government, to ensure that future generations of older Australians are able to enjoy the best standard of living possible.
During his visit, the minister also boosted Home and Community Care funding by nearly $1 million so that seniors in Robertson will receive more support to stay in their homes. What I hear from seniors on the coast is that they want to be able to stay at home for as long as possible, if not for the rest of their lives. It means so much to be able to stay independent and continue to look after ourselves as we age, and being able to stay somewhere familiar, such as the family home, is an important part of that. This funding means that more people on the peninsula and across Robertson will be able to access a range of domestic assistance, personal care, social support and respite to help them avoid a premature move to residential care. These are practical solutions from a Labor government committed to helping older Australians. I am proud to acknowledge the work of Coastlink, led by Lynne Rainford, as one of the eight local organisations that will benefit from this injection of funding, and I look forward to seeing the great results that will come from this much-needed investment. I thank the minister for spending time in our beautiful part of the world and for taking time to listen to the Central Coast community and to provide real assistance where needed.
I also want to take the time remaining to me to acknowledge the work of two amazing women on the Central Coast, Tamika Dwight-Scott and Melissa Crozier. About a year ago, they set up a health and wellness centre in East Gosford. They were setting it up as a business, but they found that they had clients coming to them—women who were coming particularly out of terrible situations of domestic violence, who needed health and wellness, and needed some care, at that time when often they were at their least able to pay for that care. What they have done in one year is extraordinary. They have set up a charity and they have worked with local groups, including the Lionesses of East Gosford, to create a business with the support of the community that supports this wonderful, qualified place for people to go to seek assistance at a time when they are in incredible need. Collectively, Tamika and Melissa combine a range of therapies to offer an effective treatment for clients who experience distress or trauma, which could include recovering from cancer. They are amazing women doing fantastic things in Robertson. (Time expired)
Bradfield Electorate: F3 to M2 Link
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (09:54): The M2-F3 missing link is greatly needed in my electorate of Bradfield to relieve the severely overloaded Pennant Hills Road and the Pacific Highway, to improve journey times for those travelling between Sydney and the Central Coast and to deliver safety and amenity benefits to local residents. Pennant Hills Road is part of the designated National Highway, and it is the current link between the M2 and the F3. It is consistently one of the slowest, most unsafe and heavily trafficked arterial roads in New South Wales.
Key design principles for the F3-M2 missing link have been identified and worked on over the last decade. The 2004 study by Sinclair Knight Merz identified air quality, alternative transport options and noise impacts as the areas the community wanted to be scrutinised. The SKM study found the project is capable of delivering positive benefits in each area, including reduced noise for 94 per cent of residents and air quality improvements by removing stop-start conditions and allowing ventilation of emissions. The most recently published New South Wales government estimate of the cost of this new road is $4.75 billion, so a project of this scale is likely to require funding from the New South Wales and federal governments as well as private sector involvement.
Recently an unsolicited proposal from private motorway operator Transurban was provided to the New South Wales government for a possible F3 to M2 motorway tunnel link underneath Pennant Hills Road. This announcement does not commit either the New South Wales government or Transurban to the project, but it is encouraging that assessment of the project will now continue to a second stage, with the parties to work together over the next six months. Obviously the New South Wales government needs to carefully assess this proposal to determine if it delivers value for money.
I want to put on the record my belief that private sector involvement such as that offered by Transurban offers the potential for the F3-M2 missing link to come to reality more quickly than if it were left to be wholly funded by government. The experience with other roads in the Sydney area such as the M2 and M7 supports this belief. Unfortunately, neither New South Wales Labor nor federal Labor delivered the F3-M2 missing link. In the 2011 federal budget Labor removed from the forward budget estimates $150 million which had previously been set aside for a feasibility study at initial planning work into the F3-M2 missing link.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese, continues to provide a murky picture of where the government stands on this funding. In a recent radio interview following the budget, he made the vague claim that $150 million was still available for the link, although it is clear from last year's budget that it was removed from the forward estimates and where it sits in this year's budget is nowhere to be found.
I again call upon the minister to provide clarity as to whether his government is committing $150 million to the F3 to M2 link and, at the same time, I call upon the New South Wales government to assess the private sector proposal carefully and express my view that properly managed private sector involvement could deliver a more rapid outcome than if it is left solely to government.
Canberra Electorate: Defence Housing Australia
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (09:57): I rise today to talk about the Defence Housing Australia development of new dwellings for Australian Defence Force personnel in Weston Creek, which is part of my electorate. There are eight suburbs in Weston Creek. The region was conceived as housing for 34,000 people and, at the last census in 2006, the population was put at 22,886.
For those not familiar with this part of Canberra, Weston Creek has been described by a former planning authority as being one of the most picturesque parts of the national capital. Currently Weston Creek is home to the Australian Defence College's Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies and the Australian Command and Staff College Centre. DHA wants to develop 73 allotments for single dwelling lots and three multi-unit sites and wants to build houses for Defence families on 50 of these lots. As of 1 February this year there were 240 Defence families in private rental accommodation, and that proportion is about 13 per cent within the Defence and DHA target of 15 per cent. This project will help DHA ensure that the current private proportion of Defence families in the ACT who use private rental accommodation does not exceed that 15 per cent threshold.
DHA will ensure that the dwellings are built to silver level core-liveable-housing design elements to ensure appropriate disability access and that they will also achieve a minimum six-star energy efficiency rating as certified by an independent accredited assessor. I understand the proposed development also complies with the North Weston concept plan and the deed of agreement developed by ACTPLA.
This proposed development was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. In my submission to the committee I registered my support for the proposal. Before I wrote my submission I met with the DHA and I was delighted to see that the sustainable development provided in the proposal factored in the environment, public and private transport, growth and the need for quality community services.
When I wrote my submission I had been advised by DHA that there had been extensive consultation with the local community. However, as the committee's report makes clear, and as I later found out, that was not the case. The committee received four submissions. While the need for development was made clear and the proposed scope of the works was also deemed suitable to meet the needs, and the committee was satisfied that the projected cost of $39 million was adequately assessed, there were significant concerns about the consultation process.
The committee commented that it would be to DHA's advantage to engage in initial notification to all near neighbours, followed by widespread and ongoing consultation on all current and future projects, regardless of whether or not such neighbours might have anticipated concerns.
The committee also encouraged DHA to monitor feedback and stated that it was critical that DHA engage in widespread proactive and ongoing consultation with stakeholders. I maintain my support for this development. However, I am displeased about the level of consultation and strongly encourage DHA to heed the committee's recommendations on consultation. (Time expired)
Battle of Long Tan
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (10:00): Today I would like to pay tribute to our soldiers who fought in the historic Battle of Long Tan, a campaign that should never be forgotten in Australia's war history. Saturday, 18 August 2012 marked the 46th anniversary of when Australian platoons, numbering 108, were attacked by a force estimated to be more than 2,000. The bravery and resolve of the fighting spirit that Australian troops showed on that day is renowned. Such was the fighting spirit of our troops that, despite being outnumbered, our soldiers forced and advanced the enemy back and we held our position. The Battle of Long Tan claimed the lives of only 18 soldiers and 24 were wounded. I commend each and every soldier for their service.
I also take this opportunity to recognise the service and the dedication of our Vietnam veterans. Australia's military involvement in the Vietnam War was the longest of any war in Australia's history and one that I hope will never be repeated.
As proud Australians we reflect and remember the 500 Australians killed and the 3,129 wounded during this conflict. As a federal member of parliament and a father I feel it is a personal burden when our troops go to conflict zones around the world to assist and uphold our beliefs and the security of our nation. I pay my respects to the families and friends of our soldiers for their support. I would also like to acknowledge the soldiers who were unable to return or who did not return from the Battle of Long Tan and the Vietnam War, as well as the veterans who are still here with us today.
I was fortunate enough to attend a recent memorial morning service in Beaudesert and a dinner in Jimboomba to mark these occasions. I would like to recognise some of the RSL identities who work so hard for their colleagues and their local communities. These include the Beaudesert RSL President Errol Guilfoyle; Senior Vice-President Peter Higgins; President of the Jimboomba RSL sub-branch, Jim Short; plus notables such as Sandy Lloyd, Brett McCreadie, Don Pidgeon, Marcus Bruty and Gavin Thurlow. They work tirelessly in ensuring the community is aware and able to commemorate important military dates such as the Battle of Long Tan and Veterans Day.
There are parts in our military history that we as a nation should not be proud of. The way that we welcomed back our Vietnam veterans is a blight on our history books. I am proud that we as a nation have matured when troops now return from battles, which we currently have with the conflict in areas of Afghanistan and the Middle East, and that we do share a more heroic and thankful attribute with those brave men and women who serve and who offer a blanket of security that our nation sleeps under every night. We should always be cognisant of the sacrifice that our brave ADF personnel contribute. Lest we forget.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Health and Ageing Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (10:04): It gives me great pleasure to speak to the report, Discussion paper on late effects of polio/post-polio syndrome, which was tabled in the House on Monday. I see some of my colleagues from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing here. This was an issue that we all felt very passionate about. We met with a group of people who, for a long time, had had their needs ignored and their voices not heard.
I hope that, as a result of the roundtable we had and the discussion paper we have issued, this will lead to them having a more powerful voice and their issues being considered by government.
This issue was first brought to my attention when I visited a constituent who was suffering the effects of postpolio syndrome, or the late effects of polio—either of those descriptions are used in relation to it. As she had aged, the impacts of the polio she had had when she was younger had resurfaced and become a lot greater. She had muscle weakness, and the normal ageing process of having a little bit of arthritis was extenuated. She was finding it really difficult to function around the house, and it was only because she had a very supportive environment within the home that she was able to do so.
I want to acknowledge the member for Parkes. He and I are both patrons and have been very involved in this issue over a period of time. It became really obvious to us that there was a large group of people who had suffered from polio, who had been victims of the virus that swept across our country right up until the 1960s. They had had treatment and had gone on with their lives but, as they had aged, the effects of it came back. It was also very obvious that GPs and other health professionals were not aware of the impact of it. Some of the medication given to people who have similar sorts of symptoms, even anaesthetics given to people with postpolio syndrome, can actually be fatal. There was this great lack of knowledge about the impact of the late effects of polio.
We held a roundtable in Melbourne, and I particularly want to acknowledge a couple of people who were involved in that. Firstly, I want to acknowledge Dr John Tierney OAM, National Patron of Polio Australia and former Liberal Party senator of this parliament. He has really shown to me his great concerns about this issue. In fact, he is a sufferer of the late effects of polio. He is very passionate about this issue. Secondly, I want to acknowledge Gillian Thomas, President, Polio Australia, who is confined to a wheelchair and has a number of side effects of the late onset of polio. As she has aged, she had found it more difficult but is still a very vital, dynamic woman who is out there arguing for polio and its effects to be recognised. You suffer the acute stage and then, later in life, you suffer the effects, to a lesser degree but in a very debilitating way. I think that, as a nation, we need to look at this issue and at getting some evidence on the table in relation to it.
The committee made three recommendations, and I will come to them a bit later. One of the things that I thought were overwhelming was the lack of information about polio and the number of people who are affected by it. I learned that, when medical students are being trained, they learn nothing about the late effects of polio.
This matter needs to be addressed at a medical level. I would encourage urban divisions, Medicare Locals to actually get the information out to medical practitioners—and this is mentioned in our recommendations—so they know it exists and that there are appropriate supports and treatments that need to be put in place and that it is not just a normal part of the ageing process. It is not a normal part of the ageing process and that needs to be recognised.
Not only do doctors need to be educated but the whole of the community. There needs to be information given to community organisations that there is this group of people who need special assistance. There are issues that relate to employment, because somebody who contracted polio in the early 1960s is a person we would hope would still be able to be gainfully engaged in the workforce. In a previous life, when I was a rehabilitation counsellor, I actually had a client who was suffering from the late effects of polio. He had come from a South American country. Whilst we do not have to deal with polio in Australia, there are many nations in the world where polio is still rampant in communities. People from those areas do come to Australia. So it is going to be an ongoing issue.
This person with whom I was working had worked in a manual area. He developed a weakness in his arm and could no longer undertake the work that he did in the past. We tried to organise some retraining for him and get him into a job, which we subsequently did.
Other things are associated with the late effects of polio and symptoms that not everybody understands. One of those is depression. Depression really accompanies the late effects of polio, as well as the physical debilitation. These are the types of issues that need to be raised and is the type of education that needs to be provided to doctors and health professionals, and people working in the community. Employers need to be aware that, as with anyone with a disability, a person may not have the physical strength or capabilities in a certain area, but they have a got a lot of other abilities. They need to be mindful of the fact that, if you give a person with a disability an opportunity to work, you will be well and truly repaid.
There are enormous costs associated with disability and with not dealing with it. The committee felt that dealing with the disability and the effects of the disability would be of great benefit from a cost perspective to the country, as well as from the perspective of providing a benefit to the person who is suffering from the late effects of polio. Of course, there are social and emotional impacts. Just having to struggle with those everyday activities that people without a disability can do without even thinking about it really creates problems.
I would like to turn to the recommendations in relation to the late effects of polio. Recommendation 1 is for the ABS or the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to look at some sort of mechanism to ask appropriate questions in the health disability survey to ascertain how many people in the community are suffering the late effects of polio so that we can get some feeling for the numbers that are out there and the numbers of people that this is impacting on. We felt that it was vitally important that we get some sort of knowledge base, and we thought that the ABS or the Australia Institute of Health and Welfare would be an appropriate body to collect this information. It is important to mention here that, when we had the polio epidemic in Australia, there were the people that had acute effects of polio and my grandfather was actually one of those. They ended up with quite severe disabilities, but there are other people who had polio that was nearly like the flu, and it is only by having proper tests that it can now be identified whether a person actually did contract polio when they were younger. So it is very important that we get this information base.
