The SPEAKER ( Ms Anna Burke ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Committee
Appointment
The SPEAKER (09:01): I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate concurs with variations to the resolution on the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Afghanistan
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (09:01): by leave—
Introduction
The government is committed to providing regular reports and updates on Afghanistan, including to the parliament. I last reported to the parliament on 31 October 2012, following my visit to Afghanistan and my attendance at the NATO/International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Defence ministers meeting in Brussels on 9 and 10 October. Prior to this, I had updated parliament on Afghanistan on four other occasions in 2012. This is my first report to parliament for 2013.
ADF battle fatalities and casualties in Afghanistan
Australia has suffered 39 fatalities in Afghanistan, with seven fatalities during 2012. The last fatality was Corporal Scott Smith on 21 October 2012. Overall, Australia has suffered 249 wounded in Afghanistan since 2001, with 33 wounded in 2012. Three ADF personnel have been wounded in 2013.
Update on operations and t ransition
There have been a number of significant developments since my last update to parliament on 31 October last year.
Afghan wide transition
Across Afghanistan, progress on the transition to Afghan-led security responsibility continues. On 31 December 2012, President Karzai announced the fourth tranche of districts and provinces to undergo transition. This will see Afghan security forces take lead responsibility for security for 87 per cent of the Afghan population and for 23 of the 34 Afghan provinces.
During President Karzai's visit to Washington in early January this year, President Obama welcomed President Karzai's desire to bring forward from mid-2013 to the northern spring the Chicago Summit milestone when the ANSF assume the operational lead across all of Afghanistan and ISAF moves into an adviser-support role. This milestone will see the announcement of the fifth and final tranche of transition, which would commence implementation in the northern summer, subject to final Afghan and NATO/ISAF approval.
In his annual report for 2012, published on 31 January this year, NATO Secretary General Rasmussen made a number of important observations about the continuing development of the capability and capacity of the Afghan security forces. Some are as follows:
Key for transition in Afghanistan is whether security is maintained once the transfer of responsibility from ISAF to Afghan forces is implemented – put simply, whether Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are able to do the job. Developments over the past year show they can, as areas included in the first two tranches of transition continue to be the most secure in Afghanistan and in some of those areas, security has improved.
To date, Afghan security forces lead 84 per cent of partnered operations. Overall, they have increased their ability to plan, carry out, and sustain large-scale operations. For example, a series of six large-scale operations were carried out from September to November 2012, involving some 11,000 Afghan security personnel from the Army, border police and intelligence services. And since October 2011, Afghan special forces have conducted more than 4,000 operations, leading 61 per cent of them.
Throughout 2012, the combined efforts of the Afghan National Security Forces and ISAF continued to push insurgents further away from population centres, therefore increasingly isolating them. Eighty per cent of enemy-initiated attacks occur where only 20 per cent of the population lives and nearly 50 per cent of all the attacks country-wide occur in just 17 districts, which only account for 5 per cent of the total Afghan population.
The general levels of violence throughout the country have dropped over the past two years. While spectacular attacks have grabbed headlines, in the first eight months of 2012, insurgent violence levels country-wide were effectively down by 7 per cent compared to the same period in 2011, and the 2011 figures were down by 9 per cent compared to 2010.
As transition proceeds, Afghanistan will remain difficult and dangerous. There will be challenges and setbacks ahead. The Taliban will target Afghan security forces as they take responsibility for the security of their country. The IED roadside bomb threat will continue and the Taliban will continue to focus on high profile propaganda motivated attacks, together with claiming responsibility for any insider attacks on ISAF forces.
I acknowledge the hard work, commitment and achievements of the Commander of ISAF forces, General John Allen. General Allen has been a steadfast ally and supporter of Australian forces in Afghanistan. Australia looks forward to continuing our close working relationship with him in his proposed new role as Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Australia now looks forward to working closely with General Joseph Dunford as the new Commander of ISAF when he assumes command shortly.
Reconciliation
Australia supports an Afghan-led reconciliation process, recognising that conflict in Afghanistan will not be ended by military force alone. Australia welcomes the recent efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together to progress reconciliation. In particular, I welcome the recent trilateral meeting held in the United Kingdom earlier this week between Afghanistan President Karzai, Pakistan President Zardari and British Prime Minister Cameron to discuss the Afghan-led peace and reconciliation process. The Chair of the Afghan High Peace Council, Chair Rabbani, also attended the meeting. All three leaders committed to take all necessary measures to achieve a peace settlement over the next six months. They affirmed their support for opening an office in Doha for the purpose of negotiations between the Taliban and the High Peace Council of Afghanistan as part of an Afghan-led peace process. These talks will necessarily be long, complex and inevitably subject to setbacks, but efforts at such talks must continue.
Uruzgan
In October last year, I advised that the ADF had officially assumed the leadership of Combined Team-Uruzgan (CT-U) and responsibility for ISAF operations in Uruzgan Province. CT-U was established following the withdrawal of the Dutch in August 2010 under United States command and consisting of Australian, Singaporean, Slovakian and US personnel. The United States had the leadership of CT-U from August 2010 to October 2012.Leadership of the CT-U is part of the transition process through which security responsibility will be transferred from ISAF to the ANSF and will help ensure that transition in Uruzgan is effected in a seamless way. Australia has been working on transition with our CT-U partners—the United States, Singapore and Slovakia. The ADF assumed responsibility from former CT-U member Slovakia for the security at Multinational Base Tarin Kot (MNB-TK) in October last year.
I thank Slovakia for their commitment and for their partnership, as I do Singapore and the United States for their commitment and cooperation with Australia in Uruzgan.
In November last year, I advised that all four infantry kandaks of the Afghan National Army (ANA) 4th Brigade are now operating independently without advisers in Uruzgan province. The commencement of independent operations by the 4th Brigade infantry kandaks is a significant step in the process of transition to Afghan-led security responsibility in Uruzgan and confirms that transition is on track in Uruzgan.
In July 2012, transition to an Afghan security lead in Uruzgan for the four infantry kandaks and the two combat support kandaks of the 4th Brigade of the 205 'Hero' Corps of the Afghan National Army commenced. In early October 2012, the 3rd infantry kandak of the 4th Brigade commenced operations independently without advisers. The 1st and 6th infantry kandaks commenced independent operations early in November and the final 2nd infantry kandak commenced independent operations on 15 November last year.
With the commencement of independent operations by the four infantry kandaks, the ADF transferred control of joint forward operating bases and patrol bases in Uruzgan province to the 4th Brigade. Australian troops no longer operate from forward operating bases or patrol bases in Uruzgan and have consolidated their presence at the Multinational Base Tarin Kot.
The ADF task group has shifted emphasis from partnering and mentoring at kandak level to advising at headquarters 4th Brigade level and at the Afghan Operational Coordination Centre-Provincial in Uruzgan. Independent operations for the 4th Brigade infantry kandaks do not mean the end of a role for the ADF in Uruzgan. The ADF will continue to advise the two combat support and combat service support or logistic kandaks of the 4th Brigade. The ADF task group will remain combat ready to assist Afghan forces should the need arise and the Special Operations Task Group continues to conduct partnered combat operations to disrupt the insurgency.
Only weeks after the end of joint patrols, the 4th Brigade launched a major three-week operation in Uruzgan targeting insurgents and capturing weapons caches. This operation was the final 205 Corp operation designed to prepare Afghan security forces to operate independently before the 2012 winter. Based on the most recent advice and assessment, Uruzgan is now expected to fully transition to Afghan-led security responsibility by the end of this year.
Redeployment
As transition proceeds, there will be changes in the composition of the ADF commitment in Afghanistan. Over the past few years, Australia has had approximately 1,550 personnel in Afghanistan. With the shift in focus from training and mentoring to advising and supporting, the 680-strong 3RAR Task Group was replaced by the 330-strong 7RAR Task Group in November last year.
Similarly, with the commencement of independent operations by the infantry kandaks of the ANA 4th Brigade, the 16 ASLAV vehicles which were used to provide firepower and fire support to patrols conducted by ADF personnel are no longer required. These vehicles are now in the process of being returned to Australia.
The overall number of ADF personnel will not substantially decrease until towards the end of this year as additional personnel are deployed temporarily to support the transition and redeployment effort. For example, in October last year, 65 ADF personnel deployed to Uruzgan to assume responsibility for security at the Multinational Base Tarin Kot following the departure of the Slovak Force Protection Platoon which had provided security at Tarin Kot since the formation of Combined Team-Uruzgan in August 2010.
An initial ADF transition redeployment planning team of around 20 personnel deployed to the Middle East last year to assist with planning for the redeployment of ADF troops and equipment and the disposal of ADF infrastructure. Additional redeployment personnel were deployed in December 2012 to support the task, with the bulk of the redeployment personnel scheduled to be deployed in March and June this year.
Australia's p ost-2014 mission
Australia is committed to supporting Afghanistan through to transition in December 2014 and beyond. Australia demonstrated this commitment to the people of Afghanistan and the international community at the Chicago Summit, with the signing of the Comprehensive Long-Term Partnership between Australia and Afghanistan. The Comprehensive Long-Term Partnership demonstrates that Australia is committed to supporting Afghanistan beyond 2014 through cooperation in the areas of security, trade and development, and building the capacity of Afghanistan's national institutions.
Australia is not alone in its long-term commitment to Afghanistan. The United States has signed a long-term strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan. A number of our ISAF partners, including the United Kingdom, France and Italy, as well as India and NATO itself, have also signed similar agreements.
Beyond our training mission in Uruzgan and the completion of nationwide transition by the end of 2014, Australia will maintain an ADF presence in Afghanistan, in recognition that Australia has a vital national interest in supporting Afghanistan's stability and security after transition.
The ADF will continue to support the development of the Afghan National Security Forces through the provision of training and advisory support, including at the Afghan National Army Officer Academy in Kabul, with our British and New Zealand colleagues. We will also consider a special forces contribution under an appropriate mandate.
As well, Australia will contribute US$100 million annually for three years from 2015 as part of international efforts to sustain and support the Afghan National Security Forces beyond transition. Our commitment to Afghan National Security Forces funding reflects our enduring interest in Afghanistan's long-term security and stability. These commitments send a strong signal to the people of Afghanistan, the Taliban and the region that the international community will not walk away from Afghanistan at the end of 2014.
Support to v eterans
The care of wounded, injured and ill veterans is a high priority for the government and the Australian community. Veteran care will become an increasingly important focus of our time in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister said in her 31 October statement to the House on Afghanistan:
The next decade will see more young Australian combat veterans live in our community than since the 1970s.
At the time the Prime Minister said that this is:
… demanding changes in the way the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs care for service personnel and veterans.
I am pleased to say that these changes are being made. On Tuesday this week, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Science and Personnel and I attended the signing by the Department of Defence and Department of Veterans' Affairs of a memorandum of understanding for the cooperative delivery of care and support to eligible persons.
The MOU is aimed at better coordinating the delivery of care and support services between Defence and Veterans' Affairs. The MOU sets out the key principles which will govern the cooperative delivery of care and support and establishes governance arrangements designed to ensure that these support arrangements remain effective in an ongoing way.
The MOU also introduces the concept of the 'Support Continuum', the structure of systems that extends across both Defence and Veterans' Affairs to deliver the seamless care and support our service men and women, and their dependants, deserve. Put simply, it is to stop our wounded, injured and ill veterans from falling between the cracks in the system.
All ADF personnel will benefit from stronger ties between Defence and Veterans' Affairs, with services and support tailored to better meet the needs of members at any point during or after their ADF career.
The new MOU builds on the Support for Wounded, Injured or Ill Program, also designed to make sure that veterans do not fall through gaps between Defence and Veterans' Affairs. As well, the Simpson Assistance Program provides services to support the needs of severely wounded, injured or ill individuals and their families.
The Chief of Army's Wounded, Injured or Ill Digger Forum provides an important opportunity for Defence and Veterans' Affairs to understand the needs and requirements of wounded veterans and their families.
Private organisations have an important role to play as well. Everyone in the House and in the community will be familiar with the great work of the RSL and Legacy, which have been supporting veterans for about a century.
New organisations such as Soldier On are now also playing a role. Soldier On is a private foundation set up by two young former soldiers to provide support to Australian service men and women who have suffered either physical or psychological wounds in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In October last year I was pleased to attend the announcement of Corporal Mark Donaldson VC as the Patron-in-Chief of Soldier On.
The SAS Trust, the Commando Welfare Trust, and the Australian Defence Force Assistance Trust are helping to provide for the families and children of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. There is a particular focus here on the education of the children of our fallen.
Mental h ealth and p ost t raumatic stress d isorder
Defence continues to enhance its comprehensive approach to screening, assessment and treatment of mental health concerns, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). ADF members dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder have access to the full range of mental health services and rehabilitation services.
Significant improvements have been made to the provision of mental health care across the ADF as part of a more than $90 million investment into Defence and DVA by government. These include establishing eight regional mental health teams supporting the delivery of mental health care. The ADF is also working hard with organisations like Soldier On to destigmatise mental health issues.
One of the most important factors in treating mental disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder is to seek support and treatment as soon as possible. Early identification of those at risk of developing mental health issues is a pathway to better health outcomes.
These arrangements result in a high return to work rate for rehabilitated members and provide good support for veterans. But it is essential that we continue to take steps to make the support system even better. Seeking assistance for mental health concerns was the theme of the inaugural Australian Defence Force Mental Health Day held on 10 October 2012.
The mental health and wellbeing of the men and women in uniform and our veterans will continue to be an essential government and community focus in the aftermath of our contribution in Afghanistan.
Conclusion
Australia must continue to be clear-sighted about our objective in Afghanistan. Our objective is to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a safe haven for terrorists.
Australian forces will not be in Afghanistan forever. Transition to Afghan-led security responsibility in Uruzgan has commenced and is on track to be finalised by the end of this year.
As transition proceeds, our role will evolve in close consultation with our ISAF, NATO and Afghan partners and in accordance with the implementation of the Lisbon and Chicago summit strategies.
As transition proceeds, Afghanistan will remain difficult and dangerous. Transition will not be a perfect process. The Taliban will target Afghan security forces as those forces take responsibility for the security of their country. The IED threat will continue and the Taliban will continue to focus on high-profile propaganda motivated attacks and claiming responsibility for any insider attacks on ISAF forces.
Australia will continue to remain firm in our support to Afghan security forces and firm in our commitment to the transition strategy that Australia and the international community, acting under a United Nations mandate, have agreed to implement.
I thank the House, and I present the following document: Afghanistan transition—Ministerial statement, 7 February 2013. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Fadden to speak for 17 minutes.
Leave granted.
Mr STEPHEN SMITH: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Fadden speaking for a period not exceeding 17 minutes.
Question agreed to.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (09:20): I thank the Minister for Defence for his updates and his commitment to regular updates to the House. I take the time to reinforce the coalition's bipartisan support for our combat operations in Afghanistan and bipartisan support for the care of our veterans wounded subsequent to those operations and their families. The minister's update is timely as we enter the spring and summer fighting season, literally as the snow thaws on the mountains of Afghanistan, except this time the legendary Royal Australian Regiment will not be mentoring or, indeed, fighting on joint operations with the Afghan National Army; they will instead be advising. It will be the ANA's greatest test. Independent operations will be advised by the Royal Australian Regiment against a determined and reasonably well-equipped enemy. It will be a testing time. There will be successes but, as the minister quite rightly said, there will be setbacks.
Major General Cantwell's words in 2010, when he was commander JTF633, our national commander in Afghanistan, ring as true now as they did then. He called on the government and the nation not to get the 'wobbles', to hold the course; it is testing, but the end is nigh. The coalition backs the path to ANA providing their own security within Afghanistan, in league with the Afghan National Police, and ultimately our soldiers coming home.
I join the minister in thanking General Allen for his service to the world community. He has shown himself to be a true friend to Australia. We join the minister in welcoming General Dunford as the new Commander ISAF. Likewise, we join the minister in acknowledging the terrible loss of 39 Australians and the wounding in action of 249 of our personnel. Ours has been an exacting price.
I am very pleased to see the 7th Battalion has rotated smoothly into theatre in its new role of assisting and advising the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade to conduct independent operations, ostensibly through working through their headquarter elements at the brigade, with some at the kandak level and, of course, the logistic support levels. They will be called on heavily as this year's fighting season starts to ramp up. I am very confident that the men and women from the 7th Battalion will rise to the challenge. I also note that, as at the end of last year, Afghan security forces are now controlling or at least leading 87 per cent of the Afghan population and are providing that leadership in 23 of the 34 Afghan provinces.
Challenges remain. The task ahead may be clear, but it will not be easy. As the minister noted, the assessment of the ability of Australian and other ISAF forces to transition out of Afghanistan is based on the ability of the Afghan forces to rise to the challenge and maintain the security environment that has been established to date. This will not be a normal year in Afghanistan. This is the testing year. Can the Afghan National Army and the security forces stand on their own feet? I join the minister in expressing great confidence that they have been trained by the finest fighting force on the planet: the Australian Army, Navy and Air Force combined in the task force elements. I remain confident that they can indeed rise to that challenge.
I thank the minister for his update on detainee management and I note that our enemy continue to lodge complaints at the point of capture. I note that all continue to be investigated and that no complaints have been substantiated. This is testimony to good procedures and discipline within our processes, good oversight and good reporting. I also note that our enemy have adapted their tactics to throwing themselves to the floor to indicate that they may well have been injured during questioning. This reinforces the judicious use of our CCTV cameras. It also demonstrates the humanity of our approach to our enemies' capture compared to the barbarity and sickening violence of our enemies' behaviour when ISAF personnel are captured.
We are a First World nation and we will continue to act like it, but let us never forget our enemy are violent, they are ruthless, they are barbaric and they are cruel. Whipping and executing their citizens for going to a dance, or the real misogyny of shooting a girl in the head for having the temerity to try to go to school—that is the behaviour of the enemy we fight. The nation should never forget the rightness of our cause and the barbarity of theirs.
Minister, I note that post-2013 the government's intent is to retain an SOTG, a special ops element, with an appropriate mandate, and we support that wholeheartedly. We also understand that this will be almost completely determinant upon US special forces' footprint, the logistics support and the locations—and I trust you will keep the House informed as those negotiations continue. We understand the challenges when it comes to the US working out their footprint first, and we, of course, with our allies will come lockstep in line with that. The parliament would also benefit, Minister, from some greater certainty on the further elements that would exist post-withdrawal, such as 'Duntroon in the desert'—and, Minister, don't give the Poms an inch when they try and call it 'Sandhurst in the sand'; it is unacceptable! Duntroon in the desert should be supported. I acknowledge that your intent is to do so. Some further information in due course would be helpful.
We further note that the gunnery school commanded by Australians has been a great success and, if there is an opportunity for Australians to continue their involvement in the Afghan school of gunnery, we should look at it. It would be good to know details of the number of embeds that we would leave behind in terms of our professional officer staff within various headquarter elements, as headquarter elements of the US will remain in location. If there are opportunities for our commanders to embed with them, we should continue to look at that. Also, I gather that the wider Middle East area of operations around the Horn of Africa will continue as it has—we are now in our 30th ship rotation. Some wider comment in due course would be appreciated.
Minister, whilst you enjoy the coalition's bipartisan support on a range of areas of combat operations, we have some concerns. In the great spirit of our robust bipartisanship, I wish to raise with you four concerns around logistics, ministerial oversight, the defence budget and instant reporting. I remain concerned regarding the use of defence resources for Op Resolute when we may well need all of our logistics effort to pull over $3 billion worth of equipment out of Afghanistan. In the last month of last year, two C17s and one KC30 tanker were used to ferry asylum seekers from Australia to Colombo. Whilst I understand existing resources may be incredibly stretched, I find it difficult to accept the extant use of military heavy-lift resources to alleviate what is a border protection failure. I would enjoy, Minister, your assurance that we have all the resources we need to maintain what will be a significant lift out of Afghanistan.
Now is the time of the logistician. The 'loggie' will rise to the challenge now, as we transition from the combat era to assistance in the Afghan National Army to the loggies doing the lifting out of an enormous amount of equipment—including 1,300 armoured accommodation modules, 600 shipping containers, almost 300 armoured vehicles as well as the whole plethora of loggie stuff they need to move. I accept, Minister, that there are some constraints upon us. If we cannot leave equipment behind for either US forces or allies to use, or for the Afghans to use safely and maintain, it may have to be destroyed in location. We accept that, otherwise it needs to either be flown out or travel a precarious land route. On the subject of infrastructure, I am very pleased that as much as possible will be left behind for the Afghan forces to use where appropriate.
Secondly, regarding the ministerial reshuffle, we welcome the appointment of the member for Eden Monaro as a minister and we look forward to working with him where possible. I have known the good minister for quite a while. It will prove to be an interesting year, Minister, and it is good to see you in the House. But I am concerned that in the ministerial reshuffle the member for Eden Monaro's previous position of Parliamentary Secretary for Defence has not been refilled. Your ministerial team has lost 25 per cent of ministerial capacity.
Mr Stephen Smith: Two for the price of one!
Mr ROBERT: And two for the price of one, while sounding eloquent, Minister, surely does not cut it.
I am also a little concerned that the parliamentary secretary that has not been replaced is the parliamentary secretary for the Afghanistan withdrawal. If it was important to have a parliamentary secretary for Afghanistan withdrawal last year and we are now at the most crucial stage of withdrawing our combat force, surely the argument holds that we would have a parliamentary secretary for Afghanistan withdrawal now. I accept that that responsibility will now move to the Minister for Defence and, Minister, we will continue to work with you in that space.
Minister, we remain desperately concerned over the impact of budget cuts. I note your commitment, which I accept at face value, that this will not affect current combat operations. I am more concerned in terms of budgetary aspects about future operations—our capacity to mount the next force or our capacity to mount multiple forces in multiple jurisdictions. Notwithstanding your interesting press release yesterday and its attempt to associate the coalition with your cumulative $25 billion in budget cuts, can I say the coalition's position on this could not be clearer. We will not cut the defence budget. It will be quarantined, guaranteed. Any savings identified in the defence budget will be quarantined for use within defence, guaranteed. We will rebuild defence in this country like the last coalition government did.
Minister, I am concerned about the impact of cuts to projects, especially in Minister Mike Kelly's area. I will be speaking to Minister Kelly and putting a formal request to get a brief on why JP154 Phase 2, the counter IED fourth protection ECM and weapons technical intelligence capability, has been slipped by one year in this year's budget due entirely to budget impacts. I would have thought that of all the projects that one should not cut, JP154 Phase 2 counter IED would be one that should have been quarantined.
I remain concerned that the reports for five incidents that resulted unfortunately in eight Australians killed in action from 30 May 2011 to 21 October 2012 are still outstanding. Minister, if 30 May 2011 is correct from your statement, it is up to 20 months. The US takes approximately 60 days to do their incident reporting. You indicated in previous responses that you would address this with more resources. With the greatest of respect, five instances outstanding over 20 months is not addressing the issue; it is unacceptable. Let me clearly put the Department of Defence on notice that, should the Australian people elect a coalition government, we will not accept such a delay. If it is good enough for the US to conclude inquiries within 60 days, it is not good enough for us to take 20 months.
Minister, I am very pleased with the announcement of the resettlement policy. I called for it last year and I am very pleased that in response to the community and other areas that you have announced what seems fair and reasonable and have followed the path that has happened in previous conflicts. I also acknowledge the signing of the MOU yesterday between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence. We welcome and support that wholeheartedly. The care of our veterans is front and centre in the minds of all Australians and we will stand shoulder to shoulder with you in caring for our veterans and caring for our wounded. I acknowledge the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which I sit on, is conducting its Inquiry into the Care of ADF Personnel Wounded and Injured on Operations for the parliament to build its body of knowledge in this area, and I think the parliamentary committee is doing a very good job on that.
We are all committed to the care and support of veterans and especially to destigmatising and addressing issues of mental health. It will not come as a surprise to the nation that we ask our soldiers to do some terrible and dreadful things in their service to our country—things that in a world where swords are turned to ploughshares should never be asked but such a world does not yet exist. Swords still exist, so rough men must remain ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm. It is naive at best to think that this does not impact upon soldiers—it does, it will, it has and it will continue to. We ask our soldiers to prosecute violence in the name of our diplomatic and national objectives. It has an impact. The coalition wholeheartedly supports the government and the military with the work they are doing in assisting wounded veterans and those with mental health challenges and problems. We pledge the coalition's continued support in this area. It will be a tough road ahead. We have had over 600 to 700 cases of PTSD recognised by Veterans' Affairs out of East Timor. The number of people presenting with mental health challenges out of Afghanistan will increase. I thank Major General Cantwell for his seminal work in his book Exit Wounds and for his raising the national profile on the issue of mental health and mental scars from combat operations.
Let me conclude as I started by saying this will not be a normal year for combat operations in Afghanistan. By year's end we will know the mettle of the Afghan National Army and whether they have stood up and fought against an enemy that will try and retake the high ground this year. By year's end, we will know what the outcome will be, and I join the minister in expressing confidence. The 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army has been trained by the finest fighting force in the world, the Australian Army. I have great hope that the Afghan National Army under such training and guided by the assistance of the 7th Battalion task group and its associated forces will rise to the challenge. By year's end, we will have withdrawn much of our assistance force as well as much of our gear and we will be playing a much reduced combat role if anything apart from our kinetic elements within the Special Operations Task Group. The ANA will have to step up. They will have to prove their mettle during the spring and summer fighting season that will literally start in a matter of a week's time. Our enemy will test them. The Afghan National Army is well trained but now is the time for them to own their own security. Now is the time for Afghanistan as a country to realise its hopes and its dreams of maintaining its own integrity in terms of its borders with that first command of any government: the sovereign security of its state. Our path to withdrawal is set. It has bipartisan support. We welcome the advance of the Afghan National Army's performance and we look forward to the coming year ahead.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Gray.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (09:37): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
There are two additional estimates appropriations bills this year: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-13 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013.
The additional estimates bills seek appropriation authority from the parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
These appropriations are sought to meet requirements that have arisen since the last budget, as well as to take into account impacts on Australia's economic and fiscal outlook from the global economy.
The total additional appropriation being sought through additional estimates Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) this year is just over $1.27 billion.
The recent Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (also known as MYEFO) identified several factors that will have implications for Australia's economic outlook.
And yet despite pressures on the Australian economic and fiscal outlook, Australia continues to outperform the major advanced economies in terms of economic growth, while Australia has maintained a relatively low unemployment rate and strong public finances.
Australia's trading partners in the still fast-growing Asian region are expected to record solid growth in aggregate, which is expected to have a positive impact on Australia's economic growth prospects.
Turning now to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013; the total appropriation being sought in this bill is $600,797,000.
This proposed appropriation arises from: changes in the estimates of program expenditure; variations in the timing of payments; increases in forecasted program take-up; and policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget.
I will now outline the major appropriations proposed in the bill:
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations would receive, if this bill is passed, approximately $85 million towards the support for the childcare system program.
The bill would also provide the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations with just over $48 million, primarily to support increased claims which were received before 5 December 2012, for assistance under the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS). GEERS provides assistance to employees who lost their employment and entitlements due to the liquidation or bankruptcy of their employer.
From 5 December 2012, GEERS was superseded by the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme with entitlements enshrined in legislation and supported through a special appropriation.
The Attorney-General's Department would receive approximately $60 million, mainly in relation to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
The bill seeks to provide the Department of Immigration and Citizenship with approximately $37 million, primarily for offshore asylum seeker management purposes, as well as for visa compliance and status resolution.
The bill would also provide the Department of Immigration and Citizenship with around $23 million, mainly for visa and migration services and refugee settlement.
The Department of Human Services would be provided with approximately $31 million, mainly in relation to changed estimates of service delivery costs totalling $20 million and an additional $5 million reimbursed to that department against the 2011-2012 reconciliation of the Centrelink funding model.
The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service would be appropriated approximately $24 million, primarily for increased border protection capability.
The bill would provide the Department of Health and Ageing with approximately $26 million as part of its commitment to support Tasmania's health system to address challenges caused by Tasmania's ageing population, high rates of chronic disease and constraints in the state health system, as well as to equip it to meet future challenges. This investment will also better position Tasmania to meet the goals and targets of national health reform.
The bill would provide the Australian Taxation Office with approximately $19 million, mainly in relation to targeted tax compliance activities and the transfer of lost superannuation member accounts to the Australian Taxation Office.
The bill would provide the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism with $14 million for additional establishment costs for the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator.
The remaining amounts that appear in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other smaller measures.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013
First Reading
Message received from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Gray.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (09:42): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The total additional appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013 is $666,365,000, the more significant amounts of which I now outline.
The Department of Defence would, if the bill is passed, receive an equity injection of just under $469 million to align its appropriations with its work program, including operations. The additional amount will be offset mainly through a reduction in the Department of Defence's departmental appropriation, which occurs through a separate process.
The Attorney-General's Department would receive approximately $50 million, mainly in relation to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
The b ill would provide an eq uity injection of approximately $45 million to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to complete detailed engineering designs for the construction of a nuclear medicine manufacturing facility and a treatment plant. The facility will produce m olybdenum-99, a radiopharmaceutical used for the treatment and diagnosis of heart diseases and cancers.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship would be provided with approximately $32 million in capital funding for expansions to the immigration detention network.
The remaining amounts that appear in Appropriations Bill (No. 4) relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other smaller measures.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (09:45): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of a new post-entry quarantine facility at Mickleham, Victoria.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry currently leases and operates five post-entry quarantine facilities for the management of imported animals and plants under the Quarantine Act 1908. Existing leases on all properties are due to expire between 2015 and 2018 with no opportunity for lease extensions. New facilities are required that satisfy contemporary quarantine standards and meet future demands, in particular for high-risk species. A single consolidated facility has been determined to be the best option to respond to this need. The proposed post-entry quarantine facility project will be delivered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation, which will own the project site and facility. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will operate and manage the post-entry quarantine facility. The estimated capital cost of the proposal is $293.1 million plus GST and includes all costs for management and design fees, construction costs, furniture, fittings and specialist equipment and allowances for escalation. The land was purchased in Mickleham, Victoria for the project at the cost of $34.98 million in June 2012, utilising funds provided for this purpose in the 2011-12 budget. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in late 2013 and be completed by late 2018.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Report
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (09:47): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report, Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Ms O'NEILL: by leave—I note that my colleague on the committee is at the table. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services is responsible for the oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. As the House would be aware, section 243 of the ASIC Act directs the committee to inquire into and report on ASIC's activities, and matters relating to those activities, to which the parliament's attention should be directed. In fulfilling this statutory function, the committee currently holds four oversight hearings per year and routinely directs matters of interest to the parliament's attention.
Today, I am pleased to speak to the committee's latest report, which draws on evidence from the oversight hearing held in December last year. For the record, I want to note that we also heard on that morning from the ASX. As with all ASIC oversight hearings, last December's hearing covered a broad range of topics. Without doubt, ASIC has challenging and diverse responsibilities as Australia's corporate regulator. The committee recognises in its report the breadth and the complexity of the issues that ASIC must deal with on both a day-to-day basis and as part of its medium to long-term strategy. I would like to draw the parliament's attention today to the following issues that are of key concern for ASIC and the committee:
• the regulation of dark pools and high frequency trading;
• the standard of auditing in Australia;
• compensation for the victims of Storm Financial;
• the pursuit of the perpetrators of the Trio Capital fraud;
• the issuing of guidance to stakeholders on the Future of Financial Advice reforms; and
• the High Court's findings in the cases that ASIC conducted against Fortescue and James Hardie.
High frequency trading and dark pools
High frequency trading uses technological tools and computer algorithms to trade securities on a very rapid basis. The buyer places a large block of orders, many of which are then immediately withdrawn. The intent of this trading is to make a profit on small movements in the share price. The ASX has estimated that high frequency trading accounts for around 25 per cent of the value of activity on Australian markets.
A dark pool is where clients' orders are matched on a computer away from the public market. The trades in the dark pool tend to be smaller and more frequent. This form of trading has the advantage for buyers of very low brokerage fees and the ability to trade away from the scrutiny of the public market, also known as the 'lit market'. The value of activity on unlit or dark markets has been 'as high as about 40 per cent but probably averages in the range of 25 to 30 per cent'. In the United States, the value of dark pool activity can be above 50 per cent.
On 20 November 2012, the government announced new market integrity rules to address risks emerging from developments in market structure, including growth in automated trading and the changing nature of dark liquidity. The new rules provide for:
• direct control over trading algorithms, including 'kill switches' to immediately stop an algorithm if required;
• new extreme trading rules in cases of large price movements whereby there will be an immediate obligation on the market operators (Chi-X and the ASX) to enforce an extreme trading range for trade in securities;
• a requirement that dark pools offer meaningful price improvement over the lit market, with exemptions for block trades; and
• additional data reporting requirements to assist ASIC in performing market surveillance.
The government has announced that these obligations will come into force over a six- to 18-month period: the extreme trading range rules are already in place; the meaningful price improvement rule will come into effect in June 2013; new market operator data reporting requirements will be introduced in November 2013; and kill switches in June 2014.
Both darks pools and high frequency trading are currently the subject of two separate ASIC taskforces. These taskforces are due to report next month. Notwithstanding indications that the trends in high frequency trading and dark pools are neither as pronounced nor as harmful as in the United States, the committee still strongly supports ASIC's investigations and looks forward to its findings with considerable interest.
Auditing standards
The second significant matter raised during last December's public hearing concerned a decline in auditing standards in Australia. ASIC's chairman, Mr Greg Medcraft, drew the committee's attention to the ASIC audit inspection report for the period 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2012. The report found that there had been an increase in instances where auditors did not perform all of the procedures necessary to obtain reasonable assurance that the audited financial report was not materially misstated.
This finding is very concerning to the committee. In our report into the collapse of Trio Capital last year, we noted our great concern with the lack of 'professional scepticism' displayed by Trio's auditors, WHK. The committee also notes that, only a month before the collapse of the rural Victorian lender Banksia Securities in October last year, the auditors engaged there had signed off on the company accounts. We are looking forward to getting a little more detail at our next hearing to help us get an exact picture of what is happening regarding auditing. While we have already identified the reported decline in auditing standards as a concern, the detail will emerge at our next hearing.
Auditors play a crucial role as gatekeepers of the Australian financial system. When they fail to exercise the requisite professional scepticism in their work, investors and superannuants can suffer significant consequences. It is up to professional associations, standard-setting bodies and the large auditing firms—and the smaller ones too—to reaffirm a commitment to the highest professional standards. The committee intends to call the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Financial Reporting Council to attend the next oversight hearing so we can get a little more detail about what is happening in that space.
Storm Financial
The committee has continued to follow the Storm Financial matter. The committee commends ASIC for its work to reach a settlement with the Commonwealth Bank on compensation costs for the victims of Storm Financial. It notes that ASIC hopes that a similar settlement is reached with Macquarie Bank and the Bank of Queensland and that the outcome is both timely and fair for investors. The committee will seek information from ASIC on the cost of the Storm case once the court proceedings are finalised.
Trio Capital
I move now to Trio Capital. The committee asked ASIC in December for an update on how its investigations into Mr Jack Flader and his associates were progressing. ASIC explained that it had received a number of international requests, was in the process of reviewing those materials and had spoken to 'a number of persons both onshore and offshore'. It had also referred information to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission back in June of last year.
ASIC told the committee that the Australian Federal Police had not yet commenced an investigation. It is still assessing a referral to decide whether to investigate. ASIC noted that it has provided 'all the information that we think is appropriate and that they [the AFP] have requested'.
ASIC told the committee that it has committed significant public funds to the Trio investigation and to claims on behalf of others to recover compensation. It has formed the view, however, that those claims are not 'financially viable' given that there is no-one with resources likely to be found liable.
Nonetheless, the committee urges ASIC, the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission to continue their lines of inquiry into the perpetrators of the Trio Capital fraud. At the next oversight hearing, in March 2013, the committee will seek an update from ASIC on the December 2012 examination of Mr Tony Maher (formerly Mr Paul Gresham). The committee's interest in what is happening in this space, with the Trio fraud, continues to be very much at the forefront of our considerations. I wanted to give that assurance to any people who were affected and are particularly interested in this report today.
FOFA
As parliament will be aware, this committee in 2009 conducted an inquiry into financial products and services and the role of financial advisers. The report tabled was an interesting one and a number of its recommendations were adopted in the government's Future of Financial Advice legislation, which this committee examined and which passed this parliament in June last year.
The committee welcomes the progress that ASIC has made in releasing and finalising guidance material on the key aspects of the FOFA reforms. It awaits final guidance material on the key issues of conflicted remuneration and the codes approval exempting advisers from the duty to inform clients that they need to 'opt in' to continue receiving advice. The committee will monitor with interest the progress of ASIC's FOFA workshops in February and March 2013. The committee is keenly aware of the sector's interest in this phase of the consultation process and looks forward to discussing with ASIC the outcomes of this consultation process when we hear from them at our next oversight hearing.
Fortescue and James Hardie
Finally, I will provide a brief comment on the two recent High Court cases involving ASIC on the matter of directors' continuous disclosure obligations.
In October last year, the High Court upheld the appeals of Fortescue Metals and Mr Forrest against the 2011 decision of the full Federal Court. The High Court found that Fortescue's statements about its 'framework agreements' with Chinese companies were not misleading or deceptive to investors. Accordingly, the High Court further found that Fortescue and Mr Forrest had not failed to meet their obligations under the Corporations Act.
ASIC's chairman told the committee that the High Court's finding were based on the facts of the case itself rather than a changed interpretation of the existing law.
In contrast, the High Court found in favour of ASIC in the James Hardie case in May last year. ASIC noted that that finding was particularly important 'because it was a decision in law'. The decision clarified that company directors are expected to check, and are responsible for the accuracy of, significant statements made to the stock exchange. That is of course what ordinary Australians expect always to be the case. ASIC's chairman told the committee that, while the general level of corporate governance in Australia is very good, the James Hardie decision is a timely reminder to all of our corporate citizens to exercise the very highest standards in the interests of all of us in this nation.
The committee's next oversight hearing is on 15 March 2013.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (09:59): by leave—I am pleased to rise to make some comments in relation to the ASIC oversight report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.I would like to comment, firstly, in relation to the progress being made in relation to the implementation of the Future of Financial Advice package of legislation. As the House would be aware, the Future of Financial Advice legislation purportedly implements the recommendations of the 2009 inquiry of the committee into financial products and services and the role of financial advisers. In fact, it goes well beyond the remit of the recommendations made by that committee and involves a plethora of intrusive, burdensome and complex regulatory measures.
The implementation process is an extremely challenging and expensive one , and the challenges are made greater by the unreasonably short time frames imposed on the financial services sector by the rather chaotic way in which this government has administered the implementation of these new requirements. I note that AMP has estimated that the implementation of these regulatory changes will cost between $60 million and $75 million. AMP stated that it has a team of some 50 people dedicated to that implementation. Across the industry generally, or in totality, it is estimated that the implementation will cost around $700 million and there will be substantial ongoing incremental compliance cost s every year.
The issue is not whether it is desirable that there be a duty imposed on financial advisers to act in the best interests of clients. The coalition have made it clear that we support that principle. The issue that is of concern—certainly to coalition members of the committee—is the complex and burdensome implementation process, which is a process made more complex because of the chaotic way in which it has been administered. The coalition have made it clear that, should we come to government, we will implement all of the 16 recommendations made by coalition members of the committee as part of the committee's inquiry into the FOFA legislation. Those recommendations would include the removal of the so-called opt-in requirement, the simplification and streamlining of the additional annual fee disclosure requirements, improvements to the best interest duty to make its operation clearer and more certain, providing certainty around the provision and availability of scaled advice, and refining the ban on commissions on risk insurance inside superannuation.
As the chair noted, ASIC has stated that it would be conducting road shows later this month designed to seek to explain in greater detail the operation of these changes to the regulatory framework. That is certainly a desirable step but, of course, it is hard to avoid observing that one of the reasons that this is required is the complexity of the new regime and the rushed and chaotic manner in which the new regime has been implemented. It is hardly surprising that there is very substantial confusion and, indeed, apprehension within the financial services sector about the scope of these requirements and how, in practical terms, compliance is going to be efficiently and speedily achieved.
I want to turn, secondly, to the question of the series of financial collapses over the past few years which the committee has been examining closely over a number of different inquiries. In particular, I want to comment on the inquiry into the collapse of Trio, which the committee conducted over a period of more than 12 months, and a report was issued in May of last year. To remind the House, this was a financial collapse in which over 6,000 Australian superannuation and other investors were defrauded of $176 million. It is troubling that eight months later there still has been no formal response from the government to the parliamentary committee's report. This compounds the, regrettably, poor performance that we have seen from the government and its agencies at every stage of the Trio collapse.
The committee commenced an inquiry in 2011 and found that this fraud began several years ago in late 2003 when an existing funds manager was taken over by those involved in the fraud, but it took a number of years before regulators, APRA and ASIC, intervened. What is also troubling is that, so far, most of the major perpetrators seem to have got away with it. Only one local foot soldier, Mr Shawn Richard, was convicted and jailed, but the people who are suspected of being the international masterminds, particularly Mr Jack Flader, so far, have not been pursued.
As the chair indicated, we asked further questions of ASIC at the most recent oversight hearing as to whether it is continuing pursuit of others involved in this fraud. It is certainly the clear view of the committee that work should continue on the part of the government and its agencies. We made that clear in our recommendations. We called on ASIC, APRA and the Australian Federal Police to urgently reopen an investigation into the likely criminal activity in this matter. We also recommended that the government should consider another group of Trio investors, who were not beneficiaries of the compensation order made by the minister in relation to some investors affected by Trio. We recommended that the government should consider whether that additional group, those who invested in the ARP Growth Fund, are also entitled to compensation under the existing law. Certainly, I would be anxiously interested to see what the government has to say in relation to that recommendation when it finally produces its response to the committee's report.
When a parliamentary committee concludes that $176 million of superannuation and other investments have effectively been stolen, you would hope that the relevant minister would jump to respond—and I would hope that, by this point, the Minister for Superannuation and Financial Services would have directed his agencies to reopen a criminal investigation and would have directed them to fully investigate all options for compensation under the existing law. Unfortunately, to date we have heard nothing. So I call on the government to urgently respond to the committee's report and I call on the agencies of government to continue their pursuit of those who were involved in this major fraud who have not yet been brought to justice.
The third issue I would like to address is one which has received significant recent publicity, which is a hoax media release purportedly from ANZ bank, claiming that the bank had withdrawn funding from the Maules Creek Coal Project of Whitehaven Coal. As has been reported, this serious hoax led a number of investors to sell their shares at prices below the previously prevailing market price. Quite remarkably, senior Australian Greens politicians have spoken positively about this particular episode. They have spoken of it as a protest and as being within a tradition of protest. It is very disappointing indeed that senior political leaders in Australia would in any way condone an exercise which has led to a number of investors being seriously misled and consequently suffering financial loss. I flag my intention to ask questions, at the next ASIC oversight committee hearing, of the regulator about this episode and the actions that they are taking to get to the bottom of what happened and whether this involved market manipulation. This is a matter that the regulator should be pursuing with great seriousness.
BILLS
National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (10:09): I rise today to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. This bill establishes the framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency. This will enable the scheme to be launched, and the agency to operate the launch, in five sites across Australia from July 2013.
The coalition have enthusiastically supported each milestone on the road to the NDIS. We supported the initial work by the Productivity Commission. We supported the $1 billion in the last budget. We supported the five launch sites. We supported the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for a full state-wide rollout after the Hunter launch. At 10,000 potential participants, the largest launch site of the NDIS is the Hunter, which in part encompasses my electorate of Paterson. As the shadow minister for tourism and regional development I can also see important linkages between the NDIS and the tourism industry, with mutual benefits across this nation.
The stated intent of the bill is to support the independence and social and economic participation of people with a disability. This is a worthy intent, and I would suggest that these concepts are interrelated. The importance of independence and social and economic participation both to people with a disability and to the wider society cannot be understated. Paralympian and world champion wheelchair sportsman Kurt Fearnley lives in the Hunter. In his Australia Day address last month, he asked:
Should we as Australians be grateful to be able to exist or should we ask to be given the chance to contribute and prosper?
Kurt believes the latter, and so do I—and hopefully this bill will provide an avenue for that if the scheme is adequately funded and managed. In that same address, Kurt called the current system 'broken'. Again, I agree with him. We all agree with him. The current system is broken.
This is not news. Two years ago, the Productivity Commission report Disability care and support noted that current disability support arrangements are 'inequitable, underfunded, fragmented and inefficient'. This bill is the great hope for repairing the system, by replacing it with something that offers greater flexibility and better funding.