Our second recommendation is that relevant national boards consult with the key stakeholders, and that is looking at peak professional bodies and educators to ensure that students learn that there is such a debilitating disease as the late effects of polio so that they can develop best practice for the treatment and management of people that have the late effects of polio. We also recommended that Medicare Locals engage with Polio Australia and the state-based polio associations to raise awareness of the late effects of post-polio syndrome, and that was looking at health professionals and working with communities through education and for people that are in that group of people that have the late effects of polio. It was a discussion paper with some recommendations that I think are achievable. There is one area that I think we also should touch on, which is that we need to do a tiny bit more research into the late effects of polio, looking at how they have impacted on people's lives and if there is a way or a treatment that can be used to lessen the effects of the late effects of polio.
In conclusion, I would like say that as a society we are very lucky that we have managed to eradicate polio. We are very lucky that we will not have future generations suffering from the late effects of polio. We need to be vigilant as a country to ensure that all children are immunised and that polio does not re-emerge in Australia, and we also need to show compassion for those people that did contract polio back in the forties, fifties and sixties. I recommend the discussion paper to the House.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:19): I rise to speak on the discussion paper on the late effects of post-polio syndrome, and I also endorse the remarks made by the member for Shortland. I have spoken on this in the other chamber but would like to add some other areas to this particular effect, because I feel they are important and should be put on the record. I would also like to congratulate the member for Parkes, who is in the chamber and who, with the member for Shortland, initiated this discussion paper through the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. It was their efforts that made sure that we now have a discussion paper which the Australian polio association feel that they can take forward with them and use to help further their cause.
The member for Shortland touched on the recommendations and also the employment aspect of the discussion paper, but there are a couple of areas that I want to highlight that I did not have time to mention the other day—that is, the physical aspects. We as members in this place take for granted that we can exercise and go out and use the gym and the swimming pool, and I see many members in this place who obviously do that.
An honourable member: The supreme athletes
Mr IRONS: Supreme athletes, as you say. We take those things for granted. We do not understand that the people who suffer from post-polio syndrome have difficulty just in exercising and that it can actually have a detrimental effect unless handled carefully. I would like to quote from part 2.99 of the discussion paper, which says:
As noted earlier physical therapies which alleviate symptoms of other chronic conditions, if used to treat people with LEOP/PPS may actually be detrimental. In particular participants commented on the need to carefully manage muscle strengthening and exercise programs to ensure that additional muscular damage does not occur. As Dr Tierney explained:
You should not overstress the muscles. If you exercise, it has to be very gentle. Obviously, with hydrotherapy you are in water and it is very gentle. That is the way to keep yourself fit. But if people start doing weightlifting or going to the gym those very poor connections into the muscles then start collapsing at a faster rate, and you get muscle weakness moving towards paralysis if you undertake the wrong exercise regime.
Part 2.101 of the discussion paper says:
While noting that many people with LEOP/PPS ultimately manage much of their own physical therapy, Mr Doran—
one of the witnesses—
cautioned that polio survivors first had to overcome a tendency to strive to achieve over and above what is required. In this regard Mr Doran noted:
... polio survivors have incredible mental stamina. What they do with that mental stamina is override the signs that things might be going wrong, because they have been used to doing that for most of their life. In particular, they override the fact that they might be feeling a little bit weak, they override the fact that they are absolutely exhausted, and they override the fact that they are in pain, because they have been told to shut up and get on with it for so long.
Another area I want to refer to is diagnosis, which I touched on in my speech the other day. The time it takes for post-polio syndrome diagnosis can be, on average, up to six years. Research has not been mentioned yet here, but it is briefly mentioned in the discussion paper. Part 2.137 of the discussion paper says:
While recognising the need for more research into LEOP/PPS in Australia, Dr Peel indicated that there are key centres of research in North America and Europe, noting:
The research, as we have already indicated, might be inadequate [in Australia] but, nonetheless, research does occur in North America, particularly in Canada at the Montreal Post-Polio Clinic, and also in Europe. As I have already mentioned, there is the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. Also, a lot of the research comes from the Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam. The Danish Society of Polio and Accident Victims is another source of considerable research.
The other day when we had a hearing of the health and ageing committee, as mentioned by the member for Shortland, Dr Tierney, Julian Thomas, President of Polio Australia, and Mary-ann Liethof, the National Program Manager, and Peter Guard, from Polio New South Wales, spoke to us about the discussion paper. They endorsed the recommendations that the member for Shortland has just spoken about. As individuals we said to them: 'Keep up the good work. You're doing a fantastic job. You've taken it this far and have been working for a long time.' But this is an area where we need more focus, more research and, obviously, more resources for people who are suffering from post-polio syndrome. I would like to say, 'Keep up the fight.' The resources are needed and, along with the other members of the health and ageing committee, I commend this discussion paper to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (10:24): The question is that the document be noted. As someone who contracted polio as a child I am most interested in the recommendations.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (10:24): I too rise to make some brief comments on this discussion paper. Indeed sometimes in this job as a member of parliament you get to a point where you think you have done something worthwhile as part of a team, and today is one of those occasions.
One of the great honours that I have had since I have come to this place is to have been asked by Polio Australia to be one of their patrons. It is a job that I am very proud to have and one that I take very seriously. I would like to, firstly, compliment the people from Polio Australia, led by Dr John Tierney and Gillian Thomas, for their tireless efforts. I think I met them not long after I was elected, probably early 2008, and they have been coming from all over Australia to Canberra on a regular basis, and they have mainly funded this from their own resources. Because of their own disabilities this is quite difficult for them to do, but they have just kept coming here, doing the rounds and spreading the word.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing for adopting the idea of a roundtable and for this discussion paper. Before I go any further, I should recognise the secretariat, because I think they have done an excellent job in compiling information and putting into a nutshell what this issue is about, and in a minute I will talk about the three recommendations. They have done an excellent job on that. I also recognise the previous speakers, the member for Shortland and the member for Swan, for their contributions and indeed the entire committee for their efforts.
Basically what has happened—and a lot of people do not realise this—is that many people who are suffering from the late onset effects of polio may not have even known that they had polio as a child. They may have had polio in the family; they might have had a sibling with polio. They may have had a bit of fever and so a very mild dose of polio. Largely, they got on with their lives. With all the publicity in probably the last 10 years about polio pretty well being eradicated in most of the world, I think there was a mind-set not only in the community but also in the medical profession that this job had been done. People were not looking at polio. One of the great frustrations for these sufferers is that they have been misdiagnosed with depression, chronic fatigue syndrome and a whole range of other ailments. In some cases the treatment that they received for these ailments actually exacerbated their condition. So it has been a big issue.
I will just paraphrase the three main points of the report—and here I would like to acknowledge my fellow members on the committee, led in particular by the member for Shortland—that we need to have some recommendations to come out of this report. Basically, the three recommendations are that, as a society, as a country, we need to recognise the extent of this syndrome within our society. Maybe we can gather that information through the ABS from the next census. That is the first point. The second point is that we need to educate our medical practitioners that this is a real and very debilitating syndrome. So we need the medical colleges and the universities to put in some more work on this, and we also need to disseminate information through practising general practitioners. The third point is that we need to educate the wider public about this condition. If people are feeling lethargic, if they are having problems with movement or if they are having aches and pains, they may think back and ask whether there is polio in the family. The recommendation that the Medicare locals might be a vehicle for that is, I think, a good one.
This is a good report. I commend everyone involved in it. It will be presented to the Minister for Health. From the reports of people in Polio Australia who have been speaking to the bureaucracy in the Department of Health in recent days, I think we are already starting to see a more enlightened approach to this issue.
I will finish by saying that I am one of the lucky ones. I can still remember as a child in the mid-sixties being at primary school and lining up with the entire school to have our dose of the oral vaccine. Indeed, we are a privileged generation. I thoroughly endorse this discussion paper. I truly believe this is the beginning of a process and not the end and welcome this report.
Debate adjourned.
Regional Australia Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (10:30): The national policy debate in respect of the Murray-Darling Basin started long before I became an elected member of parliament. In fact, it started well before any of us came into this chamber. It would be a grave mistake to see the current debate in isolation of the many which have come before it. In fact, what we are currently considering is but the latest in a long line of reforms, the vast majority of which have had negative consequences for the constituents of my Riverina electorate.
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia has again looked at the water issue, has again conducted public hearings into this topic of paramount importance to this nation and has again come up with a report, Report into certain matters relating to the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan, containing four worthwhile recommendations. Our last report of May 2011, Of drought and flooding rains: inquiry into the impact of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, contained 21 well-considered recommendations, yet was largely ignored and unfortunately remains so by this government.
Members would be well advised to consider that much of the irrigated agriculture in my area was developed and enhanced as a direct result of government policy. From the building of irrigation canals to the encouragement of soldier settlers to turn their hands to growing food, to the recent speech of the Prime Minister encouraging Australia to enhance its position of food and fibre providers to the world—urging it to strengthen irrigation—successive governments have encouraged my constituents to believe that they had a positive future. It is an unfortunate fact that many Australians believe that the Snowy scheme was built to provide electricity. Whilst it is an unarguable fact that Snowy Hydro uses the assets of the scheme to support the Australian electricity network, it is also incorrect to say that electricity generation was the genesis of the Snowy scheme. On the contrary, it was built to divert water to the west—into the Murrumbidgee and the Murray—to enhance agricultural production.
Over the past several decades irrigated agriculture has been under the water use spotlight. Participants have in the main cooperated with government initiatives, both state and federal, to ensure the health of our basin. They have become more efficient with how they access and use water. They have taken steps to ensure that salinity does not claim their land. They have assisted recovery schemes to provide water to the rivers in their catchment and indeed further afield. Members should note the vast quantities of water retrieved from productive use of the Murrumbidgee which has been diverted to the Snowy. It is extremely important that this House acknowledges that irrigators and the communities they support do not oppose healthy reform; they support healthy rivers. Unlike many Australians, many of my constituents live on, rely on and work because of the rivers of the Murray-Darling basin. They have an inherent interest in the health of the system. To them it is not a philosophical discussion; it is their life. We should treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve, not as political playthings to attract a particular segment of the urban vote. I also support a healthy working river, as do my colleagues. It is my understanding and belief that all in this House do—as we should.
It was the coalition government which commenced the journey to the basin plan. It was this side of the House which provided substantial quantities of money to bring balance to the basin. When the basin plan comes before this House is just a few weeks, I urge all members to understand that the lives and livelihoods of good people are at stake. Indeed, the nation's ability to feed itself now and into the future is also very much at stake. Importantly, I ask all members to consider not only volumes of water, but how those volumes of water will be obtained. For it is here that the sides of this House divide. The coalition provided the pathway and the funding to replumb the Murray-Darling Basin. We provided the will and the means to obtain vast quantities of environmental water through infrastructure efficiency upgrades. We provided a total of $5.8 billion, a sum which, well spent, would have provided the balance between practical, environmental management and maintained economic and social productivity.
Instead, we have seen that fund raided time and again by a government hell-bent on appeasing its Green partners with a serious lack of concern for the long-term economic and social damage it is visiting not only on my constituency but upon every Australian. It was the nation that built our agricultural productivity in the basin, so an attack on it is an attack on the nation. It has raided the infrastructure fund to pay for projects in Tasmania and Western Australia. With due respect to my interstate colleagues, and acknowledgement of the great capacity of their constituents, those funds were meant for the Murray-Darling Basin. It has raided the infrastructure fund to pay the cost of the holdings of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Only a government completely blinded by the bright lights of Canberra could consider that infrastructure. Perhaps most insulting was the $65 million raid on the infrastructure fund to pay for the increased cost of the rightly maligned Murray-Darling Basin Authority, an entity which comprehensively failed in a public engagement but was rewarded with funds designed to make the transformation with which they were tasked. Only a government such as this could consider that a legitimate use of funds.
When the Murray-Darling Basin Plan comes before this House, I ask all members to be aware that it is not only the plan itself that matters; it is the plan to implement the plan. How will the water be obtained? Will it be achieved in the way the funds were intended, through replumbing rural Australia, through wise and efficient investment to maintain our social and economic assets? Or will it be through the simple, but long-term economic devastation of simply purchasing the heart of the nation. Finally, I am gratified that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, at my urgings, has decided to conduct a national food plan forum at Griffith, in the heart of the mighty Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, the area which produces $5 billion worth of agricultural exports, which helps this nation's balance of payments. Why the MIA was ignored in the first place remains a mystery. I commend this report to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (10:38): I want to commend this report by my colleague and friend the Chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee, the Hon. Laurie Ferguson MP, which has sought further participation of NGOs in the human rights dialogue process; has sought further transparency, has sought that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade extend its human rights dialogues in both China and Vietnam and return to one in Iran; and recommends that, in order to ensure that human rights dialogues are properly monitored and evaluated on an ongoing basis, the Australian government establish an independent human rights dialogue consultation committee to develop a set of principles, objectives and benchmarks for Australia's human rights dialogues. The committee calls for greater parliamentary participation in the dialogues, recommending that the committee receive briefings from participating agencies prior to and after each dialogue being held.
Having attended many of the investigations at committee hearings that helped to produce this report, I want to also thank the witnesses from a wide variety of the Australian community who showed their ongoing concern for the need to sharpen the human rights dialogue process that Australia undertakes. Within the United States, Congress produces reports on human rights, and indeed the State Department's report on human rights around the world has become the authoritative document. We have got a long way to go in Australia before we achieve that level of expertise but hopefully the recommendations made in this report will help achieve that end. I particularly commend the committee's recommendation to re-establish a bilateral human rights dialogue with Iran. Of course, that is virtually impossible given the current state of the government in Iran. However, any evaluation of the people of Iran, both its majority Persian and its minority Azeri ethnic groups, would know that this is one of the most ancient and thoroughly civilised peoples, with a deep affection for education. The current regime that is imposed on them—it obviously stole the last election—is, in historical terms, a passing phenomena. I can imagine the days, just a few years hence one hopes, where Iran has replaced the current evil regime and Australia can extend its hand not just in trade and international affairs but also in helping civil society in Iran develop and reconstitute itself after the dark ages that this poor country is going through at the moment.
The committee also recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General provide a brief to the Human Rights Subcommittee prior to each of the dialogues. I think that is an excellent recommendation. The committee also recommends that DFAT enhance its reporting of Australia's human rights dialogues in its annual report. At the very minimum it should list the dialogue participants, list the issues raised at dialogues about each country and note the key outcomes or achievements. This is so both the Human Rights Committee and the federal parliament can evaluate them. It is very good that the foreign minister has formally invited the chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, or his or her nominee, and the shadow foreign minister, or his or her nominee, to participate in these dialogues as members of Australia's delegations. Again, in the US Congress the role of both leading Democrats and Republicans in participating in this debate ensures that there is continuing parliamentary oversight. It is not simply left to the executive or to the bureaucracies that deal with state-to-state relations to see that the ethics of Australia as well as our national interests are prosecuted in foreign policy. That is the ethos of the theme of this report. I commend Mr Ferguson's activities and this report to the House.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (10:44): by leave—I move:
That order of the day No. 4, committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Intelligence and Security Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (10:44): Australia's review of the relisting of the Hezbollah organisation as a terrorist organisation could not be more timely. On 18 July this year, a suspected suicide bomber killed six people and wounded 30 aboard a tourist bus in the coastal town of Bulgaria. Hezbollah is suspected as having had a role in the attack. Most significantly, it is the first attack by Hezbollah on Europe and it has portents for this part of the world as well.
Since the 1980s, Hezbollah and its mentor Iran which is its financier and programmer, have conducted a series of international bombings, hijackings, kidnappings and assassinations against US, Israeli, European, Saudi and Iranian dissident targets. Of course, in 1994 the most famous and injurious activity of the international activities of Hezbollah became known when in Buenos Aires 115 people were killed in the blowing up of a Jewish community centre there. Argentina's official state prosecutors charged Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards for using a web of diplomats and front companies to undertake this bombing.
On 16 January this year in Thailand, the Thai police discovered large stockpiles of chemicals used to make bombs and that led them to a stash by a Lebanese man who had connections to Hezbollah. A month later, on 15 February, three explosions tore through a bustling Bangkok neighbourhood wounding five bystanders, and at another address at the same time in Bangkok a Hezbollah operative threw a hand grenade at Thai police. It rebounded and blew his legs off. The Thai police identified those people as being Iranian passport holders and one of them was detained at the city's international airport. Very significantly, that was in our part of the world.
On 21 March, my friend the Chairman of the US House Committee on Homeland Security, Republican Peter King—a congressman from New York—ran a hearing on Iran, Hezbollah and the threat to homeland security, in which he stated:
… top intelligence officials in the United States believe that Hezbollah is the group most capable of flipping its nationwide network of criminal fundraising cells into an operational terror force capable of great violence on orders from its leaders in Lebanon or Iran. In 2009 the Obama Administration said that Hezbollah is the 'most technically capable terrorist group in the world'.
Obviously, that kind of warning applies to Australia as well. Interestingly, with Mr King's use of how the charitable networks can be flipped into operational terrorist groups, the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee notes:
Besides operating a worldwide network of fundraisers, funds are raised through so-called charity funds. Some of these extremist institutions, while not directly connected to Hezbollah, support it in view of their radical Islamist orientation. While some of these funds undoubtedly pay for Hezbollah's military and terrorist operations, other funds enable the group to provide its members with day jobs to drape itself in the veil of legitimacy and to build grassroots support.
The report suggests that these kind of charitable networks, as Congressman King suggests, may form part of Hezbollah operating here in Australia. I must say from my own experience I agree. Again, significantly, on 28 May this year, the Washington Post reported that US and Middle East officials see the thwarted attack by Hezbollah on Azerbaijan as a part of a broader campaign by Iranian assassins and terrorists to kill foreign diplomats in at least seven countries over a span of 13 months. The Washington Post report recounts the famous projected attack on the Saudi ambassador in Washington, half a dozen Israeli diplomats and several other Americans. The report presented to US officials in April outlines links between the attempted assassinations of diplomats by Iranian and Hezbollah officers in five countries—India, Turkey, Thailand, Pakistan and Georgia.
On 10 August this year, the Obama administration placed sanctions on Hezbollah for assisting the Assad regime in Syria. The announcement by the US Treasury directly linked Hezbollah to the actions of the Assad regime, which, as we know, has killed 25,000 of its own people. I ask you one rhetorical question, Mr Deputy Speaker: where are all the demonstrators? Where are Socialist Alternative? Where are the Greens political party? If any Western country were involved in the deaths of this many civilians, they would be out in the streets, causing demonstrations, but there is silence. That points to double standards and hypocrisy. It is not good enough. The US Treasury has said:
Hezbollah’s extensive support to the Syrian government’s violent suppression of the Syrian people exposes the true nature of this terrorist organization and its destabilizing presence in the region.
I am not finished there. As I said at the beginning, on 18 July this year another terrorist attack in Bulgaria wounded 30 people aboard a tourist bus and killed six. Foreign Policy magazine—a very serious magazine of international affairs in the United States and probably the main left-of-centre publication—argues:
… Iran and Hezbollah have crossed a dangerous line with their first strike in Europe in more than 15 years.
I commend this report—its seriousness and its ongoing listing of Hezbollah's External Security Organization. I suggest that, from the reading of my speech and from the identification of the kinds of trends that are happening in other parts of the world and getting closer to Australia—in Thailand and targeting Europe—and with the suggestions by Congressman King that charitable organisations can be flipped for other activities at short notice and the identification by the Obama administration of Hezbollah's deadly intent and capability, this is a threat to Australia too. Therefore the parliamentary committee, in a nonpartisan way, is doing exactly as the parliament intended in recommending these things to the Attorney-General and to the government. I commend the Attorney-General, ASIO and all of the people involved in the continuing, ongoing work in this area.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Vietnam Veterans Day
Debate resumed.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (10:52): I rise today to speak on Vietnam Veterans Day, and I do so in recognition of our Vietnam veterans and the contribution that they and their families have made to our nation and to our community. This year marks 50 years since Australia sent its first contingent of troops to serve in what would come to be known as the Vietnam War. It would be another 10 years before the last Australian soldier would leave Vietnam, with 500 men losing their lives in the conflict and more than 3,000 being wounded or falling ill. The war would come to represent an era of our nation's history, with songs, movies, television shows and books all being composed to discuss and portray our nation's role in the war and life back at home. However, the most lasting impact of the war was on our brave men and women who travelled far from home to serve their country in situations many of us just could not contemplate.
This year marks the 46th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, a battle which saw the 108 Australians of D Company of the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, confront a superior force of between 1,500 and 2,500 North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Throughout the afternoon and night of 18 August 1966, the Australians held off the North Vietnamese advance and managed to consolidate their position against any further counterattacks. Eighteen Australians were killed in action, with another 24 wounded. The Battle of Long Tan exemplifies the tenacity of the Australian spirit, which has been seen in many battles, and this spirit continues today amongst all of the men and women who have served their country and those who continue to do so.
I am proud to have a sizeable number of veterans in my electorate of McPherson who have given so much for their country in some of the most harrowing circumstances and I reaffirm my support for them, and I will continue to fight to ensure they are given the respect and support that they deserve from a grateful nation.
To commemorate the service of our Vietnam veterans, I attended a Vietnam Veterans Day ceremony in my electorate of McPherson last Saturday, 18 August. I joined over 200 Vietnam veterans, relatives and members of the community at the Kirra Sports Club memorial garden to remember those men who died for their country and to give thanks for those who came back home safely. I would like to commend Dave Dolan, President of the Coolangatta-Tweed Heads Sub Branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, and Glen Wright, President of the Kirra Sports Club, for their hard work in organising Saturday's ceremony, and for providing an opportunity for the community to remember the service of those Australians who served in Vietnam.
I would also like to thank Reverend Ken Spreadborough for his role in conducting the ceremony on Saturday and also Ron Workman OAM, the president of Currumbin RSL for his very moving address on that day.
In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude to all of those Vietnam veterans who served their country with distinction and courage, and pay my respects to those Australians who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. Lest we forget.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (10:56): Last Saturday marked the 46th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan and the brave efforts of D Company of 6RAR. They were the first Australian task force to be established in the operations near the village of Long Tan, a piece of high ground surrounded by rubber plantations in South Vietnam. On 18 August 1966, Delta Company encountered and engaged an enemy many times larger than their whole strength. On 18 August each year, we commemorate the 108 Australians who took part in that battle, under the command of the then Major Harry Smith. They bravely held off a force of more than 2½ thousand North Vietnamese Army, as well as local Vietcong soldiers.
The Australian soldiers fought in very tough conditions, with the torrential rain in the Long Tan rubber plantation. From all accounts, and having spoken to Harry Smith myself, I understand it could not have been a worse situation. The Australians on the ground found themselves to be short of ammunition at the start of the battle and were forced to wait for assistance from helicopters to drop supplies. This all took place after the battle had begun, because it was not anticipated that they would be encountering the North Vietnamese Army at that particular location. The Battle of Long Tan perfectly symbolises the bravery shown, and the struggle endured, by our veterans during Australia's involvement in Vietnam. By the end of the day, 18 Australians between the ages of 19 and 22 were killed, another 24 were wounded. On the other side, however, as I understand it, they lost in excess of 500 soldiers, with many more wounded. This was the most costly battle for Australians that occurred during that war.
As is the case throughout our military history, New Zealand soldiers were also lending crucial support in the finest traditions of ANZAC. New Zealand artillery provided an invaluable source of support and assistance throughout that battle. I also want to use the opportunity today to extend my deepest condolences and pay respect to the people of New Zealand, particularly the families of three young soldiers recently killed in Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker, who was 26 years old, Corporal Luke Tamatea, who was 31, and 21-year old Private Richard Harris were killed in the north-east of Bamyan Province on Sunday. The 10 New Zealanders and the 33 Australian soldiers who have lost their lives since the conflict began in Afghanistan should not be forgotten, even while we commemorate our veterans of Vietnam. Despite the difficulties encountered, Australian and New Zealand men and women continue to be deployed around the globe in the fight to defend freedom and liberty, just as they did in Vietnam.
This year, 2012, marks the 50th anniversary of Australia's commitment in Vietnam. Clearly, Vietnam veterans deserve the same amount of pride and praise from our nation as those who served gallantly at Gallipoli, Tobruk and Kokoda. Out of the 50,000 Australians who served in Vietnam, 521 lost their lives in service to this country and more than 3,000 were wounded. Everyone who served in Vietnam deserves the proper recognition and full respect of this nation. Despite the tremendous bravery and sacrifice they offered, it is to this nation's lasting shame that the soldiers were not given proper acknowledgement or recognition until many years after the war.
Even with the controversy and strong political disagreement, as well as disagreement in the social arena, about our involvement in Vietnam, our veterans deserve to be properly honoured for their service. Sadly, they had to deal with the post-war trauma in silence. Unfortunately, our nation failed them for many years after they returned. Even though it has been 50 years since our involvement in Vietnam and 46 years since the Battle of Long Tan, it has been only 25 years since we started to give proper recognition to the gallant efforts of our veterans. It was not until 3 October 1987 that thousands of Vietnam veterans and their families converged on Australia's largest city to march in a much belated welcome home parade. Approximately 25,000 veterans who served in Vietnam took part in the march, together with the next of kin of those whose tragically did not return. Several hundred thousand people lined the streets. That was fitting, but for those who had served this country it was certainly a long, long time to wait. It was only last year, more than 45 years after the Battle of Long Tan, that 6RAR company veterans were honoured with the Unit Citation for Gallantry by the Governor-General—again, somewhat belatedly but certainly very fitting for those who served in that battle.
Since that war, Australia has welcomed a large number of Vietnamese refugees to our shores who, today, make a tremendous contribution to the fabric of our multicultural society. As the representative of an electorate where more than 20 per cent of people are of Vietnamese origin, I am aware of the level of gratitude that the Vietnamese community still feels towards Australia and the soldiers who fought in the Vietnam war.
Long Tan represents our first major engagement in Vietnam, and it was one of the most difficult and certainly one of the most courageous battles in this nation's history. I was recently very much touched by the emotional words written to commemorate the Battle of Long Tan by a very good friend of mine, Bao Khan, a Vietnamese refugee herself and a very strong advocate for human rights and freedom in Vietnam. She expressed the gratitude of the Vietnamese people towards Australian soldiers and Australia in the form of a lovely poem, which I would like to take a little time to read:
There was the time, you were there for us
There was the time, you fought for us
For our freedom, for our lives
Always the time, we'll adore you
Always the time, we'll remember you
Our Heroes … Our Friends
Long Tan, Nui Dat, Phuoc Tuy, Ba Ria
Saigon, Binh Ba, Hoa Long, Vung Tau …
You were there to defend our land
You were there against red demons
Your sacrifice was for good cause
Your sacrifice for us to live
For freedom, democracy … Vietnam always remembers
Now is the time we gather here
Now is the time to show our love
To all soldiers, Australia
Always the time, we'll adore you
Always the time, We'll remember you
Our Heroes … Our Friends
Lest we forget.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (11:05): I rise today to join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all of my other parliamentary colleagues to speak on the motion recognising the Battle of Long Tan and the contribution of all Vietnam veterans. In recognising Vietnam 50 years on, it is recognising that also last Saturday, 18 August, was the 46th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. It is an opportunity for all of us to pause, reflect and remember the sacrifice over the 10 years between 1962 and 1972 of nearly 60,000 Australians who served in the Vietnam War. Throughout the campaign, 521 Australians were killed in action and more than 3,000 were wounded in action. Every one of the men and women who served in Vietnam and returned home did so a changed person.
Today I join the Vietnam veterans and their families who honour their service and their sacrifice in our nation's name. This year has added significance as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the arrival of the first Australian troops in Vietnam in 1962. The Australian Army Training Team Vietnam, the AATTV, was sent to South Vietnam in July 1962 to provide support and training to South Vietnamese troops. Throughout the campaign, Australia deployed approximately three battalions of infantry, one regiment of Centurion tanks and three RAAF squadrons, plus extensive naval transport and support.