We emphatically supported the government's commitment of $1 billion to the NDIS in the federal budget. However, we had some difficulty reconciling this figure with the $3.9 billion the Productivity Commission said would be necessary over the forward estimates for the first stage of the NDIS. This is a key point: if the scheme is not funded properly, it will fall into the same level of disrepair as the current model. And, at this point, the question of long-term funding is unclear. I can only assume that the government will account for future funding of the NDIS in the coming budget, because it would be nothing short of cruel for the government to offer hope to people with a disability through this bill only to snatch it away if they cannot sort out the funding.
The NDIS is a once-in-a-generation reform that will unfold over the life of several parliaments, and it should be the property of the parliament as a whole, on behalf of the Australian people, rather than that of any particular political party. As Tony Abbott said in his Press Club speech last week:
The Coalition is so committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for instance, that we've offered to co-chair a bi-partisan parliamentary committee so that support for it doesn't flag across the three terms of parliament and among the nine different governments needed to make it work.
Sadly, the government rejected this offer of bipartisan management of the process. The lofty promise of this bill, offering as it does an alternative to the broken system, is all well and good, but it needs to be backed up by a solid, practical policy and sound implementation to ensure it functions effectively in the real world.
We could stand here all day and talk about the benefits of this bill for people with disability, but I want to make the point that, unless the benefits are realised in concrete, practical ways, it is all pointless. The coalition will of course work with the government to support this important bill, but I remain unconvinced that the government will get the funding and implementation right.
The central themes of this bill are choice and control: choice for people with a disability on the type of support they need and control over their own lives to the fullest extent possible. As concepts, these have largely been missing from the current system, a system in which demand often outstrips supply. I am hopeful that the NDIS, properly funded and implemented, will suffer from fewer problems than this current system. It can often be difficult for people with a disability to find the right contact point for inquiries or when seeking assistance, and I am pleased that this bill contains a 'no wrong door' approach, theoretically avoiding the endless referral loop that I know has been the experience of many people with a disability under the current system. Again, though, this needs to be implemented and managed properly for it to work. It is all too easy for agencies to operate in silos with little liaison or coordination. The NDIS Launch Transition Agency, although slated to be independent of government, will need to work effectively with other players in this space, including government departments where necessary, in order to best service and support people with a disability.
The Mai-Wel Group in Maitland is one of the biggest disability service providers in the lower Hunter. Its CEO, Pennie Kearney, welcomes this bill and the choice of the Hunter as a launch site for the scheme, noting, 'For a long time, people with a disability have required more of an opportunity to drive their own lives.' For Ms Kearney, the greatest benefit of the NDIS will be the chance it gives people with a disability, as well as disability service providers, to consider the circumstances of each individual holistically. Under the current model, the holistic needs of the individual are often not considered, simply because the system is not set up that way. This goes back to my earlier comments on the 'no wrong door' approach. I share Ms Kearney's enthusiasm for this more holistic approach but again caution that the scheme cannot be implemented in a silo; it will need a high level of consultation.
Indeed, Hunter disability service providers and other local businesses in the disability sector currently operate in a very cooperative and collaborative environment. Within the sector, this is seen as a major reason for the choice of the Hunter as a launch site, and it is something that will hopefully lead to a very successful trial there.
It is important to these Hunter organisations that quality service providers remain in place after the NDIS launch. The launch will impact the existing providers, simply because the administration of the scheme will be a relative unknown at first. Here I am talking about things like potential cash flow issues as organisations adapt to a different funding model.
The government is yet to release the draft set of NDIS rules, which will establish the mechanics of the scheme. The absence of these rules in any concrete form is clearly causing uncertainty in the disability sector. These uncertainties are real concerns for providers in the Hunter. On a larger scale, the funding and implementation of the NDIS in its entirety is a real concern for me and for those afflicted with a disability.
I am very aware of the issues facing those with disabilities, not just the individuals but also the carers, and of the effect on families. I have personal experience of the challenges facing people with a disability. My brother Bill is a diabetic, a double amputee and on dialysis, so I am very aware of the benefits to be had from a scheme that gives people control over decisions regarding their own support needs.
One of the most impassioned pleas I hear from my constituents is to have some peace of mind that there will be a system in place that will help care for their intellectually disabled children after they pass. My former next-door neighbours have never asked for a handout or respite in essentially caring for their 40-year-old daughter for her whole adult life. Fortunately, they have been able not only to save for their own retirement but to ensure that there is a nest egg for their daughter. They have bought her a duplex and are trying as best they can to ensure her independence after they pass. That being said, there is not a day that goes by where they do not worry about their daughter's future beyond their passing, even though other family members assure them all the time that they will take good care of her. I cannot imagine what it is like for a family that do not have the financial capacity to provide for their child's future as they face their own mortality. Providing peace of mind to these unsung heroes in our community should be front and centre of this scheme.
It was my close observation and understanding of autism that drove me to get members of my community, under the leadership of Hilton Grugeon, to build the Aspect autism school in Thornton. Again, reflecting on the words of Kurt Fearnley:
Should we as Australians be grateful to be able to exist or should we ask to be given the chance to contribute and prosper?
One of my fundamental beliefs is that we need to give every Australian the opportunity to achieve their maximum potential, and that includes those with disabilities. They should not, must not and cannot be hidden, and never let them be forgotten.
As I mentioned earlier, there are also linkages between the NDIS and my shadow portfolio of tourism and regional development. These linkages, of which the most significant is the promotion of barrier-free or accessible tourism, have been identified as a result of the whole-of-government approach the coalition takes to legislation and policy development. My federal colleagues Greg Hunt and Mitch Fifield take an active interest in this area, and I am also in regular contact with NSW Minister Andrew Constance with respect to accessible tourism.
In October last year, the Sunday Mail ran an article on the foundation of an online accommodation guide by so-called grey nomads, aimed at identifying venues that provide excellent services to less mobile Australians. Guides like this one prove that accessible tourism is a significant issue for travellers.
I have been working with the tourism industry over the last year or so to promote accessible tourism, including with the National Tourism Alliance. The alliance is considering the best way for the national Tourism Awards to drive interest in providing outstanding tourism services to people with a disability. There is currently a points system within the awards for barrier-free travel, but the alliance is considering what more it can do to promote accessible tourism, with my full support.
In addition, the NDIS will allow people with a disability and their families to access funding for things like in-hotel respite care, for example. This would advantage both the individuals involved and the wider tourism sector. It would essentially tap an untapped market of domestic tourists. An alliance between the tourism industry and the NDIS is a win-win situation. People with a disability and their families will be able to travel to what will hopefully eventually be a network of venues catering to family members who act as full-time carers.
The needs of family carers should not be omitted from discussions on this bill. The NDIS gives more control to people with a disability in deciding the level and type of support that they require. This is a great step in the right direction for the sector. But the needs of family carers, and how they can be indirectly assisted through the support the NDIS provides to the person they care for, should also be considered. Accessing funding through the NDIS for in-hotel respite care, or otherwise to enable people with a disability to take a family holiday, also benefits family carers and assists them to continue in that role by avoiding burnout. The Accommodation Association of Australia fully supports this concept and feels it has great merit for the accommodation sector as well as for people with a disability and their families.
The launch site of the Hunter offers a variety of great tourist attractions. I have raised the linkages between the NDIS and domestic tourism with venues in this region, which are very supportive of the concept and interested in further exploring the mutual benefits that it presents.
Many venues are in fact already promoting accessible tourism in the area, with wheelchair access. A working model of this concept, taking advantage of the mutual benefits for people with a disability and the domestic tourism sector, to be based at a venue in the Hunter, could light a path for venues nationally.
Ultimately, this bill is a good thing. In fact, it promises great things for people with a disability. I welcome the choice of the Hunter as a launch site, and I feel sure that the existing disability service providers in the area will work closely with the launch agency to make the trial a resounding success. In the long term, however, I have concerns, as I have said before, over the funding of the scheme and the current government's ability to implement the launch. I do not want to see people with a disability, and disability service providers, attracted by the shining star of the NDIS only to be delivered a black hole of empty promises. Without proper funding and careful implementation, this scheme will be useless.
I support the legislation before the House, as do my colleagues, and we look forward to the review of the legislation in two years to make sure that it is meeting the needs it was designed to serve. I support this legislation.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (10:23): I also rise to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. This bill establishes the framework for the launch of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency, which will administer the scheme.
More than 20,000 Australians with a disability, their families, their carers and service providers will benefit from the first stage of the NDIS at the five launch sites, in South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT, the Hunter region in New South Wales, as we have just heard, and Barwon in Victoria. By the full rollout of the scheme in 2018, approximately 140,000 people with disabilities in New South Wales alone will benefit from the NDIS.
This bill is a direct and very positive response to the 2011 Productivity Commission inquiry report entitled Disability care and support, which found the current disability care and support in Australia to be 'underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient'. The report found our current system to be simply reactive to crisis, offering support to families only when they are unable to continue in a caring role themselves and have no other choice. The NDIS will allow for care and support to be administered at a much earlier stage, allowing for the possibility of improvement of people's functioning or the slowing down of the progression of the specific disability over their lifetime.
One thing I regularly do is meet with our disability support providers in various areas. I meet many of the clients and, importantly, many of their parents. One of the questions I am often asked is: 'What happens to my child when we pass on?' Unfortunately, the people talking to me as parents are often in their 80s, and their children are in their 60s, and for them this is still a very live and compelling issue to be addressed on behalf of their loved ones. This bill represents, therefore, a monumental step for Australians with disability, their families and carers to receive the support they need, when they need it, in order to live productive and successful lives.
Living with a disability comes at a high cost for the individual, the family and the community. It is time we shared the burden. Disability, like intelligence, follows the distribution of a normal bell curve. Having a disability is not just an issue for parents or loved ones; it should be an issue for a caring community, which I would like to think that we are. In Australia, someone is diagnosed with a significant disability every 30 minutes. Efforts can be made to avoid disabilities, but the truth is that most disabilities cannot be avoided. But we can do something positive to negate a lot of the stress and isolation that is associated with disabilities and ameliorate some of the effects or impacts upon people with disabilities that threaten their ability to be involved in our normal way of life.
We all know people with disabilities. Every member of this parliament would undoubtedly have attended the DisabiliTEAs and would be involved with various disability communities, as I am. I have also got a grandson with a disability. My grandson Nathaniel was diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. I know the effect that that can have on the family. I know the impact it has on his immediate community, the school community. I know the effect it has financially and emotionally on all those who love and care for Nathaniel. We probably do not have to strive too hard to find within our families or extended families other examples like my grandson.
Therefore, the whole issue of national disability insurance becomes quite personal—at least it does for me. I want my grandson to be able to grow up in a community that cares, is welcoming and that will seek his involvement in the future. We would all want that for people with any form of disability. As I said, for me it is a very personal thing.
The NDIS is a national insurance approach to providing and caring for people with disabilities that shares the cost of disability and its associated support across the whole community. That is something that is appropriate for a caring community and caring society, which I say we are. Under the NDIS, for the first time in our nation's history people who need assistance, those who are the most vulnerable in our society, will receive individualised care and support packages and get access to comprehensive local support schemes. The fact is, for the first time we will have a large measure of support.
I am glad that the member for Barton is in the chamber. He will know, as his father was the President of the Senate at the time, that this fulfils the 1970s ambition of the Whitlam government, who sought to introduce a national compensation scheme. That is now more than 40 years ago. Compassion and inclusivity are not recent inventions. However, it has taken much time to actually bring this to fruition. The NDIS will allow people with disabilities to have more control over their lives and their level of care. They will receive a greater opportunity to live an active and fulfilled life in their workplaces, their education and their involvement in the community generally.
The bill, in addition to establishing the framework for the NDIS, also establishes the NDIS Launch Transition Agency. This agency will play the key role in administering the scheme by providing support for people with disabilities, their families and their carers and by building community awareness about the undertaking. Critically, it will also undertake research in various areas of disability. Importantly, people with disabilities and their carers will also have an active choice now in how to manage care and about their level of support. They will be able to develop a personalised plan for a regime of assistance, including goals, through this agency that best looks after them as they try to become involved in education, the workplace or the community.
This piece of legislation is critical if we believe in inclusion. While we as a society have done much to provide for our citizens in respect of a high quality of life—and that is readily apparent if you look anywhere overseas to compare—there are still people who fall through the cracks. The National Disability Insurance Scheme addresses to a fair extent this gap. It looks after people with disabilities and sets the platform of care and support necessary for inclusion in our community.
For many years, I have had very much a personal interest in this issue, as I have indicated. As a matter of fact, when I first became the member for Fowler I was asked by the media what my five key priorities were—at that stage, not many people knew me—to get a bit of a sense of what I stood for. Four of the things that I indicated then as my priorities were policing, youth unemployment, domestic violence and disadvantage. But the key thing that I identified at that point was disabilities. I am happy to now be part of a government that has taken as one of its central planks of policy providing for people with disabilities. Regrettably, some people are dealt a very, very hard hand in life. But this government is doing much now to care for them and for their children, not only now but into the future. That is something that all in this place should take heart from. There would be very few members who would come to this place without the ambition to do something good and decent and leaving that as our legacy. If we can leave a legacy such as a National Disability Insurance Scheme I think that we will have achieved much.
I am personally committed to this, as I have indicated. Tomorrow, I will be hosting another disability forum in my electorate. I do this on a periodic basis to make sure that not only I but those in my office stay focused on people with disabilities. When it comes to disabilities, we do not try and carve off what is federal, state or local government responsibility. I know that when people with children with disabilities approach me they do not want a lecture on where they can go. They just want support. Since I first entered parliament, I have always had a rule in my office that when it comes to people with disabilities we become a one-stop shop. We try to make life easier for people. I am very happy that tomorrow the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, Jan McLucas, will also attend this forum to answer questions from the community about the NDIS.
Importantly, while the NDIS is not being rolled out in my community, we need to make sure that nevertheless my community is looking at the various rollout sites, is cognisant of the research that is taking place and also contributes its positive and negative views about how this is changing people's lives in those rollout sites. We need that to happen so that when the total rollout occurs in 2018 government is aware of all that input so that it can make sure that what we have is a scheme that benefits most people.
I would just like to briefly mention a few of the people who will be there tomorrow. We will have the Australian Foundation for Disability—AFFORD—which provides employment, importantly, in my area for 1,400 people with disabilities. Disability South West will also be attending. They provide a much needed advocacy service for people with disabilities and their carers. Also, there will be Northcott Disability Services, who provide much needed support for people with rare forms of disability.
Grace Fava, who is a longstanding friend of mine, is also the Autism Advisory and Support Services co-founder and CEO. She is an individual who has strongly campaigned for the NDIS and who makes an enormous contribution through her role on the advisory council.
I cannot say enough about the steps we are now taking. It is something that is long overdue but also something that we should be proud of because we are taking the steps necessary for people with disabilities to be properly included in our community. I have often said that history will judge our generation on how we relate to and how we include people with disabilities. This bill represents the first step in a long way to go to ensure that— (Time expired)
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (10:38): This bill provides for the establishment of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. From the outset I just want to say that, regrettably, there has been too much misinformation and cheap politicking on this particular issue. Let us be really clear about one thing: the NDIS does have bipartisan support. My parliamentary colleague and the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, has been unequivocal in his support in his statement that 'the NDIS is an idea whose time has come'. That time is right now.
All in this chamber know that the system of support in Australian for people with disability is broken. The coalition strongly supports the recommendations of the Productivity Commission for an NDIS. We also support the $1 billion pledged for the scheme in the last budget. However, this is only one-quarter of what is required, according to the Productivity Commission, and this is one of the major concerns that the coalition has with the NDIS proposal in its current form.
Many of the speakers on this bill from both sides of the House have referred to the bill as a once-in-a-lifetime policy change—and indeed it is. They are all correct. On this we are united, as we all should be. If we embrace the notion that the key role of government is to help those who cannot help themselves—again, as we should—then it is incumbent on us to find a way to make the NDIS work.
Such a large, once-in-a-lifetime policy as the NDIS means all levels of government must work together to provide certainty and hope for the hundreds of thousands of people in this country with a disability. I am passionately committed to continuing the fight for the NDIS on behalf of my electorate to ensure a better deal for Queensland families who have children and other family members with disabilities. On 30 April last year, I took an active part in the 'Queenslanders who want to make the NDIS real' rally at Reddacliff Place, just off the State Library in the Brisbane CBD. I addressed the rally and reinforced the coalition's support for the NDIS.
There have been many occasions where I have had the opportunity to interact with parents of children with disability. On 26 October last year, I attended a morning tea attended by 55 parents in New Farm in my electorate to raise awareness about the NDIS and to highlight the impact the scheme would have on individual families in the local area. I want to pay special tribute to Julie Collins for organising this incredible event. It is heart rending to hear the stories of the fragmentation of services, the difficulty in accessing services, the difficulty in finding out if services even exist and the fight that families have to go through every single day of the week to ensure that their children get some form of assistance, whether it is early intervention, speech therapy or physiotherapy, and the enormous associated costs, particularly for families who have children with disability.
I also invited Senator Mitch Fifield, the shadow minister in this area, to conduct a forum in my electorate where some 60 to 70 providers attended and provided very valuable and useful information. A number of organisations attended, as well as medical experts who work in the field. It was a very successful forum. Both he and I got some very valuable and constructive recommendations on how we might move work in this area forward.
I want to also pay tribute to the great work that is being done in my electorate by the Red Hill Special School. I attended a morning tea there for Every Australian Counts. I want to acknowledge the amazing work that they do every day and the dedication of the teachers.
Last year, I called on the federal government to negotiate with the Queensland government and commit to the full implementation of an NDIS from 2018 to 2019. In this spirit, I welcome the recent agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales government for a full state-wide rollout of the NDIS.
I also want to congratulate the Newman government for their persistence in seeking a deal on the NDIS with the Gillard government and the announcement of a $1.77 billion commitment towards the scheme by 2018. This is particularly important not just for the people in my electorate of Brisbane but for the whole of Queensland. The deal will benefit approximately 100,000 Queenslanders with disabilities. As I said, there has been too much misinformation on this issue, too much politics and too many false claims that Queensland has walked away from the NDIS. But the facts are plain to see.
I just want to reiterate these facts. On 12 December 2012, Queensland became the second state to commit to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, with Premier Campbell Newman promising $1.77 billion towards the landmark scheme by 2018.
Premier Newman also promised to reform the state's fault-based motor accident insurance scheme and adopt the no-fault National Injury Insurance Scheme. Queensland will have to drastically increase its level of disability spending to meet the target, but Premier Newman has said that the LNP's tough budgetary measures have freed up the cash. Queensland already spends $959 million on disability, but it will need to boost that by $868 million within six years. While New South Wales has committed to almost a 50-50 funding split with the Commonwealth from 2018, Premier Newman has stated that Queensland could be asking for a 56-44 funding split, with the federal government chipping in $2.2 billion.
The coalition believes an NDIS can be delivered within the time frame recommended by the Productivity Commission and by a prudent government that manages its finances well. My comments and any comments that the coalition has made about the NDIS have been offered in a constructive spirit, in an endeavour to help make sure that the NDIS can be the best scheme that it can possibly be. Again, I want to be really clear about this: the coalition stands ready to work with the government, ready to make sure that an NDIS scheme is delivered as soon as possible. There is one quibble that we will have with the government, and that is when Labor members and senators say that the NDIS represents quintessential Labor values—it does not. The NDIS represents Australian values, a fair go, helping those who face challenges for reasons that are beyond their control. No side of politics has a mortgage on these. The NDIS is a people-centred, self-directed funding model. It is aligned to the objectives of empowering the individual, of removing government from people's lives and of reducing the red tape that I spoke about earlier.
As my coalition colleagues have said, the coalition believes that the full implementation of an NDIS would be nothing short of new deal for people with disabilities and for their carers. We have to get this right. As I have said, the NDIS is a once-in-a generation reform. It will unfold over the life of not just this parliament but many parliaments. It should be the property of the parliament as a whole on behalf of the Australian people rather than the property of any one political party. To get this right will require a high level of consultation and attention to detail, not just now and not just in the launch sites but also in the full implementation.
The coalition has called for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to be chaired by both sides of politics to oversee the establishment and implementation of the NDIS. A parliamentary oversight committee would lock in all parties and provide a non-partisan environment where the issues of design and eligibility could be worked through very cooperatively. When people come to my office or when they ring me, they want me to fix things as their member. They do not see this as a party issue. They see this as a national issue.
I want to commend my parliamentary colleague George Christensen, the member for Dawson, who has had a motion in the House to establish this committee for some time, but regrettably it has not been brought forward for a vote. Senator Fifield moved a similar motion to establish an oversight committee, and Labor and the Greens combined in the Senate to vote it down. The Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, reiterated this offer in his Press Club speech last week, when he said:
The Coalition is so committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for instance, that we've offered to co-chair a bi-partisan parliamentary committee so that support for it doesn't flag across the three terms of parliament and among the nine different governments needed to make it work.
The government should accept the offer of a parliamentary oversight committee. The coalition intends to give the government, the Greens and the Independents an opportunity to accept our hand of cooperation by moving an amendment to this bill to establish a non-partisan oversight committee—and the offer should be accepted. It is also important to note that every government and every opposition in Australia supports and wants to see an NDIS, and that is why at the COAG before last it was disappointing that the Prime Minister could not rise above partisan politics. It is to the credit of Premier Baillieu and Premier O'Farrell that they continued to negotiate in the face of public attack and misrepresentation by the federal government and reached an agreement to host the launch sites.
We urge the Prime Minister to adopt a more cooperative approach as there can be no NDIS without the states. They are partners, not enemies. The fruits of a constructive approach were there to be seen with Premier O'Farrell and the Prime Minister when they signed an intergovernmental agreement in December for a full state NDIS rollout after the Hunter launch project. It is now up to the Prime Minister to continue this constructive approach in discussion with other jurisdictions and to conclude further bilateral agreements. There can be no full NDIS without intergovernmental agreement with every state and territory.
A word in defence of those states who are not hosting a launch site: the Productivity Commission never envisaged every state hosting a launch site and never saw the absence of a launch site as a bar to taking part in a full national rollout. Indeed, Premier Newman has written to the Prime Minister with a proposal to be part of a full national rollout, and Premier Barnett has written to the Prime Minister proposing a joint WA-Commonwealth NDIS.
The coalition will continue to place this issue above politics and is prepared to work with the state and Commonwealth governments towards a better deal for people with disabilities. We emphatically support the government's commitment of $1 billion to the NDIS in the federal budget, but we do have some difficulties in reconciling this figure with the $3.9 billion that the Productivity Commission said would be necessary over the forward estimates for the first phase of the NDIS. We assume that the government will account for this and will make appropriate provision in the coming budget.
The bill is currently being inquired into by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee and it will report on 13 March 2013. A recurrent theme in the evidence presented to date by witnesses is that it is hard to offer advice, pose questions or plan for launch sites in the absence of rules. They need to be released quickly before the passage of the bill through parliament.
In her second reading speech, the Prime Minister indicated the government's intention to bring the final version of the bill to vote in the budget sessions. The rules, however, need to be released very soon. The risk with this government in its lack of capacity to competently implement measures has always been there to see.
The interaction of three components, the NDIS Bill, the NDIS rules and the operating guidelines for the NDIS Launch Transition Agency, will determine how the NDIS operates. At this point in time, developing a complete picture of how the NDIS will unfold is limited by insufficient information. The work of the Senate committee is absolutely crucial and it is hoped that they will have the benefit of the NDIS rules and the operating guidelines for the agency before they conclude their work. In the absence of the other two elements, it is difficult to determine if further amendments are required to this legislation.
The concept of the NDIS has gained momentum over the last five years and it is appropriate to acknowledge the role played by Minister Shorten in helping to elevate the public policy profile of disability, but the time has now come. The lion's share of the credit goes to people with disability, their families, their carers and the organisations that support them. They have all come together. They have decided that enough is enough. They speak with one voice. In order to ensure that the NDIS is a success, we support the smooth operation of the launch sites. (Time expired)
Ms HALL (Shortland) (10:53): I support the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I support people with disabilities. I do not support political pointscoring around them. I urge those on the other side of the House to do what the Premier of New South Wales and the Premier of Victoria have done and show tangible support for the NDIS.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill is groundbreaking legislation. It is legislation that brings about major societal change. It is legislation that will change the lives of people with disabilities, their families and their carers. This legislation recognises that people with disability are real people, with real needs which need to be recognised and met, and that they deserve equal treatment and equal opportunity in life.
I will go to the details of the bill. It establishes the framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency. It will enable the scheme to be launched and the agency to operate the launch in five sites around Australia from July 2013. The first stage of the scheme will benefit more than 20,000 people with disabilities, their families and their carers living in South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, the Barwon area of Victoria and the Hunter in New South Wales, which is where my electorate is situated. The bill sets out the process for a person becoming a participant in the scheme, how participants develop a personal, goal based plan with the agency, and how reasonable and necessary support will be assured to those people with disabilities. The agency will be responsible for the provision of support for people with disabilities. The NDIS will be tailored to meet the needs of a person with disability. It will be a centrally based scheme that is designed around that person, not designed around a system. The legislation will recognise their needs.
As a person who has spent much of their working life assisting people to cope with the impact of disabilities on their lives and to develop strategies to live in the community and to find jobs, I know the challenges that exist in the current system. Disability can lead to a life marked by isolation, poverty, loss of dignity, hopelessness, fear for the future, limited life choices, declining and limited quality of life and limited opportunities. This legislation is about changing that.
Currently, I have two remarkable young women who work in my office: Tracey Blair and Krystle Brown, both of whom have significant disabilities and both of whom will benefit from the NDIS. Tracey is a young woman who had a series of brain tumours. She was attending university at the time, studying. The onset of the brain tumours totally changed her life and her expectations in life. She is now confined to a wheelchair. She has visual problems and speech problems, but she is still as bright and vivacious as she ever was. She really has a positive impact on what happens in our office. She contributes in so many ways. She is like other people with disability—all they need is that opportunity to contribute, and they need the support in place. I know Tracey's mother and father. They worry about Tracey's care as they get older. They worry about how she will cope when they are no longer around. That is very common for parents of children with disability. They fear for the future. They fear for the child whom they love so desperately. They fear for their care when they are not there. The NDIS is a very tangible way to deliver certainty.
The other young person I have working in my office is Krystle Brown. Krystle is a young girl who has had juvenile arthritis and, once again, is confined to a chair—she is in an electric wheelchair.
She has been working on updating my book The great walks of Shortland. She has very good creative skills and is quiet but she very definitely contributes to our office and makes it a much better place.
All programs for people with disability need to be tailored to that person's needs. I saw that when I was working in the area. People with disabilities are people who have needs and feelings and they need to have their needs met. Change will come about with this legislation as it is legislation that provides leadership. The government has really showed leadership in this area. For years, people with disabilities languished in the community begging support, begging for recognition. It is here that I will pay credit to the fine role played by Minister Shorten. He developed a real passion for ensuring that people with disability are actually given the opportunity to enjoy what the rest of society enjoys.
The NDIS will fundamentally change the lives of people with disability. For the record, disability is the result of having some sort of significant impairment. For a person who has a loss of vision, their disability is they cannot see. For a person who is deaf, their disability is that they cannot hear. A person who has a spinal injury and who is confined to a wheelchair may have a disability of not being able to work. It is really important to understand the difference between impairment and disability. It is disability that this piece of legislation will support. It will establish a framework for the NDIS and it will establish the transition agency, as I have already mentioned.
There has been extensive consultation with people with disabilities, their families, their carers and with service providers. Within my electorate I have held two consultation forums back in 2011, one in the Lake Macquarie area and one in the Central Coast area. I continue to consult with people on the NDIS, on disability and on ways in which the government can meet their needs. I think the thing that is really strong about this legislation is the degree of consultation undertaken. We had the Productivity Commission report. Now we have gone through that consultation, it is time for action and the trial sites have been announced. It is the right of a person with a disability to actually be given opportunities.
The NDIS will provide a plan and a coordinated approach to providing support and services to people with disability rather than them lurching from one crisis to another. I am sure members on both sides of this House will have had people come to their office and talk to them when a crisis develops. We then put them in touch with people that can actually help them resolve the crisis.
I would like to pay tribute to the organisation Every Australian Counts and to the role they have played with the disability teas. They have raised the awareness of disability. I do not think there has ever been a time where disability has featured so highly within our communities.
I am particularly excited about the NDIS and about one of the trial sites being in the Hunter. It is a fantastic opportunity for people with disability who live in the Hunter. Many of the people that I worked with in a previous life—those people with disability and also those that are involved with providing services—are very excited about it. People with significant and profound disability in the Hunter will benefit from the National Disability Insurance Scheme next year.
It is really positive that the Australian and New South Wales governments could come together and reach an agreement. I was very worried for a time that that would not eventuate but it did, and now people with disability in the Hunter are the winners. There are going to be 10,000 people in the Hunter region with significant and profound disability who will benefit from the scheme. Their needs will be assessed and they will start to receive the individual care and support packages.
It is so important that those packages and supports be individually tailored. The NDIS will put in place a case-management approach to disability where people will be able to choose who it is that they go to for provision of the services they need and the support they need. It will have an approach that is all about them. It will not be about the service deliverer, it will not be about the government but about the person who has the disability. It will be about them, their lives and the lives of their family. It is something that each and every member of this parliament should be passionate about because this is legislation that will really change the lives of people.
Under the NDIS, people with disability in the Hunter region will be assessed to receive these individualised care and support packages that I speak so passionately about. They will have decision-making powers about their care and support including their choice of provider as already mentioned. They will be assisted by local coordinators to help manage and deliver their support. The case managers will be integral to the success of this NDIS once it is up and running. They will be the people who will be in touch with the person with a disability on an ongoing basis.
The NDIS will also provide access to the system. It will be easily navigated and linked to mainstream community services. It will be great not only for the person with a disability but also for their family and carers. Through the agency it will develop a consistent approach to assessing people's needs. The Hunter launch site will ensure a proper test of the individualised support and arrangements of the process for transition to the system.
I think this is great legislation, just in case you did not pick it up from my contribution to this debate. It will make a real difference to the lives of people who have been ignored for so long. This is legislation about people. It is legislation about delivering a commitment given by this government. Every member in this House should be proud of this legislation. This legislation will make me pleased to go back to my electorate to talk to people with disability. Disability should not be a sentence of total disempowerment and a life of isolation and poverty. People with disability have needs, expectations and rights. This ground-breaking legislation will deliver. It recognises that people with disability have rights and needs.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (11:09): Let me commend the member for Shortland on her address to this parliament. She is obviously passionate about the issue. She drew attention to her electorate and the Hunter and the way the National Disability Insurance Scheme will affect the community she serves and this nation. If she stays for the debate, she may not enjoy some of the things I say, so I suggest she leaves now. During the debate in this House, the member for Reid has been in the chair, and the members for Scullin, Cowper, Barton, Kingsford-Smith, Wills, Wentworth and Richmond have all been in the chamber while I have been listening. In mentioning those members, I am speaking to the truck driver whose friend has a daughter with a disability, I am speaking to the vegetable grower—he knows who I am talking about—who has a daughter with a disability, I am speaking to the farmer on the swamp who has a son with a disability who is now ageing, I am speaking to all the people right across this nation who are listening to this debate, including those in the gallery, and I say that there is not one scintilla of difference in the desire of all those members of parliament to have the best possible outcome for people with disabilities.
I had better explain my background in disabilities. I am a life governor of Minibah, now called Outlook, which is one of my centres. This issue is very close to my heart, my efforts and my inspiration. The NDIS will not be the be all and end all for every person with a disability. If this parliament comes to a point where it raises the hopes of everybody across this nation who has a disability, woe betide the Prime Minister who has to implement the NDIS, with all the complications before us in our approach to putting this legislation in place and fulfilling its aims.
To my personal regret, the member for Scullin will not be in this place for the years it will take for the working of this legislation because it is not a five-minute job. It is not going to be fixed tomorrow. Already we have heard from the members who have spoken about the difficulties with the states. The Productivity Commission said very clearly that this is a federal responsibility, that the federal government should pick up the barrow, take the lead on this and run with it. Yet the first thing I was so embarrassed about with my disability community was that they were attacking my own Victorian Premier, Ted Baillieu, for seemingly not supporting this because he was ambushed by the Prime Minister over funding for the trial.
There will be people who take the moral high ground on this issue and force things on the states which it was never intended they would be required to do. I understood it was for the federal government to take the lead, but the first thing to happen is that states right around the country, depleted of funds, are being asked to do things that the Productivity Commission never intended them to do.
We need forbearance on behalf of all people. So I say to the disability community across the country and to those who are vitally interested in the NDIS, who will be listening closely to the debate, that we have a long way to go. This is not the panacea. Is it a great opportunity? Yes. Could it be a world first? Yes. Could it change the lives of people with a disability? Yes. Do we desire the best possible outcome for those people? Yes we do, but I do not want to raise their hopes to a point that they are dashed when they find that their type of disability may not be covered by the NDIS—or shouldn't anybody say that?
Is there not a place for the truth in this House on the NDIS? Is there not a place to say, 'No, everything is rosy and once the National Disability Insurance Scheme is implemented every issue within the disability community and the problems they face are fixed'?
I am in awe of the work that the disability providers in my electorate do: from Pakenham to Warragul to Moe—Rosa, I love you—all the way down to Wonthaggi and everything in between. There is the work that the op shops do on behalf of their communities, and all the volunteers connected with the op shops have one desire—like the members of parliament that I mentioned before—for the best outcome for people with disabilities in their own area. The major contributor to disability services in this country should never be forgotten. As Jean Tops outlined in her submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee:
It will never be delivered by the federal government; it will never be delivered by the state government; it will never be delivered by the services on the ground. It will be delivered by the parents and the families that surround people with disabilities.
It will be delivered by the communities that are close to them. The NDIS will only ever play a part in the care and support of people with disabilities—only ever play a part. The major role and responsibility will always be held by the parents of that child. Recently I lived through the heartache of a mum who looked after her precious boy for nearly 30 years of his life, and the best option was for him to move out of the house into accommodated services. Let's call her Mary. The hardest thing for Mary was to give up that child—that young adult, but her little boy. It is the same for us here: they may grow up and they may get married, but they are our little kids. It was hard for Mary to let go of that child to go into that other service. But she did, and he has blossomed and so has she.
In a recent conversation someone said: 'Politics is about choices. Just get with it—politics is about choices.' Life is about choices, and the hardest choices you have to make are when you have a child with a disability. Before I go any further, I want to make this point: I do not speak with any authority in this House on this issue, and I will tell you why. Unless you live 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year with a child with a disability—or in some cases two or three children with disabilities—nobody in the House can stand with any authority and say, 'I identify with you; I understand what you are saying; we'll do something about it.'
It is a bit unfair of me to say, 'We'll do something about it.' I should say, 'We'll do our best to do something about it.' Let me say to this House and to the people of Australia: not one of you can identify or empathise with those parents and sometimes grandparents who deal with a child with a disability every day of this life. We can care and we can do the best we can, but we cannot empathise and we cannot enter into that space, because we do not live it. Until you have lived it, you cannot enter into that space. I have some very funny stories about disabilities to tell, which we cannot tell today, and I have some very sad stories about disabilities to tell.
Since I began, we have gone through a complete range of facilities including a school for pre-, primary and near secondary. We were the first organisation to integrate into the mainstream schools. We went from a day-care centre to an entire organisation with great expertise and the state government of the time said, 'Russell, we're integrating.' I was there to carry that burden through integration. I wonder whether we will turn a whole wheel when someone says: 'Do you know what we need? We need a day-care centre.' We will have gone through the whole process and the wheel will have turned. I will live long enough to see it.
I am not blaming anybody, but progressive governments have said they would properly fund integration services in schools. There is no member in this place who has not had a complaint from somebody with a child with a disability who says: 'We need more integration aids in our schools. My child needs greater support. I can't get enough hours. Can you help me?' There is not one member who has not been approached to help get more hours. We go through the process of trying to help a family. We have all been there. Those who are listening will find that members of parliament are often closer to these issues than the cynics in the community would think, because we deal with the issues at a parliamentary level. At our electorate level we are close to these issues, because those with a need come to us. The member for Shortland's speech was very important, because it was all about people surrounding her in her electorate and the hope she has for the NDIS. I am the same. The coalition totally supports the NDIS. My leader, on our behalf, has talked about his inspiration and support for the NDIS.
The parliament supports it and the government supports it, but I am saying to you that this is part of the road we travel. It is not the be-all and end-all. It will not solve every problem. But the best thing this parliament can do is work with the states, territories and all involved to get the best outcome we can.
I would love it if the Prime Minister of this nation, or the education minister of this nation, were able to stand up in an international forum and say, 'We have the world's best national disability insurance scheme,' or 'We have the world's only national disability insurance scheme and we proudly lead the world in our approach to people with disability.' I could not think of a better outcome for a parliamentary career, or a better outcome for any term of parliament, than to deliver an NDIS. I could not think of a better outcome than being able to say to the world, 'We in this parliament delivered what could not be delivered.' Wouldn't it be great if, as a member of parliament, you could stand up and say: 'We delivered the world's first national disability insurance scheme and, in that process, we led the world. Now such schemes exist in this country, that country and that country.' I leave you with this final thought: we should not set the bar so high—hopes should not be taken to such a high level—that we are unable to jump over it. Thank you.
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (11:23): Like everyone else, I share the commitment of the previous speaker, the member for McMillan, to reform within the disability sector. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012 represents a great opportunity to achieve that reform and I am very positive about what can be achieved. Yes, as the member for McMillan said, there are a lot of difficulties and, yes, it is very complex. I think we all acknowledge that. But I am very positive about the federal government doing the best we can, despite all those complexities and difficulties, to work with the states to roll this out.
As many speakers have said, this is an idea whose time has come. It is so vitally important to our nation. We have all heard the stories from people with disability, their families, their carers. We have all met people who have desperately needed this reform. People have called for this reform over such a long period of time. As a Labor member of this parliament, I am very proud that a Labor government is introducing such a significant reform for our nation, one which is very overdue. It truly is a very Labor reform. Those of us on this side of the House are all very proud to be part of introducing a national disability insurance scheme and of the difference it will make to the lives of so many.
When the rollout was first announced, there was a tremendous response. I certainly saw that in my electorate of Richmond. When people saw the detail of the rollout in New South Wales, to be completed by 2018, they could see it would make a big difference to people on the North Coast—not just to those with a disability, their carers and their families, but to people across so many sectors of our community. We are very proud that the Labor Party has introduced so many important social justice reforms—universal health care and paid parental leave, for example—which have impacted on the lives of Australians. Now it is 2013 and we are doing it again, delivering one of the most important reforms this country has seen. It really is a once-in-a-generation reform.
Looking at some of the detail of the bill, we see that it establishes the framework for the NDIS and for the transition agency as well. When the first stage of the scheme is rolled out in selected areas, it will benefit more than 20,000 people with a disability. The bill sets out all the objectives and principles under which the NDIS will operate. One of the most important objectives is to give choice and control to people about the care and support they receive. That is vitally important, not only from the perspective of meeting the differing care needs of people but also from the perspective of taking on board their individual concerns, their families' concerns and their carers' concerns. Individual care should always be at the centre.
The bill sets out the processes for a person to become a participant in the scheme, for the development of individual goals based plans and for how the support for those personal plans will be put in place. It sets out how people will be able to choose and manage their care and support and how they can receive assistance from local coordinators should they wish—another important aspect of the scheme. The bill also sets out how the agency will be responsible for the provision of support to people with disability, their families and their carers and how, as well, it may provide funding to individuals and organisations which support people to participate more in life.
The report of the inquiry by the Productivity Commission, Disability care and support, was released in 2011. It identified that disability care and support in Australia was underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient. We could all see the piecemeal approach across the country and we have all met, or heard stories about, people who fell through the cracks in the system and were not able to get their individual needs met. We could certainly see the problems and why reform was needed. Since the release of the report, the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments have agreed on the need for major reform in the form of the NDIS, which takes an insurance approach—sharing the cost of disability services and support right across the community and funding reasonable and necessary services directly related to a person's individual ongoing disability support needs.
This bill establishes the scheme and an operating approach which gives effect to these principles and gives effect, in part, to Australia's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The bill also reflects the extensive work which has been undertaken by the federal, state and territory governments, by people with disabilities, by carers and their families, by service providers and advocates, and by disability care workers. There has been a very long commitment to engagement and consultation. The NDIS Advisory Group and many experts have been heavily involved in helping to put this reform together.
I will touch specifically on my seat in New South Wales for a little while. Over 140,000 people across the state of New South Wales with permanent and/or significant disability will have access to the scheme as it is rolled out. By agreement, the scheme will be jointly funded by the federal government and the states.
As we have heard from other speakers, the initial rollout of the scheme in New South Wales will begin in the Hunter region at a later point this year. We will all be watching that very closely. I know that members from that region have spoken about the importance of the scheme starting, and we are very much looking forward to it being rolled out further right through New South Wales. Particularly in my seat in Richmond on the Far North Coast we are very keen to have it in our areas as soon as possible.
As I have said, it really is a major achievement of this government, particularly in terms of the provision of providing the individualised care and involvement of local care coordinators. It does mean more control and autonomy over their lives for those people with a disability and their families, more certainty about the care and support they need and greater opportunity for them to be much more involved in the community in so many ways. So, there are many different reasons why we should be celebrating this magnificent reform.
I, like many other people in the chamber, want to talk about some individual cases as well. I know that we all have many cases we could discuss, but there is a very special one I want to talk about. It is about a young lady, called Shona Robertson, who I have spoken about before in the House. Shona is a truly outstanding inspiration to many people. She is a very special friend of mine and also of all the staff in my electorate office. She volunteers regularly and does an amazing job.
Shona has Down syndrome and comes into the office once a week. She is a real inspiration and keeps us all on our toes. She is also at the forefront locally of the Every Australian Counts campaign. She has done a great job with that and we commend her for it. She got married recently to her sweetheart, Andrius. They had a beautiful wedding, and congratulations to both of them. Both Andrius and her are very strong lobbyists to have a National Disability Insurance Scheme. Shona recently travelled to the UN and spoke there about the need for disability reform everywhere around the world. Shona, as I say, is a true inspiration and she certainly looks after us and keeps us on our toes. She is a wonderful addition to the office and we really appreciate the time she gives to us as a volunteer. Further, she has a real commitment to our community and knows the difference that having an NDIS will make to our region and throughout New South Wales and, indeed, right throughout the country.
In talking to many people in my electorate I know how desperate they are to have this change and how keen they are to follow the rollout of it and to see what the effects will be. As I say, we have all heard many of the really harrowing and difficult stories of individuals and families who struggle and face hardship in caring for a family member with a disability. They have shared the great joy of their family members, but we have also heard about their emotional and financial hardship, as well as their hardship in obtaining the correct care and the difficulties associated with that.
I congratulate other groups in my area, too, that work with people with a disability and I know how hard they work and how committed they are. They do outstanding work. They have a strong role in advocating for an NDIS and have continued involvement in that. One of the organisations that I would like to particularly recognise is Care Connect in Tweed Heads. They recently took part in a DisabiliTEA campaign, and I was very pleased to attend that. It was a fantastic event. I know over 1,700 DisabiliTEAs were held around the country to promote the Every Australian Counts and NDIS campaign. I congratulate everyone involved. We had a great morning tea at Care Connect and a really wonderful opportunity for many people to come along and hear firsthand about what the situation was with the NDIS and how they could be involved. I know there are many great groups that did that, and congratulations to all of them.
One of the things that really resonates is that so many people say that, finally, the days are numbered for a very piecemeal, disjointed system. Finally they can see that we are changing and reforming. I think everyone agrees that there has been disparity, inequity and difficulties, and there is certainly a lot of consensus about the great reform and what it actually does mean. As I have said, as a Labor member, I am really proud to be part of this great Labor reform. It is a real example of Labor achieving for those people who desperately need to have assistance.
Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the NDIS is one of many great reforms. It will stand beside many other major Labor reforms such Medicare, the age pension and the minimum wage. They are really important and major social and economic reforms and have changed the lives of many. It is also something that we are very proud of from a social justice perspective in providing greater opportunity for all Australians.
I am really proud to be speaking on this debate and I commend the bill to the House. I congratulate everyone who has been involved in this fantastic reform.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Transport Safety and Security Cooperation with Indonesia
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (11:35): by leave—I present a copy of my ministerial statement. It is my pleasure to welcome a delegation of distinguished guests from Indonesia who are present in the House of Representatives today. I acknowledge:
• Indonesia's Minister for Transportation, His Excellency Lieutenant-General, Evert Ernest Mangindaan together with officials from his ministry, and
• Indonesia's Ambassador to Australia, His Excellency Nadjib Riphat Kesoema.
Minister Mangindaan is here on an official visit and today we will jointly sign a new Transport Security Annex to our recently renewed Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Transport Sector. Today we will also sign a new Air Services Agreement, demonstrating the strength and importance of our aviation relationship which will assist the growth plans of airlines in both our nations.
It is my pleasure to update the House on the positive, cooperative relationship that Australia and Indonesia share in the important area of regional transport safety and security.
Transport Relationship
Australia has an undeniable interest in working cooperatively with Indonesia to improve the safety, security and efficiency of our transport links—both air and sea. Indonesia's burgeoning international aviation industry provides new opportunities and challenges for both countries. If any evidence is needed that our national orientation has, indeed, turned towards Asia, our aviation patterns confirm it.
Over just the last year, we've seen passenger arrivals from Indonesia increase by 13 per cent. Indonesia is also one of Australia's largest outbound tourist markets. Every year, there are more than two million passenger movements between our countries. To accommodate this growth, we have vastly expanded seat capacity to Indonesia, as we have with many of our Asian neighbours. Many Australians also use the various modes of transport to get around the vast Indonesian archipelago. Evidently, there is much that our transport agencies can learn from one another.
I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on some of the important initiatives we have been working on.
Transport safety cooperation
As I noted, Minister Mangindaan and I will today renew our MOU covering transport cooperation between Australia and Indonesia. The updated arrangement ensures the continuation of our very successful transport safety program—the Indonesia Transport Safety Assistance Package, known as ITSAP—that has been in place since 2007. ITSAP has enjoyed strong bipartisan support since its inception, and that bipartisan support is symbolised by the presence today of the Leader of The Nationals and shadow transport minister in the chamber, who will be meeting with the minister after this ministerial statement.
To date, Australia has committed some $38.5 million to this program. This has helped fund more than 50 projects and train more than 1,000 Indonesian government and industry professionals in safety investigation, port control, maritime systems, air navigation, road safety, and search and rescue. Indeed, I presided over a graduation ceremony in Jakarta just two months ago of Indonesian transport and aviation security personnel who had been trained with the assistance of Australia.
Due to our collective efforts through ITSAP, there is now a single air navigation service provider in Indonesia, similar to our own Airservices Australia. We have developed Non-Convention Vessel Standards (NCVS) which modernise the regulation of shipping standards—the formal launch of which I attended in Jakarta, when I was there last December. We have jointly developed and published a Tropical Mountainous Terrain Flying Operations kit. Road safety workshops have been held across the most populous regions of the country promoting links between relevant agencies and road safety practitioners.
The partnership work between Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in transport accident investigation has been particularly useful to both countries.
There have also been five search and rescue exercises involving the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and Indonesia's search and rescue agency, BASARNAS.
Maritime Search and Rescue Cooperation
Last September, I visited Jakarta along with the Minister for Defence, the Hon. Stephen Smith, and the Minister for Home Affairs and Justice, the Hon. Jason Clare, to discuss with our Indonesian counterparts ways to improve our two nations' maritime search and rescue activities. Australia agreed to provide an additional $4.42 million to fund a series of new projects, including:
an exchange of officers between AMSA and BASARNAS to promote the sharing of knowledge and expertise;
enhanced ship tracking information provided to BASARNAS to help identify ships that can help with search and rescue following a distress call;
enhanced maritime satellite communication technologies for Indonesia to use during search and rescue operations for better coordination with merchant ships; and
additional joint search and rescue exercises and forums to help both our countries achieve international best practice.
Transport Security Cooperation
Apart from our excellent work on transport safety, our bilateral transport security relationship is a matter of great pride to me. We have worked hard together to deliver international standards of training and security regulation to protect Indonesia's transport system from acts of terrorism and other acts of unlawful interference. Our joint work to strengthen air and sea transport systems has been beneficial to everyone in our region. By identifying and rectifying vulnerabilities, we build a more robust and secure region.
As a result of our close and mature relationship, our Indonesian colleagues have welcomed officers from my department on long-term secondments as aviation security advisers within the Ministry of Transportation in both Bali and Jakarta. These officers work directly with the regulator, airlines and airports to ensure that our joint investment in capacity-building delivers better regional security. But our security relationship extends beyond government-to-government links. We are working closely with industry associations and individual companies to achieve our security goals. These include an advanced X-ray interpretation course being conducted with the assistance of the Qantas Group and Australian aviation screening experts. These collaborative projects demonstrate that there are no competitors in security—only partners.
This partnership will be further formalised with the joint signing of the new annex to the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Transport Sector. It will bring into operation the transport sector elements of the 2006 Lombok treaty—an agreement that provides the framework for security cooperation between our countries.
Closing Remarks
The projects undertaken under the MOU are improving the capabilities of our respective transport agencies to achieve improved transport safety and security outcomes in our region. As a result, I can report, proudly, that our transport relationship with Indonesia has never been stronger.
It is my absolute pleasure to welcome Minister Mangindaan here today, together with his delegation. The minister was able to travel via Darwin to look at the transportation arrangements for cattle there, and I thank those who facilitated that visit. This evening, he will be in my home city of Sydney before returning to Indonesia tomorrow.
It is appropriate that I record today my thanks for the warm hospitality he and his officials have shown me and Minister Clare—who is here also in the chamber—along with Minister Smith during our recent visits to Indonesia. I have now visited Indonesia four times as the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.
That, I think, underpins how important the government believes this relationship to be. That is a bipartisan position of this parliament. The relationship formed and the lessons that have been learnt through this cooperation will help our countries grow even closer in coming years. And, of course, this chamber witnessed the very important speech given by President Yudhoyono here in this chamber just a short time ago. I welcome the minister and I welcome his delegation, and I look forward to this being a next step in what is a very important building of the relationship between Australia and Indonesia.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the Leader of the Nationals and shadow minister for transport to speak for 11 minutes.
Leave granted.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Truss speaking for a period not exceeding 11 minutes.
Question agreed to.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (11:46): I thank the minister for his statement. I am delighted to join the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport in welcoming the distinguished delegation from Indonesia here today led by the Minister for Transportation, His Excellency Lieutenant General Evert Ernest Mangindaan, and other officials from his ministry and accompanied also by the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia. It is a particular pleasure to have you in the gallery today, and I look forward to meeting your delegation in a few moments time.
Australia's relationship with Indonesia is without doubt one of our most important. Indonesia has the world's fourth-largest population and is the world's third-largest democracy. Not only is Indonesia one of our closest neighbours; it is also our fourth-largest trading partner in ASEAN and our 12th-largest trading partner in the world. Over the past decades, our governments and our peoples have grown closer as business partners and friends, and it is pleasing that the strengthening of our two nations' relationship has increased the bonds and the close ties between our countries—and it has strong bipartisan support, as the minister has already mentioned, from both the government and the opposition.
From the coalition's perspective, we welcome the opportunity for our two countries to work together with respect and understanding to further our many mutual interests in trade, transport, security, education, health and emergency management, just to name a few. The Leader of the Opposition was warmly welcomed by Indonesian President Yudhoyono and his ministry on his visit to Indonesia in October last year. To underscore his and the coalition's commitment to the Indonesian-Australian bilateral relationship, he has announced that, should he become Prime Minister, his first overseas visit will be to Indonesia. The coalition strongly supports the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations that the current government announced in 2010 and would certainly want to continue the annual ministerial meetings which have been established and which I had the opportunity to participate in on several occasions when I was a minister.
As the Leader of the Opposition noted on his visit to Indonesia last year, more and more the assistance and support goes both ways, as a truly bilateral relationship should. For instance, Indonesia provided much-appreciated financial and engineering assistance in the wake of the devastating floods in my home state of Queensland in 2011. The minister may be interested to know that we are now going through it again in 2013, and another recovery phase has begun.
As Minister Albanese has said, Australia and Indonesia have every reason to work together to improve the safety, security and efficiency of our transport network. As we all know, Indonesia is a popular destination for Australian tourists. In fact, in the last financial year it was second only to New Zealand and ahead of Thailand, the USA, England and every other country. As the minister noted, over the past year passenger arrivals from Indonesia have increased by 13 per cent.
Minister Mangindaan and Minister Albanese will today renew the memorandum of understanding on transport cooperation between our two nations. This represents the continuation of the Indonesia Transport Safety Assistance Package, known as ITSAP, which was first announced by the former Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon. Mark Vaile, in May 2007, at a time when Indonesia faced real security challenges. At that time, the Australian government provided $23.9 million over three years for training and technical assistance to address issues associated with aviation and maritime safety. This allowed our governments, through their respective departments and transport agencies, to assess arrangements as they stood and identify improvements to the systems and practices. This program was further expanded by the current government in 2010, and Australia has now committed almost $40 million to this initiative.
There is no doubt that ITSAP has been a valuable initiative for both Indonesia and Australia. It has seen the development of new safety procedures and manuals and has invested in training for over 1,000 Indonesian government and industry professionals. The minister has outlined a number of ITSAP's achievements, including advances in shipping standards and airspace management and the development of a tropical mountainous terrain flying operations kit. Under ITSAP, Australia has also provided training and support for safety investigators in the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee and provided opportunities for exchanges of personnel, techniques and support with particular investigations. I welcome the minister's announcement that this worthwhile initiative will continue so that our two countries can work together on aviation and maritime safety into the future.
The minister's visit to Australia today will also see the joint signing of the new annex to the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Transport Sector, which, as I understand it, will build on the Lombok treaty signed by our countries' foreign ministers in November 2006. The Lombok treaty provides the legal framework for supporting increased collaboration on a number of security and counter-terrorism related matters. The signing of this annex builds on the strong foundation of bilateral cooperation on security issues that already exists between our two countries.
Following the tragic 2002 bombings in Bali, our two countries' counter-terrorism and security ties have grown dramatically. The Indonesian government has proved a willing and able partner in addressing regional security issues and disrupting terrorist networks. The minister has outlined some examples of where our two countries have worked together on transport security, and I am sure that, through the signing of this annex, this cooperation will continue to grow.
In conclusion, can I again join Minister Albanese in welcoming Minister Mangindaan, together with officials from his ministry, to Australia and thank them for their commitment to strengthening the security relationship between our two countries. Maintaining a productive and cooperative relationship between our transportation departments and agencies is very important, and the two transport initiatives that will be signed today will assist in improving transport safety and security outcomes, not just for Australia and Indonesia but for our whole region. I welcome Minister Mangindaan. I trust that your visit to Australia will be pleasurable and that the bonds of friendship that are now secure and strongly developed between our countries will be further strengthened by your days in Australia.
BILLS
National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
WYATT ROY (Longman) (11:54): I rise today to speak to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012, the precursor to surely what will be one of the most important pieces of legislation in this place. Why is it so significant? Because a system of support for people with a disability is far more than just a simple system of support. At the core of Liberal philosophy is the tenet of freedom of choice. When people with a disability are properly supported, you open up their choices and possibilities, from the possibility of simply looking after themselves adequately to the possibility of finding greater fulfilment in life, including, perhaps, employment. So the long-term dividend of a fully resourced, universal National Disability Insurance Scheme is economic as much as social. If enough people with a disability are even somewhat freed from their daily emotional, mental and physical constraints, confidence grows and potential can be realised. Their families and carers, too, feel an easing in the burden of self-sacrifice Where possible, they, too, are free to explore wider options in the workforce or at leisure. They feel a sense of renewal and hope. They are free, perhaps for the first time, to accomplish something for themselves. And so such a scheme as the NDIS, quite aside from providing an effective safety net, actually ends up paying for itself in the long term.
As I have said in this place before, improving disability policy was one of my motivations for entering politics. One of my close mates suffers from spinal muscular atrophy. I worked as Pat's participation assistant at university, helping him attend classes. I have seen firsthand the numerous obstacles and roadblocks stemming from an overly bureaucratic disability system, a system focused on process instead of outcomes. As Australians, we like to believe that we are easygoing, accepting and all-inclusive. But the reality for many people living with disability is that it is like living in an exclusion zone, a place where there is minimal assistance and security apart from that provided by friends and family, where there are ignorance, stares and whispers and, too often, unkind remarks and treatment. The isolation and loneliness can be devastating.
In a country such as ours, with our traditions rooted in democracy and freedoms, it is our duty to wear our social conscience like a beacon. Australia's late, great and longest-serving Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, founded the modern Liberal Party on this very principle. Menzies was a stronger believer in the virtues of initiative and enterprise. But his picture of society was of a free market system made all the richer by its obligations to the most vulnerable. For Menzies, social justice was an issue of rights before charity. 'The purpose of all measures of social security,' he said, 'is not only to provide citizens with some reasonable protection against misfortune but also to reconcile that provision with their proud independence and dignity as democratic citizens. The time has gone when social justice should even appear to take the form of social charity.' This is what a National Disability Insurance Scheme is all about—ensuring that every Australian has the best opportunity of a bright future, regardless of the obstacles seemingly in their way. A well-implemented NDIS should ensure that everyone with a disability will have not only the support they need for today but the support they need for a better, more dignified, and more productive life.
It would seem that members on both sides of this place agree that the need for a National Disability Insurance Scheme is inarguable. And yet, sadly, despite this cross-party support, the politicking has persisted.
The coalition is right behind the Productivity Commission recommendations for an NDIS and has pledged to work constructively with the government to implement them as soon as possible. This is a new deal and a new dawn for people with disabilities and their carers. Recognising this, the Productivity Commission states that the scheme will require a high level of consultation in its shaping. All Australians have a stake in the outcome, for it is not only our most vulnerable people today who will benefit. None of us know what disabilities could be visited upon us or our loved ones tomorrow. But the Labor Government has sought to claim the NDIS as its own, rejecting bipartisanship on a number of occasions, including the proposal by the opposition leader for a cross-party parliamentary committee to be chaired by both sides of politics to oversee the scheme's implementation across what will be several terms of parliament.
The scheme is set to be launched in five sites across Australia in July this year. Stage one will impact 20,000 people with a disability, and their families and carers, in South Australia, the ACT, Tasmania, the Hunter Valley in New South Wales and the Barwon area of Victoria. Funding to individuals and organisations will support a broadly described range of assistance, from aids and equipment to the provision of supported accommodation or personal attendant care.
Late last year, the New South Wales state government and the Commonwealth struck an intergovernmental agreement for a full rollout of the NDIS in New South Wales beyond the launch site. However, expansion of the NDIS will be dependent on the federal government negotiating and concluding further bilateral agreements with each jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. And here there remains much uncertainty. In my home state, the Commonwealth has yet to reach an agreement with the Queensland government on how the NDIS will be funded in the long term. The Queensland Liberal-National government has submitted a proposal and is to be congratulated on its persistence in seeking a deal in spite of constant misrepresentation and politicking from the Labor Party and the Prime Minister.
Indeed, Queensland is a prime example of the Prime Minister's hedging on one of the Productivity Commission's key recommendations, and that is that the federal government alone come up with the additional funding for the NDIS as a supplement to the disability funding already supplied by the states and territories. The Prime Minister has indicated an intent, in defiance of the Productivity Commission, that the states and territories should part-sponsor the extra funding required for the NDIS. In doing this, she has also failed to recognise that last year, for example, the contribution by the state government in Queensland to disability services was already $920 million. That is compared to the assistance provided by the federal government of just $255 million.
While the coalition supported the government's budget commitment of $1 billion over four years for the first stage of the NDIS, the funding once again reveals a gulf between the Productivity Commission's objectives and the Prime Minister's actions. The amount fell almost $3 billion short of what the Productivity Commission estimated would be needed in those first critical four years. The states and territories should not be strongarmed into picking up the balance. This federal Labor government has short-changed the NDIS in those four years by $3 billion. To date, there also has been little from the government in terms of how individuals will be assessed, who will be eligible and the fine detail regarding the supports and services to be delivered.
The NDIS is a once-in-a-generation reform that will unfold over the life of several parliaments. We need to work together to get this right. It demands absolute cooperation between the Commonwealth, the states and politicians of all persuasions In fact, the politics needs to be left at the door. If we do not get the implementation right we stand to lose this opportunity not only for years but quite possibly for generations. But still the Prime Minister is not forthcoming on what will happen after the trials and the real NDIS begins. The coalition, on the other hand, is committed to the Productivity Commission's target date of a full NDIS by 2018-19.
Meantime, in my electorate alone there are many examples of waste of taxpayer moneys by the Prime Minister and her federal Labor government. The interest repayment on the more than $200 billion of debt incurred by this government since 2007 is about $7 billion a year. That is almost enough to fund the NDIS. If I could choose between providing an effective safety net for our most vulnerable people and school hall rip-offs or pink batts in homes, I know which road I would take. I do not want to see this incredibly important policy, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, compromised simply because those opposite could not rein in their addiction to wasteful spending on failed programs.
Government, at the end of the day, is always about priorities. In difficult economic circumstances brought on by the mismanagement of the Labor government, it remains important that we prioritise the NDIS and work together to make it the best that it can be. Any fair-minded Australian would agree with us.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (12:05): Last month, I received a letter from Denise Reid, one of my constituents. Ms Reid wrote to me about her son Tim, a 21-year-old man with Down syndrome. She has given me permission to share the contents of that letter with the House today, so I want to begin by reading part of it to the House. She writes:
I receive a part payment, sixty-five dollars and fourteen cents per fortnight, with the remainder paid to my ex-husband. We share care of our son, who is 21. He has Down syndrome. From time to time, Centrelink reviews eligibility for this payment. I find this extremely frustrating. My son has an intellectual disability. There is no cure and he will never grow out of it.
She goes on to speak about him. She writes: 'Tim is a helpful, sensitive, caring and observant young man with a great sense of humour. He enjoys swimming.' She speaks about his enjoyment of rock and roll music. But then she writes:
The payment is small and sometimes I feel like giving up the bureaucratic battle. But I don't. I fill out the form and visit the GP to complete another form and wait to hear if I've been able to prove disability. That makes me sad.
The story of parents whose children have disabilities that are lifelong having to again and again prove that their children's conditions have not changed is one that you hear so often in discussions around the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is a particular frustration because parents of children with disabilities work as hard as any other parent in Australia, if not harder. They are constantly dealing with night wakes. They are often having to do hard, physical work. What they do not need is a system that requires them to again and again prove disability, as Ms Reid puts it.
It is with that spirit and with a recognition that past governments have not provided adequate support to people with disabilities and their carers that this government is putting in place a National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is a nation-changing reform. Today is a significant moment for the almost one in five Australians who have a disability, have a family member with a disability or are a carer for someone with a disability. The first stage of the NDIS will benefit more than 20,000 Australians later this year.
I wrote a piece for the local Canberra Chronicle newspaper just over a year ago and noted that if you feel like you have had a tough week just try chatting with a parent who is caring for a child with a profound disability. Not only will they be bleary eyed and bone tired but they might be struggling to make ends meet, sometimes contending with their own health issues. Parents of children with a disability can find themselves caring for a 40-year-old who has the mental abilities of a toddler.
Like every parent they love their children, but it is because of that love that many of them face a searing fear from that awful question: what will happen to my child when I am no longer here? The National Disability Insurance Scheme, by providing better care to people with a disability, may hopefully allay that fear. In so doing it will resolve some of the indefensible anomalies in the current system. For example, if you become a paraplegic in a car accident you are more likely to get a payout than if you fall off your roof while cleaning the gutters. If you rent a car in one state and have an accident which causes a disability then you will receive different treatment than if your car is registered in a different state. That is true even if you are renting from the same car company. 'Check the number plates,' people with a disability will sometimes say. That is how much of a patchwork our current system is.
A National Disability Insurance Scheme system will not be cheap. Its path forward will not be straightforward because we need to bundle in many of the current supports that are provided. But thanks to the leadership of the then parliamentary secretary Bill Shorten, the government commissioned a report on the National Disability Insurance Scheme from the Productivity Commission. They came back with a strong recommendation that we go ahead. That is why we are working with the states and territories to build the foundations of a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
I am really proud that under the leadership of Chief Minister Katy Gallagher, herself a former support worker for people with disabilities, the ACT did not skip a beat before signing up. Around 5,000 Canberrans with a disability will benefit when the ACT becomes one of the launch sites later this year.
I am a strong advocate of the NDIS. My parliamentary window has one thing in it—a Count Me In poster, put together by the Every Australian Counts campaign. I have spoken before in this place on the issue of disability and the importance of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In my own electorate of Fraser, I have held two community forums on the NDIS, seeking input from Canberrans about the scheme.
In August last year, one of the forums was held with Senator Jan McLucas and the member for Canberra. We held a forum in the Griffin Centre and heard many accounts from people with disabilities and their carers. Before that, in October 2011, I held a forum in Belconnen with Daniel Kyriacou from the Every Australian Counts campaign and members of the ACT Labor Party's Community Services and Social Justice Committee. That was, again, an important conversation about what the NDIS means and how people can work with the campaign to bring about an NDIS. Those forums were well attended by carers, people with disabilities and Canberrans of goodwill, keen to see this important social reform become a reality.
Earlier that same month, I met with a group of people with disabilities and their carers at a morning tea roundtable in my electorate office to talk about what an NDIS will mean for people with disabilities and for organisations that are supporting people with disabilities. I want to thank Simon Rosenberg, Luke Jones, Bob Buckley, Kerry Bargas, Trish and Glenn Mowbray, Susan Healy, Mary Webb, Kerrie Langford, Robert Altamore, Fiona May, Eileen Jerga, Adrian Nicholls, Christina Ryan, Brooke McKail, Sally Richards and others for sharing their stories and concerns with me. They helped me to better understand the issues around a National Disability Insurance Scheme and why Australians with disabilities and their carers need this scheme so much.
I appreciated a visit to the 1RPH print handicapped radio station in the ACT. Again, they are providing an important support to people with disabilities. I have visited agencies that support people with disabilities who have spoken about the charges that they will face in adapting to an NDIS.
The Every Australian Counts website asks this simple question: which developed country would expect someone to live with two showers a week?' At the moment, the answer is Australia. We heard at the forum in the Griffin Centre with Senator McLucas the story of a Queensland woman who has to reapply every 15 days for emergency care. We heard stories about mothers of children with Down syndrome who have to constantly prove that their child's chromosomes have not changed, stories like the one with which I began my speech.
We heard a story about a child in the Northern Territory who has to hand in his hearing aids when he leaves school at the end of each day. The hearing aids have to stay at school and he has to go home without them. You cannot hear these stories in a prosperous nation like ours without feeling a sense that there is something profoundly wrong with our nation's social contract, that we need to put in place a system which shares the cost of disability support services across the community. Yes, member for Longman, that involves states and territories doing more. That is not playing politics. That is the simple reality of building a national disability insurance scheme—an NDIS that will enable people with a disability to exercise more choice and control over their lives.
This reform is on par with Labor's legacy reforms of Medicare, universal superannuation and native title. But, as the NDIS rolls out, we need to keep on asking those whom it supports: 'What do you want and how can we deliver it?' The message that I have heard in the regular forums that I have conducted is that assessments under the NDIS need to be done no more frequently than is necessary and that over-frequent assessments are enormously frustrating and at their extreme can cost carers their jobs.
As I have noted, the ACT is one of the sites leading the way in improving care for people with disabilities. In July last year, I was pleased to join the Prime Minister and Chief Minister Gallagher at Black Mountain School to discuss the issues facing people with a disability. I pay tribute to Black Mountain School for the hard work that they do. In Hackett, my own suburb, Ross Walker Lodge is a supported accommodation facility for six people with intellectual disabilities. Ross Walker preached the social gospel and was a strong advocate for the most disadvantaged people in our community. By coincidence, his life followed a similar trajectory to that of my paternal grandfather, Keith Leigh, who was also born in the 1920s and came to the Methodist ministry after World War II.
In Holt, I attended an event at Sharing Places for what is known as a DisabiliTEA morning tea. That was part of a campaign for a national disability insurance scheme. Sharing Places focuses on providing day services to adults with an intellectual disability, and I appreciated meeting with the clients and carers alike. Some of them had been working in the sector for decades and they told me it was the most rewarding work they had ever done.
In December last year, I joined the member for Canberra in announcing the three ACT based organisations that received Commonwealth funding to help people with a disability, their carers and families adjust to the options available under an NDIS. The National Rural Health Alliance, Disability Advocacy Network of Australia and ACT Disability, Aged and Carer Advocacy received nearly $300,000 in funding to get ready for the introduction of an NDIS.
Last week, the Prime Minister gave an address at the National Press Club in which she spoke about how the NDIS is part of the government's vision for a fairer nation. She noted that in July we will launch the NDIS in five locations around Australia and pointed out how the NDIS is in the Labor tradition of knowing that it is smart policy to make us a fairer nation. The Prime Minister said:
… risk is shared as well, where those hit with life's cruellest blows get the help they need.
That is what this bill will do. It sets out the framework for an NDIS and establishes important principles for a person becoming a participant in the scheme, how participants will develop personal, goal-based plans, and how reasonable and necessary supports will be guaranteed. The framework sets out how people will be able to choose how they manage their care and support.
The first stage of the scheme will, apart from the ACT, also be launched in South Australia, Tasmania, the Hunter in New South Wales and the Barwon area of Victoria. I acknowledge the work of the leaders in those jurisdictions in making this happen. The principles of the framework are based on giving people with a disability individual care and support that is based on their needs, giving them real choice and control over these supports, fostering innovative services that are delivered and coordinated locally, and bringing long-term certainty to the resourcing of disability care and support. We want to give people with a disability the security that they will get what they need over their lifetime.
I want to thank and acknowledge the advocates, those working in the sector, the family members and the people with a disability who have fought for a fair system that is based on their needs and that empowers them with more choice and control. As I have acknowledged before, it was Minister Shorten who initiated much of this reform but I also want to recognise the hard work of Minister Macklin, the Prime Minister and Senator McLucas, who have worked together to make Australia's social contract a little stronger, to make us a little fairer as a nation and, hopefully, to improve the lives of thousands of Australians with a disability and their families and carers.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (12:20): I support the NDIS. I have always supported the NDIS. During the 2010 campaign, the only time all four candidates came together was in a forum for the disability sector. To hear stories of people who have lived their lives with a disability is one thing, to hear stories of people who have had disability thrust upon them is another and to hear stories of family members who care for people with a disability is another level of commitment that I am positive I could never emulate. For all those reasons I support the NDIS. For all those people I support the NDIS.
As Tony Abbott has often said, it is an idea whose time has come. Like the member for Fraser, I congratulate the former parliamentary secretary, Bill Shorten, for making this an issue once again. But, if we miss it this time and do not implement a strategy which is (a) effective and (b) sustainable, we will be letting down our country and future generations of all Australians.
For me, we seem to have centred the debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012 on the people who already know what goes on in the system. We have centred the debate on the people who are already in the system, and we seem to be trying to convince them that the NDIS is a good thing. Come on people: stop wasting time! If we do anything at all for people with a disability they will lap it up—especially in rural and regional areas. What they want is for all of us to get the plan together and get it started.
I was contacted by disability campaigner Scott Stidston towards the end of last year. He told me he wanted me to support the introduction of legislation for the NDIS. I said I would look at what the government was proposing and would support the meritorious parts. Scott gave me such a hard time and told me in no uncertain terms what he thought of that statement. I had to tell him I would support the NDIS if it was, as I said earlier, effective and sustainable. I would not and could not support something which would leave people, already in a bad situation, in a worse position.
I may be paraphrasing Scott, but he said to me that there was no way he could be in a worse position. He is in a wheelchair in Ayr, 85 kilometres south of Townsville. His body hurts every day. His wife's body hurts every day as she has to do everything for him and lift him all the time. His heart hurts every day because she never signed up to do this for him. He wants to take some pressure off her. He has the disability, but he wants the NDIS for her. He wants the NDIS for all the people who live with a disability in a regional or rural area. We need to be proud that we can provide a service to people with a disability whether they live in Chatswood or Charters Towers, Toorak or Townsville. We need to treat people with equality across the country.
I have a mate who lives in Townsville. He is a good bloke with a good sense of humour. But he has a disability and, when you talk about support for disability, he gets serious. He told me that his mum still has to wash him every day. He is a man—a strong man who has his mum see and wash his whole body every day. He wants the NDIS so he can have some support which is very personal to him. These are the things the NDIS should do.
I say again: I will not support anything which leaves the very people in most need worse off. At the moment, the legislation before us is powder-puff light. The government has politicised the NDIS, first by flat-out refusing the coalition's numerous offers of bipartisanship on an NDIS development and implementation committee, and then by preaching that the NDIS is the embodiment of, in some way, quintessentially Labor values. We need to step away from this sort of language and these sorts of actions. We need to roll up our sleeves and get this done. If we try to make this a political football, we will end up with nothing. I have often said back home in Townsville that my worst fear for the NDIS is that one day I will be walking down my street and see a bloke mowing his lawn in an NDIS polo shirt and no-one will know what it stood for. We have this opportunity and we must work cooperatively.
Kevin Andrews visited my electorate last year. The member for Menzies was there to hold a series of forums around families and the NDIS. At our disability forum, Garth Brimelow took the microphone and asked everyone in the room to stand up. He then asked us to look at those still sitting. His message was very simple: get the thing done and get it done quickly. He has on more than one occasion offered to come to Canberra, wheel in here and address us all. I am not sure if this chamber is ready for the language he may use, but none would dispute his passion for this cause.
Garth was hurt in a work accident. He has been in a wheelchair ever since. He has been in pain ever since. But he is more active than most people in my community. Quite apart from making an absolute nuisance of himself in my office, he can be seen at every North Queensland Cowboys home game, selling doubles or cooking a barbecue as part of the Cowboys Supporters Team and community fund. He is a mentor to just about every new entrant to the disability sector. He has a way about him which is both engaging and challenging to people. He will spend time with the injured person and their family. He will walk the family through the system with which they are about to do battle—and I do not use that word lightly. He will talk to the injured person about the life they can lead, if they want. He is on the phone all the time. When he is not, he is driving around in his big red Jeep going to another fundraiser or to help another person or to smack another politician around the back of the head.
I use Garth as an example of many people in my community. Indeed, Garth is in all our communities. He exists in different forms and different genders, but he is there in every community. We all have these people who tell us what should be done. Because there are problems ahead, we must have the best advice we can get, not just from academics but from people already dealing with the system.
It is very tough for any person inside the disability sector, and we all know that. To get the support you need, you have to prove how badly hurt the person is. The current system forces parents and carers to give away jobs and put their own lives aside to help the people they love so much, so they paint the picture of their circumstances negatively. I love my children and I will tell anyone who will listen just how wonderful they are. It is natural for any parent. But to get support from the disability sector, carers must put down in writing just how hard it is for them to cope with someone with a disability, how badly their child or loved one is disabled and how much inconvenience they suffer because of that disability. If they do not, they will miss out on that support. As the member for McMillan said earlier, they will miss out on those extra hours. And they have to make the person they love complicit in this process. As a parent of three healthy and happy people, that is the most upsetting thing I have encountered. It must stop.
We must have the conversations that matter. We have to decide who is in and who is not. At the moment, the boundaries are, probably by necessity, broad and vague, but there will come a time when we will have to draw a line in the sand. We have to have the conversation as to where that line will be drawn. We have to have the conversation about what we say to people who are just on the wrong side of that line. As with the current disability system, there are going to be cracks through which people will fall. Currently the cracks are very large and high in number. We have to reduce the number of cracks and we have to narrow the remaining cracks down. But we have to continually acknowledge that there will always be exceptions to the rules. There will always be grey areas. There will always be people, real people with real problems, coming to us with another example of something we might have missed. We have to have, as part of the NDIS, quick responses to these situations. We need to have the discussion about who qualifies.
I have a mate who suffers terribly with agoraphobia, depression and chronic pain. But he can walk, so is he covered? We heard the member for Fraser talk about people with Down syndrome. Are they covered? I have had someone actually say to me that they were wondering if their spectacles would be covered, 'because partial blindness could be considered a disability'. Now, while that is an extreme example, it does illustrate that we have a long way to go here.
We cannot talk about the NDIS without talking about funding, and you cannot talk about funding without talking about sustainable funding. I was pleased and proud to hear Andrew Robb state, on behalf of the coalition, that the NDIS is a priority for the coalition. Government is about priorities. If you want to afford something, you will. With that statement, the shadow finance minister stated that we would make this work, and I will do everything I can to ensure that this is a reality in line with the timetable.
I was disappointed that the trial announced by the government was not funded to the amount recommended by the Productivity Commission. I was disappointed with the way the Prime Minister brought it to a head with the state premiers. I could go on about debt and deficit, but I would be falling into the trap of making political points, and I will be belted by the likes of Scott and Garth and everyone in North Queensland when I go back home, for saying such things.
We need to decide how this will be funded in perpetuity. I was invited to an Every Australian Counts morning tea just after I was elected. I was there with members of the Townsville City Council and then state members of parliament. We were asked to sign our pledge of support for the NDIS. All the councillors signed away and put their names up on the board, as did the local state member. I put my name up on the board and said I supported it, but I made the point that no decision on how it was to be funded had been made. I posed the question that if it was to be funded by a levy on the council rates, would the councillors be so supportive? I asked, if it was to be funded through a levy collected on car registrations, would the state members be so supportive? I doubt very much that either of these are an option but, again, it does illustrate that we have to be clear, concise, and very much up-front about the cost and how it will be sustained. And it must be stated that it is our job to come up with this and to sell it to the people who will be paying for it.
If there was ever a chance to show the people of Australia that the Federation model is not broken, it is this NDIS. If there was ever a chance for the states to show that they still matter, it is this NDIS. If there was ever a chance for the federal government to show it can lead the country in things that matter, it is the NDIS. I understand that the way the PM put it to the state premiers was an open invitation to be defensive. I understand that the way the PM put it to the states was almost diametrically opposed to what the Productivity Commission proposed and recommended. I understand that the states are by far and away the largest providers of services to the disability sector. But I do not think I would be alone in saying that this whole thing could have been better handled. It would seem to many to be another example of politics getting in the way of good policy. Try making political points using the NDIS to Garth Brimelow or Scott Stidson; I dare anyone.
We need to get the NDIS agreed to by all Australians. Too many Australians do not know just how close they are to being a part of this system. Too many Australians think that disability is only for those born that way. Too many Australians do not understand that you are only one accident away from having you mum or wife wipe your backside for the rest of your life. We need to make them understand that this is for all Australians. The NDIS matters to all of us. The sooner we get that message out to football clubs, athletics clubs, netball clubs, swimming clubs, BMX and motor bike clubs, chess clubs and art societies, the better off we will be—not just to hospitals and the people already in the system; we need all Australians to understand that every Australian counts.
Last year I did the Chatterbox Challenge for a series of charities. For a day, I had to be quiet; I could not speak. I raised over $3,000. People were just happy for the peace! At any time, I could have spoken, and I could have stood up. So what does it actually prove? Yes, it raises some valuable money. Yes, it might raise some awareness. But at any stage you can stand up. Garth Brimelow would do anything, and Scott Stidson would do anything, to be able to walk again and to take care of themselves. So all that stuff must be there.
We can do this. To be a member of a nation's parliament that delivers the world's first National Disability Insurance Scheme would be a great personal achievement, but it would pale into insignificance compared with what it means to someone who lives their life inside the disability system. We have a chance to make a difference, and I think what we all have to do is take a step back and work together. We can make this happen, and we can make it happen now. I thank the House.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:35): I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. I commend the member for Herbert, particularly for the passion in his speech, although I did not hear all of the speech. But I do want to point out two things to him. The first—and this might have been a slip of the tongue—is that he said that the states are the largest providers for people with disabilities. Obviously, as a local member he would recognise that it is actually the NGOs who provide the services; the states merely pass on the money, primarily. And I am sure some of the NGOs he mentioned are actually looking after the people with disabilities. That is why, as he said, this is a great opportunity. The local NGOs, the states and the federal government have the ability to work together.
The second is that, as he rightly pointed out, good government is about making sure you have the right priorities, and I would ask him to ask the Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, to make this much more of a priority. And perhaps the member for Herbert could revisit the state member who signed the NDIS pledge and say, 'Perhaps it might be a time to look at some of the priorities; rather than building a new tower of offices for politicians down in the middle of Brisbane, perhaps we could look at the NDIS scheme, which will benefit all of Queensland.' I would ask him to do that, because obviously Queensland is the odd state out in that it does not have a trial site, and I would suggest that that is an opportunity missed. I do not like to praise our Victorians—and I do not think there are any in the chamber, apart from Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou!—but the reality is that Victoria gets it much better. They spend $10 on someone with a disability, compared with a Queenslander's $7. And that is under Labor, Liberal and National Party governments, so I am not making a political point. It is an empirical fact that Queensland needs to lift its game more than any other state, especially compared with Victoria, which does it so much better.
In 2011 the Productivity Commission reported on the disability supports available in Australia for the federal government, as touched on by the previous speaker. That report revealed that the needs of people across Australia with disability, as well as the needs of their families and carers, were unmet. The Gillard Labor government knew immediately that widespread action had to be taken to remedy this distressing situation. So, on 3 December 2012 I, like many politicians around Australia, had the pleasure of going out to local community workers to talk about the International Day of People with Disability. The NDIS was a topic on everybody's lips. Luckily for me I went out to the Endeavour Foundation to look at some of the great work they do. Endeavour is one of Australia's largest non-government disability service providers, supporting more than 3,350 people with a disability across 230 locations in Australia. It is just one of the many disability service organisations I am proud to have in my electorate, and I will mention some of the others later.
The Endeavour Foundation is a great supporter of giving people with disability a right to have control over the decisions that affect their lives. It might have started with a different brief, as so many of these charities did—more of a nanny-state sort of brief—but now it has much more of a partnership with people who have disabilities and their carers. They support funding for those who provide assistance to people with disability, their families and their carers. It was a great opportunity for me to tour the factory that the Endeavour Foundation members work in and to look at the individual jobs the people do, and the pride they have in doing them. It is an assembly-line process, basically. Some people with severe intellectual disabilities are able to contribute to the production line. Others, with disabilities that do not hamper them as much, supervise. It is a great process.
It was great to see the dignity and the joy that came with people working together in a team, contributing and making money. Obviously, they were being paid at different rates depending on what they contributed. It was great to see the dignity that pervaded the room. I thank the Endeavour Foundation for the great work they do. That model is basically what the National Disability Insurance Scheme is about. It is about making sure that people have dignity and have as much control as possible in their lives to make sure that they have control over the decisions that affect their lives.
Just last week I met with Deaf Services Queensland in Moorooka to discuss future opportunities and some of the challenges that their members face. Like many other disability service organisations, sadly, they are struggling to fund their services. They have taken a few hits in terms of cuts from the state government, and the important services that Deaf Services Queensland provide and the skills that they have acquired over the years might get lost or left behind. My electorate of Moreton is home to many peak disability bodies, including Multicap, which I am proud to say is actually doing some work in the NDIS pilot project in Eight Mile Plains. There is also Westside Community Services and the Kyabra Community Association. The Moreton electorate is also serviced by other great organisations that include Montrose Access, Contact Inc., Huntingtons Queensland, Spinal Injuries Association and many, many others. They are groups that passionately advocate for the people with disability they represent.
The Gillard government is determined to provide support for those who need it most and is working hard in some tough discussions with the state and territory governments to achieve the level of care that Australians need. In my home state of Queensland, members of my community are struggling to make ends meet under the current disability support legislation and arrangements as are those of my colleagues. As I said, it is $7 that every person with a disability receives in Queensland, compared with the $10 that someone in Victoria receives. Sadly, at the moment, Premier Newman is leaving fellow Australians behind and falling short by $300 million of funding for the NDIS that would have been available.
Raising awareness about the rights of people with disability has grown significantly since the United Nations introduced its Declaration of the Rights of Disabled Persons in 1974. How much things have changed since then. I am proud to be part of the government that, in 2008, sanctioned with 111 other countries the convention recognising the equal rights of all people with disabilities to live in the community, to have access to a range of in-home, residential and other community support services necessary to support living and, importantly, inclusion in the community and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community. I am proud to be standing on this side of the House that will recognise these opportunities for people with disability by supporting and delivering the NDIS, which will slowly become a reality for thousands of Australians.
The major reforms in the NDIS will give people with disability more control and choice over their care and support irrespective of where they live in Australia, which at the moment is a bit of a lottery, or the other lottery associated with how they acquired their disability. This important legislative reform is about developing innovative services that are delivered on a local level, and I know the local disability service organisations are looking forward to the process and will be proud to implement this historic legislation.
I am going to finish by touching on the word 'dignity' and I want to mention a gentleman by the name of Kevin Cox who comes from my home town. I see that there is an article in Mamamia today saying, 'We need to talk about Kevin'. I am going to mention two Kevins who I was lucky enough to go to dinner with at the convention centre in Queensland a few years back. It was when former Prime Minister Rudd was kind enough to take me to the ACTU dinner one night—although, you can tell the ACTU is a Victorian organisation, because they organised the dinner to be on the night of a state of origin event! Only Victorians would do that in Queensland! But we were proud to have the dinner there, so I flew up on the government jet with former Prime Minister Rudd and went to the convention centre. We came in from the airport in the government car.
I sat down at my table and turned around, and right behind me was a gentleman by the name of Kevin Cox. He is in a wheelchair, because he had a Rugby League accident, which I remember seeing in my home town of St George. Kevin had been a shearer, and I think he was working in the banking industry when the accident occurred. I remember where I was standing—I think it was in 1979—and seeing the accident. He was a simple country bloke from St George, and he ended up in a wheelchair and became more and more active in disability rights. In fact, when Wayne Goss was premier and Kevin Rudd was one of his major advisors, the government decided to build a convention centre. So, they built this fantastic convention centre, which I would commend to anyone—but the only thing is, they did not put in access for people with disabilities. They said, 'Well, we've got all these fantastic steps; you can just go around the back and go up in the service entrance.' And Kevin Cox, this country bloke from St George, said: 'In the 1980s, that's not right. We should do something more. We don't need to go in through the kitchen entrance; we're the same as everybody else.' He took on the government and won.
So there I was at that dinner with my Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and right next to me was Kevin Cox. So there were these two Kevins. Here was me, this bloke from St George, and there was Kevin Cox, this other bloke from St George. We had ended up there, and we were talking to each other, saying: 'How did this happen? How did we end up here at the convention centre?'—the very convention centre which Kevin made sure had improved access. It was a tale of two Kevins! I am proud to say that now Kevin Cox, the shearer and bank worker from St George, is the anti-discrimination commissioner in Queensland, standing up for all Queenslanders with disabilities.
I just think of what the NDIS will do to make sure that every Kevin Cox has an opportunity to take control of their life, because not everyone will have the courage of Kevin Cox to stand up to a state government—a Labor government—and say, 'That's not right'. But the NDIS will hopefully set up a scheme that will promote such opportunities. I commend the legislation to the House.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (12:47): I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. This bill establishes the framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency. I emphatically support the rollout of the NDIS and today's bills, should they receive appropriate scrutiny through the committee process. However, I do note that there remain concerns with the timetable of the rollout of the NDIS.
At present, approximately four million Australians have a disability. The NDIS truly is a once-in-a-generation reform to deliver a better deal for people with a disability, their carers and their families. In fact, since this bill's introduction, an agreement between the New South Wales and federal governments has been reached for a full statewide rollout by 2018, and the Queensland government has put forward a constructive plan to begin the rollout in Queensland. I welcome the progress that has been made so far, which continues with the introduction of this bill.
In setting up the agency, the NDIS will be able to be launched and operated by the agency at five sites across Australia from July 2013. Legislative requirements will be required to establish the mechanics of this agency, such as eligibility criteria and assessment tools. I understand that, practically speaking, most funding for NDIS participants will be in the form of individual support packages, but there may also be block funding for some entities to support people with a disability. In addition, the agency may provide general support for people with a disability who are not participants in the NDIS, through information, coordination and referral activities. There will also be personal planning provisions to emphasise a person-centred and self-directed approach. A plan must include a statement of participant goals and aspirations prepared by the participant, and a statement of participant supports to be approved by the agency.
These details are mostly vague at this stage, and I want to make sure that the implementation of the NDIS is done properly and efficiently. In total, there are three components: this NDIS bill, the NDIS rules, and the specific operating guidelines for the NDIS Launch Transition Agency.
Although the government did release a discussion paper late last year, neither the NDIS nor the operating guidelines of the agency have been released. The full details of how the NDIS will operate in practice will be further examined by the Senate Community Affairs Committee, which will report on 12 March 2013. I note that so far there have been approximately 613 submissions from organisations and individuals to the inquiry, which reflects the genuine and serious interest in making sure we get this right.
This is the first legislative step in providing funding to help people with disabilities participate more fully in social and economic life in Australia. It is a step in the right direction, and I know it is one that is wholeheartedly supported by the constituents of Ryan. Parents of the Glenleighden School, which caters for children with primary language disorder, had their support taken away by this federal government, and despite continuing representations they keep being knocked back. There are currently more than 80 students at the Glenleighden School, who suffer from primary language disorder, autism and other learning disorders, or a combination thereof.