Whilst I admit the treatment of our Vietnam veterans remains a dark stain on our nation's history, I am comforted in knowing that we are starting to learn the lessons of these things we did wrong and seeking to address them for the current generation of men and women returning from active service. Last Thursday the Senate passed a motion acknowledging Vietnam Veterans Day, the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, the arrival of the AATTV and the shameful treatment of our Vietnam veterans upon their return. It also acknowledged the arrival at the Australian War Memorial of the original Long Tan Cross, which will be on display at the War Memorial until April next year.
Vietnam Veterans Day is another important opportunity for us to reflect upon the service of all our Vietnam veterans from all three services and the important lessons our nation has learnt since their service ended. Last Saturday, in particular, we marked the anniversary of one of Australia's more iconic battles of the Vietnam War, the Battle of Long Tan. The Battle of Long Tan is best remembered as the Australian classic struggle against a much bigger enemy. The 108 men of D Company 6RAR fought against an opponent said to be over 2,000 to win the day and to be nationally and internationally recognised for their tenacity, their courage, their bravery under fire. Today, whilst honouring the memory of the fallen men in D Company 6RAR, we remember all of those who served in the Vietnam War and, in particular, all of those 521 who paid the supreme price. Other battles and firefights deserve no less a recognition. Names like Nui Dat, the Horseshoe, Fire Base Coral and Balmoral all bring back different memories, all conjure up different emotions but all are uniquely Australian. To leave our shores in full knowledge that it may be the last time you saw your loved ones is an issue that plays on each and every person's mind.
It has now been over 39 years since Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War came to an end in 1973, yet the Vietnam War remains remarkably fresh in the minds of many Australians. Vietnam was a war that divided our nation. While revealing the very best in our fighting forces—their gallantry, their professionalism—it was a war that drew unstinting praise for Australian servicemen from our allies in arms, including this tribute from General Westmoreland, the commander of the US forces in Vietnam, who said of our Australian troops at an Anzac Day service:
I have never seen a finer group of men. I have never fought with a finer group of soldiers.
On previous occasions, I have spoken of the experiences that have been recounted to me. I have spoken of their hardships, their shameful treatment during the war and their rejection as citizens upon landing back in Australia at the tour's end. Whilst these experiences are important to acknowledge, to talk about and to address, today I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of other services to the Vietnam War.
Whilst the Australian Army sent 42,407 troops to Vietnam between 1962 and 1973, it is important that we not forget the enormous contribution the men and women of Australia's medical teams made to the health and wellbeing of those who served in Vietnam; or the contribution of the 4,443 personnel from the Royal Australian Air Force over the life of the Vietnam campaign, commencing in 1964, when a flight of Caribou began flying transport operations around South Vietnam, followed up by RAAF helicopters and the squadron of Canberra bombers in 1967, performing a variety of roles from aeromedical evacuations to airfield construction to combat flying with the US forces; or the contribution of the 13,500 personnel from the Royal Australian Navy—as I am always reminded, the 'Senior Service', always first into conflict.
The Royal Australian Navy was in Vietnam showing the flag with HMAS Vampire and Quickmatch in early '62, followed by HMAS Quiberon and Queenborough in January '63. However, the Royal Australian Navy's presence was indirectly made known earlier by the hulk of the auxiliary minelayer HMAS Bungaree, laid up on the southern banks of Vung Tau harbour long before Australia entered the conflict. The first voyage of HMAS Sydney—or, as it was more commonly known, the Vung Tau ferry—to South Vietnam as a troop carrier, escorted by HMAS Melbourne, Duchess and Parramatta, began on 27 May 1965.
The Royal Australian Navy's primary contribution consisted of destroyers, Fleet Air Arm personnel attached to a United States Army assault helicopter company and the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 9 Squadron, and a logistic support force consisting of transport and escort ships. Other Royal Australian Navy personnel served ashore in medical teams or performed staff duties at the Australian Embassy in Saigon or the Australian Task Force Headquarters in Nui Dat. The first guided-missile destroyers to deploy to Vietnam were Hobart, Perth and Brisbane. The Australian DDGs were well suited for the task of providing naval gunfire support. The guns of the Daring-class destroyer HMAS Vendetta proved extremely accurate, which served her well to wear the naval gunfire support ship title of a 'nine-mile sniper'. HMAS Hobart was the first DDG to join the US Seventh Fleet in March 1967, beginning the six-monthly rotations of Royal Australian Navy destroyers on the gun line. Hobart and Perth were deployed three times to Vietnam, Brisbane twice and Vendetta once. The destroyers carried out the naval gunship missions in all of South Vietnam's four military regions.
Hobart, Perth and Vendetta came under enemy attack on a number of occasions. Perth was hit once during her first deployment. Hobart suffered two killed and seven wounded when she was mistakenly hit by missiles fired from a United States Air Force aircraft. Vendetta came under rocket and swimmer attack in Da Nang harbour and mortar attack off the coast of the Quang Tin province. HMAS Sydney's escorts included Her Majesty's armed ships Melbourne, Anzac, Derwent, Duchess, Parramatta, Stuart, Swan, Torrens, Vampire, Vendetta and Yarra.
In 1966, the Vietnam supply line was supplemented by two Australian National Line cargo ships, Jeparit and Boonaroo. In March 1967 members of the Seamen's Union refused to man Jeparit and Boonaroo. To overcome this difficulty, Boonaroo was immediately commissioned by the Royal Australian Navy with a full naval crew for one return voyage to Cam Ranh Bay and Singapore. Jeparit was later commissioned following further industrial action.
Between 1967 and 1971 the Royal Australian Navy Helicopter Flight was fully integrated with the US Army 135th Assault Helicopter Company, flying Iroquois helicopters in both utility and gunship configurations. The role of the 135th Assault Helicopter Company was to provide tactical air movement of combat troops, supplies and equipment, and air mobile operations. This included augmentation of Army medical services, search and rescue, and the provision of a command-and-control-aircraft capability.
Throughout the Royal Australian Navy Helicopter Flight's deployments there were many individual acts of bravery performed in the face of the enemy. One such incident occurred on 4 December 1971, when Lieutenant Jim Buchanan, Royal Australian Navy, was piloting a helicopter operating in the U Minh Forest. While engaged in medical evacuation the group came under heavy attack from enemy forces. Realising that the boat on which he was operating was disabled and drifting towards the enemy-held shore, Lieutenant Buchanan deliberately hooked the skids of his aircraft onto the boat's superstructure and towed it to a safe area. He was subsequently awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and I believe has also been awarded the US Navy Cross.
We must also recognise the significant contribution of one of the smallest—and unrivalled—Australian units to serve in Vietnam: Royal Australian Navy Clearance Diving Team 3. They were an elite group of 49 officers and men, divers trained in the dangerous business of explosive ordnance disposal who established an enviable reputation for courage and innovation in a time of war in the spirit of the divers' motto: 'United and undaunted'. During the 10 years that the Royal Australian Navy was involved in the war, eight officers and sailors were killed and another 46 were either wounded or suffered other injuries. The dedication and professionalism shown by members of the Royal Australian Navy earned the service the respect of our allies and continued the traditions established by Australian sailors in other wars.
I am always honoured and very privileged to participate in Vietnam veterans Remembrance Day activities, which I did on Saturday at Medowie and Forster, for I, like the majority of Australians, believe that we are a nation deeply indebted to all of those who fought in Vietnam. So today, in this year of the 46th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, it gives Australians an opportunity to offer our support and our gratitude for the service that they gave this great nation—support that, sadly, was not afforded when they came home. Visiting the troops on the front line in Tarin Kowt in Afghanistan a couple of years ago gave me a greater understanding of the stress and, importantly, the professionalism, dedication and camaraderie that exists as a part of the esprit de corps. I continually find myself being humbled and emotionally stretched on days like Vietnam Veterans' Remembrance Day, whether it be by the worn and torn faces I see in front of me, reading their stories about the hell of the war or hearing their softly told stories that reduce strong men to tears.
From the first Australians killed in the South African wars in the last years of the 19th century to the tragic recent death of the most recent Australian soldier to die in Afghanistan, Sergeant Blaine Diddams—whose dad, Peter, a Vietnam veteran himself, and mum, Cath, reside in Pacific Palms in my electorate of Paterson—more than 102,000 Australians have lost their lives in defence of the freedoms that we enjoy today. The stories of bravery and fortitude in Vietnam take their honoured place in the chronicles of Australia's military history.
The line that runs from Gallipoli through to Kokoda and Kapyong also runs to Long Tan and Tarin Kowt. All are synonymous in our nation's collective memory with the values of courage, endurance, valour and comradeship. Vietnam is also a story of the Australian national serviceman. From 1965 to 1972, more than 15,000 of those called up under the National Service scheme were sent to Vietnam.
I would like to conclude today with a simple verse written by Private Gary McMahan, 6RAR, Vietnam. I believe it accurately portrays the Australian experience and the spirit during the Vietnam war. It reads:
We would do anything for a mate, anything except leave him on the battlefield. We shared our last drops of water, or our last cigarette. We patrolled together, we slept together, we laughed together and we fought together. We even died together.
It has been an honour to share these thoughts with the parliament today. I say to all our men and women: may God bless each and every one of you and may a peace finally meet your living soul.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham—Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) (11:20): I rise today to add my comments to the statements made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Defence and the shadow minister for defence to the parliament on Monday and to commend the contributions made by my colleagues, the members for Fowler and Paterson, immediately before my contribution today.
Vietnam Veterans Day is commemorated in Australia on 18 August each year. It is a time to reflect in particular on the battle of Long Tan and the Australians who served during the Vietnam War and it is an opportunity to remember those who, most sadly, did not come home. At the request of the South Vietnamese government, a team of 30 Australian military advisers were sent to Vietnam during July and August 1962, 50 years ago this year. This was followed in August 1964 by the Royal Australian Air Force, sending a flight of Caribou aircraft. Australia sent the first battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, 1RAR, in June 1965. As hostilities escalated, the Australian government introduced the National Service Scheme, which saw conscripts involved in that conflict as well as all nine RAR battalions over the period of the war. Public opposition to the war eventually led to the Allied political leadership announcing the gradual withdrawal of Allied forces from 1971, and the Australian commitment ended in June 1973.
The commemoration of the Vietnam War in Australia is held in August to mark the Battle of Long Tan. I would like to use the words describing the battle directly from the Australian War Memorial website. It says:
On that day, 108 Australian and New Zealand soldiers fought a pitched battle against over 2,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops in a rubber plantation not far from the small village of Long Tan. The Australians prevailed, but only after fighting in torrential rain for four hours. They were nearly overrun, but were saved by a timely ammunition resupply, accurate artillery fire from the nearby Australian base, and the arrival of reinforcements by armoured personnel carrier. Eighteen Australians lost their lives and 24 were wounded, the largest number of casualties in one operation since the Australian task force had arrived a few months earlier. After the battle the bodies of 245 enemy soldiers were found, but there was evidence that many more bodies had been carried away.
Last Saturday evening I joined many local people at the Vietnam Veterans Day commemoration service organised by the Illawarra Vietnam Veterans Sub-Branch and held at the memorial at Flagstaff Hill in Wollongong. I have attended this service regularly since I was elected, as many of my colleagues in this House do, in order to show respect to the service and sacrifice it honours and to show support for the excellent work carried out by the Illawarra Vietnam Veterans Association. We were joined—and it has been a regular occurrence—by members of the Vietnamese community in the Illawarra, who regularly support the activities of the Vietnam Veterans Association.
The memorial was extended by a walkway which holds the plaques of returned veterans who have subsequently passed away. It is a moving and important recognition of their service as well. Each year, sadly, more names are added to the wall and this year six more veterans were honoured. The address for the service was delivered by Major General Hori Howard AO MC ESM, retired, who regular supports local service events and always has an important and well-received message for those gathered for the occasion. I want to congratulate the Illawarra Vietnam Veterans Sub-Branch on their continued work on behalf the veterans and their families and for their contribution to the better understanding of their service and sacrifice by the wider community. I will take a moment to acknowledge them by name: the President, Peter Mitchell; Senior Vice-President and Treasurer, Pam Bowmaker JP; Secretary, Kathy Kielbicki; Junior Vice-Presidents, Graham Parsons and Ian Birch; and committee members Eraldo Bensi, Alan Groome JP, Greg Keir, Gerry O'Leiry, Bob Green and John Kielbicki.
I would make the point that I am sure that each of those soldiers we remember on occasions such as this, those who fought for their country and, particularly, those who gave their lives for their country, hoped that their war would be the last time that anybody would have to undergo that sort of service and sacrifice for the country, hoped that their children, their nieces and nephews and their grandchildren, would not be called upon to do so as well. Sadly, that has not been the case since the Vietnam conflict. I would like to also take this opportunity to say that those present on Saturday night recognised and sent their thoughts and best wishes to those in our armed services who are currently serving in places around the globe on behalf of our nation and hope that their families take some support from our expressions of goodwill, concern and hope for their safe return. Lest we forget.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (11:25): Last Saturday, I was pleased to join with the Ryan community to remember the sacrifices made by our troops in the Vietnam War. Vietnam Veterans Day is a particularly important day this year as it marks 50 years since Australia's involvement in Vietnam. Originally, it was a day to commemorate the Battle of Long Tan and, since 1966, it has been adopted by all veterans. This is appropriate as the Battle of Long Tan was the largest single unit battle fought in Vietnam by Australian troops. It began on the afternoon of 18 August and went right through the night until the morning of the 19th. The Australians had only been in Vietnam for a few months and this was the first major conflict on Vietnamese soil involving Australian troops. Eighteen Australians died at Long Tan, but they did not die in defeat. Long Tan stands tall in our memory and we do not forget. The Vietnam War became the longest war in which Australians served, spanning a ten-year period. By the end of the conflict, more than 58,000 Australians, including many from our local community, had served their nation, at their nation's request, in the Vietnam War.