The parents and medical specialists involved with primary language disorder have spent decades trying to gain recognition of even the correct terminology for the disorder in the medical community, let alone trying to get the government to recognise the severity with which it affects children and the symptoms that manifest. What we do know is that the families and children face great uncertainties and vagaries due to the obscure nature of PLD and that therefore there can be great difficulty in reaching a diagnosis of their child's disability. Unfortunately, misdiagnosis of a child with primary language disorder can even preclude parents investigating further and finding out about the great work and support the Glenleighden School provides, further adding to the pain of trying to help their children.
Children with PLD have the best chance in life if they receive treatment for their condition as early as possible. Without intervention there are profound long-term implications for affected individuals in terms of gaining an education and employment, leaving them feeling isolated and despondent and at a high risk of developing depressive and anxiety disorders.
In December 2012 I attended the Glenleighden School Showcase, which was a celebration of the work of the staff, parents and children and their continued success throughout the year. Parents have told me of the difficulties they face every day with their children—communication problems and the associated frustration and isolation—and how they are trying to overcome their challenges as best they can.
With the rollout of the NDIS, my sincere hope is that as a society we can shine a spotlight on the problems that families and children with disabilities face—and shine a spotlight on primary language disorder and other paediatric and adolescent disorders.
Of course, primary language disorder is but one challenge that can strike Australians. I have previously mentioned in this House constituents telling me how tough it is to live with multiple sclerosis, to have a wife with polio or a child with cerebral palsy, autism or speech-language impairment, to name just some examples.
Karyn and Gerard Reardon of Toowong have a son, Flyn, who has a rare chromosome mutation disorder with symptomatic effects similar to trisomy-21 and Turner syndrome. Flyn has been required to see a variety of specialists since birth, including paediatric physiotherapists, speech pathologists and occupational therapists. The services they can currently access are scattered across federal and state programs, or through state education. This creates unnecessary confusion for Karyn and Gerard and means that Australian children with disabilities do not receive the support they deserve. The Reardon family sees hope in the rollout of the NDIS for the future ongoing treatment of their child.
In education, it remains the case that there are no consistent eligibility criteria across Australian states and territories for children to access specialised educational resources. At the last election, the coalition proposed a $20,000 education card that could be used across state and territory jurisdictions to ensure that children at the outset have access to educational resources if they have a disability, and to ensure that if families have to or choose to move interstate there will not be a disruption to their education.
For all young people, when a disability such as paraplegia or quadriplegia strikes, they are often left with minimal support, relying on whatever community organisation is able to help. Youngcare has estimated that 7,500 young Australians with full-time care needs are currently living in aged care facilities due to the lack of alternatives, with more than 700,000 young Australians being cared for at home by family and friends.
For Youngcare, the NDIS does offer hope. However, they want to ensure that the NDIS is 'not just an injection of more money into a thoroughly broken, fragmented, unfair, inefficient and useless system'. In particular, young people in aged care accommodation are there simply because the resources do not exist to build alternative centres. It is a concern that, owing to the very large costs involved in infrastructure, as opposed to specific services that are also required, it will be difficult for any disability insurance scheme to truly assist the 7,500 young Australians currently in care.
Furthermore, Australians with disabilities face the very frightening situation that when they turn 65 the access they have to appropriate support through a Home and Community Care package will be reduced. This is because funding and management of the HACC package changes from their state government to the federal Department of Health and Ageing, and there is not necessarily consistency between the two. These problems further illustrate that no two states provide the same services. If you have a disability and you cross a state border there is no certainty about whether you will be better or worse off.
This highlights the crucial importance of the NDIS being a national program. The NDIS legislation does address this problem insofar as participants can be eligible if they have acquired their disability prior to the age of 65. However, those who acquire a disability after the age of 65 are left out and responsibility falls to the aged care sector. This issue is currently being examined through the Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry into this bill. The committee has received submissions from many groups, all very concerned about not including people who acquire a disability over the age of 65.
Vision 2020 Australia, which represents over 60 organisations, particularly is concerned about this provision and say in their submission:
Vision 2020 Australia rejects the exclusion to the NDIS for people aged 65 years or over … and seeks guarantees that mechanisms will be established ensuring that all people who are blind or have functional vision loss will have access to equitable disability services and support and will not be disadvantaged on the basis of their age.
Vision 2020 Australia is rightly concerned that over 70 per cent of people who experience vision loss are aged 70 and above, based on figures from Access Economics. They therefore believe that the cut-off at age 65 does meet the equity and fairness test in the National Disability Strategy, and I share those concerns.
One of the major roadblocks to implementing the NDIS is the debt and deficit that successive Labor governments have run since 2008. The total debt of $172 billion accumulated so far has already compromised the ability of the Labor government to fund the NDIS scheme as the Productivity Commission would have liked. The coalition emphatically supported the government's commitment of $1 billion in the last federal budget; however, it is lamentable that this funding falls short of the Productivity Commission's estimates by $2.9 billion.
In Mitchelton, Peta Pitcher runs a childcare centre that, above and beyond its normal long-day-care program, offers support programs for families with disabilities, including children with autism. The childcare centre was previously able to provide inclusion support programs, but even with government subsidies Peta provides these programs at a loss of approximately $8,000 per child each year.
Previously, the Mitchelton Childcare Centre and others in Ryan have included children with a disability in the 'main' room and not just as stand-alone extra care. In December, that centre and others were told that if they included a child with a disability in the 'main' room they would no longer be eligible for funding under the Inclusion and Professional Support Program, funding that was available since 2008. I was told of one centre that might have to cut places for five children with a disability.
This story highlights the two-steps-forward, one-step-back approach of this current government. While they have highlighted the $1 billion they have given to NDIS so far, other programs like the Inclusion Support Subsidy have been affected by budget cuts. This apparent confusion arises partly because the federal government at this stage does not know which disability policies are working and which are not, according to the Council of Australian Government Reform Council's 2009-10 performance report into the National Disability Agreement.
Consequently, this budget shortfall has already impacted on the delivery timetable, as indicated by the Productivity Commission. The budget shortfall has the potential to compromise the ability of future governments to improve support for Australians with a disability and their carers.
The coalition has maintained its support for the NDIS and it is important we all work together to get this right. The coalition has proposed the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee chaired by both sides of politics to oversee its implementation. This would not only provide a mechanism for bipartisanship but would also serve as a forum where questions of design, implementation timetable, eligibility and funding model could be raised and worked through. To date, the Prime Minister has rejected our suggestion and, disappointingly, in the Senate in June the government and the Greens voted against the establishment of the committee. Unfortunately, to date there has been little detail provided by the government as to how individuals will be assessed, who will be eligible and what supports and services will be provided.
At this point in time, developing a complete picture of how the NDIS will unfold is limited by insufficient information. The work of the senate committee is critical and it is to be hoped that they have the benefit of the NDIS rules and the operating guidelines for the agency before they conclude their work.
In the absence of these other two elements it is difficult to determine if further amendments will be required to this legislation.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a program supported widely across my electorate in Ryan, and indeed across Australia. It has laudable aims to truly make a difference for the most vulnerable in our community, and everyone in this House wants to ensure that we roll out the NDIS appropriately and efficiently to give hope to Australians with disability and their families. I look forward to the Senate committee's inquiry to sort out any issues with this bill and I support today's bill as one step further along the road towards a full rollout of the NDIS.
I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the wonderful volunteers in our community who act as carers to a family member or to a family friend. They are the unsung heroes in this story. They are the ones who volunteer 24/7—around the clock. They do not get special statues built for them. They do not get special recognition but they are the ones who devote their lives, and I pay tribute to all those volunteers in this sector.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:00): I am very pleased today to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. All Australians should have the opportunity to realise their potential, including those who live with a disability. All Australians should have a choice and control over their own lives. And all Australians should have the opportunity to live with dignity and with as much independence as possible. However, sadly, that has not been the experience for many of our citizens living with a profound disability.
In a modern society such as Australia, built on the idea of a fair go, we cannot and should not tolerate that those living with a disability continue to be second-class citizens. It is for this reason that the government has sought to reform the way disability services are provided in this country. The current system of disability care and support is not doing enough for Australians with disabilities, their families or their carers. The government is committed to delivering an NDIS because it will mean more choice and more control, more independence and more opportunities for people with a disability to be involved in school, work and community life.
The reality is that we never know what challenges life will throw at us or at our loved ones. But we do know that on average an Australian is diagnosed with a significant disability every 30 minutes. An NDIS will give all Australian families peace of mind to know that if they or a loved one is born with, or acquires, a disability through illness, injury or accident, they will get the helping hand they need to live the life they want.
The NDIS is our government's response to the Productivity Commission 2011 report, Disability care and support, which found the current system to be unfair, unfunded, fragmented and inefficient. As a government we knew that this commission's findings could not be ignored. We have been working towards the delivery of the NDIS and a fairer go for all Australians ever since.
The bill outlines how the NDIS will operate. It covers key areas, including principles, becoming an NDIS participant, personal planning for support, earlier intervention requirements and administration. The NDIS Advisory Group and NDIS expert groups have provided valuable technical advice on the design of key elements of the scheme, including eligibility and assessment, quality safeguards and standards, and a national approach to choice.
The government recognises that nobody knows what people with a disability have to go through more than carers, families and those living with a disability. Therefore, we have funded the National Disability and Carer Alliance so that we can directly communicate with the key stakeholders—the people living with a disability and their families—to ensure that they have valuable input into the design and implementation of the NDIS.
This is just one of the many avenues the government has pursued in order to make the consultation around this bill very wide and very sound. Indeed, in November last year I had the pleasure of hosting a forum in my electorate that was attended by Minister Macklin. It was great to hear feedback from local residents with a disability and their families, friends and carers about their current experiences. It also gave us the opportunity to discuss how the NDIS will work—how it will deliver services on the ground. Many local residents in my electorate have been calling out for an NDIS and look forward to having an ongoing dialogue.
One of the participants who has been a long-term advocate for the NDIS is Linda McGarvey. Linda has been working extremely hard to make sure those with a disability are treated equitably. Linda has previously worked in special education and saw how these issues with service delivery were affecting those most in need, especially our young children. But she said it was not until she was directly affected after losing her leg through infection that disability reform became personal. Linda said she is looking forward to the NDIS giving people with a disability and their carers more control over services available to them and creating equity in services no matter how a disability was attained. Linda said it is not a charitable handout but rather insurance for issues that are often out of the control of the person. She said people with a disability have great things to offer the community and the NDIS will make sure that those with a disability are being treated equitably and, indeed, can achieve their potential.
The bill also establishes the framework for the NDIS and the NDIS Launch Transition Agency and will allow for the scheme to be launched in five trial sites across the country in July of this year, a year ahead of the timetable set down by the Productivity Commission. The reason we are doing this is that this government knows that this reform is too important to wait. The trial is being implemented because the government wants to make sure that we get this reform right so that we can build an NDIS that is sustainable over the long term for people with a disability and their families and carers. Launching the scheme in selected locations will provide us with valuable experience and evidence to inform its further implementation.
Importantly, I am pleased that our government is working through COAG with the states and territories to deliver a full NDIS around the country, because currently the states and territories are responsible for disability care and support. The Commonwealth welcomes the commitment and contributions already made by the state and territory governments, and we will continue to work together to share the responsibility for this important reform. I am particularly pleased about the current cooperation between the federal government and the South Australian government, which will see the NDIS brought to around 4,600 South Australian children by mid-2014.
In addition to delivering the scheme, the agency will perform a range of important functions across a range of areas. It will be responsible for managing the financial sustainability of the scheme, building community awareness about disability and undertaking key research about disability and social contributors to disability. The government has also followed through on the Productivity Commission's recommendation that the agency be established as a body under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, because we recognise the need to take an insurance approach to this scheme. It is important that this insurance approach to disability care and support will not be subject to the cycle of budgets and elections, which could undermine its continued effectiveness. An insurance approach will also mean that we invest in activities that will give the best possible outcomes for people with disability over their whole life, and early intervention is one of those critical areas.
Our government recognises the need for excellent governance and accountability in this scheme. That is why the agency will be overseen by a board of experts with extensive experience in the provision or use of disability services, financial management, governance and the operation of insurance schemes. Importantly, there will also be an advisory council made up of people with real, lived experience of disability and caring to make sure the scheme is delivering the change that it was designed to deliver. To ensure accountability to governments, a ministerial council will be established, representing all state and territory governments. We have also included special provisions for the independent review of the new act to examine its operation during its first two years.
Once the trial period has ended, the government will be ready to deliver an NDIS that truly is national, covering people with disability all around the country. The NDIS has at its core a focus on the people and ensuring that support that is delivered is designed to meet the needs of individuals and their families. Personalised plans mean that we can ensure that people with a disability can live a fulfilling life and reach their potential.
This plan may be to support them in the present, but individual support could also be to improve one's life in the future.
This would include early intervention that could improve functioning, for example, for people with autism, acquired brain injury, cerebral palsy or sensory impairments and those for whom early intervention could delay or lessen a decline in functioning, like those with multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. This concept of early intervention is an important principle—that is, an NDIS is not just about helping those with a disability today but helping those who have that disability well into the future.
Early intervention services have already begun to be rolled out for some disabilities, and I have to say the Australian government's Better Start for Children with Disability has been welcomed in my electorate. That scheme enables children under the age of six who have been diagnosed with a range of impairments—such as autism, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and a number of other disabilities—to have access to early-intervention services. This has been welcomed by so many of my constituents who have used this program. But, if we are going to ensure that all Australians with disabilities get the efficient, personalised care they need, and the early intervention they require, then we need the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Importantly, it means that we are not just helping people to receive medical care. It is also important that the NDIS will deliver tools and services that individuals need to participate in economic and social life to the best of their ability.
Any meaningful reform to disability services must also consider support for carers. The NDIS does recognise the crucial role that families play in the day-to-day lives of people with a disability. The government knows we need to ensure that we support carers and recognise the important role they play—to really nurture carers is incredibly important.
An NDIS will move away from the crisis model where families only receive support if they are unable to continue in their capacity as carers. The government does not want carers to have to wait until there are no other options. Instead, the new system will work with families before they reach crisis point to make sure that invaluable care is provided and can be sustained.
The long-term nature of the support provided by the NDIS is also an important part of giving carers peace of mind. I could not say how many times I have had this conversation with carers in my electorate, who are never complaining about the work they do as carers but are saying that they are worried about what will happen if they are no longer there and able to provide care for their loved one. I have seen the anxiety that this creates so many times. It is of real concern to so many of my constituents. I believe that is another reason why the NDIS is just so important: to give peace of mind to carers out there and for them to know that, if they are no longer able to care for their loved ones, they will be supported and cared for.
I need to make the point here that carers do an amazing job. I see it in my electorate every day. I was pleased to visit the Southern Carers Conference in late November last year, where I got to talk directly to so many different carers and hear firsthand about their concerns and about some of the problems they are currently experiencing. We also heard of some of the things that are going well. We also talked about a number of things they would like to see when it comes to an NDIS. I am very pleased that this government has developed a National Carers Strategy, and we need to continue this to support carers and to really provide the opportunity for them to also enjoy all aspects of their lives, including the chance to fully participate in work, in their communities and in family life.
In conclusion, we have seen under this government an increase in funding support to people with disabilities. I have heard from the other side a lot of criticism. I might just note for the House that, while the coalition were in government, they indexed money for disability services by only 1.8 per cent, which was a lot less than the CPI. I think that is important to note. This government has provided increased funding to disability services, particularly to improve specialist disability services, supported accommodation, and targeted support and respite; but the NDIS is the game-changer when it comes to disability support.
Labor has always been involved in giving people the opportunity to get ahead and in making sure no one gets left behind. That is what we did when we introduced the age pension, Medicare, superannuation and paid parental leave and that is what we are doing now with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is a critical piece of legislation that will go a long way towards ensuring that people with a disability and their families really get what they deserve, get the support they deserve and get to live a fulfilling life. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (13:15): I am pleased to rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012, which sets out the framework of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In the brief time available to me I want to make three points: firstly, that the impact of disability on the lives of many Australians and their families is powerful and pervasive; secondly, that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is an idea which is supported by the coalition; and, thirdly, there is a huge gulf between concept and execution. Based upon this government's track record, there are serious grounds to be concerned about how this gulf is going to be filled.
Let me turn firstly to the proposition that the impact of disability on the lives of many Australian families is a powerful and pervasive one. As a member of parliament, your eyes get opened very quickly to this impact and to the number of people who are living with disability. Indeed, within weeks of being preselected as the Liberal candidate for Bradfield in 2009, I was approached by an energetic group of parents from the wonderful St Lucy's School in Wahroonga led by Karen and Peter Hickmott, who came to talk to me about their children and the impact on them and their families of the disabilities that their children suffer from. They also spoke to me about the outstanding work done by St Lucy's School in Wahroonga—until recently under the very capable leadership Jo Karaolis. I have visited that school on a number of occasions and have been extremely impressed by the work they do for children with disabilities and the focus they have not on the disabilities of those children but on their capacities and their potential. I could say similar things about the many other fine schools in my electorate which serve children with disabilities such as St Edmund's School in Wahroonga, which serves high school aged children; Sir Eric Woodward School in St Ives; and Cromehurst School in Lindfield. It has been a privilege to visit each of these schools and to learn something about the work they do.
I have also had the privilege of spending some time with another wonderful organisation in my electorate, Studio ARTES in Hornsby. This organisation has a focus on adults with disabilities. The very dynamic convenor of this organisation, Wendy Escort, explained to me that what she learnt, as many people discover, is that while there are extensive services for children with disabilities, once you get to the age of 18 it becomes a lot more ad hoc and there is a real gap. Wendy and other caring people set out to fill that gap and have created this wonderful service for adults with disabilities. Some of the clients of Studio ARTES include Daniel Bodimeade, Julia Francis, Matthew Elliot and Oliver House, and Studio ARTES convenors and clients came to parliament House just last year to explain to a range of parliamentarians and parliamentary advisers the work that is done by that service and the impact on the lives of the clients of Studio ARTES and their families of the disabilities they face.
I also want to mention Adam Johnson, who was a member of the Liberal Party locally and who suffers from a disability which confines him to a wheelchair. Adam has done excellent work in this area and indeed has made many submissions drawing on his legal skills and training. I would like to mention organisations like Sunshine Home, which held an NDIS related function at its facility in St Ives, and Ability Options in Hornsby, which also held an NDIS related function.
I would like to mention a significant number of my constituents who have come to meet with me to explain to me and to educate me just a little bit about the impact on them of having a disabled child. I want to mention Heather and Roger Parkes and their daughter Georgina; Katrina Clarke, Heike Fabig and Bill Craig; and Margaret Colbeck, who met with me regarding services to the hearing impaired.
The many people I have been fortunate enough to meet involved with the issue of disability and involved with the reality of having a disability themselves or caring for somebody with a disability has allowed me to draw out a number of observations from the explanations that have been given to me. The first observation is the financial burden of caring for either a child or an adult with a disability—the costs of wheelchairs, of specially adapted vehicles, of getting specialist therapy and counselling and the many other expenses which come with caring for a person with a significant disability.
The second observation, which is by no means original, is the random and capricious nature of disability and the way that it hits without warning and can affect anyone of us be it a disability from birth or one incurred due to accident or disease. A third observation, again not an original one, is the random and capricious nature of the extent of assistance available to someone with a disability, which depends in an inconsistent and unfair way on a range of factors such as which state you happen to live in, whether the disability is congenital or acquired, and, if it was acquired, whether that occurred in the workplace, in a motor vehicle accident or in another context. The people who have come to see me have also explained to me the administrative burden and the advocacy burden they face in finding the services that are needed, in getting the benefit of those services and in dealing with the limitation and the number of places available, the long waiting lists and so on.
Another difficulty, which I know has been mentioned by a number of speakers in this debate, is the one repeatedly raised by adults who are caring for adult children with a disability, the concern and the worry they face about what will happen to their adult child with a disability after they die. Where will their child live, who will take care of him or her and how will this child cope with the traumatic realisation that their loved parent and carer is no longer there? The death of a parent is a difficult thing for anybody to experience, but if you are a person with a disability and deeply dependent upon the care being provided to you by a loving parent, the loss of that parent is obviously going to be particularly traumatic.
I want to reiterate the point, which has been made well by a number of my colleagues before, that the NDIS is an idea supported by the coalition. We supported the original referral to the Productivity Commission of an inquiry into the notion of a national disability insurance scheme and we have supported each milestone on the road to the NDIS, including the $1 billion allocation in the most recent Commonwealth budget, the five launch sites and the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales, and, as has been made crystal clear, we support the bill in front of the House today. There is much in the legislative scheme which reflects key coalition principles, including the notion of the person-centred and self-directed funding model, which is akin to a voucher allowing the person who needs the care to exercise choice in who is going to provide the care. It fits with the coalition's objectives of empowering individuals, of removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape. Indeed, so strong is our commitment to these principles that we have made the offer of a cross-parliamentary committee to be chaired by both sides of politics to oversee the implementation of the NDIS. We do that because we believe that getting the scheme right will require bipartisanship. It is troubling that the present government has chosen to reject that approach.
There is a huge gulf between concept and execution. That is true in every policy area but it is certainly true in the case of the NDIS. We have in Australia today a government which tends to assume that announcing something is the same as delivering it. You could look at the multiple instances in which Labor members of parliament have sent newsletters to constituents claiming to have delivered a budget surplus in 2012-13, only to have Treasurer Swan come out in December last year and admit that in fact a surplus is not going to be delivered.
When it comes to the NDIS, good intentions are not enough. The nuts and bolts of detailed implementation are critically important. Good administration is just as much of a moral imperative as are good intentions. Sadly, the implementation record of this government in areas like the Julia Gillard memorial school halls program, the Home Insulation Program and the slow motion train smash that is the National Broadband Network does not leave the objective observer with any degree of confidence that this government is likely to effectively, speedily and in a cost-conscious way implement the NDIS.
Key design decisions have not yet been taken and we know that a lot of detail is missing. Indeed, the bill before the House today is nothing more than a broad framework which establishes the transition agency, the board and so on, but the mechanics will need to be established in the rules dealing with such matters as eligibility and assessment criteria. It is true that a discussion paper has been released but it contains very little information and, if anything, is more a series of questions than a series of detailed rules. We also know that agreements with many of the states have not been concluded; yet, if NDIS is to succeed, it will need to operate on a cooperative basis between the federal government and eight state and territory governments, bearing in mind that state and territory governments presently deliver a wide range of disability services and also have existing schemes covering, for example, those injured in motor vehicle accidents. There can be no full NDIS without an intergovernmental agreement with each state and territory.
It is unfortunate that the present federal government has engaged in political pointscoring directed at the premiers of some states over whether or not those states will host trial sites. That is particularly unfortunate when you consider that the Productivity Commission never suggested or envisaged that every state needed to host a trial site.
Another area where real concern must be raised about implementation is the very basic question of how the NDIS is going to be financed. It is hard to understand or have confidence in this government's program to finance the significant commitments that will be required for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The commitment in the federal budget most recently was $1 billion over four years from 2012-13. Yet the Productivity Commission said that $3.9 billion would be necessary over the forward estimates for the first phase of the NDIS. This is a gap the government needs to close if it is to be credible. But there is a further point.
According to a report issued by the Centre for Independent Studies, drawing on a review conducted by the Australian Government Actuary, which was obtained under freedom of information legislation, the cost of the NDIS by the projected first year of operation, 2018-19, is likely to be around $22 billion a year—substantially greater than the $15 billion figure usually quoted—and the costs are likely to rise each year.
To point out this simple fact is not to oppose the NDIS—far from it. It is simply to highlight that the full cost of this policy is likely to be very large, and it is vital to have a credible and comprehensive plan as to where the money will come from. Unfortunately the present government is not very good at delivering credible and comprehensive plans to do with public finances and it is even worse at living up to the plans that it does deliver.
I conclude by observing that the current arrangements for support to those with a disability are capricious and unsatisfactory and that, at base level, is why the concept of a national disability insurance scheme has bipartisan support. Today's bill goes some short distance down the road towards fleshing out the concept of a national disability insurance scheme. To that extent, is has the support of the coalition. The real challenge here is the gulf between concept and execution. Given this government's very poor track record of implementation across a whole range of policy areas, it is extremely difficult to have any confidence in the capacity of the present government to turn the NDIS into a reality in an efficient and cost-effective way. Nevertheless, the coalition is committed to offering bipartisan support for the NDIS and, should we come to government, we are committed to pursuing this key initiative.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (13:30): We are not often placed in the position to be associated with something that will later be referred to as historic, but being a member of this parliament charged with ushering in the reality of the National Disability Insurance Bill and being able to bear witness to this is truly humbling. It is with great honour that I am able to rise in support of this bill, which takes us a step closer to something that so many in the community want to see happen—that is, the creation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the establishment, through this bill, of the agency that will be responsible for the provision of support for people with a disability and their families and their carers.
Disability is something that society has struggled to deal with for centuries. This takes nothing away from the millions of hours of love and devotion, dedicated care and support provided to people with a disability, their carers and families. People would acknowledge that society's past record of dealing with people with a disability is not necessarily something to be proud of, and we should always find ways to improve the level of care and support provided. We should not judge well-intentioned people for past policies, but, as I said, we should try and find ways in which we can improve the level of support and care and potentially alleviate the concern and the anxiety about how people with a disability will be cared for not only now but in the years and decades ahead. What we can be proud of is that it is a sign of maturity of this nation that we are finally moving towards the establishment of this scheme with a start date in sight.
I have had many opportunities in my short time as a member of this place to meet people and hear stories of people with a disability and their families. People have said that in many cases disability is described as a lottery because it is extraordinarily random; it can impact any family; and there is absolutely no formula for predicting when and where it will occur. As parents we naturally focus our attention on children who may be born with a disability, but there are as many people who acquire a disability through the course of their life, who are not prepared for that and who require a great deal of support and care. People who suffer medical conditions or injury at any stage of life can suffer disability, as the people from Polio New South Wales explained to me. They told me stories of how they missed out on those vaccinations that transformed lives and had to grapple with the after-effects of polio. They are among the people who hope the NDIS will be able to give them some sort of comfort.
In decades past society's approach to dealing with people with a disability was to have someone else look after them somewhere else, although this did not always occur and the quality of care was sometimes questionable. These days our approach is one of inclusion and participation. One only has to visit an Australian disability enterprise to see the enthusiasm that people with a disability bring to their workplace. These are people who enjoy the socialisation, the independence and the fulfilment that employment brings, together with the camaraderie. Nobody would question the merits of our modern approach to people with a disability but, as many parents tell me, it does come at a price. There are substantial costs involved in sending a child with a disability to school, providing them with a range of therapies, keeping them as active as their bodies allow them to be and providing them with the technology that aids their mobility and their communication. Without an insurance scheme, how do these families cope? How do they provide for their child? The simple answer is: they do what any parent does, and that is they sacrifice their holidays, shortcut on their purchases, buy used aids, take out loans. They would find any way to string things together to make life easier for their children.
This life's lottery is not one that any of us would wish for. Finally, we are going to address the crying needs of families who care for and want the best for their kids, who by chance find themselves living with a disability. Those people who, cruelly, experience an accident that fundamentally transforms their lives will have care and support. For me, in many respects, the NDIS represents liberation from anxiety for people who wonder what will happen to the people in their care when they pass on. So many of us in this place have heard that expressed to us, have felt the anxiety in our own way and have sought to ensure that we as members of parliament can be involved in ushering in a scheme will liberate people from that level of anxiety.
From 1 July this year the dream of an insurance scheme which provides for people with a disability, their families and carers will finally begin in a number of trial sites across the country, and that has been welcomed wholeheartedly and with a great degree of joy. Although the Chifley electorate is not a trial site for the NDIS, I can inform the House that parents and carers of children with a disability who live in my electorate are enormously relieved and excited to see that somewhere this scheme is starting to become a reality so quickly. There is acceptance that if we are going to get this reform right, our approach to the transition of this scheme is a prudent one. It is, however, not a reform that the federal government can shoulder on its own. There is a vital role to be played by the states and territories, and all of us would encourage each of the premiers and chief ministers to fully embrace the NDIS and to find ways to make it work in every corner of the country.
Australia, arguably, has one of the best universal medical insurance schemes in the world, Medicare. When one looks at what took place over in the US in trying to get universal health care and at what happens here, the appreciation we have of Medicare increases hugely. Medicare has become a blueprint for similar schemes throughout the world, but it is applied nowhere better than here. When a Labor government first envisaged Medicare, there was debate in the community about the merits of sharing the costs of medical services.
But few would argue that Medicare has achieved all it was intended to in terms of equity and affordability, so we have had to act in other ways to ensure that health needs are met. The NDIS will deliver equity and affordability to families.
But the introduction of the NDIS will do more than simply spread the cost burden faced by those living with a disability. It will, for the first time, provide choice and control to people with a disability, their families and their carers. It will do this through what is described as a 'person centred, self-directed approach with individualised funding'. It will also make it easier for people to find available support. It is rare for a public policy reform to have as big an impact on people's lives as will be the case with the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Over the course of the battle to get this scheme in place, I have had many opportunities to engage with local disability enterprises. In Chifley, for example, we are well serviced by enterprises such as AFFORD at Minchinbury and Endeavour Foundation Industries at Mount Druitt. Each of these enterprises has, on a number of occasions, welcomed me to events to raise awareness about disability and to call for the NDIS. I have even had the opportunity to work for a few hours in Endeavour's food packaging facility at Mount Druitt as part of their 'Walk a mile in their shoes' campaign. I had the pleasure of going back there last year as host to the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, Senator McLucas, on a visit to that facility to meet with support staff and employees. We are both proud of the diversity of the work they do—we saw many products we use every day being packaged there. Senator McLucas took the opportunity to announce funding of $10,000 for each of the country's 197 ADEs to improve the training qualifications of their workers with disability and support staff.
I am very pleased to be able to say that, in 2011, the Endeavour Foundation were runners up in the Australian Disability Enterprise Excellence Awards for their work in supporting employees with a disability. These ADEs perform a great service by employing people with a disability who find it difficult to work or maintain employment in the open labour market and who choose to work in an ADE. In doing so, they also become a platform from which people can then move into employment in the broader community. So they play a special role. More recently, we have seen the advent of disability employment brokers like Nova Employment and Ability Options, both of whom operate in our area and do terrific work. They work collaboratively with employers and prospective workers with a disability. It is this type of participation choice which the NDIS will provide to countless people with a disability.
Fundamentally, NDIS will bring people together. It will ensure that we all shoulder the load equally—the task of liberating people from the anxiety which exists around long-term care. As I said, one of the truly great things about this country, exemplified by what we have been able to do with Medicare, is that we are all willing to chip in for the care of others.
This is not going to come cheaply. It will require a major contribution. Providing the level of support needed to ensure we liberate people from the anxiety of long-term care has a potential cost of $15 billion a year. In time, I think we will need to think laterally about the way we fund the NDIS. Certainly there is the option of funding it directly out of consolidated revenue, but I also think that Australians recognise that the NDIS is about everyone chipping in and working together. I therefore think that people will be open to the idea of funding the NDIS in part through the Medicare levy. In time, I think that people will accept that. If we as a nation are to reach out and ensure that all people who have a disability are looked after—and if we need to find that money in a challenging financial environment—we should consider that option.
My position—admittedly the position of just one backbencher—is that, in time, both side of politics will need to lay down their partisan approach and look cooperatively at ways to finance and support the NDIS. I hope that we have the maturity and the resolve to work together, without recourse to politicking, to find ways to fund something which will be truly transformative and which, as I said at the start of my contribution, will in time be labelled as historic. There will be pressures, no doubt, on state and territory governments to find ways to finance their part of the NDIS package. They will, like us, need to make savings. They will, like us, need to find the money. They will, like us, need to stump up and find different, smarter ways to do things—but while ensuring that we have uniform systems for care delivery across the country. In that challenging financial environment, we need to consider whether there are other ways to tap into the generosity of Australians. Australians do want to see people looked after and cared for. There is that level of financing support there.
We have seen revenues drop by about $130 billion as a result of global economic conditions—which will not change any time soon. So it no surprise to anyone in this chamber that we will all face pressures. We have certainly faced them on this side. Those opposite have faced it—they too are finding that they are not able to maintain their commitment to deliver a surplus in 12 months. So the reality is that we are all faced with pressures. This is not a partisan point. This is the reality all of us in this place are confronted with. We will be required to find sources of funding. In their absence, we need to work off the best elements of the nature of the people of this great country. In the interests of a fair go, the people of Australia will give a little to help alleviate the situation of people facing enormous pressures.
Again, I come back to the point that it is rare for a parliamentarian to get the opportunity to be associated with a piece of legislation which will later be seen as historic. As I indicated in my opening remarks, it is humbling for us to be able to start on this path today. I know there are a lot of people across both sides of this chamber who are looking forward to the day they can see the difference the NDIS has made to the lives of their constituents and can see, in the faces of those constituents, the sense of relief they have gained from it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Stroke
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (13:45): During the end of October last year I had the pleasure of meeting with two constituents, Rose and Dean Soraggi of Woodvale, who were at Parliament House for the National Stroke Foundation Summit. Dean is a stroke survivor and both Dean and Rose told me how Dean's stroke has changed everything in their lives. Dean's first stroke occurred while he was in Exmouth in the north of Western Australia on a fishing expedition, and it resulted in him being flown to the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Perth by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. He was later transferred to Shenton Park for his rehabilitation. Rose described her husband's stroke as a life-changing experience, and she told me that they still have to constantly ask and conduct their own research to get information for Dean's recovery to the level he is today. Along the way they have met with other stroke survivors and carers who share these concerns.
I have had some experience with stroke in my family and believe that every effort should be made to help stroke survivors and their families get the information and support they need. Because stroke is Australia's second biggest cause of death and a leading cause of disability amongst adults, stroke should be a health research priority for Australia. I suspect that a lot of people do not comprehend just how serious the risk is. The National Stroke Foundation currently has a program called the Stroke Call to Action which is aimed at making stroke a health priority for everyone. I support this program as I realise that stroke, whether it is through killing or permanently disabling people, is a very serious issue. (Time expired)
Pinner, Mr Jackson
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): I rise in the House today to pay recognition to a student in my electorate of Bass, Jackson Pinner. Last year, 15-year-old Jackson was travelling to Lilydale District School, 15 minutes outside Launceston, one morning on the regular school bus when the bus came across a car that had run off the road and crashed into a tree. The bus stopped and Jackson, a member of the local volunteer fire service, quickly assessed the situation. He spent the next 30 or 40 minutes alone with the injured driver. The paramedics then took over and took the driver to hospital. Jackson arrived late to school, checked in with the office, phoned his mum and then went on with his day like any other.
Six weeks later the Principal Greg Morgan, and a fine principal I might add, received a phone call from the recuperating driver who said the accident occurred on his way home from a night shift, where he is a nurse, when he fell asleep at the wheel. He commended Jackson for the quality of his care while they waited together for the ambulance. He said Jackson had acted in a calm, reassuring manner and made sure that his head and neck remained immobilised. He was so impressed by Jackson that he offered him a gift which was presented at a school assembly. Not only was Jackson's deed that day a great example of courage, competence and care to his peers, but to all adults in the community as well. Well done, Jackson.
Gippsland Electorate: Black Saturday
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (13:48): Today marks the fourth anniversary of the tragic Black Saturday bushfires which devastated large parts of Victoria and shocked our nation. As we gather here today, Victorians are experiencing more sweltering conditions and, in fact, there are bushfires burning in my own electorate of Gippsland. The smoke is in the air again around the Aberfeldy bushfire and also around the Mount Hotham area. It is a traumatic time for many of the survivors who have experienced Black Saturday and now are experiencing these conditions on this, the fourth anniversary. I am sure members of all parties join me in expressing their condolences to people affected by the Black Saturday bushfires and to assure them that we will never forget the experience they have been through and also assure them that we will learn the lessons of those tragic fires.
On Black Saturday five fires across Victoria claimed the lives of 173 people. This exceeded the loss of life from any previous bushfires in Australian history, including the Ash Wednesday bushfires in February 1983. The greatest loss from the bushfires were in the Kilmore East area where 119 people died, followed by the Murrindindi area where 40 perished, and my own electorate of Gippsland in the Churchill area where 11 people died. In the Beechworth area another two people died and one person died in Bendigo. In all, 2,133 houses were destroyed during this tragic event. On this day, the fourth anniversary, our thoughts and our prayers are with those who were impacted by the Black Saturday bushfires.
Pacific National Coal RTBU Dispute
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (13:49): I rise to speak in support of the workers at Pacific National Coal who are currently locked in a protracted industrial dispute with their employer over a new enterprise bargaining agreement. The workers represented by their union, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, have been negotiating with PN Coal for over 12 months. On 23 January, the company walked out of negotiations despite the RTBU seeking to extend discussions by a further 48 hours in an attempt to resolve the dispute.
Workers at PN Coal deserve a fair and reasonable pay rise that will bring them in line with other companies in the industry, and I give my support to these workers and stand with them in solidarity in whatever course of action they choose to take. In what is a bullying tactic by the company, pay rises have been offered to individual rail workers who do not take part in legal strike action. I understand the RTBU is taking this to the Federal Court as a breach of the Fair Work Act, and I support them in this action.
I wish to recognise the work of RTBU National Secretary Bob Nanva, Assistant Secretary National and New South Wales RTBU State Secretary Allan Barden, and NSW Locomotive Divisional Secretary Bob Haydon. Most importantly, I recognise the hundreds of workers at PN Coal who deserve a fair go, not the bullying and intimidation they have received at the hands of their employer for over 12 months.
There are important lessons we can learn from this dispute. The tactics used by PN Coal are simply a curtain raiser for Tony Abbott's Australia. Let there be no doubt that, if he wins the next election, he will bring back the worst aspects of Work Choices. Those opposite want nothing more than to bring back individual agreements and make it harder for workers to bargain collectively. In Tony Abbott's Australia, the only thing that is dead, buried and cremated about Work Choices is its name. (Time expired)
Health Care
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (13:51): As part of the $107 million in health funding cuts that has been inflicted on the Victorian community by the Gillard government, my local health services have to contend with $4.9 million in cuts. The Peninsula Health Care Network is doing its utmost to try and work within this bizarre and unexpected reduction in funding at a time when the population in Victoria, and particularly in the community that I represent, has been growing. What we have seen as a consequence of the Gillard government's health cuts is the closing of 10 short-stay beds at Frankston Hospital.
For those that know anything about the Mornington Peninsula and the south-east of Melbourne, Frankston Hospital has enormous demands being placed on it because of the growing population in the region and the increasing complexity of the case load it is expected to accommodate. These short-stay beds are ordinarily mothballed over the Christmas period and reopened in January. Because of the Gillard government's health cuts, they now will be mothballed well into the year, past Easter. This is putting further pressure on an already very busy and, at times, quite stretched health system on the peninsula. We are seeing signs that the bed closures are causing ambulance delays—and this is on the back of cuts that have impacted the attractiveness of private health insurance, where people have been able to exercise some health choices. This is building up to a perfect storm of added pressure on the health services in our region because the Gillard government cannot manage a budget, affecting the health care of Dunkley residents. (Time expired)
National Broadband Network
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:52): When I was 11 years old, in 1984, I got my first computer. It was an Aquarius. It had 3½ kilobytes of memory. I was excited when I upgraded, finally, to a VIC-20 with five kilobytes of memory. Now, that might sound tiny, but at about that time Gareth Powell, the Sydney Morning Herald computer editor, wrote that he thought no program would ever need more than 16 kilobytes. Those sorts of statements about technology remind us that the things we can do with new technology often far outpace our imagination—and those that think that superfast broadband will just mean faster Facebook and YouTube do not get the power of technology.
It was my pleasure last week to join Senator Conroy, Senator Kate Lundy and the ACT Deputy Chief Minister, Andrew Barr, at Gungahlin Library to officially switch on the Gungahlin Digital Hub. Students studying Japanese at Harrison School engaged in a high-definition video conference via the National Broadband Network with students at Chitose Senior High School in Hokkaido. I commend both classes of students for the songs that they sang to one another.
The NBN is coming to the ACT, and it is already in Gungahlin. It is demonstrating the power of technology to improve education and health; to make businesses more productive; and to make us a more connected nation. (Time expired)
Logan Community
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:54): I rise today to speak in support of the Logan community. Over the past few weeks, there has been plenty of media coverage about the events in Logan several weeks ago. But I would like to remind those in this House and the broader Australian community that on any given day in Logan there are many positive events happening that do not get this kind of attention, and I would like to focus on a couple of those today.
Earlier this year, CentroCARE opened in Beenleigh, providing food parcels, clothing, care and support for the people in our community. Since opening, CentroCARE has supported people through the recent floods and helped out many others in need around our community.
In other news, a local mother, Stephanie Azri from Shailer Park, has developed a book to help children keep a healthy mindset. Stephanie wrote a program which was trialled in a local school and, due to its success, she decided to publish it, making the program available to children to help teach resilience and positive thinking; and to help young people deal with self-esteem, anxiety and stress, grief and loss, relationships and healthy bodies.
These are just a couple of the many examples of the good stuff that is going on in Logan community on any given day.
Tamil Film Festival
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:55): I rise to congratulate Ealan Elango, who has managed to produce the first Tamil film in Australia made by local Tamils. Even better than that, the film has been selected to be screened in the Tamil Film Festival in Norway in April 2013—a great achievement by Ealan.
The film is called Iniyavale Kaathiruppen, which means 'sweetheart, I'll wait for you'. It is a full-length drama about two families in Australia have been separated from their loved ones and how they get along without their partners while they wait to be reunited. I spoke to Ealan shortly after I heard the news, and he asked me to acknowledge a couple of people on his behalf, and I will now do that, starting with Udayan, who composed the music and who is a musician based in India. Ealan said he was inspired through the whole process by one of the actors who worked on the film: Ragunathan, an actor of some 50 years experience at a high level, who came all the way from France to act in the film. Ealan asked me to also—finally—thank his wife-to-be, Subashini, who supported him through the whole process. Congratulations, Ealan, on a job well done and on what I hope is the beginning of a long career in film.
Queensland Floods
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (13:57): I rise to advise this chamber of the wonderful work of five of the local members of the Scenic Rim State Emergency Service. At the recent Australia Day awards held on the night of Friday, 25 January in Beaudesert, I was privileged to present those five men with National Emergency Medals for their work during the 2011 Queensland floods. The men are Jeff McConnell, Graham Taylor, John Dixon, Josh Stumer and Graham Stumer.
The very next morning, these men were out doing what they are trained to do within the Scenic Rim as, once again, we were hit with heavy rain and winds causing flooding and requiring rescues, with massive damage to crops and farmlands, bridges and roads, and other vital local infrastructure—some of which had only just been repaired following the floods in 2011.
Congratulations to these men on this recognition and these medals, and a special thanks to them and the other members of the Scenic Rim State Emergency Service for the wonderful work they have been doing in the past couple of weeks. Currently in consideration are the deliberations of Attorney-General's on the Scenic Rim's classification or disaster declaration for category C. These are declarations that need to be approved, and I can only encourage that. That assistance is desperately needed by my growers on the ground and the businesses that have been affected. I trust that DAFF appraisers on the ground will understand the severity of the need for support in my electorate at the moment.
Young@Heart
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:58): I recently had the pleasure of attending the graduation of 15 young people from the Illawarra Retirements Trust's Young@Heart program. This is a fantastic initiative funded by the federal government that aims to tackle two issues at once by addressing the high rate of unemployment in the Illawarra as well as the critical shortage of aged-care workers. We know that aged care is a heavily understaffed area in Australia at the moment, especially in my electorate of Throsby. This is due to the rapid expansion of the industry in the ageing of the existing workforce. That is why I am thrilled to say that the 15 students, who graduated with six units of competency in a Certificate III in aged care, with invaluable hours of local work experience, will all be guaranteed a job in the industry.
My favourite story of the day came from Michelle, who was there with her husband and two kids. She had been out of the workforce for nine years, but, thanks to Young@Heart, Michelle has found her way back into the workforce and a job she loves. Another inspiring story came from Candice from Mount Warrigal, who decided to enter the program so that she could be a positive role model for her kids and show them how important giving back to the community is. Candice is now taking a step further and studying to become a registered nurse. These women are just two of the 40 young people in the Illawarra who have so far completed the Young@Heart program and are looking after older Australians in needy locations in the region.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:00): I inform the House that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. The Attorney-General will answer questions in relation to climate change and energy efficiency, and the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister for Small Business will answer questions in relation to industry and innovation.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind her of the government's declaration in the 2011 budget speech:
We will be back in the black by 2012-13, on time, as promised.
The alternative—meandering back to surplus—would compound the pressures in our economy and push up the cost of living for pensioners and working people.