As the member for Paterson said, the treatment of our returning soldiers remains a dark stain on Australia's history. Anecdotal evidence holds that most men returned from Vietnam in the dead of night, hidden from the public. In fact, large numbers actually returned on the HMAS Sydney to a welcome by dignitaries and a parade. The manner of their homecoming affected the way in which veterans recovered from the war. Those who did arrive late at night to no fanfare and the seeming indifference of the military had more trouble adjusting to life at home than did those whose return was more public and who had the benefit of a couple of weeks unwinding on board HMAS Sydney before reaching Australia.
But the return home was only the beginning of a long period of readjustment. For a long time after the war, large numbers of Vietnam veterans felt that many in Australia blamed them rather than the politicians for the war and the way it had been conducted. Fortunately, we have learned from those dark days, and today returning service men and women are given much more support when they return home.
On 18 August we must remember every Australian who served and suffered in Vietnam at the request of the nation. This year, I was honoured to join community members at the Gaythorne RSL Sub-Branch's annual Vietnam Veterans Day service in Sid Loder Park at Mitchelton. I attended the service with my colleagues the Premier of Queensland and state member for Ashgrove, Campbell Newman; fellow state members Tim Mander and Dale Shuttleworth; and local councillors Andrew Wines and Brian Battersby. As always, it was inspiring to see so many community members attend this moving service and appreciate the heartfelt address by the President of the Gaythorne RSL, Mr Merv Brown, who is himself a Vietnam veteran. I congratulate those who are keeping fresh the memory of this special day for all Australians. Those who served our nation and, indeed, those who made the ultimate sacrifice will forever be remembered. Lest we forget.
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (11:29): I join with my colleagues in this chamber to pay my respects to and to honour those people who fought in the Vietnam War and also, most especially, those who lost their lives and/or were wounded.
It was my era but, fortunately, I was not called upon to go to Vietnam, although a number of my friends were. Although, fortunately, none of them lost their lives or were too seriously wounded, every single one of them was scarred by the events and what happened to them in Vietnam—in one instance, for a very personal friend, it has been very sad to see how it has affected him mentally and in his life choices thereafter.
I too remember the unfortunately shameful way that we failed to recognise the service of our servicemen in Vietnam. The opprobrium of the politics of the war was directed towards them instead of where it belonged, or at least where the responsibility for the decision to go into Vietnam lay. In 1987 we did the right thing as a nation and welcomed them home. As unfortunate as it has been that our serving personnel have had to represent our country in the cause of both peace and peacekeeping in our contribution to service overseas, we recognise most especially our service personnel and the wonderful job they do on our behalf.
One of the good things that came out of 1987 and the return was the recognition of Vietnam Veterans Day, or Vietnam war day. A lot of that is centred round an event that tended to summarise the feelings of many in Australia, and certainly of those who served, about what it means to represent your country, irrespective of the politics of the decision making to send you. It brings to mind to observers like me and others at a long distance what it means in a moment in history to serve your country.
I read with great interest, and emotionally at times, the comments of Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith as the commander of Delta Company. He is a very straight-shooting person, if you will excuse the pun, who wrote a paper called 'No time to fear'. What an extraordinary title. I have never been under fire, but one of my colleagues here indeed has. No time to fear—I just try to understand myself and what it would mean to be in a serious firefight, a serious battlefield situation. How would I feel? To realise that in the Battle of Long Tan and on the Long Tan battlefield the youngest participant, I understand, on the Australian side was 19 years of age and the eldest was 22. I think of my children, my sons, and it really beggars belief. At 19 years of age you are in a plantation facing overwhelming odds—we use that term but I do not mean it in the hero sense; I mean it in the extraordinary sense—an extraordinary number of enemy soldiers before you and you enter into a firefight over three or four hours in the pouring rain. You are in there, totally undermanned and underprepared, and this force is dedicated to making a statement about your presence in their region and a firefight takes place. Fortunately, our soldiers were aided by others in this firefight. There were 18 young Australians killed and 24 wounded.
We do not know what the total loss of life was in that battle. I am sorry that there was any loss of life. We know that at least 245 Vietnamese soldiers died, and we expect that there were many more. It sounded like absolute carnage. But they survived, with great will, and so much so that they were cited for the US Presidential Unit Citation. Long Tan has become, if you like, a symbol of what it means to face danger and to have to cope with that danger. You have no say, you have no time even to fear, as Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith comments. So that battle has begun to symbolise (1) their sacrifice and (2) what it means to share your life and your death with someone at a particular moment in time. I could not even begin to imagine what that must mean to those who shared that.
But I do know that the Long Tan Cross must be an extraordinary symbol, a living symbol, to them of that moment. It has come to symbolise something very important, not just in the military tradition in Australia, which is a fine tradition, but also in our national tradition. I saw a record of one of those who took part in the battle and who saw the carnage, Peter Slack-Smith. This is a record of what happened when he first saw the cross, which has come to Australia—and that is a fantastic thing. He said:
The first thing I saw was the red mud—
at the base of the cross—
I know that mud; I have grovelled in that mud.
For him it is not just about grovelling in the mud. For him that was a life-changing, life-surviving experience with colleagues, some of whom did not live after that event or were wounded because of that event. Mud. That is what war is, apart from the extraordinary emotion and human qualities that are part of that terrible thing.
The cross itself has an extraordinary history. Some years after the war, Australian troops got together and made a cross, which they helicoptered into the site and there it remained for some time, until it was removed and another replica was put there by locals to remember the event. They too lost people in that extraordinary event. The cross made its way to Dong Nai Museum, and the cross that is in Australia today is that cross. It is now on loan, and we do thank the Vietnamese authorities and the museum for it and also those Aussies who campaigned to get that cross to Australia. It will be here until next year. It is going to be hard to remove that cross.
I want to thank and pay homage to those who fought on that day against extraordinary odds, who grovelled for us and also those who fought in Vietnam, particularly those who lost their lives and those who were injured. As I said, so many have been scarred thereafter. I do apologise for the way that we treated those soldiers, my friends. I was one of those who did not pay enough respect and thank them. I forever live with that. It will never be repeated again, I hope, in our history. I particularly want to say that the cross symbolises more than just a battle and the carnage that took place there; it symbolises the importance of being a human being and doing what you think is right.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his heartfelt sentiment.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (11:39): I rise today to remember our Vietnam veterans and to do honour to 18 August, which we now call Vietnam commemoration day. Perhaps I am a bit old-fashioned, but I would still like to hear it called Long Tan Day. We do not talk about Gallipoli as the Turkish campaign, we talk about it as Gallipoli. I think there is something very special about Long Tan, as speakers have said today. Celebrating the arrival of the cross at the War Memorial resonated particularly with me because Harry Smith, the commander at Long Tan, is a constituent of mine, and is much loved in the Hervey Bay community. We have had some amazing battles in Australia's military history going back to the Sudan and the Boer War. I mention Gallipoli and the Western Front in the First World War. There were some incredible battles of the Second World War, not least of which was Milne Bay to our north. It was the first time that the Japanese had been defeated on land for centuries. There was the amazing withdrawal, while the Australians held the line, of the United Nations troops escaping from Kapyong. It was an extraordinary battle.
We then come to the Vietnam War and, as my colleague has just said, we have never given that—at least until comparatively recent times—the honour due to it. My personal view is that when you read about these patterns, and I do read a bit although I do not claim to be a military historian—not like the member for Riverina, who really is up on these matters—you see that in terms of intensity that was probably our most important military engagement of all time. I know there will be military people who will disagree with me. But the Battle of Long Tan went from about 3.40 pm until 7.10 pm. It was on the edge of a rubber plantation. It was not a setpiece battle. The Australian the company had gone out on a normal reconnoitre and had come across scouts from a huge party of North Vietnamese regulars and a Vietcong unit. They engaged on the edge of that rubber plantation in the mid afternoon until late afternoon on 18 August. It was a fierce battle, made all the worse by the fact that it went on in pouring rain. The Australians were hopelessly outnumbered. The exact numbers will never be known because the North Vietnamese took their dead from the field, but from what has subsequently been found in intelligence documents and the number of bodies that were buried on the day it is thought that the local irregulars, the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese regulars totalled somewhere in the order of 2,500. They were taken on by 108 ANZACs—105 Australians and three New Zealanders. As I said, it was in the pouring rain. At the height of the battle, Harry Smith, the commander, was lying in two or three inches of muddy water with his New Zealand artillery officer beside him and they were calling down a barrage of American, New Zealand and Australian guns just metres in front. It was incredibly dangerous and of course the shells exploding in the rubber plantation were very effective, and really slowed the North Vietnamese forces down. Eventually, around seven o'clock, after this terrible battle, the North Vietnamese forces withdrew.
There is another sideline to this battle. In the middle of all this, the Australians were, as I said before, out on patrol, a reconnoitre—they did not go heavily armed in the sense of going in for a definitive battle—and an RAAF pilot actually flew into the middle of the battle with ammunition, at an incredible risk. There had been intelligence reports that there was a big North Vietnamese unit forming up. Some people scotched it and some people took it seriously, but what we have subsequently discovered is that those 2½ thousand troops had not come to engage the company 6RAR; they had come to attack the Australian base at Nui Dat. On that afternoon, about the same time that the battle was going on, there was a concert with Little Pattie and so on at Nui Dat. Nui Dat was not a heavily defended base, so you can imagine what might have happened had that patrol not engaged with them. Imagine 2½ thousand troops descending on Nui Dat immediately after a concert in the early evening. Imagine the mayhem and the death toll that may have occurred, and yet these 108 guys took on 2½ thousand people and won it. That is the first part of the story.
Well might we celebrate that cross and well might we bring it to Australia in this year's Vietnam commemoration. But there are still wrongs to be righted in this dreadful business. Harry Smith was recommended for the DSO and his two lieutenants were recommended for the Military Cross. When the freedom of information documents became available later, Harry discovered—30 years on—that his DSO had been downgraded to a Military Cross and that the Military Crosses of his two lieutenants had been downgraded to be Mentioned in Dispatches, whereas the commander back at Nui Dat accepted a DSO, a commander who did not visit the field until after the battle. I find that absolutely appalling. There was one review by Tanzer in 1999 that recommended there be a long-term review. That was opposed by the generals and, in fact—and this is not said to denigrate the man in any way—Angus Houston said at the time: 'Note that I do not agree to any proposal for additional awards or a unit citation for the force elements in operation Smithfield August 1966 (Long Tan).'
For years these guys have been struggling not just to have their personal awards reinstated but to see that their men were recognised. Eventually Harry Smith was upgraded to the equivalent of the DSO. He got the Star of Gallantry—I am not as familiar with the awards as I should be—and his two officers, Dave Sabben and Geoff Kendall, the Medal of Gallantry. In fact, it was my pleasure to be at Enoggera Barracks in Brisbane last August to see the Meritorious Unit Citation for Afghanistan presented and also to see the former Vietnam soldiers from D Company, 6RAR receive the Unit Citation for Gallantry that had been denied them. Both those awards were presented before the Governor-General at Enoggera Barracks last year.
Twelve of those soldiers who were there that day were recommended for awards. I have told you the odds that there were on that day and the absolute gallantry of the officers who led that event. Eighteen Australians were killed and 24 were wounded. Harry Smith recommended 12 people for awards. Two of them have died. One of them was Gordon Sharp, who was recommended for a posthumous award, and more recently Ron Brett has died. The other 10 were Bill Roche, Ian Campbell, Geoff Peters, Barry Magnussen, Neil Bextrum, Allen May, Noel Grimes and Bill Moore from the unit and, from an APC reaction force that came up to support the troops later in the battle, Adrian Roberts and Frank Alcorta. The late Ron Brett was also part of that group.
Again, this is not said with criticism of any of the people involved, either in the Howard government or in the Gillard government; there is no criticism applied to individuals. But we have now invoked a valour inquiry part 1 and we are currently in the throes of the valour inquiry part 2. I think it is very important that these 12 men be recognised. Harry Smith tells me he has had a difficult time getting this up, because it will require the approval of the minister before the matter can go before the valour inquiry part 2, which is working from now till the end of the year and is being chaired by Alan Rose. So I appeal to the government: in celebrating this event we have to do more than go to the memorials, put our hands on our chests or beat our breasts and say what a marvellous thing it was, how great it was and what marvellous things they did for the Australian psyche and then be so mealy-mouthed—so incredibly mean—as to say, 'But we will not decorate you guys, despite all the evidence and despite you being at the very forefront of the definitive battle of the Vietnam War,' because some records and evidence were lost, even though there is plenty of evidence that can neutralise that. Another general said it would open a can of worms. There is all that stuff, but no-one is going to the core of it: that these were 12 incredibly brave men, 10 of them still alive.
We treated the Vietnam troops in general abysmally after the war. Thank God, over the last decade or so that has changed dramatically, and many of them have moved into the RSL. The president of the RSL in some towns is now a Vietnam veteran. So a lot of that healing has gone on, but these guys were on the front line. These people did our country proud. These people faced an incredibly superior foe. These people won the battle. These people probably prevented a bloodbath at Nui Dat. As my salute in the Vietnam commemoration, I salute these 12.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (11:55): I commend all those who have spoken so far on this motion amidst all of the very important and fine sentiments that this day was created to reflect. Certainly, it is has been wonderful to have this opportunity every year to add new dimensions to that, to recognise new aspects of the entire conflict of the Vietnam War, and that we centre the recognition around the Battle of Long Tan. Many people have described a lot of the detail of the battle so I will not go into that detail again, but it is quite correct to recognise the key significant salient points about that, being the effort of the troops against such overwhelming odds. At various points of this battle it was actually a mere platoon that was facing, effectively, the brigade-size strength of the enemy.
But there were other units and subunits that were engaged that day that we should also recognise. Apart from Delta Company of 6RAR, there were, of course, the sterling efforts of the 9th Squadron (RAAF), who really risked life and limb to get the resupply happening to the isolated troops in terrible conditions and under significant fire. Of course, the 1st Field Regiment, with its 161st New Zealand battery, a true ANZAC effort that effectively kept those troops alive and prevented them from being overrun, laid down the steel curtain that really saved the day for the survivors of that battle.
There was a very significant barrage that was added to by our US allies as well, which we should acknowledge too, and also some air support. There was also the cavalry arriving literally towards the end of the battle and the 3 Troop of the 1st APC squadron and all of the legendary names that have emerged from that battle that really shaped the folklore and the heritage that I inherited when I first joined the Army. One of the things I would like to pay tribute to is that the people who trained me when I first joined the army were all Vietnam veterans, and I owe a great deal of gratitude and debt to those men, because the skills and things they taught me stood me in good stead for many years afterwards in many situations. They provided us with a wonderful heritage as young officers and soldiers in the Defence Force at that time. We were the immediate postVietnam generation and we used all the same gear and equipment as that generation. It was all the same vintage—all stuff from the sixties. There were SLRs—everything. So, we really had an empathy identified. The legendary Buick, Sharp, Kendall, Sabben and Smith were all fantastic people who would come and speak to us and teach us lessons about that battle and many others in Vietnam. We should acknowledge not only them but also the Kiwis who helped us in that battle, and particularly the forward observer Stanley, who died not long ago.
One of the most rewarding times for me in parliament is that we were able to address a number of these issues from Long Tan. I personally weighed in on one aspect of that, which was the South Vietnamese declaration of the Cross of Gallantry, which had been denied our troops because, at that time, it had been a policy to reject many of these foreign declarations. Subsequently it had been rejected as being awarded because it could not be established that that had been the intention of the South Vietnamese government and people had effectively given up and walked away from attempting to establish that.
Working with the historian Paul Ham, I was able to establish that there was actually signals traffic from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which was a place nobody had actually looked before, specifically rejecting this offer from the South Vietnamese government. So we could establish that that declaration had been offered but instead, at the time, the soldiers were issued with Vietnamese dolls, which was not quite what they were looking for in recognition of their efforts. So we were able to establish that and then go ahead and issue those declarations. Many, as has been mentioned, were elevated in the gallantry declarations that were awarded, so that was a very pleasing thing.
The other very satisfying aspect of my involvement as a parliamentarian was bringing home the remains of our last two missing servicemen, Michael Herbert and Robert Carver from No. 2 Magpie squadron. Being there with their colleagues from the squadron and their family was very special. To be able to say that we have brought everyone home is a unique claim to be able to make in a conflict like this. What was special was the reception, the assistance, the spirit of cooperation and the camaraderie that we experienced at the Vietnamese end while we were over there in Hanoi. It was a very warm and wonderful experience. We should put it in the context of the fact that the Vietnamese still have 300,000 missing personnel from that conflict. One of the heart-warming things about our modern relationship with Vietnam is that our Defence Force and our experts are currently assisting the Vietnamese authorities to pursue the continuing identification of those missing personnel. It is very heart warming indeed.
It is wonderful to see so many young Australians, young Vietnamese and others moving backwards and forwards in education and tourism. We really have built a wonderful and close bond with that country out of the ashes of such a bitter conflict, and that is wonderful to see. There are quite a few Vietnam veterans from Australia living in Vietnam. Some of them are involved in maintaining the Long Tan battlefield. That is a positive to have taken out of this. We always have to look for long-term meaning out of these sorts of conflicts and tragedies. One of those things is the relationship that we have built with the Vietnamese people, on a people-to-people level.
Mention has been made of the Long Tan Cross. That is very special. I know that the veterans have appreciated having it here. This is something that we can take special note of on this particular Vietnam veterans commemoration. I am very pleased that we have launched the Vietnam Vets Family Study to look into the impacts that there have been on the families. It has been noted that these veterans were treated very badly by all shades of politics and the community in general. That exacerbated the psychological impact of the experience of our veterans in Vietnam. Of course, much of that ends up being passed on to families as it is projected and played out in many domestic homes around Australia. This study is well overdue. I am very pleased to see that we initiated it and that it will be completed, hopefully, by the end of 2012.
We use this day to commemorate the whole of the Vietnam experience. There were many other major confrontations and battles and a lot of loss in the context of that conflict. I think of 5RAR's experience in Bin Ba and the 8RAR operations in the Long Hai hills. Those battles were very difficult and costly of personnel. The major battle that we were involved in over there was the Battle of Fire Support Bases, Corel and Balmoral, where we suffered more casualties in the course of a more extended period of time. The focus was on 1RAR and 3RAR and 102 Battery, which was nearly overrun in that battle. It was one of the last times of any significant scale where our troops were engaged in fixed bayonet fighting. There is no more terrifying, more personal or more horrifying experience than bayonet fighting. That was the last time that was really experienced on that level. We should acknowledge those conflicts.
There were also the incredibly tension filled days of 7RAR, 2RAR and the Horseshoe. All these names will resonate with our veterans. There were the booby-traps and minefields that they had to navigate and they experienced extreme tension in relation to that. You never knew whether that day, when you were out patrolling, would be your last on two legs. We suffered quite a large number of casualties needing amputations. I was recruited into the army by a great hero of mine, Brigadier Rolph, who lost both legs in Vietnam. He was a young platoon commander, straight out of RMC, who went straight over to Vietnam. It was just about his first operation, his first day out in the paddies, and he lost both legs. We should remember those who carry the scars, not just those who lost their lives.
We also have the experiences of 4RAR and 9RAR in Bien Hoa and the battle of Nui Le. There are quite a lot of things that we should remember that occurred alongside the sterling efforts of our troops in Long Tan. We commemorate the entire experience of our people in that long war.
Just recently, we have experienced around this country wonderful celebrations on Vietnam Veterans Day. I particularly want to congratulate the organisers of the event at Batemans Bay that I attended, the Eurobodalla Vietnam Veterans Peacemakers and Peacekeepers Association, particularly the secretary, Helen Kop, and the president, Tony Herbert. They produced an excellent day. What I particularly loved about the day was that in attendance and participating in the parade were Vietnamese veterans from the South Vietnamese Army accompanied by a wonderful troupe of Vietnamese women, beautifully decorated in their traditional dyed dresses. It was so wonderful to have them included. They spoke at the ceremony and went back with us to the Soldiers Club at Batemans Bay for a wonderful gathering and lunch.
The spirit in which these events are being commemorated is wonderful, too. As I mentioned, the important thing is to take lessons and motivation out of these things. We had Sandy MacGregor, former colonel and engineer, speaking to us at Batemans Bay. He had been in Vietnam during the time of the Battle of Long Tan. He lost members of his troops in the lead-up mortar fire that preceded the battle itself. Sandy is a wonderful bloke and has himself tried to take a lot of meaning out of his experiences in Vietnam, as a lot of veterans have. One of the things they have done is to set up MiVAC, which is the Mines Victims and Clearance Trust, established by Australian Vietnam veterans. They raise funds through the trust and I strongly suggest that all people who want to really make a practical impact and recognise Vietnam Veterans Day contribute to the fund because they are doing wonderful work in clearing some of the thousands and millions of unexploded ordnance and mines that still plague that part of the world. In fact, the most bombed country in the world was not Germany, Japan or even Vietnam; it was the little country of Laos, so a lot of the collateral damage that occurred from that war and the bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos et cetera has left a terrible legacy which continues to maim and kill many, many people. So it is wonderful to see people like Sandy MacGregor and others who have rallied to do something about that by raising funds, getting out there and, as engineers, deploying their expertise to clear these terrible legacies of war.
It resonates very strongly with me because I was involved in the landmines treaty process. I was in Oslo for that process working with my engineer colleagues and others to produce a good outcome there and advance the cause of clearing up these 110 million landmines scattered across the forgotten battlefields of the world. I pay tribute to Sandy MacGregor for his wonderful work in leading the charge and making something positive out of Vietnam Veterans Day. I encourage people to donate to that cause. We also had Ron Richards from the sub-branch at the event, who was a veteran of the Battle of Long Tan as well, so we salute Ron's service in that battle.
This is a great opportunity for us to continue to right the wrongs and to recognise all the dimensions of this conflict and its impact on our country, on the families of the veterans and on the regions which we fought over. And we must remember that our Vietnamese brothers and sisters also endure a continuing legacy. That is a relationship we must continue to build, taking something positive out of this whole experience.
I commend members for participating in this motion. I salute the service of all those veterans who gave their lives, were wounded and provided me with the training, the legacy and the heritage that has meant so much in my service and the service of so many of my brothers and sisters.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:08): It is a pleasure to follow the member for Eden-Monaro and the member for Hinkler. I concur with their words. Last Saturday I was honoured to attend the Sydney chapter of the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club for their Long Tan Day ceremony at their Menai clubhouse. Everyone in attendance was privileged to hear a most moving prayer delivered by Pastor John M 'Gunner' Wickline of the Faith Baptist Church of Dundas Valley. Pastor Wickline was given the name 'Gunner' as during the Vietnam War he served with the American forces as a machine-gunner on a helicopter.
Although I could never match the eloquence of Gunner's delivery, I would like to take this opportunity to read his prayer into Hansard so that others may have the opportunity to read his magnificent words:
Lord God, our Maker and our Saviour, we ask today your presence, your blessing, and Your divine enablement, as we gather here, to remember the occasion of the Battle of Long Tan.
More than four decades have now passed since then.
And, though the victory that was won there, against overwhelming odds, received scant notice here and elsewhere, for those of us who served in Vietnam, it was a defining moment, an occasion that showed irrefutably the courage, and resolve of the Australian Defence Forces to fight to preserve freedom and the values of our nation.
We remember today especially those 18 who paid the ultimate price there on that day, and, indeed all the 501 of our brothers who gave their lives in Australia's service during the war in Vietnam.
And, Lord, we pray for those brave young men and women who are at this very moment serving in our Army, Navy and Air Force.
Lord, we ask that you will grant them safety, that you will preserve their lives, and give them victory as they fight against forces that would attack our way of life and indeed the freedom of all men.
And we ask too that, when they return home, they might receive the gratitude and respect of the nation for whom they have sacrificed so much.
We pray also for Australia, and all its people who have been brought to this Southern Land.
We are thankful for the bounty that you have given to us, and for the liberties that we enjoy.
Help us to live as to honour you, and to be ever vigilant to preserve the marvellous gifts that you have entrusted to us.
We ask that the bitterness of war, though never forgotten, will be eclipsed by the grace that you have showered upon us and our nation.
We ask these things, and we offer our thanks in Jesus' name. Amen!
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:12): The 18th of August is Vietnam Veterans Day. It was formerly called Long Tan Day. It is the day when we pay tribute to the men and women who served in the war in Vietnam. This year is indeed a significant milestone because it marks 50 years since Australian soldiers were sent to fight the war in Vietnam, and the Battle of Long Tan represents a very important turning point in the war. It is often called a defining moment in our involvement in the conflict in Vietnam. It was on 18 August 1966 that this famous battle took place—a battle between an Australian battalion of just over 100 men and up to 2,000 enemy troops. Sadly, Long Tan is remembered as the place where Australia lost the most men in one operation.
As we have heard today, the Governor-General last week officially unveiled a cross that was first erected after the Battle of Long Tan. The cross has been loaned to the Australian War Memorial by a Vietnamese museum, which shows how Australia and Vietnam have overcome the conflicts of the past and worked towards a long-lasting and close friendship.
On Saturday, 18 August I had the privilege of attending a Vietnam Veterans Day remembrance service at the beautiful Australian Vietnam Forces National Memorial on Anzac Parade. I attend every memorial service I can get to and am always in awe of the wonderful memorialisation we have of those who served and those who died in war here in Canberra, particularly up on Anzac Parade. I have spoken in the House before about the beautiful Australian Hellenic Memorial that is just up there on the corner of Anzac Parade. It has the islands of Greece all around it—with the mosaics, which are not terribly good for the high heels, particularly when it rains! But it is a beautiful memorial with the Corinthian pillar, and I have enjoyed many a service there and look forward to many more in the future.
I want to take this opportunity to talk about the Vietnam vets memorial on Anzac Parade because it is a unique and beautiful structure. It was inspired by ancient standing stones, and it is constructed of three twisted, tapered and inclined stelae rising from a triangular shaped base surrounded by a moat. In front of it is a ramp inviting entry into the interior. It is a place for contemplation and remembrance. There is an altar showing the three service badges. So you actually go into this area of contemplation and, in a way, sanctuary. The rear wall has a photo engraving depicting combat troops awaiting helicopter lift-off, and the right-hand stele has 33 phrases typical of the Vietnam era. Above is a suspended ring of granite blocks, one hollowed out and marked with a gold cross, and that contains a scroll with the names of those who died. Outside the memorial are three flagpoles representing the Navy, Army and Air Force, while three memorial seats commemorate those six members listed as missing in action.
The service I went to last Saturday was attended by the Governor-General and by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What I really enjoyed about the service was the fact that it brought together Vietnam vets from the ACT community and New South Wales and, I understand, from other parts of Australia—and to the member, I did go looking for your constituents. I could not find them, unfortunately. It was a moving service, as it always is. Vietnam veteran Pete Ryan, the Vice-President of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia ACT Branch, gave us the introduction and welcome. There was a moving speech by the Governor-General, and then an address by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.
Most importantly, there was also an address by Vietnam veteran Adrian Clunies-Ross, talking about the Australia Army Training Team in Vietnam. He was there in 1962-63, but he was talking about the training team. One of the most poignant elements of it was a deeply moving speech by Cong Le, who was representing the Vietnamese community. He spoke about the Battle of Long Tan. He was only a child when the battle took place. He lived in a village nearby. He recounted the stories of the bravery and the courage of the Australian troops that had been passed down to him by earlier generations—or 'seniors' as he called them. It was really moving to hear from another perspective, a Vietnamese perspective, about the bravery and courage of our soldiers. That for me was one of the real highlights of the commemorative service. As I said, these events have many highlights, but it was a lovely gesture to have someone there from the Vietnamese community recounting their experiences and what they had heard from older generations. There were many members from the Vietnam vets and the Vietnamese community there. We also heard a prayer from Vietnam veteran Ian Thompson who was with 9 Squadron RAAF.