Why is the government, in its own words, pushing up the cost of living for pensioners and working people by breaking its promise to deliver a surplus this year?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:01): Once again the Leader of the Opposition comes to the dispatch box and shows his inability to deal with economic concepts and economic facts. I would direct the Leader of the Opposition to the current inflation rate. I would direct the Leader of the Opposition to the Reserve Bank's remarks about the low level of the current inflation rate. I would direct the Leader of the Opposition to those facts, something that the Leader of the Opposition is not overly familiar with. What the Leader of the Opposition would recognise if he looked at the facts is that we have low inflation; we have low interest rates; we have a government that has been prepared to work with families and pensioners to assist them with their cost of living, whether it is our historic pension increase, whether it is our changing of the tax-free threshold so that working people, particularly working women, can earn—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition asked about the disappearing surplus, and the Prime Minister needs to answer that question.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call and will return to the question before the chair.
Ms GILLARD: I am directly on the question, because the Leader of the Opposition asked about the government's budget strategy and cost-of-living pressures and impacts for low-income Australians and for pensioners. That was the question, so I am talking about cost-of-living pressures for pensioners and low-income earners. I am pointing out that we have low inflation and low interest rates. We have provided a historic increase to pensioners. We have provided a change in the tax arrangements which means that low-income workers—and they tend predominantly to be women—can earn $18,200 before they pay a dollar of tax. And then, of course, if they are buying a family home, they are also in the circumstance where they are paying $5,000 less for a $300,000 mortgage than they used to when those opposite were last in government. So, in terms of cost of living, in terms of working with pensioners and low-income Australians, I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the facts—to the clear economic concepts and to the facts.
On the government's budget: nothing asked by the Leader of the Opposition and nothing asked by the shadow Treasurer actually would cause an observer to conclude that they know that a global financial crisis happened and that they recognise that, as a result of that global financial crisis and other pressures in our economy, we have seen huge revenue write-downs—indeed, $160 billion in revenue write-downs across the period of the GFC. You have to ask yourself the question in those circumstances: do you support jobs? We always will. When the Leader of the Opposition has been called on to come into this place and put his hand up for jobs, he never has. (Time expired)
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Can the Prime Minister explain this simple proposition: how can meandering back to surplus be bad for people at budget time but good for people now?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:05): Once again the Leader of the Opposition shows his inability to deal with economic concepts. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to our fiscal strategy and budget rules. I know that this will all be alien language to the Leader of the Opposition. A fiscal strategy—what is yours? Budget rules—what are yours? Budget positions—what are yours? Offsetting savings for expenditure—where are yours? Why am I sitting opposite the only person in this parliament, the Leader of the Opposition, who since 2010 has not delivered one policy with proper costings and has not delivered one policy with credible savings—not one policy with proper costings or one policy with credible savings?
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the question.
Ms GILLARD: The terminology used by the Leader of the Opposition in his question is ridiculous and wrong. We have a clear fiscal strategy to which we are adhering. In adhering to that fiscal strategy, we have needed to make a choice about whether we also seek to offset revenue write-downs, and we have made the choice that that would be too dangerous for jobs and growth. We are standing up for the jobs of working Australians. If the Leader of the Opposition has a criticism of that budget strategy, he should table his own. If he cannot do so, then Australians are entitled to conclude that he is not up to the job of managing the Australian economy. (Time expired)
Economy
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (14:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how is the government putting in place the right policies, properly costed, to ensure that Australia's future is stronger, smarter and fairer?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has the call and will be heard in silence.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:06): I thank the member for La Trobe for her question and I thank her for her continuing concern for people in her constituency and her focus on their opportunity, on jobs, on their ability to start and succeed in a small business and also on the things that go to support the modern families who live in her electorate with the pressures of day-to-day life.
The member for La Trobe asks a very important question. First and foremost, let me say this: we as a nation are a strong nation and we are a smart nation. I am tired of the discourse in our national life that talks those attributes down. We have always been a nation which has presented strong in the world. We have always been a nation that has been smart and been able to bring clever solutions to complex problems. Indeed, our history is one of doing that. As a strong and smart nation, we have always aspired to be a fair nation. That is why this nation has been constructed around, and its national ethos is attached to, great Labor reforms like our introduction of the pension, like our introduction of Medicare, like our introduction of universal superannuation and like the fair workplace laws we will always believe in.
Mr Hockey: Monuments!
Ms Macklin: Oh, the pension's a monument? My God! What an outrage.
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs!
Ms GILLARD: And the dismissive attitude of those opposite to key concepts of fairness like the old age pension is well and truly on display.
As a strong, smart nation, we have to ask ourselves, in a world that requires sophisticated thinking, in a world that needs real plans and costed solutions: what is the best way forward as our nation needs to confront a high and sustained dollar which is impinging on competitiveness and economic diversity, as our nation faces challenges like how we can best support those with disability, how we can ensure our kids get the best start in life and the best education in the world? As you confront these challenges, you are called upon to think through for real plans with real costings and real details, not to float ideas that, on their face, are absurd—
Mr Hockey: Like the surplus!
Ms GILLARD: and would hurt families around the nation, not to put into the public domain ideas that actually do not even pass the laugh test—
Mr Hockey: Like 'No carbon tax under the government I lead'!
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney is warned!
Ms GILLARD: do not have detail, do not have any costings and are aimed at hurting families. This government will always focus on the real things that matter to our nation and making sure we do the smart thinking that delivers the solutions for our country. I want us to be stronger in the future. I want us to be smarter in the future. I want us to be fairer in the future. That is our aim and that is what we are intent on delivering. (Time expired)
Employment
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:10): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his previous budget related statement, that Labor is committed to 'bringing the budget back to surplus, and we are absolutely going to see the creation of over 500,000 jobs in the next couple of years'. Given that the Treasurer has to create 70,000 jobs a month by June to honour that promise, should Australians start preparing for yet another broken promise like the 'come hell or high water' guaranteed surplus?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:10): I thank the shadow Treasurer for that question, because this government makes no apology for putting jobs and growth first. We have got the employment figures out today. There have been 850,000 jobs created in this country under this government. That has happened under the most difficult of circumstances—a global financial crisis and then, at the end of last year, another bout of global volatility. In the second part of year, we saw Europe go into recession, we saw a question mark about Chinese growth and we saw slight growth in the United States. In those circumstances, the performance here in the Australian economy, unlike other developed economies, has been second to none—850,000 jobs.
The Leader of the Opposition was asking before about cost of living. Let me tell you this. When it comes to cost of living, the most fundamental thing that a family needs is a job. Those opposite do not get that connection between living standards and jobs, because, if they did get that connection between living standards and jobs, they would not put forward the absurd proposition that right now we should be cutting economic growth and cutting jobs, and they most certainly would not be putting forward the fact that they, in their budget strategy, have to cut the budget by a further $70 billion. That would hit growth and it would hit jobs.
Mr Hockey: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the honesty and integrity of the Treasurer's word. Given that 160,000 jobs have been created in 21 months, how is he going to deliver an extra 70,000 jobs a month to meet that promise from the budget?
The SPEAKER: The shadow Treasurer and member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: Putting forward the proposition in the way that he has, he is making the Tea Party look rational! The facts are these. When conditions in the global economy change, so too do responsible governments, and this government, at the end of last year, made the judgement that to cut further in the budget would hit growth and it would hit jobs. Because our No. 1 priority is economic growth and jobs, we are not going to go through and cut as they propose. That is what they are proposing: that you do not change in response to global economic conditions—you just continue going down the same road—which is why they are such a danger to our economy, because their proposal now is to cut $70 billion, at least, from the budget. If you are going to take their propositions logically, that is what the shadow Treasurer is saying. That would mean a Newman-style attack on health and education in the Australian economy.
Mr Dutton: How is this relevant?
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will return to the question.
Mr SWAN: That would push up unemployment in our community dramatically. That is the type of fiscal policy which is being put forward by the opposition. (Time expired)
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:14): Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The Treasurer referred to jobs and growth. Treasurer, isn't it a fact that on average, under the coalition, jobs growth was higher than it has been under Labor and economic growth was higher than it has been under Labor?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:14): I am certainly pleased to answer that question. Those opposite like to pretend that the global financial crisis never happened—it never happened. As a consequence of that—because it did not happen in their world; their alternative universe—they would have cut $160 billion from the budget.
Mr Hockey: Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It was a simple question with a yes or no answer. It is a factual question. Deal with the facts.
The SPEAKER: The standing order says 'directly relevant', but when there is so much in most of the questions you do provide latitude for many things to be directly relevant to the question. The Treasurer will return to the question.
Mr SWAN: I certainly will. The performance of the Australian economy over the past five years in generating employment of 850,000 jobs has simply been a superb performance, and it is one that all Australians are very proud of. When you look at what has occurred right around the world, there is double-digit unemployment across most developed economies. There is very significant unemployment still across the United States. We have performed very well, unlike other developed economies, because this government has had the guts to support our economy and to put jobs and growth first, unlike those opposite.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:16): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Peter Jeppsson from the Swedish Parliament. I welcome him here today. We also have with us the former member for Fraser, Mr John Langmore. I thank him for revisiting question time.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (14:16): Improving on the questions from the member for North Sydney, I would like to follow on and ask the Treasurer if he would update the House on the government's approach to supporting jobs and growth in the Australian economy?
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Treasurer, preambles such as that from the member for Reid are unnecessary and unwelcome.
Mr Briggs: Tell us about Trish Crossin's job.
The SPEAKER: The member for Mayo is warned!
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:16): I welcome the question from the member for Reid. There are deep-seated challenges still in the global economy. There is international uncertainty and we are still living with the aftershocks of the global financial crisis. We can see that across Europe. Our economy, in the face of those uncertain conditions globally, is resilient. We can see this in the unemployment data out today. Unemployment is at 5.4 per cent, which is low and unchanged from last month. As I said before, something like 850,000 jobs have been created in this country under this government. Everyone on this side of the House is proud of that achievement.
That has been done in the face of very substantial global headwinds, as we all know. As the Prime Minister said at the Press Club last week, the high dollar weighs down on our economy. Despite the fact that commodity prices have come off, we still have a high dollar weighing down on parts of the economy. The uncertainty around the global economy produces a cautious consumer. That is also reflected in the economy. These are very substantial headwinds when it comes to the hiring of workers. That is why this employment performance is so remarkable. We have more people in work than ever before.
This is one of the reasons why our economy is 13 per cent bigger than it was at the end of 2007. Compare that to the British economy, which is four per cent smaller. That is an indication of how the macroeconomic framework and policies that have been put in place in this country have worked so well over the past five years. We have contained inflation, which is at 2.2 per cent, as the Prime Minister said before. There is also a low cash rate of three per cent, lower than at any time under those opposite and under half what it was when they left office. They left a legacy of 10 interest rate rises in a row.
What we know is that we have to keep building on that success during the global financial crisis and look forward. That is why we have put in place the Asian century white paper, so we can maximise the opportunities that flow from growth in the region. We are making the investments in skills and education, we are investing in the NBN and above all, we are putting in place a fiscal policy that supports growth and jobs. The fiscal policy advocated by those opposite is one that will put a sledgehammer right through our economy. It will push unemployment up. When that happens, deficit and debt are pushed up. That is the contrary proposition that is being put by the shadow Treasurer.
We have seen today the complete debacle of the so-called policy on Northern Australia, some thought bubble from Gina Rinehart adopted holus bolus by those opposite. That just shows you how sloppy they are when it comes to policy making. (Time expired)
Economy
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:20): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement at the last election that only a re-elected Gillard Labor government has a plan to responsibly manage the Australian economy and bring the budget back to surplus in 2013 without slashing the health and education budgets. How does the Treasurer reconcile that statement with the government's $1.6 billion cut to public hospitals, its $3.9 billion cut to education and the ditching of its commitment to bring the budget back to surplus this year?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:20): I am wondering where the shadow health minister is when it comes to this question. There has not been a cut, despite what has been suggested by the member opposite.
Mr Dutton: I know what is going to happen to you.
The SPEAKER: The member for Dickson should realise what is going to happen to him in a minute if he does not obey the standing orders.
Mr SWAN: What this government has done every year over the past five years and what we will do every year over the next five years is put in place a responsible fiscal policy that supports jobs and growth.
Mr Simpkins: You cannot balance the budget.
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan is warned!
Mr SWAN: Those opposite do not understand that to take good public policy decisions you have to take into account the facts. When facts change in the global economy or in the national economy, responsible governments change their policy to support growth and jobs. That is what this government has done and will continue to do. When we changed policy at the height of the global financial crisis to support employment, we were opposed every step of the way by those opposite. If they had had their way, tens of thousands of small businesses would have hit the wall and a couple of hundred thousand Australians would have been unemployed—more Australians out of work.
Just as they advocated that approach then, they are now projecting that approach forward right now.
At the end of last year, there was a bout of instability in the global economy and commodity prices tumbled dramatically. All of that had an impact on our revenues, and we have taken the responsible and balanced decision to support economic growth by not cutting to make up for that loss of revenue. But those opposite are in complete denial. They say that we did not lose $160 billion during the global financial crisis. They just say that it did not happen. Well, it did happen. It has impacted upon our budget and, in the face of that, we supported jobs and growth.
They are now saying that what they would do is, at a minimum, hack away at the budget to the tune of at least $70 billion; the shadow Treasurer fessed up to this on breakfast television. He sat there beside the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and admitted that, even at that stage, there was a $70 billion hole. What we see here is a dangerous proposition from the Liberal Party of taking a sledgehammer to the economy by cutting at least $70 billion. That is one of the reasons why they will not put forward costed policies. They want to do a Campbell Newman and get through this year without admitting what their policies are so that, if they are elected, they can take a sledgehammer to the economy afterwards.
Rail Infrastructure
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (14:23): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, it has been 100 years since rail arrived in the towns of Gloucester and Taree. At the time, they were very vital pieces of infrastructure, made possible by the government of the day spending more than one million pounds to deliver just over 100 kilometres of track. With this history in mind, can the Prime Minister outline the next steps for improved rail freight and very fast passenger travel between Sydney and Brisbane and how rail can play an even more important role in building a better Australia for the next century?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:24): I thank the member for Lyne for his question. I am aware from discussions with him that there is much excitement at this 100-year anniversary in his electorate in towns like Gloucester and Taree, including people coming to the train stations for some special celebrations wearing period costumes and the like. I hope people enjoy those celebrations, as 100 years of rail is worth celebrating.
I can assure the member for Lyne, as he enjoys those celebrations, that we are getting on with the job of building for the next century. We are rolling out the largest, most extensive modernisation of the nation's interstate rail network in almost a century. Our unprecedented capital works program is currently rebuilding more than a third of the 10,000-kilometre interstate rail freight network. Indeed, we have increased rail spending tenfold compared to the days of the Howard government.
I will give you some examples of what has been and is being achieved. On the Perth to east coast line, we have already cut travel times by nine hours. As a result of that, Star Track Express and Australia Post are now moving things from road to rail—a great development. On the north-south line, we are on track to cut travel times by seven hours between Melbourne and Brisbane. Just last week, we opened the Southern Sydney Freight Line. This week, contracts are being let for the Northern Sydney Freight Line. All of this means that we have seen supermarket chains, like Woolworths, decide to transfer 34,000 tonnes of dry goods, once again, from road to rail—a great development.
I know that the member is very supportive of further public transport projects. I can assure him that this federal Labor government is committed to public transport. Indeed, we have committed more resources to public transport than all other previous federal governments since Federation combined. We are getting on with the appropriate studies of high-speed rail, because we understand that this could be a game changer for our nation—that is, a high-speed rail network that could potentially service Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane and is of importance in New South Wales, including the people that the member for Lyne represents in this place. We have already released the first part of that study. The second part of that study will be released later this year. This shows that we are planning for the nation's future, not just for the next five years but for the next five decades.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER: I advise the chamber that we have members of the Australian Youth Forum Steering Committee in the House today. We wish them well with their deliberations and we hope that they enjoy their time in the capital.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:27): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation. How is the government supporting hardworking Australian families by delivering tax relief, infrastructure, and health and education services? Why is it important for taxpayers that this support is properly costed and budgeted, and what would be the impact if it was not?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (14:28): I thank the member for Greenway for her question, as she is a tremendous advocate of the people of Western Sydney and, like all members of the Gillard government, she understands the modern pressures that families are facing across this country. That is why we have put in place a number of targeted policies to assist families and to ease those cost-of-living pressures. We have put in place a schoolkids bonus, we have increased assistance to families, we have provided tax cuts, tripling the tax-free threshold, and we are increasing superannuation.
While this government is out there putting in place policies that will assist families, those opposite have already flagged their intention to take a meataxe to these assistance measures. They have announced two policies so far and both of them are an attack on working families. In the first one they want to rip away the schoolkids bonus. In the second one they want to jack up taxes on the superannuation of the lowest paid Australian workers. But, of course, lots of pamphlets and two policies does not make a plan. It does not make a plan, and there is increasing pressure on them to reveal full details of what they want to take to the election.
Indeed, it is no surprise that they do not want to tell the Australian people what it is they intend to do. We saw today with the release—or should I say the embarrassing leak—of their policy on Northern Australia exactly why they want to keep their policies a secret.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cook, the minister has the call.
Mr BRADBURY: This is a plan that will divide Australia. It is a plan that will relocate tens of thousands of jobs from places like Western Sydney to the far north of Australia. The message that the coalition is sending to those families in Western Sydney is: 'You either pack up your bags and pack up your family and move to the far north if you want to keep your job; or, if you're not prepared to do that, we'll jack up taxes so that we can fund billions of dollars of white elephant infrastructure projects in the north of Australia.
Mr Ewen Jones: I raise a point of order on relevance, Madam Speaker. Could he just explain which infrastructure in Northern Australia would be a white elephant.
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert will resume his seat.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson will leave the chamber under 94(a). I have given so much latitude and you do not heed the standing orders. The minister has the call.
The member for Dawson then left the chamber.
Mr BRADBURY: Thank you, Speaker. I direct the member to ask that question of his frontbench. The fact they have not shared their policy with him yet is not my problem. This is a plan that will increase taxes on people in places like Western Sydney in order to fund white elephant infrastructure projects that have not yet even been conceived. As a result of this policy, we will see gold-plated footpaths in Karratha while people are stuck in traffic gridlock in places like Western Sydney. They talk about real solutions but, I tell you what, if you ever get to see their policies, you will see they have got nothing but real problems for the Australian people.
The SPEAKER: Is the member for North Sydney seeking to table a document?
Mr Hockey: I am, because the Assistant Treasurer mentioned pamphlets. I am seeking to table a pamphlet from him saying, 'We have delivered a surplus on time as promised.' I am seeking leave.
Leave not granted.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:32): Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has talked about the importance of fully costed policies for families and taxpayers in Western Sydney and right around the country. Why is it also important that these are set out transparently and are open to proper scrutiny?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (14:32): I thank the member for Greenway for her supplementary question. This government has detailed its plans and policies and handed down budgets year after year in office; we have delivered fully costed plans that have delivered this assistance into the pockets of working Australians. Those opposite now have the opportunity to release their plans to the Australian people, and this is important because we want to make sure that at the next election the Australian people have the opportunity to scrutinise the policies and the impact of those policies on their future.
What we have seen so far from those opposite on the question of timing and when they actually intend to release costed policies is the member for North Sydney and the member for Goldstein telling us last year that they already had their policies fully costed, ready to be released. Where are they? We saw recently from the member for Sturt that they have 90 policies that they intend to release. Where are they? Then the Leader of the Opposition said, 'We will release all of our policies fully costed between the budget and the next election.' But my favourite contribution was from the member for Curtin, who, when she was asked when they would provide their costings, said that the figure in her mind was 30 September. The only problem with that is that that is after the next election. We all know that is what they intend to do: to keep their plans secret from the Australian people. (Time expired)
Economy
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of the promise she made at a public forum three days before the last election when asked about Labor's commitment to return the budget to surplus:
… failure is not an option here and we won't fail.
If the Australian public could not trust the Prime Minister to keep this fundamental pre-election promise, why should they trust her to keep any promise she has made since?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:35): I thank the Deputy Leader for her question. It does seem to me, having watched the progress of question time, that one would be forgiven for wondering what is the difference between the old negative opposition and this supposed new look number. I think the answer is the colour of the Leader of the Opposition's tie. I also thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for verifying that those opposite are so concerned by the poor performance of their economic team that they are now swinging others in to try and hold the economic argument. I did think it was unfair when the deputy leader lost her job as shadow Treasurer and I thought that she would do a far better job. So I am glad she is back on the economic questions. However, unfortunately, on this economic question—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on two points of order. The first is the obvious point of order of relevance and the Prime Minister's weird personal attacks on the deputy leader. The second point of order is that the Prime Minister should not be commenting on either the shadow Treasurer's weight or the colour of the Leader of the Opposition Leader's tie. Of course that is a sexist statement and she should withdraw it.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much. Thursday sense of humour. On the question that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked, let me be very clear in the answering of it. The opposition, we know, is full of climate change deniers. Now it is apparently full of global financial crisis deniers.
They are in denial of the facts about the federal budget and the circumstance of the global economy and the outworkings of the global financial crisis. What they are in particular denial about is revenue write-downs, which have become transparent recently, and the fact that the amount of revenue per unit of GDP is lower than was expected by Treasury and, indeed, is lower than at any time since the early 1990s. Treasury, using the normal economic models and the economic personnel that the Howard government relied on in office, did their best to project where revenue would be and the economy has not performed in accordance with those expectations in the generation of revenue.
That means that, as a government, you have a clear choice. You could seek to match those revenue write-downs with further budget cutbacks. That is a choice that would be available to you. I refer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the write-downs in MYEFO, for example, which were in the order of $4 billion this year. You could choose to cut $4 billion out of the budget to match that revenue write-down. The problem is that it would be a major risk for jobs and growth to take a policy position of matching those revenue write-downs with further savings. So that is not the policy position the government has taken. We are dealing with a real world with real facts and, most importantly of all, real consequences for Australian families and their ability to get and hold a job. We have elected to make sure we manage the economy to maximise the ability of Australians to have good work. (Time expired)
Asian Century
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy. Will the minister update the House on the government's plan for the Asian century and how this will benefit the people of Northern Australia? Is the minister aware of other policies on Northern Australia? What would be their impact?
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (14:39): I thank the member for Lyons for another policy question from the government side of the House. It is now 1,095 days since I had a question from the opposition, which is the time it took Ferdinand Magellan to circumnavigate the world.
This report, Australia in the Asian century, is a white paper that is very complex and very detailed and took an enormous amount of thought and effort. It sets out a plan for Australia and it has special relevance to regional Australia. It indicates the government's confidence that we can develop regional Australia in responsible ways to help make areas such as Northern Australia a food bowl for Asia. That is our commitment. We have here in our midst the minister for regional development, who, on the back of this report, will be holding the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum this year in order to further develop and implement the policies that have been well thought out in this document.
Mr Robb interjecting—
Dr EMERSON: I am being interjected upon, of course, by the shadow finance minister, who interjected earlier when it was suggested that he had 49 policies, fully costed, with nice covers, in his drawer. The first policy that made its way out was leaked because of the disaffection within his own policy unit about the crazy policies—the wacky policies—that the coalition has articulated in this leaked document. He said that they were fully costed with nice covers. Costed? This is an enormous potential cost running into tens of billions of dollars. That means infrastructure would be denied Western Sydney and the capital cities of this country. They are completely wacko ideas—and that is obviously the case in the view of members of the coalition policy team in order for this to have been ventilated in the way that it has.
We have in the Leader of the Opposition a policy lightweight. We have in the Leader of the Opposition someone who gives no attention to detail. He says he has policies; he only has slogans. Into this so-called policy, you put one part in from Gina Rinehart, one part in from Joh Bjelke-Petersen and one part in from Tony Abbott, stir it around and what have you got? Troppo Tony—Troppo Tony has developed here a completely wacky policy.
The SPEAKER: The minister will withdraw!
Dr EMERSON: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: And the minister will refer to members appropriately.
Dr EMERSON: Here comes Karratha Chris!
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order was going to be that not only should he withdraw but you should sit him down, and then he offended again. So you should definitely sit him down.
The SPEAKER: The minister has the call, but he is treading very dangerously on thin ice.
Dr EMERSON: If you want detailed, well thought out policy, here it is: a white paper on Australia in the Asian century. If you want thought, effort and costed policies, look to this side of the chamber, because you will never find them in the wacky economics of those opposite.
Superannuation
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement made yesterday by her chief whip, Mr Fitzgibbon, that 'aspirational Australia is sick and tired of constant changes to superannuation and the uncertainty that brings'? Does the Prime Minister agree with those comments from her colleague? If so, will she make a commitment, as the coalition has done, to make no unexpected adverse changes to superannuation?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:43): Of course I share the chief whip's concern about aspirational Australians. Of course I share his concern and the concern of the Labor team about Australians around the nation. Consequently, I share their very deep concern that their superannuation, the superannuation of lowest income Australians, is to be cut by the Leader of the Opposition.
It seems to me that the political trick here needs to be made transparent to the Australian people. What the Leader of the Opposition has done, in a sea of platitudes and slogans where he does not announce policies, does not make available savings and does not make available costings, is to decide to sharpen up on one cut. I think when you do that it really says something about your values.
So in a circumstance where he will not be clear, where he is trying to fudge it, trying to get away from any detail on jobs and health and education and infrastructure, he sharpens up on one cut and that one cut is to the superannuation of 3.6 million of our lowest-income Australians—and 2.1 million of them are women. These are the ones on the chopping block for the Leader of the Opposition. He wants them to be disadvantaged. He has announced that crystal clear. Then, to try and cover up the fact that he is hitting these low-income Australians—2.1 million of them are low-income earning women, probably part-time income earners, balancing work and family life—he then some time later issues the mealy words that there will not be further changes. When you have already hacked into 3.6 million Australians, I am not surprised you would then say no further changes—the evil work has already been announced.
From the point of the view of the government, let me be very clear: we have always believed in superannuation. When the Leader of the Opposition was describing it as a con, when the Liberal Party was campaigning against it as something that would destroy the economy, we believed in it. We delivered it because it is good for working Australians and it is good for the nation. The way in which it has been good for the nation has been incredibly transparent during the global financial crisis. Having done that good work for the nation, in government we are adding to it with a change from nine to 12 per cent. We will never join with you in hitting the 3.6 million lowest-income Australians. We will never join with you in targeting 2.1 million working women. They may be the kind of targets the Leader of the Opposition aims at but, for us, we believe in benefiting working women and in benefiting working Australians. (Time expired)
Public Service
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (14:47): My question is to the Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity. For the benefit of the House, would the minister step through the consequences of relocating Commonwealth departments and agencies to Northern Australia?
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (14:47): I thank the member for Canberra for her question. As a champion for the public service and a champion for this city, it is not surprising that the member for Canberra would have been alarmed to say the least when she saw the newspapers this morning. The policy announcement—or leak—from those opposite this morning, which has been roundly discredited and laughed at around the country since its original publication, actually contains some pretty appalling, very old ideas demonstrating yet again the intellectual desert that is opposition policy making.
In contrast, as we have heard, the government has a clear and substantial framework containing policies such as the Australia in the Asian century white paper announced by the Prime Minister in October. The opposition's simplistic thought bubble of arbitrarily relocating substantial parts of the Australian Public Service comes after its repeated statement it will axe 12,000 jobs from the Australian Public Service. That is bad policy followed up by stupid policy.
There are 168,850 federal public servants, with a great majority of them working and living in major and smaller centres outside of Canberra. All of these public service positions are under threat under the opposition's grand plan to transport components of federal departments and agencies north of the Tropic of Capricorn. Let us be clear: nearly 60 per cent of the nation's public servants live outside of Canberra, as they should, to deliver efficient and effective services to the Australian population.
There are 22,300 public servants based in Sydney alone and over 23,000 in Melbourne. There are nearly 12,000 in Brisbane, 9,400 in Adelaide, over 6,600 in Perth and over 3,300 in Hobart. There are public servants living and working in numerous regional centres from Bundaberg to Bunbury. The location of Australian public servants is about effective, efficient service delivery. In 2012, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development declared that the Australian Public Service was an exemplar of public service efficiency. The OECD said that Australia is an example for all other nations to follow, including the Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, for efficient public services.
It is important to note that just this week we had a Liberal senator make the point that Canberra will need to have a champion should there be a Liberal government elected. A Liberal senator made that statement. That Liberal senator made that statement because of his concerns for the job losses of what we are told so far to be 12,000 public servants.
Mr Dutton: Time.
Mr GRAY: We are told also that they will be going to Northern Australia, how stupid. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The member for Dickson is not in the chair and he does not get to determine when someone's time is up.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, will the minister table the notes from which he was reading word-for-word.
The SPEAKER: Special Minister of State, were you reading from a document?
Mr Gray: It is in-confidence.
Superannuation
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (14:51): My question is to the Prime Minister. It relates to the Prime Minister's last answer. I remind the Prime Minister that in 2007 the Labor Party promised that superannuation would be changed by 'not one jot, not one tittle' and then after the election it cut super co-contribution benefits for low-income earners from $1,500 under the Howard government to just $500, ripping more than $3.3 billion away from low-income earners. Yesterday the Prime Minister ruled out tax on super withdrawals for over 60s, but why should Australian people believe the Prime Minister this time? (Time expired)
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:51): As I made clear in my last answer, if anybody in this parliament is concerned about superannuation and low-income earners then they must protest the Leader of the Opposition's plan to disadvantage low-income earners—more than three million of them, 2.1 million of them women. Everybody who says they are concerned must go to the Leader of the Opposition and say that this is wrong. I trust the member who asked the question has done that and will refuse to support it here in this parliament and in his electorate where he will declare that the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He should particularly declare that the Leader of the Opposition is wrong because this superannuation cut, hitting as it does low-income Australians, hitting as it does predominantly women, would be hitting the same people that the Leader of the Opposition wants to rip the Schoolkids Bonus off as they try to get their kids to—
Mr Hockey: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister is not addressing Labor taking $3.3 billion from low-income superannuants.
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and will refer to the question before the chair.
Ms GILLARD: I am referring to the question of superannuation for low-income earners. It seems to me amazing indeed that the member for North Sydney and the member who asked the question can feign concern about the circumstances of low-income earners when they will go to the next election asking those low-income earners for their vote knowing that they are going to deliver a superannuation reduction to them—more than three million of them, predominantly women. No doubt they will be trying to cover that up and not actually looking into their eyes and saying, 'I want you to be worse off,' but of course that is what they want. I point out that their wanting of low-income earners to be worse off is compounded by the plan to take away the Schoolkids Bonus, which would make families around $15,000 worse off over their children's journey through school. I say to the member who asked the question that he should be protesting the Leader of the Opposition's plan. That is the right thing to do. He should acknowledge that Labor invented superannuation, that Labor is increasing contributions from nine per cent to 12 per cent, that Labor has always delivered the important retirement income changes for Australians and that it is Labor in these circumstances, where hard-hitting cuts are proposed against low-income Australians, who will fight this change because it is wrong.
Coal Seam Gas
Ms SAFFIN (Page—Government Whip) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Will the minister update the House on negotiations between the federal government and the New South Wales government on using the best quality science to assess coal-seam gas proposals? How does this compare with what is happening in other states? Is the minister concerned about the New South Wales government's approach?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (14:55): I thank the member for Page for raising this important issue in parliament today. For a long time the member for Page, together with the member for Richmond, has raised concerns on behalf of communities in northern New South Wales about the impact of coal seam gas. Members of this House need to understand that what is happening in New South Wales is quite different from what is happening in other states. In states like Queensland there are exclusion zones around the settled areas, preventing the serious loss of groundwater through coal seam gas exploration and extraction from having an impact on urban areas. When I dealt with the proposals in Queensland, advice came back about concerns about subsidence, where land height significantly drops after water has been extracted. In terms of environmental impact on endangered species or something like that, the impact is minimal, but if you are talking about a settled the area where ground subsidence occurs under people's homes, under schools and under roads, the impact is far more serious.
In New South Wales, instead of it being only in areas well away from settled areas, there are proposals not only in New England which have had a lot of publicity but also on the far north coast of New South Wales, in the Hunter, in the Illawarra and in Western Sydney. So the government, in putting forward the national partnership agreement, has put forward the money for the states to make sure that, for their processes, independently paid for science has to be locked into informing their planning decisions.
Mr Matheson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Macarthur will leave the chamber under standing order 94A.
The member for Macarthur then left the chamber.
Mr BURKE: Queensland has signed up to that, Victoria has signed up to that, South Australia has signed up to that, but New South Wales asked for a protocol that is different from every other state to make sure that not every proposal is going to be caught.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert can also leave the chamber under standing order 94A. There are standing orders!
The member for Herbert then left the chamber.
Mr BURKE: I table a letter I sent yesterday to Premier Barry O'Farrell. It is simply not good enough to have a situation where one state is wanting to make sure that the scientific checks are not done for them. There are some issues which currently do not fall within the ambit of federal legal powers but make a massive difference to the community. The member for Lyne is another who has been raising issues to do with his community. Member after member in different parts of New South Wales have been raising these issues. They fall within the jurisdiction of state responsibility but they are a massive issue. The federal government has put down the money to make sure the scientific work can be done. For some reason—and you can all work out your own conclusions as to why—Barry O'Farrell does not want that information to inform planning decisions in New South Wales.
Superannuation
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (14:58): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Treasurer's statement on 2 May 2010:
We think certainty is absolutely paramount when it comes to the retirement income system ...
Given that the Prime Minister has ruled out tax on super withdrawals for the over 60s, will the Prime Minister provide further certainty and rule out increased taxes on super savings through even lower concessional contribution caps or higher taxes on super earnings?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:59): To the member who asked the question, I remind her first and foremost that superannuation is compulsory in this country because of a Labor initiative and a Labor plan, resisted every step of the way by the Liberal Party and the subject of a mammoth and irresponsible fear campaign. That is something the member would be familiar with, having been a member of this parliament during another irresponsible fear campaign over carbon pricing. There is only compulsory superannuation because of the actions of Labor. Having invented compulsory superannuation for this country, we have seen the benefits that it brings working people as well as the ballast it gives our economy. It creates a huge pool of national savings and that pool of national savings is very important, particularly during difficult economic times, and was very important during the global financial crisis. We, as the party of superannuation—the party that invented it—will always be the party that nurtures it and nurtures it well, which is why we are increasing superannuation contributions from nine to 12 per cent and why we will also make the right decisions to ensure that the superannuation scheme in our country meets our nation's needs.
If the member opposite is truly concerned about superannuation and the plight of people in her electorate who are low-income earners, let me give her an example of that. It might be a mum who has been at home with two children—maybe one school-age, one pre-school age. She is deciding to go back to work part-time. Because she is a part-time worker, she is not a high-income earner, but she will want something in her superannuation when she retires. Maybe she might consider the position of that electorate member of hers—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume her seat.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: On a point of order: when the amendment was made to make an answer directly relevant it did make a difference. It means to be tangibly relevant is not good enough, as is that answer. She was specifically asked to rule out two forms of impediments to superannuation. She has not mentioned either of them. She has not mentioned the cap and she has not mentioned the tax that is paid.
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I am dealing with a question on superannuation and its future and answering that. I indicate to the member she may, when she next meets a constituent—a woman like that, in that position—try to explain why she wants to hurt that woman's superannuation.
Aluminium Industry
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (15:02): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Would the minister advise the House why it is important for Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory and for the Australian economy that alumina refining continues at Gove. What steps is the government taking to help the Northern Territory government secure the region's future?
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman—Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (15:02): I thank the member for Blair for the question. In doing so, I indicate that there has been absolute cooperation between the Australian government and the Northern Territory government with respect to how we can put together agreement to guarantee the continued operation of the Pacific Aluminium refinery at Gove. This is an exceptionally important opportunity for the local community. When you think about the history of Gove, built in the late 1960s and 70s, it is akin to the construction of the Gorgon LNG project on Barrow Island at the moment. It was built in a remote area of Australia on the basis of a freely available resource, which since then has sustained the community of Nhulunbuy. We all appreciate that aluminium prices in recent times have declined significantly. The problem for Pacific Aluminium is that since its initial opening it has been fuelled by diesel, and the huge cost of diesel at the moment has added to the woes of Pacific Aluminium with respect to the continued operation of this refinery.
For those reasons Pacific Aluminium has been engaged in discussions with me and the Northern Territory Chief Minister over recent months to try and work out if we can facilitate the availability of gas to Gove. This is not only important to the local community, which relies on the 1,100 jobs—both direct and indirect—but it also creates a very valuable opportunity for further economic development in the Northern Territory. If we guarantee the gas supply, then we will double the size of the gas market. That will bring on huge exploration, both onshore and offshore, from multinational companies, such as Eni and Total, leading Australian companies such as Santos, and emerging gas companies such as Amor Energy and Butu Butu. It will also create the opportunity for retail competition in the gas market to the benefit of industrial operatives and, I might say, ordinary consumers. If you get an increased supply of gas, you then get the opportunity to attract further investment and jobs in Northern Australia. It is a practical example of what real policy hard work is about—well thought out, delivering on the ground and in a practical way.
I therefore urge the Northern Territory Chief Minister in his discussion with Pacific Aluminium at the head office of Rio Tinto in London tomorrow to think very seriously about making the necessary gas available. We will not have a shortage of gas in the years to come. Making this hard decision now is imperative, not only for the community of Gove and those direct and indirect employees, but also for all those small businesses that depend on the operation of Gove. I simply say that this is a decision that must be made. Once made, we will be able to move to the next process of consideration of whether we can assist in underwriting the construction of the pipeline. It is good for the Northern Territory and it is good for Australia. I simply say to the Chief Minister, 'You have our support in making this decision.' (Time expired)
Victoria: Health System
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (15:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her decision to cut $107 million from Victorian hospitals, causing beds to close across Victoria, including five palliative care beds from Wantirna Health in my electorate. How can the Prime Minister justify cutting $107 million from Victorian hospitals, while at the same time spending the same amounts on carbon tax promotion? Surely, hospital beds are more important than promoting the carbon tax.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:06): I genuinely thank the member for his question, because it enables me to address an irresponsible campaign by the Victorian government to try and hide the impact of its health cuts on Victorian hospitals and the Victorian community. So, I genuinely thank the member for his question, because I believe it is very important that people have the facts. The facts are these. Health funding to Victoria from this government will be increasing by $900 million. Let me say that figure again: $900 million.
For those who prefer to think in percentages, that is a 26 per cent increase over the next four years—from $3.6 billion to $4.5 billion. That is $900 million up—26 per cent up.
So you ask yourself: if there is an extra $900 million coming across these years—going from $3.6 billion to $4.5 billion, a 26 per cent increase from this government—why are Victorians having to suffer hospital cutbacks? I will explain what the answer is. The answer is that the Victorian Liberal government has chosen to slash $616 million from health services. They are engaged—
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms GILLARD: I know the facts do not suit you, but those are the facts.
Mr Tudge: I raise a point of order on relevance, Madam Speaker. The question was directly comparing the cuts of $107 million to the spending—
The SPEAKER: The member for Aston will resume his seat.
Ms GILLARD: Let us go through it again: $900 million up from us; $616 million down from the Victorian government. Why are there cutbacks in Victoria? It is because of Victorian government cuts. Did Premier Baillieu need to do that? I remind the House and the people of Victoria that, in terms of sources of revenue—and this is not the only source for Victoria; it is just one example—Victoria is receiving a GST windfall of an additional $286 million over the next four years. Despite that GST windfall, Premier Baillieu has decided to take $616 million out of health care in Victoria.
I share the member's concern about the hospitals in his electorate. The pressure on his hospitals from the Victorian government, from his Liberal colleagues, is inappropriate. I hope he rings Premier Baillieu and says, as a federal Liberal, 'Please, Premier Baillieu, do not cut health by $616 million.' I am sure he would want to say, as this government increases health funding to Victoria by $900 million, that hospitals in his electorate should— (Time expired)
Mr Tudge: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this statement from Eastern Health, which talks about the lost Commonwealth government funding of $107 million, causing the closure of—
The SPEAKER: The member for Aston will resume his seat. Is leave granted?
Mr Albanese: No, we have the budget papers which show the increase in funding.
Mr Tudge interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Aston is warned!
Small Business
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (15:10): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Would the minister update the House on how the government is supporting small business with targeted tax cuts and what the consequences would be for small business if these tax cuts were removed?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister for Small Business) (15:10): I thank the member for Moreton for his question and for his advocacy on behalf of the 19,000 small businesses in Moreton. The efforts of Australia's three million small business owners employ around 4.8 million Australians and contribute around 20 per cent of our economy. That is why this government has taken concrete action to support small business.
We have lifted the tax-free threshold, which is a tax cut for every unincorporated business in Australia. Very importantly, the government has also increased the instant asset write-off threshold from $1,000 to $6,500, which will be worth more than $1 billion this year alone. This means increased and improved cash flow and less red tape for small business. We are also providing other tax relief. The government has introduced tax loss carry-back, which encourages innovation and productivity improvements and provides more certainty. The majority of the 110,000 businesses which will benefit from this are small businesses. These are some of the positive things the government has done—concrete action taken by the government on behalf of small business.
The honourable member asked what the consequences of reversing these tax cuts would be. All honourable members would be concerned by the coalition's plan to reverse measures associated with the MRRT and with the carbon price. Reversing these tax cuts would be a blow to small business cash flow. Reversing these cuts would be a blow to steps to reduce the red-tape burden on small business. Any opposition which reverses these cuts is a false friend to small business. They can talk the talk about small business but they cannot walk the walk. This is an opposition in no position to lecture the government about small business.
I am not the only one who thinks this—the Council of Small Business thinks it too. This is what they say about the opposition:
We stated our concern last year that there are still people in the Liberal Party who believe that all small businesses vote for the coalition and therefore there is no need to do anything special for the small business community. We still have that concern and will continue to have dialogue with key coalition shadow ministers as we head towards an election in 2013. It is time that the whole of the coalition came to recognise that small businesses and independent contractors are in fact a mainstay of the economy and need fairness and transparency in policy and process.
That is what COSBOA says about the Liberal Party, the once friend of small business. About the government, COSBOA says the 'level of interest and dialogue is welcomed and is recognition from the government that we count as citizens of Australia.' That is what the government believes. (Time expired)
Ms GILLARD: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:14): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Corporations and Financial Services Parliamentary Joint Committee Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Report, August 2011 Government response.
Intelligence and Security Parliamentary Joint Committee Review of the re-listing of Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi Government response.
Five terrorist organisations Government response.
Hizballah's External Security Organisation Government response.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:14): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Melbourne moving the following motion forthwith—
That private Members’ business item No. 12, Government investment in research, standing in the name of the Member for Melbourne on the Notice Paper, be returned from the Federation Chamber and considered immediately
There was a motion that everyone thought we were going to be voting on today. That is a motion that, amongst other things, notes the growing concern amongst the science and research community about security of funding. The important and operative part calls on the Treasurer to guarantee that science and research funding will be protected this financial year and rule out any attempt to defer, freeze or pause Australia Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council or other science and research grants in an attempt to achieve a budget surplus.
This was a motion that was debated in October last year. This was a motion that the selection committee recommended for a vote. This was a motion that was expected to turn up on the Notice Paper today. But, when we turned up, the motion was not included on the Notice Paper. There are a number of potential reasons for that. One might be that the motion was likely to succeed. I anticipate that there will be a significant amount of support from the crossbench, and I understand the coalition may even be supporting it as well. If that is the reason for its omission, that is of concern. Private members' motions in this place that have been through the proper process and have been waiting since last year for a vote ought not be pulled simply because of the potential outcome. I also know, of course, that there has been a recent reshuffle and that there is a new science and research minister. But this is not a motion that calls on the science and research minister to do anything. It is a motion that calls on the Treasurer to make certain guarantees.
It is urgent that we suspend standing orders and vote on this now, because now is obviously the time that the government is beginning the process of preparing the budget. Budget preparation time is a time of growing and great consternation amongst many in the science and research community in this country. In MYEFO we saw the sustainable research excellence program cut by half a billion dollars over the forward estimates. Two budgets before that, scientists and researchers had to mobilise in their lab coats in their thousands around the country to prevent mooted cuts to health and medical research.
In our view, the reason that we are in this problem where the government is looking around at places like science to save some money is because of the failure to secure the country's revenue base and raise the money that we need to fund the services and expenditures that Australians expect. One of those, which is in my electorate of Melbourne but especially in Victoria, is the area of science and research. We need to be clear that science and research ought not be a honeypot that governments go back to every time they need a bit of money to make the budget balance. Science and research will be a foundation of a clean economy and will set us up for after the mining boom. The cuts of course hurt jobs. The cuts to the sustainable research excellence program are going to hurt, according to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research at Melbourne University, with somewhere in the order of 1,400 jobs being threatened. Those jobs are just as important as jobs in the manufacturing industry. It is not just the cuts, it is the speculation—
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not wish to disrupt the member for Melbourne's time, but I do not have a copy of the motion that has been moved, so it is not clear to me what the implications are. Perhaps it could be indicated whether there is a seconder for the motion and then, if we could get a copy of it once it has been seconded, that might suit the convenience of the House.
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne has the call and, if he could make available a copy of the motion to the attendant, could the attendant take the copy and photocopy it, please.
Mr BANDT: I have a copy of the motion available here. The cuts to sustainable research excellence are going to hurt somewhere in the order of 1,400 jobs. It is not just cuts but speculation that hurts jobs as well because, if you are researcher wanting to start out in Australia, you should know that, whoever is in government, your funding is going to be secure. You should know from budget to budget that the whole of the parliament treats science and research with sufficient importance that it is not going to be tinkered with from budget to budget. Every time there is speculation in the lead-up to the budget it affects the choices that people make and it affects the ability of external investment, especially from the private sector, to join in and invest in world-leading health and medical research that goes on in Australia, especially in Victoria.
What I hope is that we have the opportunity in this parliament to put some of these issues beyond doubt and take them out of the realm of party politics, and that is what the motion is intended to do. The motion intended to lay the groundwork for the budget. It was not even calling for an increase in funding, but just calling for no cuts. That should be something that is very easy to be agreed upon and, if we agree upon it now, it will give a lot of people a lot more security over the coming months. So, I do hope that this House allows this motion to be brought on, not only to allow the processing of private members' business in an orderly fashion so that when we think a motion is going to be voted on it is voted on, but also to give some security to the scientists and researchers around this country that we are not going to come back and raid them and their budgets time and time again simply because we have been unable to secure this country's revenue base.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (15:20): Madam Speaker, I second the suspension of standing orders to shine the light on the government and on their real attitude to health and medical research funding.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakefield.
Ms O'DWYER: In this country we have three choices. First, we can provide the right research environment that will encourage talented researchers and innovators who are home-grown, as well as those from overseas, to work in Australia delivering economic benefits to Australia and better health care for Australians.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
Ms O'DWYER: Second, we can bury our head in the sand and pretend that we do not need a plan or additional funding to keep the research sector punching above its weight and globally competitive or, third, we can threaten to cut funding, as the Labor government has done, to the health and medical research sector on a regular basis creating uncertainty and insecurity for jobs and investment.
We can play games with existing funding by freezing and unfreezing funding for such things as the NHMRC grants. We can add layer upon layer of additional red tape to the already significant regulatory burdens, as evidenced by the increased time and money needed to successfully implement a clinical trial in Australia. Sadly, the Labor government has taken this third approach.
It is important to suspend standing orders because, under Labor, universities and medical research institutes have been subjected to waves of funding uncertainty. In the budget last year, the federal government froze research grants from the Australian Research Council because of overly aggressive and short-sighted budget decisions, and played games in the national media with the National Health and Medical Research Council grants. Treasurer Swan could have made realistic budget assumptions and hard decisions around the budget in May, and allowed all in the community to plan accordingly. Instead, he took a 'fingers crossed' approach, as he always does; and, when it became clear again that he had got his figures wrong, our researchers and research institutes spent months focusing on contingency plans and exploring offshore jobs rather than on their research activities. This pattern of continuing uncertainty has reduced Australia's capacity to attract and retain the best and brightest talent internationally.
It is important to suspend standing orders because, despite the fact that in last year's MYEFO the Treasurer finally unfroze those research grants, unfortunately he then proceeded to cut over $1 billion from the Australian university sector, much of it used to support health and medical research directly or indirectly.
Extraordinarily, the Treasurer's short-sighted decision came in the same month that the Chairman of the CSIRO and 2011 Australian of the Year, Simon McKeon AO, released a consultation paper for the Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research funding, which called for an increase in research funding over the next 10 years of $2 billion to $3 billion per annum.
Health and medical research is critical to Australia's future and should be a strategic priority. With a hub of world-class universities and research institutes based in Melbourne, it is particularly critical for Victoria.
We need to suspend standing orders because, importantly, we in Australia are very good at medical research. Thanks to Australian research, we have life-saving innovations such as penicillin, first used as a medicine by the Australian Nobel laureate Howard Florey; the bionic ear; the cervical cancer vaccine; and spray-on skin for burns, to name just a few.
The coalition understand this. There was a fivefold increase in funding committed to health and medical research under the previous, coalition government and under the former health minister, Tony Abbott. We also understand that we need a full-scale assault on the bureaucracy and red tape, which divert time and funding from valuable research and are marring clinical trials. Commercialising research can lead to direct wealth creation and jobs growth. Importantly, it can also reduce spiralling healthcare costs and deliver a higher quality of life. It is a pity that those opposite do not agree.
A coalition government will protect the funding of Australia's medical research. We recognise that funding for medical research is the best long-term investment a government can make in the health of the Australian people and we do not understand why the government will not bring on this vote. Could it be that they are too scared to face the Australian people on these terrible cuts, the cuts they continue to threaten to make, the cuts they continue to deliver, to this very important research sector which is, critically, a pillar of our nation's economy? It is important that we shine a light on the government's record on medical and health research funding, which is why we must suspend standing orders today.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:26): I am opposed to this Greens-Liberal alliance motion that has been put before the parliament here today. I am opposed because, since this parliament first sat in 2010, not once have we come in here and broken the protocols that have been established and have functioned effectively to deal with private members' business. If the crossbenches carry this motion—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: Yes, it is a process motion; it is a suspension of standing orders. So, yes, genius; you've worked it out! It is about the process and the procedures. That is what is before the parliament now: if a member is able to come before this chamber and move a suspension of standing orders to deal with any number of private members' motions that are on the Notice Paper, without notice to the 150 members of the House of Representatives, without an opportunity for them to know in advance that this particular motion or private member's bill will be dealt with, then what we will be doing is going against the whole reason why we have private members' business. The whole principle of private members' business is that members of parliament should be entitled to put up motions before this House, that they should be dealt with by this House, and that each and every member of this House should be entitled to give considered judgement as to whether they should support or oppose a particular motion.
That is what we have and that is what this government has put in place with the support of the opposition and the crossbenches. That is the process that we have put in place—an orderly process that has seen 242 hours set aside for private members' business. For one in every four hours that this parliament sits, we are dealing with private members' business—one in four.
The matter of public importance put forward by the opposition today, I note, is about superannuation. They say it is important; well, why are you voting to knock it off? If you vote to suspend standing orders to bring on private members' business rather than the matter of public importance that has been put forward by the member for Dunkley, then you are saying that that is more important. What is more, you are inviting every member of this place, including government members from time to time, including members of the crossbench, to come in here and work out when it is appropriate and convenient for them as individuals to bring on a vote, and votes will be brought on.
So I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that he needs to think very carefully about supporting this Greens motion that is before the parliament today, because this is an unprincipled position for the member for Melbourne to take. The member for Melbourne knows full well what the process is: people get to vote on motions for which notice is given on the Notice Paper that that vote will be held.
Today it is a fact that, prior to question time, we did not get to the process that normally occurs whereby we have votes on some private members' motions. The reason is that, as people would be aware, I was hosting the Indonesian Minister of Transportation. I was with people including the Leader of the Nationals, who met with the Indonesian transport minister, and we had a function that included the heads of all of the regulatory agencies here in Australia as well as our visitors from Indonesia. That included the member for Gippsland, who was invited to represent the opposition at the function.
In terms of the processes, if we support this motion from the member for Melbourne, what will happen is that, from time to time, to suit anyone's convenience, we will just bring on a vote. The fact is that, after items are debated, the government facilitates private votes in government time. That is what we do. Indeed, in 2012, we had 62 private members' bills and motions voted on. Do you know how many we had in 2005 under the former government? Zero. Not one—not one motion and not one private member's bill. Yet we do it in an orderly way. The member for Melbourne knows that this vote will take place next week or at some other time, in terms of budget bills, when it is scheduled and notice has been given. In the last two sitting weeks of 2012 alone, we voted on 11 motions.
I say to this parliament that private members' business is important, but I say this too, and I know that the Manager of Opposition Business agrees with me: it is not just about private members' motions, because private members' motions do not impact on or direct the executive government in terms of budget bills. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that, House of Representatives Practice indicates that, and we all know that that is the case.
In this parliament this morning we were debating the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Had this motion not been moved by the member for Melbourne, we might have been able to get back to it after the MPI debate, to deal with and facilitate people's participation in that legislation. There are 46 speakers on the list for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill. We have before this parliament the education bill dealing with the Gonski reforms. We have a range of government business before this parliament, and I say that we have facilitated votes from the crossbenches in an orderly and timely way. We have facilitated that, but what we will not do is come in here—with notice given, to be fair to the member for Melbourne. He told me prior to question time that he was intending to move this motion. I thank him for the courtesy of doing that. But, if this happens with the member for Melbourne, who is, with due respect to the Greens political party, one member in this House out of 150, then there is no reason why the other 149 should not be able to have their motions dealt with according to their convenience and whenever they want.
The member for Melbourne has not put forward a single argument in his address, nor did the supporter of the Greens political party motion, the member for Higgins, for why this was urgent, why this had to be dealt with today and could not wait until next week—not one. They talked about the policy idea, which is actually not the motion that is before this parliament. It is a motion for suspension of standing orders that is before this parliament. But, with regard to the substance of debate, we are happy to have a debate about higher education, science and medical research. We on this side of the House, of course, have created 146,000 extra university places since 2007.
I say to the member for Melbourne that this is a stunt to facilitate substance for the media release that was put out this morning by the member for Melbourne saying that he was going to do this. But, if we are going to have this and the Manager of Opposition Business is going to back this up, other people are going to be encouraged to do it as well, which means that this time will be dealt with and wasted rather than dealing with issues of substance.
The poor old member for Dunkley tries and tries and tries to get an MPI. They finally give him one on a Thursday arvo, and now they are knocking him off. The MPI usually is given to the National Party on Thursday afternoons, I notice, so that the other members, their coalition partners, can leave early, but I am sure— (Time expired)
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister for Small Business) (15:36): I join with the Leader of the House in opposing this motion. The Leader of the House, on behalf of the government, has said that we are more than happy to discuss science funding at an appropriate time—and why wouldn't we be more than happy to discuss science funding? Why wouldn't this government be more than happy to discuss the record $1.72 billion of support to university research and training through its grants in 2013?
Why wouldn't we be happy to discuss the $879 million in funding to the Australian Research Council for the Competitive Grants Program in 2012-13, or the record funding of $736 million to the CSIRO this year, or the fact that since 2008 we have provided more than $300 million in additional support for the research workforce by doubling the number of Australian Postgraduate Awards by 2012 and increasing the stipend from $20,000 to $24,000 with indexation? They are just a few of the initiatives of this government in science and research.
As the Leader of the House indicated, we have made record investment in higher education, which the Howard had government ripped up. It was one of the few Western governments to reduce funding for higher education in real terms, and we had to reverse that when we came to office. On this side of the House, we understand the importance of science and research to being a country which is innovative, which believes in science, which believes in productivity.
This is a debate we are more than happy to have. The member for Melbourne has been told that. The Manager of Opposition Business has been told that. Instead what we see today is a Liberal-Greens stunt. Instead what we see today is an attempt to pull a stunt in the House of Representatives, to knock off, as the Leader of the House said, my honourable friend the member for Dunkley, who has a rare MPI. He had the MPI on small business taken off him yesterday by the Leader of The Nationals. This is a stunt for no good purpose. We can have this debate. We are more than happy to have a debate about science funding. We are more than happy to have a debate about science and research. If I were the opposition, I would not want a debate about science and research; I would want a stunt just like this, and that is what they have done—pulled a stunt on a Thursday afternoon as a distraction.
Science and research are important. I am very proud to be the science and research minister in this government, because this government has a proud record in science and research, and we are going to continue to invest very solidly in science and research, unlike the Howard government, which cut, slashed and burnt funding for science and research. I am very proud of the fact that this government has appointed a Chief Scientist, that this government has embarked on record funding in science and research.
Mr Billson interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: He says, 'Do you talk to him?' I had a meeting with the Chief Scientist yesterday, Member for Dunkley. That is something else that we are more than happy to talk about in this place in a debate on science and research. This is a government which has also secured, on behalf of our nation, a very remarkable initiative—the Square Kilometre Array, one of the great scientific developments in this country.
Mrs Prentice: Hear, hear!
Mr BOWEN: I thank the honourable member opposite for her support for this very important initiative, which is a great step forward for Australia's scientists. This is a serious debate which we are more than happy to have. This is a serious discussion which we are more than happy to go to.
The SPEAKER: The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:44]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Questions in Writing
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (15:51): Madam Speaker, under standing order 105(b), which covers replies that have not been received 60 days after a question has first appeared on the Notice Paper, I ask you to write to the Minister for Health about questions in writing Nos 1328, 1329 and 1330, which appear on the Notice Paper in my name, to seek a reason from the minister for the delay.
The SPEAKER (15:51): I will write in accordance with the standing orders.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Superannuation
The SPEAKER (15:51): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dunkley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The uncertainty created by the Government with regard to our superannuation system.
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 BILLSON (Dunkley) (15:52): Thank you, Speaker. Congratulations on recognising—as those on the coalition side do—that the uncertainty, the chaos and the suggestions of further changes in the area of superannuation is terrifying superannuation savers and those relying on their superannuation for their income at a time when cost-of-living pressures loom large in every household in Australia and every small business. You have got people on fixed and superannuation incomes that they have acquired through putting away savings, preparing for their retirement, who are seeing their costs going up and who are faced with greater uncertainty about what the future will look like for them. Financial security is a concern. It is a concern for many Australians, but at this moment it is of greatest concern to those who are relying on their superannuation or planning for their future.
If you were to characterise the Labor Party's approach to superannuation, it would be tax gouges and tinkering greatly. That is what they do. They have looked at superannuation and thought, 'Here is a cash cow. We will mess with it and we will play with it. We will describe it as being motivated by high ideals and we will even try and generate more class warfare around retirement savings policy.' What it really is all about—from start to finish—is a cash gouge to try to prop up this failing budget that Labor has overseen. This is on the back of the undertaking by the former Prime Minister. Who can forget that undertaking, that solemn promise, that explicit commitment that was made during the 2007 election campaign—that Labor would not change the superannuation laws? Remember: 'Not one jot, not one tittle'. Haven't they failed?
I thank the Parliamentary Library. I asked the Parliamentary Library, 'What does "not one jot, not one tittle" mean as it relates to stability and superannuation?' Look what came! This is 'not one jot, not one tittle'. This is more than 50 major policy announcements about change and about legislative adjustment that has happened on the back of this promise of 'not one jot, not one tittle'. Do people want to know what a jot or a tittle looks like? Apparently, this is not one jot and not one tittle; this is at least 50 tittles, and then some, as they continue to tinker with superannuation, creating great uncertainty for all Australians.
What do we expect in the upcoming budget? We have already seen a little bit of speculation from Labor as they try on different ideas about how to paper over the enormous budget black hole that they face. Even Labor luminaries have come out saying, 'Please, stop messing with superannuation.' But let us think about all of those Australian men and women who are wondering about their retirement, thinking about what will come next and looking for some certainty, stability and predictability on something that is such a long-term investment as superannuation—for those who are saving for it—or something that is so significant for people that are dependent on their superannuation to cover their costs of living at this time.
What can we look for into the future? We know that Labor sees superannuation as a cash cow and that it is viewed as a soft touch to paper over their budget mess. Let us look at some of the changes to date. They have limited the amount that people can save for their retirement by lowering the concessional contributions caps from $50,000 and $100,000 to $25,000. What does that mean? That means a tax increase on voluntary contributions. That means that for those Australians who lost everything under the recession we supposedly had to have, with maybe just a few years of their working life to put aside money for their retirement, here is another brick wall that they will run into as they make choices about their own income and voluntarily commit it to a retirement that is not dependent on the taxpayer but is one that they can shape themselves through superannuation.
Think about small businesses and small business people, particularly in these recent and ongoing years when things have been extremely tough. When are they going to put money aside for their retirement? When there is a good year, you might want to put some away for your retirement nest egg. That is what the Howard government understood, that is what those in small business understood and that is what the men and women who did not have a retirement nest egg understood. We had a higher level of contributions when you could get concessional tax treatment. Why? It was to encourage people to voluntarily put aside their own resources for their own retirement and to relieve the burden on the taxpayer into the future of income support pensions so that people could determine their own destiny and the financial platform from which they could plan with certainty for their future. But, no, Labor has taken that all away—and they are going to do it again. They have done it with the mess they have made of superannuation contributions.
Let us not have any of this cant and concocted outrage about the coalition and its work for low-income people and their superannuation. It was the coalition that introduced the co-contribution arrangements. It was Labor that cut them. Since the election of Labor, you have seen $3 billion taken from low-income people in co-contributions to support them as they build up for their own retirement. You have seen the taxation rates go up for people earning above $300,000 a year. You have seen this extreme crackdown on people who might have just got outside some of these parameters with these tax penalties that are absolutely horrendous. In my own area, someone running a not-for-profit organisation had their accountant plan to make sure that they could make the contributions up to the $25,000. They waited until the end of the financial year to see if they had the capacity to do that. When they were able to settle their own financial circumstances, they then put the contribution in up to that level. But what happens? Your capacity to make those contributions might be based on accrual accounting concepts, but the calculation in the tax office is based on cash. So even if it relates to a financial year—say, 2011-12—and you happen to pay it on 7 July, it actually goes into the subsequent year.
These poor people are paying an enormous number of penalties for trying to provide for their own retirement. The Labor changes combined have added $8 billion of tax revenue to their budget. This is what they are looking at again to have a crack at. Think about those people looking for certainty. Think about the promises that have been given before not to mess with superannuation—the 'not one jot, not one tittle' undertaking from former Prime Minister Rudd. Think about Prime Minister Gillard's undertakings not to disadvantage people with the way in which superannuation is played with and the reassurances that co-contributions would not be messed with. All of that has proven to be completely false.
So when the Prime Minister tried on this potential tax gouge of taxing people over 60 as they were receiving their superannuation, it leaked out. Everyone was briefed and told to talk about it just to see what the reaction was. Well, there was outrage, so that got dropped. But have we heard any other assurances about not messing with other aspects of superannuation? Not at all.
I say to the Australian public: get onto your Labor member of parliament. You might not know who they are because they might be hiding from you, but get onto them and say, 'Don't mess with my super.' This is something that is important. It is something that we have seen changed time and time again. That is what 'not one jot, not one tittle' looks like—50 changes. We have got more adverse changes on the way as Labor looks to superannuation, particularly self-managed superannuation funds, as the soft touch, the cash cow, to paper over its inability to manage its budget. As we all remember, the Prime Minister said: 'If you cannot manage your budget, you cannot manage the economy.' Sadly, the cost of that is coming right on top of ordinary men and women in Australia.
Let us look through what has been going on with these changes. We, in the coalition years, established more generous contribution caps so that people could put that nest egg aside, even if they had only a very narrow window of working life to provide for their own retirement. This is particularly significant for mature age workers who might not have had the benefit of a lifetime of work and superannuation contributions. It is particularly significant for a small business owner. We also tried to put in place, and we did put in place, the co-contribution scheme for low- to middle-income earners whereby they were encouraged to save towards their retirement. They would be rewarded for making the decision to contribute additional amounts, and they were supported by co-payments from the coalition. We abolished tax being paid by retirees when they withdrew their money from superannuation. Let us remember, it was taxed on the way into the fund; it was taxed in its earnings. We wanted Australians to benefit from that income at the end, when they were drawing it out to support their own retirement. That was sound policy. That was policy that worked.
Now the Gillard government is planning another tax increase in the May budget. If they are elected again, they will do it again. After 14 September, if Labor creep back, they will do it again, because they eye superannuation as a soft touch. Self-managed super funds have a value greater than the entire GDP in the Australian economy. The government want a crack at that as well. They have already started by putting in new requirements on registering the auditors that are looking at it—and there are fees there, and we are yet to hear what the fees actually are. The government are ready to jack that up as well.
There have been constraints on activity in self-managed super funds, and the government describe this as all part of some kind of class war, where they are looking after low-income people and getting stuck into the rich. But when one asks what the rich person is, they seem to be pretty average Australians. Their income is not some biblically huge amount. It is a modest income at a time when their households are facing cost of living pressures as well. When you look at superannuation, it is where the vast majority of the Australian public fund their retirement. The really super rich have got other avenues. The vast bulk of the Australian public use superannuation.
When you start messing with the super rules, you start moving those goalposts and it affects everybody. It certainly affects younger people. They become more reluctant to contribute because they are uncertain about what is going to come next. They are not confident that the arrangement they are entering into now will be the one that will be sustained throughout their working life, and that instability causes them to be less attracted to superannuation. For the mature aged, they are worried about those cost of living pressures. When you see another tax attack on them that eats not only into their retirement nest eggs but potentially into their income as well, they are getting cost of living pressures coming at them as well as the government taking away more of their retirement income capacity from them.
Concessional tax treatment is an incentive. It is an encouragement. It is actually an investment in the future affordability of our three-pillar retirement income system, where you have the age pension as an income support net; you have the compulsory superannuation framework, which is something that all employers are contributing to—not as the government would have you believe. Remember that nine to 12 per cent superannuation contribution? They sat there and said: 'You know, the mining tax is paying for that.' This maybe one of the most cunning observations of my 17 years in this place, but employer funded superannuation is funded by—
Opposition members interjecting—Employers!
Mr BILLSON: Employers. There you go. So that is funded by the employers while the government runs around as if there is some magic pudding with the mining tax funding that superannuation increase. You hear the shadow Treasurer—and perish the thought that it was coming from somewhere else—say that employer funded super comes from employers. What happens there? The government actually gets tax out of that contribution. Rather than say the government is paying for it out of the mining tax, they are actually grabbing a chunk out of it. As every small business is paying more into superannuation, the government is there getting a clip on the way through. So it is actually a revenue earner for them. This is quite bizarre, but that is part of our system.
Then there is the voluntary system, where people are encouraged to apply themselves and to make choices about their discretionary income to provide in a more accommodating way for their retirement. So what you have got is a rather stark and vivid choice. You have more of this uncertainty, more of this lack of long-term perspective, more of this monotonous nonsense from the Assistant Treasurer.
Mr Shorten: You've never voted for superannuation in your life.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The minister will have his chance.
Mr BILLSON: The minister will throw a cold pie at me if I keep going. But I will persevere, because this is significant for all Australians that are either saving for superannuation, anticipating being able to rely upon it or wondering how they are going to finance their own retirement. I again come back to those small businesses. We know that small businesses know a lot of about superannuation—they are having to pay for the increase. It was interesting, wasn't it, that the Henry tax review recommended against lifting the employer contribution? They said, be a bit smarter with the way you tax the contributions and the earning in the fund and you will achieve adequacy. Well, no, you would not have that from Labor. He never missed a chance to have a go and gouge at a small business.
Mr Shorten: Even though you voted against it. Put it on the record.
Mr BILLSON: So they have introduced this. We voted against it, saying there are better ways of dealing with this, but now that is in, in the name of certainty, predictability and stability we have undertaken not to rescind it, because that is the confidence people are looking for. A competent government provides certainty and it provides continuity, and we have done that even though it was an unnecessary move.
We have even got this government saying to small businesses: 'Self-managed super funds—you might have one of those. Well, we're not sure about that either. That sounds like a lurk we can't get our hands onto.' They have tried to structure the superannuation industry rather than enhance competition and improve the options available to people. They have structured it for those union dominated industry funds—what a dream run they have got. Those that are living off the industry super funds, those that Labor have loved for so long, are now saying, 'Please, don't keep messing with this superannuation arrangement.'
I have a very strong commitment that I would like to see from the government. If you are going to break another promise about superannuation, if you cannot maintain the assurance of not messing with it, please at least take it to the Australian public. This is too important for this short-termism, self-serving, self-interested government to mess with people's longer term planning requirements for their retirement. Those approaching retirement are relying on their superannuation. The right thing to do is to follow the coalition's lead—offer stability, be clear, no surprises. But if the Gillard government cannot manage that, it should at least face the Australian public so that they know what they are doing and can make their own judgement. (Time expired)
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (16:07): What a load of hypocritical rubbish from the member for Dunkley. Never once have the Liberal Party of Australia ever voted to increase superannuation. It is almost like the tort of passing off. How dare they pretend that they have ever done anything for workers in superannuation. We have never, ever seen it and never, ever will. Look at the crocodile tears the member for Dunkley cries. He is on a defined benefit pension—he will be all right. He is okay no matter what happens. But most Australians do not have the deal that the member for Dunkley has.
He complains, he cries tears, about the co-contribution scheme he said was 'marvellous'. Only one in five eligible people was able to claim the co-contribution, because you have to get up pretty early in the morning to out-crafty the Liberals when it comes to not looking after low-paid workers. Only one in five was able to claim in this Rolls-Royce scheme that the member for Dunkley says was so marvellous and he misses it so much that he holds a requiem mass for it every year. Only one in five low-paid workers could get it. What a scheme! To get the Liberal Party co-contribution, you had to have $1,000, and not a lot of people earning under $37,000 a year have $1,000 just sitting around in the bank. Only Labor stands to look after 3.6 million low-paid Australian workers. Over 25,000 of them live in the member for Dunkley's electorate.
How happy must the people in The Pines be with their member of parliament! Say you are a part-time working mum and you earn less than $37,000. Gee, they must be happy knowing that the member for Dunkley says, 'And I'm going to put a new tax on you.' Shame, shame, shame.
Mr Billson: You're putting a tax on them.
Mr SHORTEN: How dare he interject and say we are putting a tax on them! We are cutting it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The member for Dunkley will cease interjecting!
Mr SHORTEN: You had your go and it was not a very good go. It was full of crafty doublespeak. You are normally better than that, Dunkley. Let us go through the attitude of the Liberal Party to superannuation. I love it when they get up and say—actually, I do not love it; it sticks in my throat—'We love superannuation.' Do you, really? Unfortunately, there is a thing called Hansard. Do you know what the member for Warringah, now the Leader of the Opposition, this great white knight of superannuation, said? He said:
Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.
Do you know what he said in Eureka Street volume 5, No. 3, April 1995? He said:
Compulsory superannuation is possibly the greatest confidence trick of the last decade.
How can we trust the Liberals when they say, 'We love superannuation; don't trust Labor,' when, in fact, whenever we try to increase superannuation they vote against it? The mob opposite have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity on superannuation. The unions and employers and the Hawke government in 1985 agreed that workers would forgo a three per cent wage rise, and that is the only reason Australia has compulsory superannuation. Not a bead of sweat from those conservatives opposite has ever helped working people get retirement savings.
Of course, they had an opportunity in 1992 to say, 'Actually, we've realised we were wrong and we will in fact back superannuation.' Unfortunately, the historical record shows that they did not learn from their mistake in '85—because they are not historians and have never stood up for compulsory superannuation. David Connolly was a former member for Bradfield and opposition spokesperson on superannuation. Do you know what he called compulsory superannuation, which the member for Dunkley would throw himself on barbed wire and wade through boiling mud to protect now? He said it was a 'gross and iniquitous system'. At least Wilson Tuckey MP, former member for O'Connor, knew to speak his mind, even if it was not always right. He said:
I have to say of this superannuation guarantee legislation … it is both stupid and dishonest.
Where was Bruce Wilson when Wilson Tuckey was saying these things? Senator Alston, Liberal Party senator, doyen of the Liberal Party, great elder statesman and one of the thought leaders of the Liberal Party—do you know what he said?
Mr Hunt: Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. With great respect, I believe that the minister has inadvertently defamed the shadow minister by calling him Bruce Wilson.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr SHORTEN: What a cheap shot—you are better than that, Greg. Senator Alston, statesman from the Liberal Party, said—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Do you know why the Liberals interrupt? Because they hate the truth of this matter. You have never voted for superannuation. Thank goodness that you are not in charge of this government, because you would not have voted for the increase in superannuation contributions from nine to 12 per cent. In fact, as memory serves me, you did not. Senator Alston said:
… imposing compulsory superannuation on individuals does not increase total savings.
Oh, no? Facts got in the way of a stupid remark. We now have compulsory savings in Australia bigger than our GDP, and none of that is due to you guys. Senator Watson from the Liberal Party said, 'Unemployment is going to rise from superannuation.'
I love Senator Crichton-Browne. He did not give only one wrong reason; he gave six wrong reasons. Let me recount for the newer members of the House what some of your great past champions have said on superannuation. Senator Crichton-Browne said the Keating government's proposed compulsory contribution scheme would reduce economic growth—wrong. Economic growth went up the whole time superannuation was in place. He said it would add to unemployment—wrong again. It fell. He said it would create inflationary pressures—wrong again. He said it would reduce savings. How that flat-earther could get away with that theory I do not know. He said it would reduce living standards—they have gone up. And he said it would lead to lower retirement incomes. Lower retirement incomes? The quotes go on from the Liberal Party. What is most disturbing is not that they were wrong in 1985—I can live with that. It is not that they were wrong in 1992—I can live with that. They were wrong last year when they opposed the increase from nine to 12 per cent.
Then came the hypocrisy. The member for Dunkley said, 'It's a bad idea, but we'll keep it.' Be fair dinkum. If it is a bad idea, repeal it. If you think it is as bad as you say it is, as you carry on about it in that mistaken fashion of yours, repeal it. If you have the courage of your convictions, repeal it. But you know in your heart of hearts, all you defined-benefit brigade in particular and you 15 per centers, that superannuation is the best vehicle for our retirement savings. That is why to get a lecture from those people opposite about superannuation does stick in our throat, because they have never backed it. They have never backed it in the system. They have never backed the increases. They have spread fear and they have spread untruths. They have spread mistaken facts and they have passed them off as policy. In fact, they do not have a superannuation policy. For instance, we abolished the age limit, allowing people of any age to get superannuation. We could call that the Bronwyn Bishop clause, fair enough. But do you know what those opposite did? They voted against it. They did not vote to support people over the age of 70 getting superannuation. The parliamentary record reflects that uncomfortable truth.
What we have also tried to do is improve the standard, the quality and the confidence of financial planning advice in this country. I tell you what, if Australia was ever invaded by enemies and those enemies were intent on reforming financial services, I want the best battalion of the opposition to defend us. The enemy would never get off the beach. I have never seen so many conservatives fight so hard for so much vested interest as we saw in their disgusting performance on financial planning, and in the way they want to protect rotten commissions. It was an outrageous performance. Furthermore, we were the ones who introduced MySuper, which will make the cost of superannuation cheaper. Again, those opposite opposed it.
So what do we have in the debate about superannuation in this country at the moment? We have a Labor Party that has backed compulsory super and has increased compulsory super. We have a Labor Party that says if you earn less than $37,000 a year, why should you pay tax on your contributions? After all, the marginal rate of tax if you earn between $18,000 and $37,000 is the equivalent of the concessional rate that you pay on superannuation tax. I believe that if you are going to put a portion of your money into compulsory savings, some of that should be a tax concession. That is fair otherwise there is no arbitrage advantage and there is no concessional advantage in being forced to save for your retirement. This is logic.
What we see instead from those opposite is that they want to reinstate a tax we have abolished. There are thinking members of the opposition and they need to think carefully about this. What is the point in putting a tax back on low-paid people's superannuation contributions? What is the point in putting back a 15 per cent tax on 3.6 million people's contributions to superannuation? What is the point in taxing 3.6 million people who earn less than $37,000? What is the point in making them pay several hundred dollars more in concessional superannuation tax? What is the argument? The only argument we have heard—and points to the member for Dunkley for trying to run the unarguable argument; I do not doubt his courage—is a co-contribution scheme. That was a ripper. That was the Rolls-Royce, the whole car. And they do not like what we are doing. But what we say is the facts unfortunately contradict that. For the benefit of the member for Dunkley, who is quickly texting up facts, I have this fact: one in five people who are eligible to claim the co-contribution can. There is a reason for that. They do not have a spare lazy k hanging around to put into super. So what you were saying is if your dad or your mum is rich enough to give the part-time worker a thousand bucks, that is good. Fair enough, good luck.
Mr Billson: That is class warfare.
Mr SHORTEN: No, it is not class warfare. It is just a recognition that not everyone has a thousand bucks in their bank account if they earn less than $37,000. Get out and doorknock in The Pines and I will tell you there are a lot of people out there who do not have $1,000. So we improved upon their penny-farthing bicycle of a scheme and have given something much better, which goes a lot faster and goes a lot better.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I have already spoken about our support for older people. We are proposing a scheme where if you earn less than $37,000 you do not pay tax. You get the money put into your super. That is what it is.
But I do like the consistency of the opposition. Only two nights ago they had a look at one million people who were on allowances such as Newstart, Abstudy and other allowances such as the farm household help allowance, and they said: should we give those single people $210 or couples $350? Should we? No, sorry, thumbs down. There are one million people that the coalition could give a hand to. No, sorry, they are not going to do that but they will give money back to mining companies because geez they like mining companies. We on this side like mining companies too but we also happen to like the one million people on allowances.
We keep giving those opposite the chance to not go ahead with reintroducing a tax on the superannuation concessions of people earning less than $37,000. We are waiting for the light bulb to go off but it is not happening. What we on this side stand for is making sure that people have superannuation. We on this side stand for making sure it is universal. We on this side stand for lifting it from nine to 12 per cent.
Mr Van Manen interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I would not go there, Bert. Think wisely. In this group of 3.6 million beneficiaries who will not pay tax there are 2.1 million women. We recognise that women have broken periods of service. We recognise that sometimes women are not paid what men are paid. We recognise that it is harder for them to save money for their retirement. That is why we are looking after 2.1 million women.
When you think about it, what have we seen from the coalition this week when they say they love superannuation? They have never seen a multimillionaire they will not go into bat for. So far this week, they have not met anyone who earns less than $37,000 that they will even make a fist for. What we need to do is have superannuation certainty.
It is not going to win you the election, which is all you care about, by slapping a tax on 3.6 million people. It is just not worth it; $1 billion in tax concessions to 3.2 million of Australia's low-paid working people. That is a group of people you should get behind. We understand that superannuation requires fairness and sustainability. We understand people are living longer—we only have to look at those opposite to see that. We understand the need to have a good system but we want to start looking after the punters at the bottom, not just the punters at the top.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (16:22): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important matter of public importance because superannuation is indeed an important aspect of Australia's economy. It is worth around $1.5 trillion, but it depends on some key factors. Two of those factors are not present with this government. It depends on trust; the Australian people certainly do not trust this government. It depends on confidence; the Australian people have no confidence in this government. If people are to participate in the superannuation system, they have to make a commitment from a relatively young age and put in reasonable contributions to have the sort of retirement benefit which will deliver the lifestyle they expect and deserve. The only way to encourage people to put money into superannuation is to assure them that the rules under which they deposit the money will retain some degree of consistency during the time they have the money invested. This government is eroding that trust and that confidence.
The Prime Minister has a deep trust deficit. The very same Prime Minister would not be affected by the sorts of changes she is proposing to implement, being one of the defined benefit people that the minister, Mr Shorten, was alluding to. The member for Griffith—the other Prime Minister in waiting—is also in a defined benefit scheme, so he would not be affected by any changes the government is proposing to implement. It is important that we encourage young people to put money into super. It is important that older Australians who have worked hard and saved hard and put money aside can feel confident that, when they retire, they will be able to live off the proceeds of their superannuation and that the Prime Minister will not change the rules at a minute to midnight. If she changes the rules, she will destroy their dreams and will adversely impact on their position.
What does that mean for people? It means that people have no confidence in this government. It is absolutely vital that we provide confidence in the superannuation system. When you look at everything this government does, you see that it is a confused model. When you look at the statements that this government makes, you see that it cannot be trusted. We had the never, never carbon tax, the mining tax that gains no money, the government's assault on private health insurance and the promise of a surplus—all promises made by this government, which cannot be trusted—and assurances in relation to superannuation which cannot be relied on. We see this government attacking superannuation again and again, despite their claim that they would not make one change—'not one jot, not one tittle.' There have been lots of jots and tittles.
Mr Billson: There was a big jot.
Mr HARTSUYKER: As the member for Dunkley has pointed out, they have been jotting and tittling everywhere. We have had the reduction in the concessional contribution cap. We have had the reduction in the co-contribution. We have seen the double contribution tax for high-income earners. We have seen the increased capital gains tax revenue from super and now they want to further increase tax on superannuation. What are the government themselves saying? In May 2010, Wayne Swan said:
We think certainty is absolutely paramount when it comes to the retirement income system, and we want people to have the confidence that they can save in the way in which they have in the past.
I do not often agree with the Treasurer, but I agree with him on this one. It is a shame he does not keep his word. What about the industry? A certain person, who is certainly not aligned with the coalition, Garry Weaven, one of the architects of the superannuation system and chairman of Industry Funds Management, said it is 'time for a pause', that it is time to stop making changes:
I think you should proceed with caution if you are the government in an election year. I would have said it is the first cardinal rule here.
John Brogden, CEO of the Financial Services Council, said:
The government does not understand that this undermines the confidence of everyone because they think that they're next.
That is right, they could be next:
Short-term budget decisions are undermining the foundation of the super system.
How true that is. Pauline Vamos of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia said:
Undermining the provision of long-term capital could have a significant impact on the economy, which should greatly concern any Australian.
These comments go on and on. Andrea Slattery, CEO of the Self-managed Superannuation Fund Professionals Association, said:
The continual erosion of super tax concessions to meet short-term fiscal goals is in danger of being permanently damaging to the effectiveness of super as Australia's key retirement savings vehicle.
At every turn the government is reducing confidence in the system. At every turn the government is going to penalise Australians with regard to their superannuation savings. Why is that? Simply because this government cannot manage its own budget. This government is not sufficiently financially competent to manage its budget. Australian families have to manage their own budgets. Australian families could not run deficits five years in a row, which this government is going to do with no prospect of a surplus in sight. Clearly, Australian families know better how to manage their budget than this government. There are more comments on superannuation. Peter Collins, trustee of the $1.1 billion Hostplus scheme, said:
To start to dismantle super concessions can only be an electoral negative. The electorate will not swallow super as middle-class welfare.
That is right. It is not middle-class welfare; it is a sensible provision for retirement that every Australian has a right to. Nick Sherry is a familiar name in these halls. Nick Sherry, hardly a supporter of the coalition, said in the Financial Review on 6 February 2013:
You've got the appropriate framework for tax treatment of super.
So take Nick's advice. Do not fiddle with the super system. Give Australians confidence to invest in superannuation. Do not slug self-funded retirees. Do not leave people who are approaching retirement in fear that their retirement plans will be dashed at a minute to midnight. It is absolutely outrageous that the Prime Minister would countenance taxing superannuation payments for people over the age of 60. It shows a blatant disregard for people approaching retirement and those who have retired. It shows a Prime Minister who cannot be trusted. It shows a government which cannot manage the budget. It is absolutely outrageous and it is about time the government took heed of what the coalition is saying. Do not mess with super. People need certainty and you need to manage your own finances before you slug superannuants.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The discussion is now concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) ( 16:29 ): Order! I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Mornington Peninsula: Telecommunications
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (16:29): I wish to raise an issue of great significance regarding bushfire safety on the Mornington Peninsula and access to adequate mobile communications. This comes about because of a letter that was delivered to my office last night by the captain of the Mount Martha CFA, Mr Brian Smith. He was delivering it on behalf of the head of the peninsula group for the CFA, Tony Brown, who is technically the peninsula group officer. It is a very significant letter.
It sets out a very simple principle: that congestion of the local mobile phone network over summer is putting lives at risk. The Mornington Peninsula is one of the most bushfire prone areas in Victoria. We have a large number of people in a high fire danger area with failing telecommunications. It is a recipe for disaster.
I would note that the government is spending of billions, promising to put an NBN into areas that already have well-serviced broadband, yet the Mornington Peninsula does not even have an adequate mobile phone service. The government has completely lost focus of issues which are paramount to safety and security. Our best advice is that it could be a decade before we receive the NBN on the peninsula. In reality it is something that is never likely to happen the way this government travels. In the meantime there are real, legitimate, present dangers which have been highlighted, not by us, but by the CFA and, indeed, by the regional group officer, writing on behalf of eight local fire brigades.
Let me go into more detail. I have received the letter and I have written today to the minister for communications. We are seeking urgent assistance. We have spoken with Telstra. This is something which the CFA has itself highlighted as a source of real, clear, present danger. The key points are these. I have been contacted by a representative of eight fire brigades on the peninsula about the danger posed by poor telecommunications, in particular mobile telecommunications. The NBN will not solve the problem—even if arrived today. It is not going to arrive on the peninsula for 10 years. I the meantime we have a very significant issue. We have the peninsula, which is one of the most bushfire prone areas in Victoria, with a large summer population as well as a strong base population. It is a region with ongoing significant telecommunications problems. Five years ago we were going to receive an OPEL system, which would have dealt with these problems. Instead we are now facing a 15-year wait, including the five years to now and the 10 years to come. Local residents and business owners are forced to use the wireless system. Unfortunately the wireless system at the moment is inadequate, so, we find that mobile phone calls frequently drop out, email delivery is delayed and in some places wireless services are only accessible after 10 pm. It is wireless that is the problem and the solution.
Let me quote what was said by the CFA:
Effectiveness of the government developed mobile phone warning system needs to be tested under these trying conditions to ensure it would not be severely compromised as it depends upon the phone system in question transmitting warnings and information about current life-risk situations. If such circumstances were to be realised, we would be faced with a scenario of public emergency warnings not being heard in one of the most heavily populated and fire prone areas in the state.
Against that background I have written to Minister Conroy today and I have said that:
I share Mr Brown's concerns. Lives are at risk because the government is failing to ensure adequate mobile coverage on the Mornington Peninsula. The opening of the Peninsula Link Freeway, which will bring more tourists to the area, puts further pressure on a system that can't already cope. The government is spending billions on an NBN when areas such as the Mornington Peninsula don't even have an adequate mobile phone service.
Minister, we need your urgent intervention. This issue has lasted for five years. The problem was to have been solved five years ago but the system that was announced and proposed was axed. Against that background, I seek leave to table the letter from Mr Tony Brown, the peninsula group officer of the Mornington Peninsula CFA, and my letter to the minister. (Time expired)
Leave granted.
Savoulidis, Mr James
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:34): I rise to pay tribute to James Savoulidis, known as 'Gentleman Jim', who passed away on 20 December last year at the age of 93. Gentleman Jim was Canberra's pizza pioneer. He was born in Greece, grew up during the Great Depression and was sent to Australia in 1938 by parents who wanted a better life for him. In 1959 he settled here in Canberra and opened a number of businesses, including the Mondial Night Club in East Row. He helped many Greek families who migrated to Australia get established in Canberra. In 1971 he established the Plaka restaurant in Mawson, where Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was a regular patron. As I noted in my first speech to this place, it was James Savoulidis who taught Gough Whitlam to dance the Zorba.
He was painted by local artist Peter Engel—a painting which hangs proudly in my local café in Hackett, Wilbur's. Wilbur's is one of the many fine dining establishments that have been set up by James Savoulidis's sons who have followed him into the business. To bring pizza to Canberra in the 1960s was tougher than it is today. This was a more white-bread city, one which lacked the cultural diversity that we now appreciate. James Savoulidis was an innovator and a risk taker. He has a great entrepreneurial spirit and the wishes that his parents had for him when they sent him to Australia from Greece at the age of just 18 were, I think, greatly fulfilled.
His son, Steven Savoulidis, wrote to me and, after modestly telling me that I did not need to speak in parliament about his father at all, said:
… he had a long and great life, of which 3/4 of a century was here in OZ. He always told us the best thing his parents did for him was to send him to AUSTRALIA. He said "if you put in the effort, respect people, have respect for yourself, you will get everything you'll ever need from Australia" he loved it here. We were lucky to have him and call him our father.
With the passing of James Savoulidis, we lose the second of two great Canberra culinary pioneers, the other being Augustin 'Gus' Petersilka, who passed away in 1994. They were for a period both in Garema Arcade—Mr Savoulidis on the Garema Place side, Gus on Bunda Street.
While James Savoulidis fought for pizza and the Zorba, Gus was fighting for open-air dining. It was Gus who engaged in legendary battles with local Canberra bureaucrats over the right to put tables on the footpath. They thought footpaths were for walking; he felt that it added to the character of the place to have outdoor eating. History, I think, has proven Gus right. He petitioned the Queen and said he was willing to go to jail for his right to have tables on the footpaths. Eventually he was made Canberran of the Year in 1978. Many Canberrans know him through Gus's Cafe in Garema Place. Gus himself said, in an interview in the Canberra Times, 'I had a fair go'. In the same interview, he went on to say:
To the Viennese, homes are only to sleep; the coffee house is their home away from home.
This is a recognition that so much of the social capital in Canberra, which is indeed the nation's social capital, occurs in our cafes and restaurants. Our vibrant cafe and restaurant scene is not just a matter of increasing total GDP; it is about improving the social connectedness of Canberra. Having great restaurateurs and great local establishments has made Canberra a so much more exciting city in which to live.