One of the highlights of the day and of the service was the honour roll. Ten soldiers who had lost their lives in Vietnam were honoured. Next to the beautiful memorial are the letters of Vietnam spelt out. On the day they had 10 soldiers standing behind each letter, and a gun behind each letter, and as the person who was paying tribute read out the honour roll of the fallen soldiers each soldier stepped forward, saluted and then put a hat on the gun to commemorate those who had lost their lives. I thought that was a fitting tribute and a deeply moving tribute. This was a very special day and I congratulate the ACT and district Vietnam veterans for a very successful event. They were generously assisted, as always, by the ADF, Australia's Federation Guard, the RMC Band and Vietnam veteran 'Major Voice' Robert Morrison, vets affairs, the NCA, the AFP and ACT Policing.
It is more than appropriate that we pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in terms of their lives, and also to those who served during the Vietnam War. We should not forget those who were left behind during the war. I am talking here about the wives and the children of the Vietnam vets.
My husband is the child of a Vietnam vet, and it is interesting—his father does not talk much about the war. As you know, and as we have heard from many here in this place today, it was one of those wars where people did not come back to any parades; they did not come back to any acknowledgement; they just came back to, in a way, a sense of shame. So his father never talks about it. There was one occasion where he started to talk about it, but that was a very rare event and it was some time ago.
When I go to these events honouring those who sacrificed their lives and also the men and women who served, I also think about those wives—because they were mainly wives at that stage—and children who were left behind and I think about the stories that Chris tells me. He has vivid memories of his father sending reel-to-reel tapes back to the family. They would all sit around in the lounge room and listen to the tapes, and here is Chris's mum—bless her heart; she has passed away—with four boys and one girl, at that stage, on her own, sitting around the tape listening to the stories from their dad, which arrived very irregularly. There were also very infrequent phone calls, when he managed to get a chance. I just contrast that to now—I know it is still tough for the men and women who are left behind, whose husbands and wives and partners are serving in Afghanistan and throughout the world, but at least they have got Facebook and other ways of communicating and keeping in touch, whereas then it was very infrequent and sporadic.
The thing is that the loneliness of Chris's mum was really underscored the other night when we were talking about this speech and my experience of the Vietnam vets day and he was saying that he had a very vivid memory of his mum; she was putting out the bins one night. Traditionally his father had put out the bins, and this was a dark night and Chris was there in his bed, looking out the window, and he was really worried about his mum, out there in the dark night on her own, putting the bins out—just one of those little childhood fears that you have, but I think it highlights how those women did it on their own. They did it bravely. They did it silently. And the children also did it bravely and silently as well.
Chris has also told me about another memory he has from when they were living in the Adelaide Hills, in Woodside. I have spoken about it before in the House. Woodside is in Inverbrackie in the Adelaide Hills. It was during the war—this was 1970—and at that stage it had reached a bit of a pitch in terms of the moratoriums and the protests against the war, and the Army community, or the housing community, had got word that there was going to be a march on the camp, and they were all pretty scared. Normally these sorts of base camps, particularly with the mothers, and the children running around, are pretty benign—they have got guards, but it is all pretty benign—but for the first time ever the guards actually took up pick handles and were wandering around with these pick handles while the kids were playing cricket and footy, just in case someone came in to attack the camp. That did not actually eventuate, but it was, again, one of those things where the kids had no understanding of what was going on; this global geopolitical trauma was playing out and they were, in a way, just caught up in all that. Chris also tells of his experiences at the local school where there was a lot of hatred towards this war, and, unfortunately, anyone who was associated with the war—including the wives of the vets as well as their children—was often vilified and abused, and that is what actually happened to him at school.
So, in saying this, I want to pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice and the men and women who served in Vietnam, but I also want to pay tribute to those who were left behind, who very silently and very bravely put up with a lot of hardship, and also, in some cases, abuse because of the situation that was happening in Australia in terms of the views of the war. I want to pay tribute to those, particularly women and children. Many women got husbands back who were very different from those who left and they just got on with it. I salute them and pay my respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice—the men and women who served in Vietnam and, importantly, their families. Lest we forget.
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (12:25): Before I begin, can I commend the member for Canberra for that thoughtful speech, with some personal reflections as well. Like all of us in this House, we have rightly been with our communities this past weekend for Vietnam Veterans Day. I had the pleasure of attending a service hosted by the Yarra Glen RSL and they hosted other Yarra Valley RSLs and the Yarra Valley Vietnam Veterans Day committee. As would have occurred in all of our suburbs and towns—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Order! There is too much noise in the Chamber. The chair is having difficulty. Order!
Mr TONY SMITH: Thank you. As I was saying, all of us in our electorates would have been part of commemorations in suburbs and towns this last weekend. In Yarra Glen a large number of veterans, their families and members of the community met at the Yarra Glen RSL for a service that followed a mid-morning march. I want to pay tribute to the president of the Yarra Glen RSL, Ted Bowling; the secretary, Mr Ed Bartosh; and all of those at Yarra Glen who organised what was a fantastic service. We had a guest speaker, Brigadier Michael Phelps, who spoke magnificently. The tribute I Was Only Nineteen was performed by Paul William Ray. Pastor Michael Baimbridge was there and, as you would expect, the Yarra Glen Primary School choir was there to sing the national anthem. Tom Steele, the bugler, a local from Dixons Creek was there. The Croydon Citizens Band, and as I have said, the Outer Eastern Melbourne Sub-Branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association were there, and many more were there for a poignant and moving service.
As the previous speaker—and, I am sure, speakers earlier in proceedings today—has indicated, the Vietnam War was a very hot spot in a long Cold War. It was a 10-year-long commitment that saw over 60,000 Australian troops serve their country, 500 losing their lives and thousands physically injured, and we know that many, many more came home with the unseen emotional scares of that war.
We reflected on Vietnam Veterans Day on the Battle of Long Tan, because it was the 46th anniversary of that significant battle that symbolised so much about the service of Australian troops in Vietnam. In the late afternoon, in torrential rain in a rubber plantation just off the Australian base at Nui Dat, Australian troops, significantly outnumbered against the odds, prevailed in that battle.
One person who was not with us this Vietnam Veterans Day was one of the chopper pilots, Cliff Dohle, a local who performed with courage and valour in the Battle of Long Tan. Unfortunately, he passed away just a few years ago and, like all of those in that battle, did not receive due recognition until recently.
As previous speakers have indicated, for the Vietnam veterans the war was painful and coming home was painful. I think former Prime Minister John Howard summed it up five or six years ago when he said with candour that the entire Australian community failed our Vietnam veterans. As the member for Canberra eloquently just said, those veterans, their families and their children sometimes suffered vilification and abuse. Although the war was a controversial war—and it surely was—that was so unfair, because the quarrel was with the government of the day, not the troops who were doing their duty. It also has to be said that what also hurt was the general lack of support in the community for so long. I do not say this to rake over past events, but if we as a nation, in our local communities and in our electorates, can in a combined way resolve that that will never happen again then we will have gone a little way to helping with the healing.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (12:31): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Mallee Electorate: Digital Television
Mr FORREST (Mallee) (12:31): I would like to use adjournment to report to the House on the outcome of digital television conversion in my constituency. When I was first elected in 1993, I realised just how significant access to television really is. At that stage I inherited the broadcast facilities at Mildura, which is the strongest community centre of my whole electorate but at that stage had only two television channels: the ABC and a commercial channel, which was left over from what was a locally owned television channel at that time. Mildura missed out completely on aggregation in the 1980s. I worked very hard with what was then the Australian Broadcasting Authority and succeeded in ultimately getting all five channels that the rest of my constituency had access to. One of those channels had a very unique ownership between the Nine Network and the Seven Network, who joined together to present the Channel 10 Southern Cross signal—a very unique occurrence in Australia. What that meant was that there was a very high concentration of digital set-top boxes in Mildura—the highest in the nation, with 80 per cent penetration.
So in late 2009, when the government announced that my constituency was going to be first, I did groan, knowing just how serious an issue television access is. But, to the government's credit and the credit of Senator Conroy, the minister—I know he worked extra hard, because the whole nation was watching what would happen at Mildura—the outcome, despite considerable teething problems, seems to have settled down. But it has left me with television access problems in the remote locations of my constituency. There were five—or really six—principal transmission sites: one at Yatpool, just near Mildura; one at Goschen, near Swan Hill; one at Mount Lawloit, halfway beneath Nhill and Kaniva; and one at Mount Arapiles, projecting a signal into Horsham. Then the eastern edge of my constituency had access to television out of Bendigo and Ballarat. I gauge the success of this on the level of complaints I receive, and I say to the people of Mildura: the complaints have settled down, but if you do have a complaint then first get the best technical advice you can. We have learnt a lot.
I note the anxiety that many of my New South Wales colleagues are enduring now as they run through the same battle that we had way back in 2009. Get in touch with Emma Dawson, who is one of Senator Conroy's principal officers. She is a brilliant officer and I give her all the credit. She is just so keen and so committed to the task and was an enormous success and enormous support through the dramas that I had, and she continues to be so because we still have some problems on the eastern corner at Barham and Koondrook with the new transmitter there. There were seven transmitters and we now have double that number, but it just does not seem to have worked at Koondrook because of the deficiencies of the digital signal. It just does not have what the analogue signal gave us, which was good geographic coverage. It had the capacity to go around wet gum trees, which the digital signal does not, so ongoing problems exist at Koondrook. It is not sufficient to say that they can have an alternative service via satellite. They used to have good television prior to the conversion.
The other deficiency I am having is along the Henty Highway between Hopetoun and Beulah. I think I might have to concede for Beulah and have to recommend that they take the opportunity to utilise the satellite system that the government has set up under VAST—that is, Viewer Access Satellite Television. It seems to be the only solution that will come for Beulah. Hopetoun is a different kettle of fish. There are now two transmitters sending separate signals into Hopetoun, and that is an ongoing issue on which I am corresponding with the minister. Again, I say to the constituents of Beulah and Hopetoun: get the best technical advice. They have learned so much now. Before you complain to me, and I am quite prepared to take the representations onwards, I need to be satisfied that the best technical advice has been obtained in respect of the aerial and the cabling and the nature of the desktop box, or even the digital television you have purchased.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Grierson ): Thank you, member for Mallee. It is good to hear you give credit to advisers and staff, whom we all depend upon.
Sunbury and Macedon Ranges Specialist School Debutante Ball
Vietnam Veterans Day
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen) (12:37): On 10 August this year I had the absolute honour and pleasure of attending the Sunbury and Macedon Ranges Specialist School Debutante Ball. This was a great opportunity at the Pitruzzello Estate in Sunbury to meet 18 of the most beautiful young adults as they came out and made their debuts. It was a fantastic night, the surroundings were sensational and I really appreciated the support from the school council president, Jeanine Furey, and principal, Joanne Nolan. The 18 wonderful young adults at the debutante ball were: Amelia Law, Chris Todarello, Ashleigh Ferguson, Daniel Sievers, Caitlin Martin, Meyrick Bowater, Jessica Scott, Ashley Wallin, Lucy Gaschk, Ethan Johnston, Samantha Todarello, Ben Forde, Sharney Tringrove, Jesse Hector, William Martin, Nicholas Allen, Daniel Wright and Jezreel Flakemore. You have never seen 18 more beautiful people in all your life. What magnificent young adults they are and a credit to their families.
I also went to the Vietnam Veterans Day commemorations in Seymour on Sunday 12 August, where I was extremely pleased to join with Vietnam veterans and the community to commemorate Vietnam Veterans Day and the 50 years since our first involvement in Vietnam. It was 50 years ago on a hot, humid Friday afternoon in early August 1962 that the main body of the Australian Amy Training Team Vietnam walked down the steps of an aircraft on a hot, sticky tarmac at Tan Son Nhut Airport, Saigon. Led by Colonel Ted Serong, a very experienced leader in jungle warfare, 'The Team', as they became more simply known, was Australia's first commitment to the escalating conflict between North and South Vietnam.
Those 30 men were the vanguard of Australia's decade-long involvement in the Vietnam War. More than 62,000 Australians followed and served in our name with distinction and honour. Vietnam Veterans Day is remembered on the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, which occurred on 18 August 1966, when B and D companies of 6RAR fought what has become Australia's most well-known engagement against overwhelming opposition, and prevailed. The first Australians undertook the arduous tasks of patrolling, duty at firebases, flying Caribou transport, serving on the destroyer gun line and keeping the Vung Tau Ferry steaming into South Vietnam and back. All of this was crucial to ensuring that troops were prepared and supported when engagements and battles inevitably came.
The Seymour district has a long link with so many of our veterans, both Nashos and regulars, who served and fought together through the time they spent training before their passing out parade at Puckapunyal. That is why it is fitting that Seymour is developing a Vietnam veterans commemorative wall which will serve as a tribute to the 62,100 Australians who went to Vietnam and who served in our name. This includes the 521 Australians who made the ultimate sacrifice and the 2,398 who were wounded. The names of all those Australians will be on a DigiGlass wall and will be the central feature of the wall. There is nowhere else in Australia where the names of everyone who went to Vietnam will be listed in such a way that the public can come and honour them. We need to do that. This is an act of public acknowledgment and in some respects reconciliation.
It is no secret that the Vietnam War and Australia's involvement in it caused division at home, in Australian society, especially in the latter years. It is one of the poorer episodes of our nation's history that young men who did nothing but go to where they were sent to fight a war—a war the government committed them to—were somehow held responsible for the political decision to enter that war. But what is now universally accepted, as it should be, is that the service of those who went there should be publicly recognised and lauded. Australians served with professionalism, skill and compassion in Vietnam—a fact acknowledged by their former foes today.
I visited many of the locations in Vietnam where Australians soldiers lived, worked, fought and died. I was guided on my visit by a gentleman named 'Breaker' Cusack, an ex-6RAR man, who conveyed to me all the information with great respect to both sides who fought in that battle. Just being able to walk in the footsteps of those who went before me—albeit in far friendlier times, years after the war—was a haunting, emotional and overwhelming experience. It was my personal chance to pause, to reflect and to pay my respects to the brave Australian generation before my own who went to Vietnam in Australia's name.