We are greatly in the debt of Gus and greatly in the debt of the late James Savoulidis. My condolences go to Mr Savoulidis's widow, Helen; his sons, Stephen, Nasi and Andrew, and their partners, Vicky, Geraldine and Cherie; and his grandchildren, James, Eleni, Crystal, Dimitri, Kasia and Jasmine. Rest in peace, James Savoulidis.
Coal Seam Gas
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (16:39): Last night in the adjournment debate, the member for Richmond said that all National Party candidates on the North Coast 'support harmful CSG mining'. That is an outrageous statement and a dishonest claim which I utterly reject. The Nationals do not support any kind of harmful industrial activity. We do not support harmful CSG extraction or any kind of harmful mining activity. For the member to make such an allegation is simply outrageous.
As far back as November 2011, the federal National Party laid down what it saw as the clear principles which should underpin the operation of the CSG industry. These included that a CSG development should not proceed unless it is clear that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment, that strategic agricultural land needs to be protected, that CSG development should not occur near residential areas, that landholders should receive appropriate payments from CSG projects in return for access to their land, and that regions hosting CSG developments should receive a reasonable share of the generated income. We have made it absolutely clear that, as a party, we believe that the CSG industry can contribute to meeting our future energy requirements but that it must always operate under safe and appropriate conditions.
The member for Richmond has never complained about the CSG industry before. She stood by while the previous Labor government in New South Wales issued all 44 of the coal seam gas exploration and production licences in that state. She stood by without saying anything while these licences were issued—without any regulations in place to protect land or water. Labor pocketed the cash from issuing these licences. It has been the New South Wales coalition government which has been working hard to get the balance right between economic development and protection of valuable agricultural land and water.
The member for Richmond has spoken in this House 163 times in her eight years in the parliament, but she has never raised the CSG issue before. She sat there silently while all of these proposals were approved—as did the member for Page, the member for New England and, for that matter, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, who seem to be late participants in the protest against the coal seam gas industry. It is a tragedy that there is this kind of an attempt to completely misrepresent the position of the Nationals.
On the other hand, the Labor Party have been consistent supporters of the CSG industry—and not just the New South Wales government, which indiscriminately handed out exploration permits. The Prime Minister herself has been quoted often as supporting the CSG industry. On page 146 of the Energy white paper 2012, Australia's energy transformation, issued by the government last year, the government pledges itself to:
… addressing regulatory and other impediments to the timely development of our gas resources, particularly new CSG and shale gas resources.
The member for Richmond was silent while the Prime Minister was praising the industry and committing to support it. But now she comes into this parliament and tries to blame the Nationals for the fact that the CSG industry is proposing activity in northern New South Wales. Labor handed out exploration licences covering the best part of a quarter of New South Wales. The coalition has not issued any new CSG exploration licences but has put in place measures to try to ensure the industry is conducted in an appropriate way—increased fines, security bonds and the appointment of a land and water commissioner to oversee the process.
In the parliament, the minister for the environment and, for that matter, the member for New England have said that the New South Wales government is not prepared to participate in the national partnerships plan. That is completely false. The government's own statement on the issue makes it clear that the national partnership agreement includes Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria and that they have all committed to seek the committee's advice at appropriate stages, to ensure that the decision makers take account of the committee's advice and to provide input into the research agenda. The reality is that the New South Wales and federal governments reached an agreement in December 2012 on the protocols to underpin these arrangements and are now awaiting the Prime Minister's endorsement of them. If the minister cannot find the protocols, perhaps he should look on the Prime Minister's desk.
RSL Clubs
Mr DANBY ( Melbourne Ports ) ( 16:45 ): All Australians owe a debt of gratitude to our service men and women, and one of the duties that all of us take very seriously is our support for our local RSLs in our constituencies. One of the particular honours I have, as the member for Melbourne Ports, is on Anzac Day speaking to about 1,000 people in Port Melbourne at a function that is not organised by the RSL but has spontaneously grown over the last decade as people want to show their remembrance of the place in which many Australians stepped off in the first and second world wars. The last place many of those people saw Australia was in Port Melbourne. If you look in any RSL around the country, you will see pictures of ships leaving from that place. It is a great event that follows another event that takes place on Remembrance Day when, led by the Rats of Tobruk pipes and drums, we march through trendy Elwood to St Columbus to mass to remember our servicemen's record. In my electorate we recognise their contribution through the growing number of people who support those commemorative events on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. These events help define the story of what has become our Australian story, our diverse community, and the way we participate in it.
The Elwood RSL was established on the corner of Pine Street and Ormond Esplanade in my electorate with funds raised by the community over decades. It was a big shock when the state member Martin Foley and I learnt that it had suddenly been closed down—like recent news reports of the Heidelberg RSL being closed down—and we shared the concerns of many Elwood residents about how the important events that mark the ANZAC spirit should be respectfully honoured and maintained. We were determined, as we are determined in Port Melbourne on Anzac Day, to keep those events going. I was very pleased that, together with Martin Foley and some very patriotic local people from the Bendigo Bank and local councillors and local real estate people, we advertised without the RSL—as the RSL was closed—and the march and remembrance took place.
My constituent Jane Charleston and other members of the Elwood RSL were very upset with Anzac House for the closure of the club. Jane, a former club employee and member for 20 years only discovered the closure when she phoned the club to put in her footie tips. Even a month after the closure of the club, members had yet to hear from the RSL. RSL ex-serviceman Geoff Goldsmith said he wanted to know what happened to the two Australian Army uniforms he loaned the club. 'I told them if anything happened I would like to get them back,' he said. Mr Goldsmith said there were dozens of his mates with whom he had met and socialised at the club whose telephone numbers he had never even bothered to get. 'Nobody got a chance to say goodbye,' he said. That was the great shame of the very quick closure of the Elwood RSL by Anzac House, the RSL headquarters.
There is a $10 million redevelopment of the Pine Avenue block that will take place. I am sure that will go towards the worthy purposes of the Victorian RSL, but I feel that it could have been handled a lot better. This was, after all, a club that was built with community resources through the years, through funding-raising on the beach, for the benefit of local members. There were still people participating in the club. I do not dispute the legal right of the RSL Victorian headquarters to take over Elwood, but I am concerned about the continuity of membership. The older members of the RSL signed over the rights, as they have done in so many RSLs, to the Victorian headquarters more than a decade ago, but I believe with more support to involve other people from the community and to help them trade—they even had a few poker machines—that Elwood, like many of the RSLs being closed down, would have been able to continue.
I regard General McLachlan as a mate of mine, but I really believe that the traditions we have, both in Elwood and Port Melbourne, like the traditions of ANZAC throughout this country, have to be preserved. The early closures of these clubs do not take into consideration the needs of the community in honouring Australia's traditions. (Time expired)
Education Funding
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (16:50): I would like to touch on some of my concerns about the government's current economic direction for the future of this country. My concern largely centres around the fact that we have a government that seems to think pouring more money into or throwing more money at every single situation is the panacea for all problems. I want to have a look at that in the context of education in particular. Whilst I have no objection to the intended goals of the Gonski reforms, if we look back through the past 10 years or so, we see that there has been a significant increase in school funding, yet we have seen in that same time a fall in the educational outcomes of our students.
When I go around my electorate and speak to the teachers, one of their concerns is that there is so much more that they now have to do in the classroom that has nothing to do with educating our children. For example, they now do things such as administration work filling out risk assessment reports for school excursions and sports, assigning additional time to spend on extracurricular activities that do not focus on core building blocks of education in reading, maths and writing or the key skills that help our students progress from one year to the next. They raised with me their concerns about onerous professional development requirements to keep registration which constantly take them away from the kids and the classroom and, ultimately, set lessons back. The requirement to have continuing industry experience also disrupts classes and the structure of school terms for vocational education courses.
In all the discussions with respect to the proposed reforms under Gonski—as I said earlier, they have a great deal of merit—there seems to be very little, if any, discussion about these impediments to the teachers focusing on what they are actually trained to do, and that is to teach our kids. I have had this discussion not only with teachers but also with childcare workers in my electorate, who are concerned about the amount of time taken up by regulation, red tape and paperwork that is impacting on their ability to work with the children in their care, and that it is pushing up the cost of child care for parents needing those services.
Ultimately, when we look at these things in totality, the picture they give us is of governments focused on putting more rules and regulations in place to try to solve problems that would possibly be solved by less regulation and paperwork, and by allowing the people who do this wonderful work with our kids to focus on what they have actually been trained to do. Paul Manwaring makes an interesting observation in the context of regulation and bureaucracy:
Bureaucracy is like setting up scaffolding around a house to paint the place, and instead painting the scaffolding for 25 years until the house finally falls down.
We need to focus on reducing regulation and red tape, to allow people to do what they were trained to do. In respect of our schools in particular, we need to allow our teachers to focus on those basic skills of writing and reading and arithmetic. That is where we are going to see the turnaround in educational outcomes for students in all of our communities, which I am sure all of us in this House more than readily agree we want to see, because the results of the past five or 10 years are very disappointing in that regard.
Petrie Electorate
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie—Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (16:55): I rise today to highlight my priorities for the electorate of Petrie in 2013. Over the past six years, I have been working with my community to make our part of the world a better place to live, and I am proud of what we have achieved so far. We have $742 million for a rail line that has been talked about for over 100 years. As the federal Labor member for Petrie I am delivering the Moreton Bay Rail Link. We have significant new and improved facilities in 36 local schools, thanks to the almost $86 million that I delivered as the federal Labor member for Petrie. I have advocated passionately for education reform, and our federal Labor government is delivering. The only threat now to more money for all schools is Liberal state governments and those on the other side of this chamber. We just heard from the member for Forde on the issue of education, and I call on the opposition to release their education policy so we can have that debate, because I have concerns when a member of the opposition claims professional development is a non-core issue for teachers.
I am fighting hard alongside locals to see the National Disability Insurance Scheme become a reality. The only reason Queenslanders are not benefiting from our billion-dollar investment is a Liberal state Premier.
I am standing up for our seniors, who have worked hard for our country, and we can take pride in what we have delivered for them: the single biggest pension increase in 100 years; superannuation incentives and concessions for older workers; ongoing aged-care reforms—capping costs and shutting down discrimination; the seniors work bonus; and, now, $1,000 rewards for businesses that hire and retain mature-age workers.
The National Broadband Network is rolling out across my electorate, in parts of Aspley, North Lakes, Griffin, and Mango Hill and it is now coming to Carseldine. People in the suburbs not yet on the map are crying out to be included because they know the NBN will revolutionise the way we do things in our homes, in our schools and in our workplaces.
The next round of household assistance payments under the Clean Energy Future package will be hitting bank accounts from March, and our Clean Technology Investment Program has already helped 188 Australian manufacturers to improve their energy efficiency, reduce their power bills, improve their competitiveness and cut their carbon pollution.
Since my election, there has been a 23 per cent increase in local students attending university—proof that our policies are changing lives. Throughout our community, the schoolkids bonus has already benefited 9,700 families. Just last week, I was talking to parents at school gates about the schoolkids bonus and they were telling me how helpful it has been. As a mum of two I know that the week before school goes back is crazy, with last-minute expenses popping up all over the place. The new payments—$410 per primary student and $820 per kid in high school—are lightening the load on family budgets just when they most need a break. I know parents are already looking forward to the second round of payments in July this year.
We recognise that there are also other people in our communities doing it tough. That is why yesterday we brought in income support bonuses—to give a half-yearly boost to the incomes of those who could use a helping hand, such as Newstart and Austudy recipients. But of course the opposition voted against these bonuses, like they vote against most things.
Make no mistake—under a coalition government we would see the schoolkids bonus gone, the income support bonus gone, the NBN gone, superannuation tax breaks for low-paid workers gone, more funding for all schools gone, the federally funded National Disability Insurance Scheme gone, fair rights at work gone, and jobs gone, gone, gone. The proof for Queenslanders is the Premier. On Campbell Newman's watch, we have already seen 14,000 jobs slashed, including 4,000 in health services and what looks like around 1,000 in the Metro North Brisbane region alone. This is the region that services my constituents, and they are not happy. We have also seen funding ripped out of community groups and gag orders imposed; public transport services cut; and employment programs and TAFE campuses gutted. The toll of destruction goes on and on.
This year, I will fight harder than I have ever fought before to make sure the coalition cannot do to Australia what the LNP has done to Queensland. I want positive reform; that is what I stand for. I want to build on the legacy of our Labor governments—a legacy that includes the age pension, Medicare, compulsory superannuation and paid parental leave. On 14 September, I will be asking the people of Petrie to help me add the NBN; the NDIS; a cost-capped aged-care system; a low-carbon, energy-efficient future; and a new, fairer way of funding our schools, to our legacy. These are my priorities for 2013. This is what drives me. This is what I am fighting for.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 17 : 00
NOTICES
The following notice(s) were given:
Mr Hayes to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Phelan McDermid Syndrome is a rare and debilitating disease that affects about 30 people in Australia; and
(b) the condition is most commonly caused by the novo chromosomal deletion which results in a syndrome that is autism related;
(2) recognises the important role the Phelan McDermid Syndrome Foundation has in providing support to families; and
(3) acknowledges the:
(a) physical, emotional and financial impact on families where a child is diagnosed with Phelan McDermid Syndrome; and
(b) efforts of Megan Toole in raising awareness of this rare disease and supporting the affected families.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Bennelong Electorate: Mr Jacques Baran
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (09:30): I rise to commend the extraordinary life of Mr Jacques Baran, who was recently awarded City of Ryde Citizen of the Year in recognition of his generous contribution to the Bennelong community. I was delighted to join Jacques and Helen Crouch from North Ryde Community Aid for this presentation, and I am a proud local representative to stand here and tell you Jacques's story.
In the aftermath of World War II Jacques Baran was born in Syria from Armenian heritage. Following the death of his father Jacques became the family breadwinner, when he was just 17. He also undertook a political science and business administration degree, followed by a PhD. Jacques volunteered at Homenetmen, Aleppo, a distinguished Armenian cultural and sports organisation. However, civil unrest caused him to migrate to the United Arab Emirates with his wife and young daughter. Here he established an Armenian school, bringing together volunteers to teach Armenian children to speak, read and write their ancient language.
It is important to outline the historical context of this work, to emphasise its importance. The acts of genocide committed against the Armenian people in the early 20th century caused them to scatter across the globe, creating many obstacles in the perpetuation of their unique culture. It is true that with the schooling of the next generation in their distinctive language, by people like Jacques Baran, these obstacles are overcome and the connection to their heritage is retained. In 1985, Jacques migrated to Australia with his family, forging a successful career in management, embracing his new home, while also celebrating his Armenian background.
In 2011 Jacques joined the North Ryde Community Aid and Information Centre as a volunteer, assisting disabled and aged clients with their transport emergency needs, and providing his specialist language skills for Armenian seniors to interact with the wider community. Legend has it that Adolf Hitler justified his final solution policy against the Jewish community by remarking, 'No one remembers the Armenians.' It is fitting that nearly 100 years after the Armenian genocide we can stand up on the other side of the world and applaud the efforts of people like Jacques Baran and proclaim that we remember the Armenians and we celebrate their enduring language, culture and heritage. As we turn our attention to the Armenian Christian minority currently being targeted in Aleppo, in Syria, we pray that common sense and global leadership will help these proud people prevail once more.
Parramatta Electorate: Parramatta Two Blues Rugby Club
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (09:33): I have a great number of sporting clubs in my electorate, and I want to talk about one of them today, the Parramatta Two Blues Rugby Club, a club founded as Cumberland way back in 1879 that has enjoyed 130 years of top-grade rugby in Sydney's premier competition and is one of only two clubs to have never been relegated.
The club reflects the community in which it is based. There are many cultures, many languages and several religions. Early last year I was made aware that the players were being subject to racist taunts when playing in other regions of Sydney. The players, some young children and others young adults, would brace themselves for a day of racial insults when they travelled to some other areas of our great city. The club decided to tackle the problem head on. They implemented a range of programs to tackle racism and approached Wallaby and Waratah Tatafu Polota-Nau to record a script about respectful behaviour in the Parramatta district.
I am pleased to say the club will be able to continue their wonderful work fighting racism, with a grant of $50,000 under this government's $1.5 million Diversity and Social Cohesion Program. It was a pleasure to be joined by the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Senator Kate Lundy, last week to meet with the players from the Two Blues to discuss their Kick Racism Into Touch project. It was great to be able to throw the ball with Kate, Glen Christini, General Manager Michael Bell, President Geoff Baldwin, and four young players: Sam Yakopo, Dan Yakopo, Jessie Leota and Rodney Ma'a.
Like other clubs in your area, when you join Two Blues your culture and your whole life joins with you. The club embraces cultural life, and it is amazing to see young male and female rugby players don traditional clothes for a presentation of traditional dance. It is also impressive that the club provides Certificate III training courses in a range of areas for young players. The idea came I think from Merrylands Rugby Club, just down the road, who cooperated with TAFE some years ago to deliver IT courses up to Certificate III for their players, delivered in the afternoons at the clubhouse.
As part of Parramatta's Kick Racism Into Touch project the club will host cultural events at their rugby matches in Western Sydney to promote cultural understanding and unity. The club will also install signs and banners on their club grounds to promote awareness about cultural diversity. It is a great program by a great club, aimed at enhancing belonging and community connectedness, two ingredients critical in harnessing the strength of our diversity. It is a club that does a remarkable job with self-esteem and education, both on and off the field, and I commend them for it.
I would also say that the players of this club cannot vote on 14 September because it is the grand final day for our local rugby competition. I will be sending them, with all confidence, information on how to pre-poll so that they can get the job done well ahead of the grand final, which we are all well and truly hoping they will be doing on that day in September.
Ryan Electorate: Australia Day Citizenship Ceremonies
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (09:36): On Australia Day I had the privilege of welcoming more than 100 new citizens to my electorate of Ryan at three different citizenship ceremonies, in Indooroopilly, Mount Coot-tha and Toowong. As a result of the diligent work of members of the Brisbane Inner West Lions Club, the Rotary Club of Brisbane Planetarium and the Rotary Club of Toowong, these events were very special and memorable occasions for the participants and their family and friends.
On the day there were of course individuals, but also families, parents and their children, who had uprooted their lives in their country of birth to begin a new promising life in our great country. Each year more than 100,000 people settle in Australia, contributing to the social, cultural and economic development of this country. I know that these new citizens, who have pledged their commitment to our country on Australia Day, will bring with them the rich experiences and cultures of their countries of birth and will continue to enhance the vibrant multicultural fabric that we see in Ryan, and indeed across Brisbane.
We are often witness to the struggles of people in other countries fighting to build democracies, a system of government that we sometimes can take for granted. I find it particularly heartening to hear new citizens say the pledge and commit themselves to the future of Australia and to our democratic system of government. It is important that every Australian continues, as the pledge expresses, to share our democratic beliefs, respect our rights and liberties and uphold and obey our laws. It is in respecting the privileges and responsibilities that come with being Australian citizens that makes this country such a great place to live.
As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of the Australian Flag, I was delighted to see Mr Alan Pidgeon, chairman of the Australian National Flag Association, at the ceremony in Indooroopilly. Our flag was of course prominently displayed on the stage and I was proud to present each new citizen with their own flag. I also provided an information kit explaining the history and traditions of our flag, our national anthem and our indigenous flora and fauna.
I would like to thank many people for their efforts: Councillor Julian Simmonds, the councillor for Walter Taylor ward, and his staff; Ron Welsh and the Lions Club of Inner West; Judy Magub of Planetarium Rotary; Michael Michaux and Len Hepburn of the Toowong Rotary Club; and the Interact Club at Brisbane Boys College. I also want to thank all the other members who volunteered on the day to make the events great successes.
The Rotary branches at Toowong and at the Planetarium, and the Lions Club of Brisbane Inner West are part of a very broad range of humanitarian community services and projects that serve an important safety net for residents in Ryan. Both organisations help provide resources—people, financial and technical—for a broad range of community service projects within our local area, as well as nationally and indeed internationally. I want to take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge the great inspiration that this provides to other members of the community, new and old, to live in the service of others. I hope that some of these new citizens will participate in these community groups.
Holt Electorate: Holt Community Spirit and Leadership Awards
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (09:39): On 10 December last year I had the honour to acknowledge 57 outstanding young students from 55 schools at the 2012 Holt Community Spirit and Leadership Awards ceremony. The Holt Community Spirit and Leadership Awards have been held for about 11 years. I host these awards because I basically want to bring our community together to celebrate what is very good about our community, which is the young people who are making a contribution to their schools and their communities. I want to emphasise that Casey and Holt are great places to live, to work and to raise a family. The award winners are nominated by their schools; they are given a framed certificate and also a gift voucher. It is great to bring the community together and watch the very proud parents, teachers and students celebrate the achievements and contribution each of these students has made.
There are 57 of these students whose names I would like to read into the parliamentary record to acknowledge their contribution: Ahdia Taher, Carly Wadsworth, Olivia Henry, Samuel Lui, Samantha Chapman, Alia De Savery, Richelle Smith, Chloe Stone, Yasmin Yassin, Bonin Sok, Mikayla Laffan, Courtney Zurek, Kevin Tangga, Bonni-Lee Hovey, Anh Thu Nguyen—Anh Thu is a very special person, and if I get time I will tell you why—Jamie Lewis-Milaetis, Anjali Mahesh, Alana Cole-Surjan, Mansor Yaqubi, Justin Smith, Rebecca Herft, Mikayla Newton, Sara Forte, Emily Flentjar, Martin Zengbean, Melissa Lot, Kathryn Hazell, Alyssa Jeffrey, Monique White, Jayden Bull, Ashleigh Jones, Elli-Dion Martin, Brandilee Norris, Noor Sarai, Rebecca Jenkins, Luther D’Sa, Maria Pereleshina, Liam Madden, Joel Rogerson, Natalie Francois, Natasha Aulia, Hannah Halton, Samantha Malamatin, Dion Elefantis, Brooke Rackham, Joel Keating, Bridget Rae, Taylah Algie, Marie Alevizos, Jessica Hannan, Gurshan Dhaliwal, Lachlan Buckanen, Zoe Exner, Michael Stevens, Resalene Lavaka, David Huezo and Will Height. That is a long list, isn't it?
It is a long list of names and I wish that I could also read to you the testimony of each of the students that appeared before us to be presented with the award. Too often we hear about what our young people do wrong, but we really need to emphasise what they do right. The City of Casey in my electorate is the future of our country. These young people are coming through and they are going to be our community leaders, they are our next generation. When I read articles about young people in the paper, very rarely do I read about the positive contributions that they are making. I hear the bad stuff. We need to keep on emphasising the good things and, as I said on Australia Day, I am going to keep talking positively about my electorate until the general media understands what a great place it is to live, to work and to raise a family.
Podgornik, Mr Peter
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (09:42): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a person I have actually never met, but who has provided more than 30 years of outstanding public service to our community as a member of both the Victorian and the Australian public service.
As other members in this place would be aware, we are often required to assist our constituents with issues relating to immigration and passports and our staff are required to deal directly with a range of departments and it is not always a positive experience as they try and navigate their way through the bureaucracy. The exception for my staff has been dealing with a fellow by the name of Peter Podgornik, who has been the go-to man within the passports area for my staff for more than 20 years. Peter is actually retiring this month after a very distinguished career.
He started in the Victorian public service in 1978 and then transferred to the Australian Public Service in 1980, when he obtained a job in the department of foreign affairs. In 2007, Peter became the regional director of the Australian Passport Office for Victoria and Tasmania. Essentially, he has worked in the public service for more than 30 years and the last 16 years have seen him in that senior role as manager of the Australian Passport Office in Melbourne, with the additional responsibility of Tasmania over the past five years.
I spoke to some of my staff this morning just to get a sense of their relationship with Peter, and they were quick to praise him for his professionalism, his courtesy and the healthy dose of common sense he brought to the role. As we all know, the term common sense is an unusual one as it is not that common these days, but Peter certainly had a healthy dose of common sense and he always went out of his way to help people and to help my staff in his dealings with them. A typical example would be if a person lives in the electorate of Gippsland and their father dies in London. They have an urgent requirement to get to a funeral within four or five days, but if they do not have a passport then we would work with Peter, who organises for someone to meet that bereaved person at the airport and help them to get a passport in time to catch a flight, sometimes within 24 or 48 hours. He went above and beyond the call of duty and was a highly experienced and very well-respected passport manager.
Peter led his team with exemplary people skills and he put the word 'service' back into the public service, and we thank him for that. He was a very resourceful public servant and made the rules work in sometimes difficult circumstances. So he ran a great team in the Melbourne passports office, and my staff have nothing but praise for him and wish him well in his retirement. It is funny that my staff dealt with him for more than 20 years and only met him last year for the first time when they were attending an immigration course and dropped in to say g'day.
We wish Peter well. He is a family man who has fostered a real family environment amongst the team of staff in the Melbourne passports office and we wish him well for a long, healthy and happy retirement. I understand Peter loves his sport. He follows the Essendon Bombers. I do not wish him that well in his pursuit of his football team's success, but I wish him well in his other passions of horse racing and cricket. I hope he has a very healthy and happy retirement.
Corio Electorate: Railway Stations
Mr MARLES (Corio—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) (09:45): I have spoken in this chamber before about the appalling state of some of the train stations in Geelong's north: North Shore and Corio stations in particular. I know that many people in Geelong feel as I do: that train travellers in the northern suburbs have been let down by the state government. They feel their stations are second-class, and I believe they are.
Corio Station is a disgrace, and there are no plans to have it improved despite the huge wave of public concern when I raised the issue here last year. North Shore Station is in a sense a bigger problem because it is the gateway to Geelong for interstate travellers on the Overland. On the train from Adelaide to Melbourne, North Shore is effectively Geelong's station. Again, it is hardly a welcoming site. It is barely a station—just a platform with a meagre shelter, without a phone, toilet or ticket booth. The safety of passengers leaving the train at North Shore is left in the hands of volunteers. While that is a wonderful reflection of our caring community, it is a shocking indictment on the state government that such a service has to be provided by volunteers.
This station is not staffed. This station is an eyesore and stands as one of the real problems of the northern suburbs. It is not just about commuting to Melbourne; it is also about the connection for people in North Shore and the other parts of North Geelong with the centre of Geelong itself.
In a letter to my office sent at the end of last month, the public transport minister of the state government, Terry Mulder, said:
The Coalition Government is aware of recent efforts to improve amenities at North Shore, however the Government has no plans or available funding to further upgrade the station.
If you look at that station today and you hear that comment, the contempt for Geelong is utterly breathtaking. I wrote to Mr Mulder on behalf of Bell Post Hill resident Linda Smith, who is frustrated by the poor-quality service of the expanded car park at North Geelong railway station. Mr Mulder's office could not even be bothered to get the station right such is their disdain for passenger facilities in Geelong's northern suburbs. Mrs Smith expressed her frustration that facilities in the northern suburbs were overlooked at the expense of other areas. She describes the unpaved area at the North Geelong station car park as a quagmire in winter and a dust bowl in summer. This is an easy fix and should be given prompt attention but it seems passenger safety and community amenity in the northern suburbs is being sacrificed by the state government for political expediency. At a time when passenger numbers on Geelong's services are increasing, we should be looking ahead at ways we can encourage train travel and ensure the comfort of passengers.
The federal government is investing $3.9 billion in the regional rail link to improve travel times between Melbourne and Geelong. It is about time the state government took its role more seriously and started investing in the stations of the north.
Solomon Electorate: Australia Day
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (09:49): On Australia Day I had the pleasure of attending two flag-raising ceremonies and citizenship ceremonies—one in Palmerston and one in Darwin. It was interesting to note that this year there were 88 new citizens making their pledges in Palmerston and 61 in Darwin. This is a point that Mayor Abbot was very proud of.
At both ceremonies a number of awards were presented, including, citizen, young citizen and community event of the year. The Darwin citizen of the year was Jane Lawton, a well-known, tireless campaigner. The young citizen of the year was Jeremiah Rasing, a very inspirational young man who will be someone to watch in the future. The Darwin community event of the year was the RSPCA's 2012 Million Paws Walk—an event that attracted hundreds of participants with their four-legged friends.
In Palmerston, the young citizen was Josh Fosdick, another amazing, community spirited young man who will be one to watch in the future. The Palmerston community event was won by the Senior Songsters, an amazing group of men and women who have been singing their way around Darwin and Palmerston for over 12 years. These men and women are aged between 60 and 80 and sing a range of songs, with the 1940s era being a specialty of theirs. I have seen them singing at a number of events, including at nursing homes, and they always bring a smile to people's faces.
The citizen of the year is a good friend of mine, Margot Cox. Margot is also a member of the Senior Songsters, and she was delighted that she was acknowledged as being in the Senior Songsters. Her expression when she was announced as citizen of the year was priceless. Margot, for over 20 years, has been volunteering her time on Saturday mornings at the Palmerston Shopping Centre community wheel, where she sells meat trays and has raised thousands and thousands of dollars, which is all distributed to local sporting groups, community groups and charitable organisations throughout Palmerston.
What was really great was that two of Margot's children, Roy and Janelle, who flew in from interstate, were able to be at the event to see their mother recognised by a grateful community—and they are a grateful community. Every Saturday morning you know that if you go to the Palmerston Shopping Centre you will see Margot there at the wheel, raising money with the meat trays. She does amazing things for the community. I know she had been nominated a number of times, but this year was her year, and people were just delighted. So, well done to Margot and well done to everybody else. It was a great day and it is wonderful that we have so many good people in our community who were recognised.
Paciullo, Hon. George, OAM
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (09:51): On behalf of my family and the residents of my electorate of Fowler, I would like to express my great sadness at the passing of The Hon. George Paciullo, OAM. George died late last year in Liverpool Hospital at the age of 78. More than 700 mourners, including myself and my wife, Bernadette, farewelled the man who made a tremendous contribution to the city of Liverpool and indeed the state of New South Wales. Despite the large attendance at his mass at All Saints Catholic Church in Liverpool, it was a low-key service, and quite personal—which probably says much about the man himself.
George gained his education at Liverpool primary school and worked as a survey draftsman from 1951 until he was elected to the New South Wales parliament in 1971. He served as a minister in the Wran and Unsworth governments in a range of portfolios. Before that, and also later in his life, he made a tremendous contribution on Liverpool City Council and served on two occasions as mayor.
One of his greatest achievements came when he was the police minister in New South Wales, where he personally is credited with the introduction of random breath testing—which, by any measure, has saved many thousands of lives over the last 30 years. As chairman of the Staysafe committee in New South Wales as early as 1982, he undertook the brave personal crusade to equip New South Wales police with random breath testing units in a bid to slash the road toll, which at that stage was averaging 1,200 victims a year. At times he fought some pretty heady battles, including within his own party, to establish random breath testing as we know it today. Another one of his notable achievements was advocating for the rebuilding of Liverpool Hospital, and it is quite poignant that this is the very place where he died last year. Liverpool Hospital, once it is complete, will be the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere.
George was one of those politicians who was driven in his job purely for the purpose of serving his community, as he did when he was an alderman on the council. In 1999 George was deservedly awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia, and he was made a life member of the Australian Labor Party in 2002.
I express my deepest condolences to George's family and pay respect for what he was able to achieve in the time he spent leading our community of Liverpool. May he rest in peace.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
McPherson Electorate: Schools
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (09:54): Last week many students across the country went back to school. It was also the start of the school year for many of our new prep students. Last Friday, I had the opportunity to visit one of the schools in my electorate that I think is unique: the Currumbin Valley State School. As you may already have concluded, the Currumbin Valley State School is in the Currumbin Valley on the Gold Coast. It is in a very beautiful part of the Gold Coast—it is about 15 minutes from the beach—but it is a part of the Gold Coast that many of our northern Gold Coasters and often our tourists do not tend to get to, which is very unfortunate. I do encourage everyone to get into that part of the Gold Coast. The school is close to the end of Currumbin Creek Road; it is not far from the Mount Cougal section of Springbrook National Park and it is situated right next to the Currumbin Creek. It is in a truly beautiful location.
When I arrived at the school last week, I was greeted by the new prep students. They were wearing their new uniforms and they had their name badges on, because Friday was their first day at school. Their school had been affected by the poor weather that we had had on the Gold Coast over the Australia Day long weekend and it had lost a number of its services, including its telephone, so it was unable to open for the school year as was scheduled.
Currumbin Valley State School now has 127 students from prep to year 7. That is its largest enrolment since it first opened on 21 September 1908, when the best records that I can find indicate that there were 15 students aged between eight and 14 years. The school principal, Heidi Mackenzie, has confirmed that not all of the students that are there now come from the local area. There are quite a number of students who travel some distance to get to the school. It is clearly a school of choice for parents and students and, quite frankly, a visit to the school would make it very clear as to why that is. The school prides itself on working closely with students, parents, carers and the school community. It certainly engages very actively with them.
The school website gives an insight into its culture, where it states:
We pride ourselves on working with students, parents, carers and the school community to deliver quality education, allowing our children to experience a unique education within a safe and environmentally friendly surrounding.
If I were to give three key factors for the success of the school, I would say that they are (1) the 'students come first' culture, where the students are certainly paramount in the school decision making process; (2) the involvement of parents, carers and the school community; and (3) the leadership of the principal, Heidi Mackenzie, and her staff. I congratulate them on all their efforts and wish them all the very best.
Broadband
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (09:57): Good morning, colleagues. I would like to talk about the good, the bad and the ugly, if I may. The good is the announcement on Wednesday that faster broadband would be coming to the north-west coast of Tasmania and to the rest of Australia. All Australians now will have access to faster speeds on the National Broadband Network than they can get today over the ageing copper network, following an upgrade to the NBN's fixed wireless and satellite services. This is really important to people in my electorate and no doubt to yours too, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. Those people are outside the fibre rollout areas, so this means that everyone will have access to broadband. The super highway will now provide speeds of 25 megabits per second for downloads and five megabits per second for the uploads. There is the guarantee of the national wholesale pricing for broadband services. That is fantastic news.
The bad news, unfortunately, is that recently Tony Abbott came to Tasmania. That is not bad, as everyone is welcome to come to Tassie, but he was asked to make his policy clear on the GST, its distribution and the model thereafter that would be used for that distribution. He was again asked to clarify his views on the GST for Tasmania and whether he would continue to support Western Australia's demand that the GST be based on a per capita modelling. He refused to repudiate the Western Australia model and demand from Colin Barnett. Tony Abbott has again refused to rule out the threat of a $700 million loss to Tasmania if he does not abide by the current GST distribution model.
He was also asked about policies and funding for Tasmania, and he came out with a ridiculous statement that he would completely duplicate the Midland Highway from Hobart to Launceston for $430 million when $2½ billion to $3 billion is what it would cost. It is just silliness. Then today we hear about his plan for Northern Australia. He is going to rip out 46,000 public service jobs, and I estimate 4,000 of those would come from Tasmania. He is talking about creating a food bowl in the north of Australia. We have a food bowl in Tasmania, and if Tony Abbott and his cronies would commit to policies that would support the development of those industries in Tasmania instead of some of these crazy ideas in the north, then we might get somewhere.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (10:01): I rise today with great pleasure to support this very important bill, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012, which recognises the distinctive and unique place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first peoples of our nation. The Labor Party has a long and proud record of supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister, our efforts in closing the gap show our commitment and genuine desire to advance Indigenous Australia and also to recognise historic wrongs and injustices. I commend the Prime Minister for her courage in standing up to state and territory governments who turn their backs on the serious social and economic problems that affect some communities.
The bill before us is another measure Labor is taking to advance Indigenous Australia and promote reconciliation because Labor has always been a party that advances Indigenous Australia and the process of reconciliation and respect. It was Gough Whitlam who championed land rights and upgraded the office of Aboriginal affairs to ministerial level. It was under Labor that Uluru was handed back to its traditional owners. It was under Labor that the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was established. In 1989 it was Labor that passed a resolution on Indigenous prior ownership and dispossession, and it is worth noting that this was opposed by the Liberal Party.
In 1992 it was Labor's Paul Keating who delivered his landmark Redfern speech at the launch of the International Year of Indigenous People. There Mr Keating articulated the goal of all in Labor when he said:
… we cannot confidently say that we have succeeded as we would like to have succeeded if we have not managed to extend opportunity and care, dignity and hope to the indigenous people of Australia—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people.
And last year, on the 20th anniversary of the historic High Court Mabo native title decision, our former Attorney-General Nicola Roxon remarked:
The Mabo decision marked a turning point for reconciliation in Australia.
The Attorney-General echoed all our sentiments—all in Labor—when she said Mabo:
… was a significant step forward in truly recognising the proud history of the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures on our planet.
It was on 13 February 2008 when Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the stolen generations in what was one of the most moving and significant moments this parliament has ever seen. And yesterday Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard delivered her Closing the Gap statement that highlighted the great progress this government is making to ensure more Indigenous children than ever before are getting access to preschool. As the Prime Minister said, 95 per cent of Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities are now enrolled in preschool. It is an extraordinary achievement, and anyone who saw the images last night on television would celebrate that. This is just one measure where we are closing the gap.
Now we have more landmark Labor legislation in the form of a provisional measure, a starting point on the road to formal recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution. As we work towards that goal, this bill will go a long way in raising public awareness and building a national consensus in Australia for constitutional change. Labor has committed $10 million to support this campaign, and the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, a body established by the Labor government, came up with a package of recommended constitutional amendments that they considered would be successful at a national referendum. But we recognise that a referendum must be held at a time when it has the most chance of success. That is vitally important, and this was something that the expert panel recommended.
I understand that much work is already underway in laying the groundwork for constitutional change, and among these measures are the reconciliation action plans—business plans that craft meaningful relationships and produce sustainable opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Since the program's inception, over 300 Australian corporations, governments, government agencies and community organisations have signed up to reconciliation action plans, and the expert panel has played a leading role in this process of laying the groundwork, as has Reconciliation Australia, which has previously done a lot to raise public awareness and support for constitutional change.
I was involved in developing the reconciliation action plan for the Department of Defence, an enormously comprehensive plan that took about a year in negotiation and consultation with all arms of Defence. It was, I understand, the first reconciliation action plan that was introduced in government agencies. It was an absolute tome, and I commend and congratulate the Department of Defence for the efforts that they put into this in really wanting to achieve reconciliation and understanding across the behemoth that is Defence. There are so many different arms, so the reconciliation action plan has a specific section for Navy, a specific section for Army, a specific section for Air Force and specific sections for the various agencies and arms of Defence, including DSTO and what at that stage was the Defence Support Group. Right across the organisation and right across Australia, every part of it was touched by this reconciliation action plan.
It was not just a case of lovely words and great design; there were substantial KPIs and tight time lines in there on what needed to be achieved by a particular date, such as what Navy needed to do not just in addressing and improving access of Indigenous Australians to Navy but also in terms of improving cultural understanding. That is particularly important in every government agency, and it is particularly true for Defence, even though they have a very strong track record of achievement in this area, particularly with NORFORCE up north; I understand that about 95 per cent of NORFORCE comprises Indigenous Australians. So it was a comprehensive and extraordinary body of work that was developed through extensive consultation over quite a bit of time, and I commend and congratulate Defence, as I said. I understand that there have been a number of iterations since then. Defence also, in a way, led the way for other government agencies with their work. I was involved in the launch of that first reconciliation action plan. There was the smoking ceremony. It was conducted with great dignity and also with great respect and a large degree of involvement of the Indigenous community in the launch of the event. Defence also has Indigenous Defence personnel drawn from all over the country, from civilian and military areas. They advise and assist, and they are the management in Defence on what is appropriate for their communities both in a working environment and in a social and economic environment. So, again, hats off to Defence for that extraordinary work on the reconciliation action plan.
It is just wonderful to see that so many Australian organisations—private, public and community—have signed up for these plans, because the benefit of these plans is the fact that they focus the organisation on the Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander community needs. It is not just a case of writing these papers; the key word is 'action', so they outline some objectives on what they want to achieve and then how they are going to achieve, it, and it focuses everyone's attention on the fact that, 'Okay, there is this gap here, and we need to fill it and address it, and this is how we're going to do it.' So everyone is mobilised and there is a broad sense of ownership in that organisation in achieving more equitable outcomes for Indigenous Australians.
When the expert panel delivered its report to the government early last year recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, there was a clear acknowledgement that in Australia there is not a great deal of support or awareness for the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution. In my electorate of Canberra there is a very strong level of support for formal recognition. I have received a number of emails on it and Canberrans are 110 per cent behind this.
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, just from prayers each morning, the ACT is the home of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples. They are the original inhabitants and their traditional lands do not just encompass Canberra but much of the area around the ACT region. The Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples have inhabited this area, including the land that this parliament is built on, for about 20,000 years. Along with all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, they warrant formal recognition, and so many Canberrans are supportive of this. Like me, there are many in the electorate who are equally passionate about recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.
It is the small investments, the on-the-ground projects, that are making the difference. Here in my electorate the government's Find Your Science Hero project was developed by the Questacon ScienceLines Indigenous Outreach Program to complement and work with the ACT Department of Education and Training's Indigenous Student Aspirations program. The Find Your Science Hero project was developed by ScienceLines, in response to lower levels of engagement with the sciences amongst young Indigenous students. We have low levels of engagement by students in science across Australia, particularly so with young Indigenous students. The project challenged the students' notions about what science is and who uses science. With the help of the ScienceLines team, students made a personal connection to science by identifying a 'science hero' from within their own family or community. It is a great idea. The ScienceLines team offered the students who participated in Find Your Science Hero the opportunity to present their projects at a public event held at Questacon during National Reconciliation Week last year. I understand that the presentations were inspirational. Many people attending reported that it was one of the best events held in Canberra during that week. That is just one example of Labor's commitment to respect and recognition.
As I said before, we concur with the expert panel that it is important for a referendum to be held at a time when it has the most chance of success. As we all know, referendums in this country are not often passed; they involve a huge amount of agreement across the entire nation. This issue certainly has the potential to undermine the reconciliation process between Australia's first peoples and the broader community. That is why we are starting with this bill. It signifies our desire to pursue meaningful change to the Constitution that echoes the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
In saying this, it is important to stress that this is not a substitute for constitutional recognition. This bill does not include all of the recommendations of the expert panel as many of the recommendations specifically refer to sections of the Constitution. This bill creates a mechanism where all Australians can become familiar with and aware of the possible wording for a constitutional statement that could be included in a referendum in the future on the constitutional recognition. So in many respects this bill is part of the ongoing conversation that needs to be held in the lead-up to constitutional change. There are many reasons why this bill is so important in the long-awaited recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is critical to this nation that we recognise the first peoples and finally give them the respect and formal acknowledgments that are long overdue. It is equally critical that we educate and inform the Australian people—all of them—about why we are proposing this and what it means. We also need to show how successfully this has been achieved in other countries. This is why we have committed $10 million to establish a public awareness campaign and build on community support.
Formal recognition and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, wherever they are—Cobourg Peninsula, Bamaga, Nullumbuy, Thursday Island, Redfern, Townsville or over in the west—should not be a divisive or controversial issue; it should be a process that unites all Australians in recognising our first peoples' unique history, culture and connection to this land. It is an important step in Australia's history and a process I hope all members of parliament will support and embrace.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (10:14): I rise today to speak to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012. This bill is a short step in a long journey that we as Australians are taking towards healing hearts and minds. This bill represents not the first or the last stop on our journey but one along the way of recognising the important role that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples play and the place they hold in our nation's history, the current day and into our future.
In recent years our nation has made significant progress towards restoring the relationship between all Australians. Leaders on both sides of the political fence have been instrumental in achieving what we have thus far. Some 20 years ago, in December 1992, the then Prime Minister Paul Keating delivered the significant Redfern speech at the Australian launch of the International Year of the World's Indigenous People. Mr Keating said:
This is a fundamental test of our social goals and our national will: our ability to say to ourselves and the rest of the world that Australia is a first rate social democracy, that we are what we should be—truly the land of the fair go and the better chance.
… … …
Perhaps when we recognise what we have in common we will see the things which must be done—the practical things.
… … …
The message should be that there is nothing to fear or lose in the recognition of historical truth, or the extension of social justice, or the deepening of Australian social democracy to include Indigenous Australians. There is everything to gain.
These words were an important beginning to a healing process for our country and, having been there at the time, it was quite a moving event. Other leaders have also contributed to the public sphere about this issue, making lasting impressions on Australia's culture through their words of leadership.
In 2008, in his national apology speech, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said to the parliament:
There comes a time in the history of nations when their peoples must become fully reconciled to their past if they are to go forward with confidence to embrace their future. Our nation, Australia, has reached such a time.
… … …
Because a time has come, well and truly come, for all peoples of our great country, for all citizens of our great Commonwealth, for all Australians—those who are Indigenous and those who are not—to come together to reconcile and together build a new future for our nation.
The Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson MP, then Leader of the Opposition, cited Neville Bonner in his response to the apology. The first Aboriginal Australian who came to this parliament was Neville Bonner. He said in prophetic words to the Liberal Party members who selected him:
In my experience of this world, two qualities are always in greater need—human understanding and compassion.