We need to ensure that these men and women are never forgotten. A book that I first read many years ago told the story of a Vietnam veteran. It was titled 'Well done those men'. It detailed the lives of those who went to Vietnam and the after-effects of that on their lives. I and my community say to the 5,500 Vietnam vets who live in McEwen, 'Well done those men, and thank you for everything you have done.'
Moncrieff Electorate: Gold Coast
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (12:42): Recently I had the opportunity to travel to the United States with the new mayor of the Gold Coast, Tom Tate. The mayor and I went to two locations while over there. We went to Las Vegas and Miami. Although Las Vegas is very topical at the moment with Prince Harry's antics, I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there was no naked cavorting by the mayor or I while we were there. Having put that on the record, we did learn a number of things.
Today I would like to particularly focus on what we learned when we travelled to Miami. In many respects, Miami is like the city I come from, the Gold Coast. They share an incredible wealth of similarities, including common topographies and demographics. Also unique to both cities has been the way in which the property market has performed through the GFC. Miami, it is said within the United States, was the epicentre of the property bubble bursting in that country. Certainly, when we spoke to locals there, they highlighted to us that there were 24,000 condos, or what we would call apartments, left as surplus stock in Miami.
It is a story that is not dissimilar to the state of surplus apartments that are now available on the Gold Coast as a result of the number of developments that took place at the height of the GFC. There is, however, one fundamental difference. In Miami they adjusted rules so that foreign investors could purchase these surplus apartments. They allowed foreign investors, predominantly from South America—places like Brazil, Chili and Peru—and other countries, the opportunity to invest in the 24,000 apartments that sat in Miami. And they did, in great numbers—so much so that there are now no longer any surplus apartments in Miami. In fact, they have new projects underway to help drive jobs locally. That is a point of contrast to the Gold Coast and, indeed, to Australia.
Today I say that the time has come when we should make a concerted change to policy so as to enable foreign investors to purchase strata titled apartments and also to purchase both new and resale strata titled apartments. The policy change is this: currently foreign investors are permitted to buy off the plan a new apartment if it has FIRB approval. However, they are not permitted to purchase on a resale. The argument that has historically been put is that to enable a foreign investor to purchase on a resale of a strata title apartment would push up prices. In my city, where prices are off between 50 and 70 per cent, I think the last thing we need to be concerned about is foreign investors pushing up strata titled apartment prices.
What is more, this argument that foreign investors purchasing strata title are going to push up prices completely fails to recognise that there is a natural price cap on apartment prices. The reason there is a natural price cap is that apartments have zero scarcity value. The moment the price of an apartment reaches a certain level it becomes economic to develop another apartment. The moment an apartment value reaches a certain level, it becomes economic to capture a new footprint of land and to build another tower. Because there is no scarcity value and because it is completely different to freehold, there is no sustainable argument as to why you would stop foreign investors from having the opportunity to invest their capital into the Australian market.
For a city such as the Gold Coast, which is being absolutely hammered by the poor tourism policies and other policies of this Labor government, we need a policy change like this to ensure that we can help to drive our city and our region forward. This creates opportunity to ensure that we can drive foreign investment into our city, which will help to drive new projects; help to make them economic; help to put a floor underneath the decrease in values that we have seen on strata title apartments; and help to create jobs in the construction industry, which has been our second biggest employer on the Gold Coast after tourism. We know that if foreign investors buy investment properties on, for example, the Gold Coast they will come and holiday there as well. That is also good for tourism.
The time has come for there to be a policy change. We need to allow foreign investors to buy not only new stock but also resale stock. There are hundreds, if not arguably thousands, of examples on the Gold Coast where, in some instances, Australians have bought properties, including strata titled apartments, which they have only held for a short while and now wish to sell. We have opportunities to resell those properties back to foreign investors to build up demand and, as I said, to put a floor there, to create new projects that will be economic, to help drive jobs and to help drive investment, because that foreign capital flowing into the country is good news for all of us.
Vietnam Veterans Day
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (12:47): I chose not to make a contribution to the Prime Minister's statement on Vietnam Veteran's Day; rather, I thought that I would use the opportunity of my adjournment speech to pay tribute to all those veterans who fought in Vietnam. To my local veterans' community, particularly those in the Hunter; to the Hunter Vietnam Veterans Association—the president John Pollock and the secretary Greg Jehn both come from the Shortland electorate. Both of them have been very instrumental in keeping me well informed of the issues that are important to local vets and, in particular, to Vietnam veterans. The war in Vietnam was a war like no other war. It had an enormous impact on the lives of those who were involved in that conflict. Each year, on Long Tan Day, Vietnam veterans are recognised throughout our communities and in this parliament because of that particular conflict, a conflict that the veterans were involved in. The veterans returned home but were not welcomed in the way that veterans usually are. They were people who were out there fighting for their country because their government asked them to do so. That was very much the case with Vietnam veterans and the young men who fought in Vietnam, some of whom I actually went to school with.
In addition to the commemorative service that was held in Newcastle, in the electorate of the Deputy Speaker, I attended another ceremony or a remembrance service down on the central coast at Doyalson RSL. I want to pay tribute to the Doyalson RSL's sub-branch and all those ex-servicemen who are involved in that sub-branch. The services held at the Doyalson RSL are a little different. Not only do they commemorate Australia's involvement and the involvement of our veterans in the Vietnam conflict but they also commemorate the victory in the Pacific.
Each year I make a contribution to that service where we remember the Second World War and the contribution made by the veterans involved in that war.
The Second World War was like most wars that Australia has been involved in—a war that defined our place in history. The Second World War was the first time that Australians actually had to defend their own shores because Australia itself was under attack. Gallipoli was the first time that Australians came together and fought as a nation; in the Second World War we protected our own country. It was a time that brought about a lot of change in our society. We saw massive industrialisation. It was a time when the role of women in our society changed. Women had to take up the jobs that were performed by many of the men before they were required to go to war. It was a whole-of-nation effort. Everyone joined together. Those who were left in Australia provided the food, the ammunition and the clothing for those who were fighting on the front in Europe or in the Pacific, in New Guinea, where the terrain and the conditions were such that no Australian had ever been subjected to before.
These are both major events in Australia's history and it is important that we remember the Victory in the Pacific on 15 August and Long Tan Day on 18 August. Both events played a very important role in Australia's history and both events were defining as far as our nationhood is concerned.
Peak Downs Highway
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (12:52): The Peak Downs Highway connects Mackay to the Central Highlands mining towns. It is a vital link in the resource sector that is keeping this country afloat, but my constituents are dying on that road. Mackay families wait at home, hearts in their mouths, as the breadwinner of the family heads to work at the mines or returns at the end of the shift. The Peak Downs Highway was never designed to cope with the volume of heavy traffic that it now carries. The Road Accident Action Group believes it will cost about $400 million to upgrade the Peak Downs Highway. There was a time when the Labor Party wanted us to think they would do something about it. Going into the 2010 election they promised, amongst other things, to upgrade the Peak Downs Highway to the tune of $120 million—about a third of what is actually needed. Since they made that promise, the Labor Party have tried to link the project to the mining tax, using it as some sort of bait to fool people into thinking that taxing our golden goose to death is somehow a good idea.
Last week the Treasurer sent press releases into Liberal-National Party electorates in regional Queensland, making the false claim that the Liberal-National coalition was going to cut funding to local infrastructure projects, like the Peak Downs Highway, if we got into government. Yet a few days later, on 18 August—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Wait a second; you will hear something good—the Treasurer was quoted in the Weekend Australian as threatening to dock infrastructure funding tied to the mining tax if Queensland raised its royalties for the minerals that they actually own. The Treasurer said, 'Major investments in infrastructure in regions like Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone and Ipswich will be put at risk.' That means that the Townsville Ring Road, the Peak Downs Highway upgrade, Rockhampton's Yeppen Bridge and roundabout, the Gladstone Port Access Road and the Blacksoil Interchange are all under threat of being cut by the Gillard Labor government. This was confirmed on Tuesday this week in the Mackay Daily Mercury when Wayne Swan's 'spokesman' refused to answer when asked if Mr Swan could guarantee that the Peak Downs Highway would be delivered by the Labor government. There you have it. Now the transport minister has issued a press release saying that he has approved the release of $13½ million to do planning work for the Peak Downs Highway upgrade. Well, $13½ million for another study—and this one, we find in the press release, will take two years to complete.
They have pushed the start of the construction back so far, way beyond the next election, so that they will never, ever have to worry about it. There is no intention to deliver, because they know they cannot. The mining companies have come out and said that they will not be paying any of this mining tax for the next 10 years. The money was never going to be there and the final nail in the coffin for them is their acceptance now that they have actually killed the golden goose. The mining boom is over, according to the Minister for Resources and Energy.
In recent times in my region we have seen closures at Blair Athol and Norwich Park mines, and now Hay Point Coal Terminal is talking about costcutting. That means job losses. Why? Well, back in June, BHP head Marius Kloppers hit the nail on the head when he said that things like increased operating cost, carbon taxes and so on 'have all conspired to turn this from a fairly low-cost environment and therefore competitive to a higher cost environment'. The Labor-Greens carbon tax is bludgeoning our golden goose to death. In Labor seats like Blair and Capricornia, the local members need to stand up. The member for Blair must say whether he will hold the Treasurer to account and make sure the Black Soil interchange is completed, no matter what, as Labor promised at the last election. The member for Capricornia must hold the Treasurer to account and make sure the Yeppen Bridge and roundabout will be completed, no matter what, just as they promised at the last election. She must say whether she will hold the Treasurer to account and make sure that the Peak Downs highway upgrade will happen, no matter what, as they promised at the last election.
The Treasurer must say unequivocally whether the promised funding for these infrastructure projects will happen, and whether the Townsville Ring Road will go ahead as promised, no matter what. Whether the Yeppen Bridge and roundabout will go ahead as promised, no matter what. Whether the Gladstone Port access road will go ahead as promised, no matter what. Whether the Black Soil interchange will be finished as promised, no matter what. Whether the Peak Downs highway upgrade will go ahead as promised, no matter what. He must guarantee funding, no matter what. No matter whether there is no money in the mining tax, no matter what the state government does with its royalties, he must guarantee that funding will go ahead. There must be no more broken Labor promises, especially not on the Peak Downs highway.
Hearing Awareness Week
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:57): It was my great pleasure this week to partake in a couple of games of sporting activities that were a little bit different. I played netball on Wednesday morning and touch football this morning. I did so with Australia's first ever Olympian who is deaf, Dean Barton-Smith, who competed in the decathlon. Obviously, he has many skills as a decathlete but one of them is obviously not goal shooting, because he is not the best goal shooter when it came to playing netball. I also played with another international athlete, David Brady. Because this is Hearing Awareness Week, the thing that was different is that when we played there were no whistles, and all of the players who were not hearing impaired—like me—had to wear earplugs. So we were not able to communicate and we were not able to yell for the ball or anything like that. It was quite an experience.
I have an email here from David Brady, General Manager, Business Operations, Touch Football Australia. He says:
Hi, Graham,
I would like to thank you on behalf of Deafness Forum of Australia and Deaf Sports Australia for coming down to the sports fields over the past two mornings to try out netball and touch football with a hearing loss twist. I hope that you had a great experience and it provided you with a small insight into what many Australians experience every day if they are permanently affected by a hearing loss or impairment.
They were great activities to be involved with—both the exercise and the Hearing Awareness Week. There were people from all sides of parliament. I noticed Minister Butler was down there playing netball and also Senator Bridget McKenzie from Victoria. After that event we decided to get a politicians' team together to take on the fourth estate, the press gallery. That is a game we will organise later in the year.
Obviously, people all over Australia wear earplugs on a daily basis at their work sites to give them protection so they do not lose their hearing. The ear closing experience was certainly an eye opener for me, because it gave me an insight into how tough it is. Nevertheless it was an enjoyable experience. David Brady is someone in point. He has refereed and played touch football down on the Senate oval over years. He wears two hearing aides and is a great touch player and a great referee. It does not hold him back; it is just a different experience.
Hearing Awareness Week provides an opportunity for the 22 per cent of Australians aged 15 and over who are deaf or have a hearing impairment to share their experiences and their knowledge and help to create a greater understanding of their needs, aspirations and the contributions that they still make to our nation. One in six Australians is deaf, hearing impaired or has a chronic ear disorder. We have a former Prime Minister, Prime Minister Howard, who never let that hold him back in any way, shape or form. He was quite an inspiration to deaf people around Australia, and I think he might even be a patron of some of the national organisations.
Our hearing is fragile and, unfortunately, damage cannot be reversed. So to all of those young people listening to your iPods—turn it down! If you cannot hear your fingers click when you have your iPod in, it is up too loud—that is the rule of thumb. Hearing health is crucial to our enjoyment of life, and for most of us here in the chamber it is something that we take for granted. But Hearing Awareness Week is a reminder that we need to regularly have our hearing tested. When I joined the RAAF Reserve I had to have a hearing test, and it was a bit of a shock to me that during all those years I spent playing in bands I probably stood a little bit too close to the speakers.
Damage to our hearing is often a gradual process. Some of the early warning signs are you can hear but not understand, you find it hard to hear in noisy situations or where there are groups of people, or you think people mumble. I see the member for Banks here and I have seen him chair caucus meetings that are often quite noisy. He does his best to make sure that the hearing-impaired people are accommodated, but it is a tough job.
Hearing impairment, while affecting one in six people, is a disability that often creates inspirational people, such as Dean Barton-Smith, who I met this morning, who became Australia's first deaf Olympic athlete in the decathlon. He is certainly an inspiration to the deaf community, as are, as I have said, Brett Casey and John Howard.
The National Week of Deaf People is also coming up in October. It is a special time to celebrate the achievements of Australians whose first language is Auslan, and I would particularly like to acknowledge Deaf Services Queensland, which resides in my electorate of Moreton, in Annerley, and thank them for the excellent work that they do in our community. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:0 3