Dr Nelson said it well. These qualities are abundant in Australia and the reconciliation process has been a manifestation of this as Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians have walked together to strengthen our collective society.
The bill we are discussing today is not the final stop in our journey. Instead, this bill is a single point that allows us to look behind to see what we have achieved, and we have achieved much, and to look ahead to see the distance yet to travel. Yet, from this point forward, there is a greater understanding that there are ways that this parliament and the people of Australia can come together to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I believe the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, has picked up on a growing consensus in our nation. Mr Abbott said in his Closing the Gap speech:
There is a new spirit in this land. There is a new spirit which reaches out to embrace the Indigenous people of this country, so different from the spirit that was abroad when the Prime Minister and I were young. It is a tribute to so many people in this place and around our country that this is now the case.
This bill is a small step in a long journey that we as Australians are taking towards healing. It recognises the unique and special place of the first peoples of our nation. It is the product of a growing number of Australians who understand that for our nation to prosper in the future all Australians need to be brought on this journey together.
This bill is the result of the extensive work of an expert panel tasked with engaging the Australian public, both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and other Australians. The expert panel was charged with determining possible options for constitutional change. Additionally, the expert panel was tasked with refining proposals for a referendum and building support necessary for successful constitutional change. The expert panel chair, affectionately known as the 'father of reconciliation', Patrick Dodson, set about the expert panel being convened. He said:
We're gathered to take a remarkable step forward. Forward to a nation that acknowledges its history, its heritage in its founding document. Forward to a nation who stands up to be counted as opponents of racism and proponents of recognition.
The panel's engagement process was a thorough, national consultation open to many considerations. Over the past two years I have been a part of this expert panel and we have handed down a series of recommendations that this bill now refers to. The report reflects the gamut of propositions posed by all of the people involved in the consultation process, and it was the view of the panel that, out of the consultation process, we should encapsulate for the prosperity of this nation, and for its history, the range of propositions put forward by both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other Australians. We thought that it should be captured so that the record of the day stands for the future for those who wish to reflect back upon it and take components of it to the next step in the history of this nation being as one.
Specifically, the report recommended the removal of section 25, which contemplates: the possibility of state laws disqualifying people from voting in state elections on the basis of their race; the removal of section 51(xxvi), which can be used by the Commonwealth to enact legislation to discriminate for or against people on the basis of their race; the insertion of new section 51A to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and to preserve the Australian government's ability to pass law for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the insertion of new section 116A to ban racial discrimination by the Commonwealth; and the insertion of new section 127A to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages as this country's first tongues while confirming that English is Australia's national language. These suggested constitutional amendments need to be considered and a decision needs to be made by this parliament as to what the proposed changes are likely to gain, and what broad base of support needs to be obtained from the Australian community for it to be successful in a referendum.
As a member of the panel and, now, of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, I have been particularly conscious of the difficulty in securing amendments to the Constitution. Only eight of 44 previous proposals to amend our Constitution have been successful, and it has been some 36 years since the last successful constitutional referendum. For an issue as important as this it is important that any proposal has the united support of the parliament and that it is truly bipartisan in nature.
This bill highlights the grave importance of education and awareness in the Australian community. We are conscious that there are still some in our society who are resistant to change. Until there has been a broad-reaching national awareness about the options forward we cannot consider further action. The Constitution must reflect the views of all Australians, and any proposed changes must be given a fair hearing through public education and awareness before a referendum is considered. But I believe our nation will be ready for such a change in our Constitution when the appropriate time comes.
There is significant bipartisan support for constitutional recognition. The Prime Minister herself, in January 2012, said 'the recognition of Indigenous people in the Constitution is another step in that journey' of building trust and respect between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. She said it is 'a step that is critical to our efforts to close the gap'. The Leader of the Opposition has also iterated his support of this issue, and in speaking on what he has observed in the attitudes held by Australians has said:
… we accept that millions of Australians' hopes and dreams are resting on constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. … It is very important that we should appropriately acknowledge the place of Indigenous people at the heart of modern Australia.
I commend much of the efforts that have been made thus far by groups including, but not limited to, You Me Unity. It is clear that although the consensus of the public has changed significantly since the process began, there is still some distance to go. This process will not be complete until the views of all Australians are reflected in our Constitution. This process will not be complete until the people of Australia have been given the fair opportunity to weigh up the options for constitutional change and make their personal assessment on this.
This bill highlights that it is an important process to hold a referendum when there is the most chance of success. It is impossible to predict at this point in our journey exactly when this will be. But most importantly we will need to understand that this is not a process that can be rushed. Awareness and support takes time to build. It is vital to note that this bill is not intended to act as a substitute for constitutional recognition. This bill merely foreshadows the importance of raising public awareness in order to achieve the recommendations of the expert panel. It is clear that the journey is one that, as a nation, has far to go. As the You Me Unity campaign declares:
It’s time for us to recognise the first Australians. Let's write the opening chapter of our national story into our founding document of law
One of the challenges that we will need to contemplate, as members of the Australian parliament, is our own role in influencing awareness within our electorates and within the roles that we play, and also the way in which we engage with the broader community. If a referendum is to be successful, then it requires 150-plus members of this parliament to play their active role in ensuring that the discussions are balanced, that the discussions contemplate where is that we need to take Australia in the future. To walk together as a nation, to build Australia in the way that does not reflect the past but reflects the opportunities that engage us in understanding.
It is not dissimilar to the period in which we had the bicentennial celebrations. When we celebrated that, it was fascinating watching the number of people who sought links back to the convicts on those early ships that came to Australia. When they found them, they were proud to announce that they had convict heritage. Australia had matured considerably to accept that there was a convict past, but it was the recognition of the connectivity of family to the past was equally important to them in the bicentennial year as it is today. I would hope that in the future the connectivity to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities of this country will become equally as important to every Australian, and that they will see the relationship that they have established either by marriage or through the work that they have done together, and they will walk together. Let us take this step—another step forward—towards healing the hearts and minds of all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:28): Former Prime Minister Paul Keating, on 10 December 1992, when launching the Year of the World's Indigenous People, delivered a speech in Redfern Park, which the previous speaker, the member for Hasluck, referred to. Mr Keating said this, in one part of his speech:
More I think than most Australians recognise, the plight of Aboriginal Australians affects us all.
He said that in Redfern. Tomorrow in Redfern, I will chair the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs at the National Centre of Indigenous Excellence. My electorate has been badly flooded and affected by the disasters in Queensland, but I have done almost as much media in relation to that event tomorrow as I have done in relation to the floods which have affected Ipswich and Somerset in my electorate. Tomorrow will have peak bodies, business bodies and Indigenous bodies. The National Farmers Federation will be there, and the Minerals Council will be there. That would not have happened 20 years ago before the Mabo decision. Tomorrow we will discuss and look at amendments to native title legislation.
The Mabo decision, which the High Court of Australia handed down on 3 June 1992, legally recognised Indigenous people as having a special relationship to the land that existed prior to colonisation. But we have lived with the fiction in this country that Australia is a monolingual country. There were 250 Indigenous languages at the time of white colonial settlement. We now have only 18 languages spoken strongly in the sense that they are spoken by significant numbers across all age groups. We should celebrate the languages, the culture and the customs of Australia's first people—the original owners of the land for thousands and thousands of years.
We have seen a groundswell of activity and interest in preservation, maintenance and vitalisation of language in custom and culture. For Indigenous people land and language are one; culture and country are one. I have had the privilege of meeting many Indigenous people and visiting them in their traditional lands in regional and urban communities across the country. Indeed, in my electorate I have one of the largest Indigenous populations in Queensland. In fact, the electorate of Blair is named after Harold Blair, a very famous Indigenous civil rights activist and opera singer. Neville Bonner, the formal Liberal senator, comes from my home town of Ipswich as well—well respected on both sides of politics.
The House of Representatives committee I refer to presented our report in September 2012, Our land our languages, which deliberately said 'our land' and 'our languages' because they belong to all of us, following our inquiry into language learning in Indigenous communities.
There were a significant number of submissions to the inquiry, supporting the formal recognition of Australia's languages in the Constitution. This recognition was recommended by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner in the Social justice report2009. The commissioner recommended that the government commence a process to recognise Indigenous languages in the preamble of Australia's Constitution with a view to recognising Indigenous languages in the body of the Constitution in the future.
In December 2010, the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples was tasked to report to the federal government on possible options for constitutional change to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their continuing culture, languages and heritage. The ATSIA committee in its report supported the recommendation of the expert panel that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages be recognised in the Constitution as Australia's first languages. The ATSIA committee held the view that the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and their unique culture, languages and heritage is an important step forward for the country as a whole—for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia—'to ease the plight', as former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, said in his famous Redfern speech. Constitutional recognition of Indigenous languages became one of the committee's recommendations coming out of that inquiry—recommendation No. 8.
I want to commend the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Minister, the Prime Minister, the previous Attorney-General and the current Attorney-General for their advocacy in relation to the constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. Indeed, the current Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, and I were both members of the legal and constitutional committee of the House of Representatives in the last parliament—he chaired it. We had a roundtable here in Canberra, and the issues in relation to constitutional recognition of Indigenous people certainly came to the fore during that roundtable and that meeting.
We have only had eight referenda pass out of 44, and only when both sides of politics support it and support it fully. It is the case that there needs to be not just preparation but also a groundswell of support for constitutional recognition to take place; a need for the raising of awareness and building a national consensus for constitutional change. This week the Prime Minister acknowledged that we still have a long way to go in 'closing the gap', although there have been changes and improvements.
In November 2010 I became the chair of the House of Representatives ATSIA committee and took over what was then part-way through, the inquiry into the high level of involvement of Indigenous juvenile and young adults in the criminal justice system and how they interacted around the country. We handed down a report in June 2011 called Doing Time - Time For Doing: Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system.Essentially, we found that Indigenous juvenile incarceration rates had not improved since the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody, some 20 years prior. Tragically, Indigenous juveniles and young adults are more likely to be incarcerated today than at any time since 1991. That report concluded that contact with the criminal justice systems represented a symptom of the broader social and economic disadvantage faced by many Indigenous people in Australia. We have reached the point in this country of intergenerational family dysfunction in many Indigenous communities. The problems of domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, inadequate housing, poor health and school attendance, and a lack of job skills and employment opportunities are impacting on the next generation of Indigenous Australians.
In our previous report we heard evidence of a lack of school attendance in the Northern Territory and Western Australia in particular. It was disheartening and frightening to think that young people would be so truant from school, their parents so lacking in interest in getting them there, and authorities so unwilling or reluctant to actually take steps to ensure they attend school. Completing school means that a person is more likely to get a job, more likely to get a better education at tertiary level, more likely to be included in the fabric of civil and community life and less likely to engage in miscreant behaviour and criminal activity. We found there was a loss of cultural knowledge in many Indigenous communities which had seen disruption of traditional values and norms of appropriate social behaviour being transferred altruistically and for the good of one generation to the next.
There has never been a more important time to stop this disconnection of Indigenous Australians from their culture and heritage and make sure that non-Indigenous Australians respect that Indigenous culture and heritage and embrace it. One thing I would like to see in this place—and we recommended this in our report—is that the Commonwealth parliament demonstrate its leadership and recognition and valuing of Indigenous languages by incorporating Indigenous languages in the Parliament House building and the operations of parliament. Sadly, that has not been done. I urge the government and both sides of politics to think about that. Why shouldn't we have that language and that culture better represented in the halls of Australia's greatest assembly, where people come from all over the country—community groups, lobby groups, churches and sporting organisations—to represent their communities and to hear, to learn, to laugh and to love? Why shouldn't that be in the halls of Parliament House? It should be.
Unfortunately, we have not made the progress that Paul Keating acknowledged we needed to undertake 20 years ago. We are making steps, and I am pleased that there is a bipartisan approach to the steps we need to undertake. Paul Keating, in his Redfern speech, acknowledged that there was a lot more to done. He acknowledged that it was complex and that they could not separate one Australia from another. I have been to Redfern on many occasions. It is just a few kilometres from the place where the first European settlers landed. And Paul, I am sure, saw the legacy of devastation and demoralisation that European settlement brought to Indigenous Australians. I speak to the Indigenous elders in my community, and many of the women are the ones who are most forthright in relation to this; they are the ones who are most concerned about the next generation.
There is a lot of great work being done in schools, communities and churches in my community by Indigenous people. In fact, Narella Simpson was recognised this week in the Queensland Times for the great work she does with Indigenous young people. She recently gave me a badge, which I was so pleased to get. It is fantastic. It features the Australian, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags together. She always comes and gives me a kiss and a cuddle and she is a great mother to a lot of Indigenous young people. She is involved in the Murri Baptist Church, a church which my father, when he was alive, and my uncle helped rebuild and paint. It is on Brisbane Road in Ipswich. It is a great little community and Narella is a great person. It is great to see the Queensland Times recognise a local community champion for what she does in the Ipswich community.
This legislation, I think, is particularly important and I urge both sides of politics to get behind it. The member for Hasluck made a terrific speech today in relation to this issue. I am pleased to see the bipartisan approach. I was pleased to listen to speeches on this issue just yesterday and previously by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It has not always been the case. I am pleased there is a purposefulness in our community towards this. I think it is time that we recognised Indigenous language and culture and took steps in a legal and Constitutional way to put in place that which future generations will recognise was critical at the time.
Looking back, we now see how important Mabo was. Sure, it was lauded at the time, but in 200 years time young people who read the Mabo decision will say it was one of the greatest turning points in the history of Australia. I conclude on this note: if we as the leaders of our community and those representing the community in this place really want to show leadership in a formal way, there is something practical we can do in this community; we can start using Indigenous language in this particular place, in these halls of power. I recommend that we do so. I support this legislation and commend it to the House. I look forward to being in Redfern tomorrow with the member for Hasluck to hear the views of various Australian groups at the place where Paul Keating made one of the greatest speeches any prime minister has ever made.
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (10:41): I rise in support of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012 before us today. It is fitting that we debate this bill in the week of the annual Closing the Gap statement. In some regards it brings a symmetry to the debate. Yesterday's statements by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition focused predominantly on practical outcomes, while this bill is more concerned with symbolism. Both are important. The bill acknowledges the unique and special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first inhabitants of Australia. This is an important symbolic act but it is meant as a temporary measure with a sunset clause. The purpose is to maintain momentum towards a national consensus for a successful change to recognise Indigenous Australians in our Constitution. This is an idea that was initially proposed by John Howard in 2007, at the instigation of Noel Pearson, and again proposed by Tony Abbott in the lead-up to the 2010 election. I am pleased to see that the concept also has strong support in the Labor Party.
I have been involved in Indigenous affairs for over a decade, including spending several years working as the deputy director of the Cape York Institute, under Noel Pearson, trying to tackle some of the problems in Far North Queensland. But my focus has always been on the practical—perhaps because Prime Minister Howard was focused on that but also because Noel Pearson, my boss and a person for whom I have tremendous regard, persuasively drew our attention to the restoration of social norms and education for remote Indigenous children. I have been concerned that symbolic acts could potentially diminish the attention on the practical action required and, worse, could actually create a sense of victimhood among Aboriginal people. In some regards, though, I am a convert to the need for symbolic reconciliation to sit alongside practical reconciliation. I am a convert largely because I was working in Cape York Peninsula during the national apology to Indigenous Australians in early 2008. At the time, I was unsure whether this was the right thing to be doing. I remember reading Noel Pearson's essay on this, in where he was equivocating and weighing up the pros and cons of it. But having seen the impact of the national apology on Aboriginal people in the cape, I realised that it actually did have a profound impact on them. It brought tears to people's eyes, people who I knew and was very good friends with; people who up until that point had never mentioned it before and had never said that this was important to them. After the event, they said that this was tremendously powerful for them.
The Indigenous referendum in 1967 had tremendous symbolic importance. It also had practical consequences: the section that stipulated that Indigenous Australians should not be counted in any census was removed and federal parliament was given power to make laws for the people of all so-called 'races', including the Aboriginal race. However, the current wording of the Constitution provides no positive guidance for how the Commonwealth of Australia should solve the problems caused by the fact that the Commonwealth—and the colonies that preceded Federation—was built on land that was previously owned by Indigenous peoples, who were dispossessed and who, in many cases, had been excluded from the national community. These amendments of 1967 changed the constitutional status of Indigenous Australians from a state of negative discrimination into constitutional silence.
I think it is right to formally recognise our history in our Constitution and that the ancient history of this land is an Indigenous history. I also think that Australia probably belongs to the category of nations that are forced to deal with their history in the Constitution, because the effects of past wrongs are culturally and practically too significant to be ignored in the Constitution. I think that this is the reason why there is significant popular and political support for constitutional recognition. We know the history and we feel that something needs to be said in the most important document of our nation.
The obvious counterargument is that it is better not to cling to the past and that recognition will not improve the lives of Indigenous Australians; indeed, it could be counterproductive for a minority to define themselves as victims in need of recognition and compensation, with unbreakable ties to certain geographical locations. However, the second reason why the Constitution must be amended is harder to refute. The Constitution currently includes the concept of race as a ground for differential treatment and this must be changed. The current section 25 contains a provision for disqualifying members of a certain race from voting. This section can be repealed without any replacement provision.
The current section 51(xxvi) must also be removed. It empowers the parliament to make laws for the people of any race. We should not have a power in the Constitution to make special laws for certain races, but there is a complication. Since native title legislation is probably supported by section 51(xxvi), some kind of replacement section that supports native title legislation needs to be inserted into the Constitution. There are other current and future laws relating to Indigenous Australian land and heritage that also require support in the Constitution. I mention this because the act of recognition bill states that a review must, within 12 months, consider proposals for constitutional change, taking into account the work of, among others, the expert panel of constitutional recognition.
Parliament is free to formulate a referendum question any way it wants, but Minister Macklin has indicated that the expert panel's report carries special weight in the eyes of the government. The expert panel has indeed been grappling with the problem that I have identified—that is, the two sections that contemplate different treatment for different races must be removed, but one of these sections—section 51(xxvi)—plays a role in our legal system. The expert panel has suggested a specific solution to this problem: (1) a general provision against so-called racial discrimination that would apply to all laws, at all levels of government, and perhaps to all actions at all levels of government; and (2) provisions that would directly support Indigenous specific legislation. The expert panel suggests that a new provision in section 51(a) that empowers parliament to make laws for the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Such a change would reintroduce the power to make laws for groups of people defined by common descent.
It also proposes a new section 116A, which would allow 'the making of laws or measures for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage, ameliorating the effects of past discrimination or protecting the cultures, languages or heritage of any group'. This seems like a contradiction: removing the power to make laws for certain peoples only to reintroduce it immediately. I believe that the expert panel's view can be summarised as follows: if a power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is created, there will be a need to make sure that this power cannot be used to the detriment of Indigenous Australians or any other person.
I believe that the wording of the expert panel's proposed changes are also influenced by separate currents in Australian political debate, which is not directly concerned with Indigenous affairs. There are some people who advocate an Australian bill of rights. The expert panel had no intention of opening up this debate. The panel stated in its final report that 'it is clear from the outset that any discussion of a bill or statement of rights was well outside the panel's remit'. Accordingly, the expert panel views its proposed new sections only as a necessary part of recognition of Indigenous Australians. The political reality, however, is that the provisions proposed will in effect become a small bill of rights. They are too broad, in my view, and would empower the courts over the parliament.
What constitutes a policy for the advancement of Aboriginal people? Indigenous policy can be strongly contested by very well-meaning people, with one's views being determined largely by which values or rights get prioritised. For example, I strongly support measures to restrict the free flow of alcohol into remote communities because I have seen that it is the poison that flows through these communities. It destroys the lives of the alcoholics and their families, and even unborn children are now being impacted through foetal alcohol syndrome.
I realise that my view in this regard infringes on a general right to individual liberty, and I realise that it is actually a view that is not popular in many remote communities where a majority of people are addicted to alcohol. A friend of mine, however, who is a former senior judge of an Australian court with deep experience in Indigenous affairs, vigorously disagrees with me, arguing that such limitations in remote communities would be discriminatory. For him, this triumphs over all other considerations. We have a clash of values in this regard. I prioritise the value of child protection in reducing violence above all else. He also deeply cares about this but believes that there are other, more fundamental, rights at play that have higher priority.
The question is, who should decide on this clash of values: a judge, or the elected representatives of the people? If a law is put through the parliaments to restrict alcohol, should a judge be able to knock such a law down because he or she determines that it is not for the advancement of Aboriginal people? In my view, they should not have that power, because it is not a legal matter whether alcohol restrictions in remote communities are for the advancement of Aboriginal people; it is one based on the prioritisation of values, and it is up to the parliaments, not the courts, to prioritise those values. And this is the fundamental reason I do not support all of the expert panel's recommendations, despite my deep respect for the panel members, including Ken Wyatt, who is sitting here beside me, and Mark Leibler and Pat Dodson, the co-chairs. The interpretation of what is for the advancement of Aboriginal people should be up to the parliament, not the judges.
So how do we get around this problem of wanting to prohibit race based laws but still needing a head of power to deal with native title and possibly other matters that, by definition, are related to indigeneity? My solution—at least at this stage in my thinking—is that there should be a bill that has a prohibition against any laws based on race but that has an exclusion for laws dealing with land, which by definition are related to indigeneity. And possibly there are one or two other specific exclusions that need to apply where there definitely needs to be a head of power. But otherwise there should be an overall prohibition against laws based on race. This would be challenging for many of our laws. Some of the education funding which goes towards Aboriginal people would need to be reconstructed and put forward under a different head of power and executed on the basis of disadvantage rather than on indigenousness. In some respects, I think that would be a positive measure in itself.
These are very difficult and complex measures, and it is a good thing that we have this bill going through the parliament today, which then gives time for both sides of politics to be able to address them, think about them carefully and come forward with bipartisan agreement on them. That is what is most important. If we do not have bipartisan support for a constitutional change, it will not get up.
In the last minute or so I have remaining, I would like to pay tribute to a friend of mine who passed away yesterday. I do so in the context of this debate, because he was one of Noel Pearson's most trusted advisers for the last 20 years—a person by the name of Lou Griffiths. Many people who are connected with Indigenous policy would know him very well, and he tragically died at a very young age yesterday in his hotel room from a heart attack. Although not Indigenous, Lou made a tremendous contribution over the last couple of decades in the thinking and executing of ideas and supporting the work of Noel Pearson and other Cape York leaders. I think his passing is a deep loss to Australia.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:56): I am very pleased to follow the member for Aston and commend him on the fine words that he said and pass onto him, his family and his friends our sympathy for the loss of their friend but also the loss to the nation of somebody who has been so active in this area—law and policy.
There was something very poetic in an historical sense that yesterday, as the Prime Minister stood in the House delivering the fifth Closing the Gap statement on behalf of the Australian government, parliament and people, our friends across the ditch were celebrating Waitangi Day, a national public holiday. Waitangi Day celebrates the fact that in 1860 the people of Aotearoa commenced their first act of reconciliation by signing a treaty with their first people. Of course, we have no such treaty, and there is no proposition by this government in the current process to sign such a treaty. But we are embarked on a process of reconciliation, and the bill before the House today is an important reminder of that.
Reconciliation, as the member for Aston has said, involves dealing with the very real, palpable and daily issues that are confronted by Aboriginal men and women and their children living in communities throughout Australia, and the disadvantages that they face in just about every area of life, particularly economic disadvantage—and we are doing what we can to close the gap on that disadvantage. It also involves taking the very important, if you like, symbolic step of recognition—recognition of the past; recognition of the proper place of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women; and recognising that in the most important way that we can.
It has been a long March since 1788 and we have gone through many iterations as colonial and federal legislatures in dealing with the issue of reconciliation and recognition—from denial and removal and actions which have been described by some as an attempt to remove and eradicate Aboriginal people of this country to policies which could be described in no other way than perhaps well meaning, but certainly paternalistic, and a long way from what we now understand to be the proper precepts of self-determination.
If there were a turning point in this debate and policy formulation process, I think most people would chart it from the 1967 referendum and the switch in the national consciousness that that referendum represented. It would be remiss for any member representing Throsby or any of the Illawarra suburbs to make reference to the 1967 referendum and not in the same breath make reference to some of the pioneers for Aboriginal advancement that were organising around the Aboriginal Advancement League of the South Coast. Great people such as Freddie Moore, who still is an activist for Aboriginal causes in the Illawarra and the many other aunties, uncles and activists from the Dharawal, the Gundangara and the Allowrie people in the Illawarra who played an important part as part of the national campaign to ensure that the Constitution was changed.
From the 1967 referendum, we saw recognition through the native title acts in the Northern Territory and other statutory forms of recognition throughout the decades. As the Prime Minister quite eloquently put it yesterday, she referred to Gough Whitlam pouring soil and Bob Hawke handing back Uluru to the first people of this country. It strikes me that we have made significant advances in some respects when I know that my children will never use the words 'Ayers Rock'. In fact, they do not know what Ayers Rock is but they do know, however, what Uluru is, so we have made some steps particularly in the area of education when we reflect upon that.
There is a phenomena in politics that is known as the Kennedy moment—something that the baby boomers can reflect upon. It is the fact that everyone of that generation can remember exactly where they were and what they were doing the moment they learnt that President Kennedy had been assassinated. For me, and perhaps for many like me in my generation, we have a Mabo moment. I can remember exactly where I was and exactly what I was doing when the High Court handed down its historic decision in 1982 in relation to the Mabo dispute. In my view, it was the second turning point in this important process of reconciliation. It overthrew the historic lie of terra nullius and said that, from a legal point of view, we could no longer deny the ancient connection and the ancient rights that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had in this country.
So the step that we are embarking upon today has a long history. The statutory recognition by this parliament of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is an important step. There is an important history. The government established a process of consultation with the Australian community, and it was an important consultation process, to work out the best way of ensuring that we could get constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Any student of law knows that there has not been a fantastic strike rate when it comes to constitutional change in this country, and I think it was an act of great maturity on behalf of the expert panel and those advising them to say that, whilst we are firmly committed to constitutional change, we should not do that in a way or at a time unless we can ensure that we are going to get success in that constitutional referendum.
So the expert panel's report recommends that we do proceed with constitutional change but that this statutory recognition is a first step in that process.
It is an important step. It does not stand alone from the other important initiatives that this government has embarked upon, such as ensuring that we can close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. But it is important nonetheless, just as the 1967 referendum, the High Court decision in Mabo and subsequent High Court decisions were certainly legal, and in some respects symbolic. They also kick-started a national debate about how white Australia could come to terms with our past and our relationship—the important relationship—with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters. This is an important piece of legislation. It is great to see that it has support from all members in this place.
I would like to conclude my contribution to the debate by reflecting on the words that are used at citizenship ceremonies, which I regularly attend as part of my function as a member of parliament. I often reflect upon words from the second verse of our national anthem—the lesser sung verse—that say:
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share,
The important thing is that, when white people got here, those plains were not empty. They were occupied by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have lived and practised a culture in this country for over 30,000 years—some say probably more like 70,000 years. That is a claim that can be made in no other place on earth. There is no other place on earth where people can say that they live in a land that has been occupied by people who have continuously practised a culture for over 30,000 years. That is something that all Australians should embrace and be proud of, and as we learn from each other and embark upon the process of reconciliation, I firmly believe that we will become a better place, a greater place, and a place that we, as a united and reconciled Australia, can be very, very proud of. I commend the legislation to the House.
Dr STONE (Murray) (11:07): I am so pleased that this bill is coming before parliament in my time in this place, because I have spent most of my working life trying to redress some of the terrible discriminatory legislation and the day-to-day difficulties of Indigenous people. My interest comes in part from the fact that I grew up on my family's farm, which had been in the family for five generations and was surrounded by the evidence of the peoples who had owned—not occupied, but owned—that country before my farm family. That evidence was in the shape of what we called at the time 'blackfellas' ovens'—we now call them kitchen middens—and scar trees and lots of stone tools.
We have come a very long way in my lifetime in delivering justice for Indigenous Australians. In my time in parliament we have had the native title acts, and we have seen various attempts to address the horrific differences in health, educational outcomes and the length of time people spend in prisons, and now I am pleased to see that we are at last addressing the issue of constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians—Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.
This bill is an interim step. It aims to help prepare the public to vote yes when it comes to this referendum. The Australian people are notoriously bad at supporting referenda, no matter how worthy the cause. We have a tendency to say, 'When in doubt, say no,' or, 'When we don't think it's broken, say no.' So it is important that we do have a time of awareness and information building so we can achieve bipartisan national consensus for the constitutional change.
I do think it is very important that there is a sunset clause built into this bill so it cannot be limping on forever. We have to very determinedly set forth to build that consensus across the nation, with proper engagement and consultation, and then make sure that we bring this whole business to a head with a referendum which is couched in the terms that are most likely to succeed.
In this pathway towards constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, in December 2010 the government appointed an expert panel. Their specific charter or task was to consult, and particularly with Indigenous Australians, to see how we could build the national consensus towards constitutional change and to look in particular at what might be supported in a referendum.
The expert panel recommended a number of amendments and changes to the constitution, and I am very pleased to say the coalition supports those proposals in their various forms. We support them quite broadly; I support them categorically as an individual. Although, as I made clear in my opening remarks, I have a problem with the fact that we talk about 'occupation' rather than 'ownership'. The expert panel, for example, suggested that we insert a new section 51A in the Constitution:
Recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, …
I would have put 'ownership'. The next point is:
Acknowledging the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters,
Respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and
Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,
These are very significant and important additions. It goes on to say:
… the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
You would think: hasn't that already been in the Constitution a very long time? Well, no, the power of the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to all Indigenous peoples has only been with us for the last 50 or so years.
With respect to the business about discrimination against Aboriginal peoples and the removal of any reference in the Constitution, obviously we have to make sure our Constitution does not allow any racial discrimination or laws to be made that are to the detriment of any race, but I, like others, support the notion that in our Constitution there should be a capacity for us to make laws which are to the advantage of any race, particularly for Indigenous peoples, given there is so much to make up in terms of their life chances compared to other Australians.
The recognition of languages should be another important reference in the Constitution. The expert panel recommended there be a new section 127A inserted along the lines of:
(1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English.
(2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are the original Australian languages, a part of our national heritage.
I am a member of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander House of Representatives Standing Committee and I support this recommendation. We have just completed an inquiry into Indigenous languages in Australia and we found the overwhelming desire of Indigenous Australians is to retain or to resurrect, certainly to transmit, their traditional languages—and also the culture contact languages in some contexts, the Kriol languages which are now widely spoken.
This business of language learning is so important in Australia. We have neglected for so long to acknowledge in our school systems that our Indigenous children often come to school speaking a different language to English and then they are not given support with English taught as a second language.
If I can direct people back to that inquiry's recommendations. This government has not as yet adopted our recommendations. They should. I hope an incoming coalition government would look at those recommendations which acknowledge the importance of Indigenous language retention or resurrection. Certainly it is important to teach Aboriginal children who come to school or preschool with other languages using the English as a second language method. That is one of the critical ways we could assist Aboriginal children to make up the educational deficit that they now often experience.
I want to remind us though, as I often do when I am speaking on Indigenous affairs in parliament, about where we have come from in Australia in relation to our previous responses to Indigenous Australians: their citizenship rights, their rights in terms of being paid as workers, their rights to be educated and to have decent health services provided. It is such a short time in our Australian history since citizenship rights were being debated as a possibility for Aboriginal Australians.
New South Wales parliamentary papers in 1938 said:
It has been said from time to time that Aboriginals should be given full citizenship rights. Briefly as far as can be seen at present, the majority of Aborigines, as defined by the Act,—
that is, the protection act of New South Wales—
have all citizenship rights except the following:
(a) They cannot exercise franchise at Federal elections.
(b) They are prohibited from obtaining liquor.
(c) If Aboriginal blood predominates they cannot receive maternity allowance or old-age or invalid pension from the Commonwealth Government. …
(d) Residents on stations have been debarred from receiving relief work provided by the Government of this State.
(e) Family endowments payments are in general, made to Aboriginals by means of orders for goods instead of in cash.
(f) Certain restrictions may be imposed on Aboriginals in accordance with the provision of the Act.
Despite the restrictions mentioned, including some which I would have called some fundamental human rights, it was concluded that Aboriginals in New South Wales did actually have all citizenship rights. The recommendation of the Public Service Board was therefore that the New South Wales parliament should not rush into this business of citizenship for Aboriginal people because, they concluded:
Generally speaking the restrictions imposed by the present law of this State—
in relation to citizenship—
are in the interests of the Aborigines, and at the present time the Public Service Board's inquiries indicate that in general the opinion is that they should not be lifted, even though there are numerous Aborigines who might with justification be placed on an equal footing with the general community.
The general opinion of those most competent to speak appears to be however that their education has not yet reached the stage where the restrictions can be lifted as a general policy, without harmful effects on the majority.
That was the citizenship rights debate in 1938 in New South Wales. The citizenship debate in Western Australia in 1944 went along similar lines except they decided to have a certificate of citizenship granted to an Aborigine in 1944. They therefore declared:
… any adult person who is a native within the meaning of the Native Administration Act, 1905-1941, may make application for a Certificate of Citizenship to a resident or stipendiary magistrate or Government Resident in the magisterial district in which he resides.
This was subject to the condition on the applicant that, amongst other things:
… for the two years prior to the date of the application he has dissolved tribal and native association except with respect to lineal descendants or native relations of the first degree, and—
(a) that he has served in the Naval, Military or Air Force … and has … an honourable discharge; or
(b) that he is otherwise a fit and proper person to obtain a certificate of Citizenship.
However, there were some other conditions which meant that the magistrate could, unfortunately, bar the granting of this citizenship. For example, if the applicant has contracted 'leprosy, syphilis, granuloma or yaws', they could not become citizens. They must of course be 'industrious in habit and of good behaviour and reputation' and so on.
These debates are recent in Australia's history. They are cruel when you read them now. You wonder how our parliaments of various states could have had democratically elected representatives of the people making such laws and such pronouncements about fellow human beings. Requiring someone to have 'dissolved all tribal and native associations' if they are seeking citizenship of Australia, a country that they had owned, is quite extraordinary. But that was the way it was.
We have come a long way. We have not yet achieved constitutional recognition, accepted by a referendum in this country, but I am saying that it is more than time. We need to stand up amongst the league of other nations in the world who do right by their indigenous peoples; in this case it is our fellow Australians. I very strongly support this bill. I know that it is going to have bipartisan support in this parliament and I hope that, within the next two years, we will see the Australian public give their overwhelming support to this referendum with the same resounding 'yes' as they did for the 1967 referendum, which brought Aboriginal Australians under the same roof in relation to citizenship rights in this country.
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (11:20): Before I address the bill, I want to make a few remarks about Lou Griffiths. It is only with the announcement by the member for Aston that I found out that Mr Griffiths passed away yesterday from a heart attack. Mr Griffiths is someone with whom I have had an association for many years. When I was shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, from 1996 to 2000, I had lot to do with Noel Pearson and Mr Griffiths was a very close friend of Mr Pearson. Mr Pearson was documenting Mr Griffiths' life on film. I knew Lou before that and I have had contact with him. He is a great loss. He has been a passionate advocate of Indigenous rights and causes. He took the view that it was important to document the history of what was happening in relation to Indigenous issues at the time, to enlighten people as to the justness of that cause. I offer my condolences to his family and friends. He is a great loss to the community.
It is interesting in light of this debate as well. The struggle that continues to be had for recognition and for basic rights takes its toll on a lot of people in the Indigenous community, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. I think that it is a very good thing that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012 before the House has the appropriate bipartisan support of the parliament. I think it is worthwhile getting a bit of history here. I am not one who says, 'This should have been an early referendum.' The reason that I say that is that, in my opinion, it would be lost overwhelmingly. Part of that was the way that Indigenous affairs was dealt with from 1996 to 2007. The reality is that it was in the frame in the broader community as a result of native title amongst other things. I commend the current Leader of the Opposition for his approach and those honourable members opposite. I think he has played an important part in this. This is not an area that should be the centre of partisan debate. It is hard enough as it is.
In 1999 the parliament passed two bills to put to the people: one was a republic bill, another was the preamble. The preamble was supported by both sides of parliament. The Labor Party and I voted for it in the parliament, but it was not an appropriately bipartisan preamble. It was one that was imposed by the government at the time. It was not done with proper consultation with the opposition or, more importantly, with the Indigenous community. I remember speaking out on a number of occasions during the referendum, saying to people, 'If you want to protest, vote against the preamble and not the republic.' What is interesting is that whilst there was the to-and-fro on the republic, the republic actually got 46 per cent of the popular vote; the preamble only got 39 per cent of the popular vote, and that was when both sides were supposedly barracking for it. I cheered when it lost, because I thought that it was not a preamble that was worthy of the public's support on the basis of how it was brought into being.
This is a different situation. The act of recognition that we are passing is an appropriate interim measure to hold us to a time when we can bring the public to a position of support for not just changes, but substantive changes, to the constitution. And the Constitution does need substantive change, particularly in relation to section 51(xxvi). In the Kartinyeri case, or the Hindmarsh Island bridge case, six justices of the High Court gave judgements. His Honour Justice Cowen was disqualified in that case, because he had given a legal opinion to the Senate Legal Committee. I, with my starry, blinkered eye, had felt that the High Court would pick up the sentiment of the 1996 referendum and what it was about in terms of removing the words 'other than the Aboriginal race' in any state. The reality is that two judges of the High Court said that with that constitutional change the provision in relation to Aboriginal people was to be interpreted as the legislation was first enacted in 1901. So, not just beneficial laws for Aboriginal people but detrimental laws could be passed by government for the Aboriginal people. Two judges of the High Court did not offer an opinion. His Honour Justice Kirby said: no, you could only use the clause for the benefit of Aboriginal people. Her Honour Justice Gaudron said: look, in this day and age it should not be used to the detriment.
So what we had was a referendum with 91 per cent support that, as it turned out, could be used by governments to discriminate against Aboriginal people. Now, the Constitutional Commission of 1988, before the Kartinyeri case, recommended a change in that provision. There is as a result of the expert panel a new section 51A that is being considered to replace 51(xxvi). The last clause in that section 51A reads:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
I am indebted to the Law Council of Australia for its excellent discussion paper, because I think that has a lot of the arguments in it. It points out that the current Chief Justice of the High Court, Chief Justice French, in 2003 provided a detailed overview of the post-1967 High Court jurisprudence in relation to section 51(xxvi), culminating in Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth. He was of the view that a current High Court would probably take the interpretation I mentioned earlier: that you can legislate to the detriment of Aboriginal people as a result of that constitutional change. He too was, I think, agitating for constitutional change.
That is not going to be easy to achieve. I used to be a criminal defence lawyer, so I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I have to say, I am worried—and I think the point is made—that even in the proposed new clause, given the way it is constructed, there is a possibility that detrimental laws could be made against Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are in the same class, under this clause, as people of any race—in other words, migrants as well. It is a clause that is open to any race within Australia at the moment. And I think we need to get it right. I think we need to tweak it. I do not believe governments of the day should be able to legislate specifically in relation to the detriment. When it comes to advances for Aboriginal people, I will tell you this: it was not the Constitution that gave them advancement in the court cases of the last few decades; it was actually the enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 that protected Aboriginal people against discriminatory action by the states.
That Commonwealth act is the reason native title survived to allow the successful Mabo cases, and to, in effect, overcome the discriminatory laws of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era. An act of parliament can be quite powerful in protecting the Aboriginal race and other people in this country. That needs to be understood. That is why the act that we are passing is an important act. It is a little bit more than symbolism. It is an act of the parliament, a Commonwealth act, that will prevail over state and territory laws, although at the moment the provisions we are particularly wanting to pass are symbolic provisions. The problem with an act of parliament is that it can be overwritten by a later act, which is what the debate was all about when the Wik judgement was delivered along with the native title amendment acts. As shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at the time, I was in the middle of that fight. The truth is that those native title amendment acts overrode the Racial Discrimination Act.
So, it is all right to pass this bill that we are talking about today, but we should also state beyond any doubt that we should not be interfering with the Racial Discrimination Act. That was one of the objections I had to the intervention in the Northern Territory, which was discriminatory, because I do not support discriminatory laws. I support positive discrimination, because true equality requires differential treatment. That is how you bring people up to an equal level—the disadvantaged and the dispossessed. It is not discrimination in terms of international law. Positive discrimination is not discrimination. It is engaging in equality matters. The bill before the House at the moment in relation to recognition, which is why everybody people supports it, at clause 3(1) says:
The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, recognises that the continent and the islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
This is indisputable. It further states in clause 3(2):
The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, acknowledges the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters.
This also is indisputable. It does not matter what non-Indigenous people think about their association with their traditional lands, Aboriginal people have that association and it is what they think that counts. But it is important that non-Indigenous people acknowledge that association, so that is an important clause. Clause 3(3) states:
The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, acknowledges and respects the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Again, this is a non-contentious clause. It seems to me that the respect has to be two ways. Non-Indigenous Australians need to start substantially respecting Indigenous Australians. That is what true reconciliation is about. It is not a one-way street, it is a two-way street. We cannot have a situation where, every time there is a clash, Aboriginal people and their rights have to give way. The world did not fall in for Australia when the Mabo decision was delivered by the High Court, when the Native Title Act was first enacted, when Wik was enacted. There was a lot of ignorance and prejudice out there, and that is why we have to take our time to repair some of that damage of false perceptions that was inflicted on the community.
What is appealing for me now is that conservative governments around the country are having Indigenous land use agreements by consent with Indigenous Australians when it comes to pastoral leases. The pastoralists are no longer seeing themselves under threat through misinformation. Indeed, the miners who have an international perspective, like Rio Tinto, have to deal with Indigenous people in other countries and they understand how to deal with them in Australia.
So, it is an excellent thing that this act before the parliament has cross-party support. It should. If we have got our differences of opinion, we should not be slugging it out in a public way, because this is non-threatening. This actually enriches us as a nation. We need to respect our first Australians. They are not a threat to us, they are an asset. It is hard enough as it is for them. The Parliament of Australia, through in its Native Title Act was only recognising what the High Court had found under the common law.
I think we have moved on. As I said earlier, I applaud the attitude of the current Leader of the Opposition because I think people like Noel Pearson and others, who we have sat with and talk to, have influenced him, and that is a good thing. I am not saying that on both sides of the House we are always going to be in a love-in and hugging one another in unanimous agreement—that is not the case—but this is one area in which I think we should work out our differences. I know that there has been some tweaking of this so that all sides could agree. It is not about the government blindsiding the opposition. They are the alternative government and we should be at one on this, but we should stick to these basic principles. It diminishes all of us if we do not. As I said, there are some pitfalls. The Constitution is unacceptable as it is at the moment—it is discriminatory. Any decent, two-bob lawyer will tell you it is. So we as a parliament should be uniting to try and in future make it non-discriminatory and acceptable to everyone. That is why it will take time. You cannot have a referendum tomorrow because it will not pass, and that would be a tragedy.
I commend the bill to the House and congratulate everyone, including Ken Wyatt, on their work to date.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:35): We speak a lot in this House about Indigenous gaps. Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition speak eloquently about the gaps in life expectancy, educational attainment and employment between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It is important to focus on those gaps, but it is also important to have a sense of optimism and pride in Australia's Indigenous heritage. As the member for Throsby noted earlier in this debate, it is great and exciting to know that we have in this country a people whose association with the land goes back tens of thousands of years. Maintaining that sense of excitement and living alongside people with the longest continuing link to their land is a great thing. This bill in some sense recognises our pride in Australia's Indigenous heritage. That Indigenous heritage involves maintaining a multiplicity of languages. As the member for Blair noted, there has been a decline in Indigenous language knowledge over recent years, and that is important to redress because language is culture—it maintains your links with generations gone by.
There is a terrific book called Stories of the Ngunnawal which talks about some of the Indigenous elders and significant members of the Indigenous community here in the ACT. One of those stories is about Carl Brown, who was born in 1952. He said that he knows a few words in traditional language. Instead of asking, 'Who's the person?' there is a word for it: 'boothm'. He said that if a person is silly they call them 'murinj', they call tucker 'dungaan' and they call a dog 'mirigung'. He said his parents spoke traditional language as he does but they knew more words—he said they would have had to. He notes that Indigenous language knowledge has declined since the previous generation. You can sense in his story a little sadness at the loss of language. We need to maintain those languages, just as we need to attain this important symbolic recognition in the Constitution.
Next Wednesday will mark the fifth anniversary of Australia's apology to Indigenous Australians—the moment when a Labor government stood up and said, long overdue, that we were sorry for the wrongs of past governments; we were sorry to the children who were ripped from families, to the communities that were broken, and to the generations that suffered and whose pain remained unacknowledged by many governments for too many years. The apology was driven by an understanding that words alone could not undo the works of the past and words alone would not absolve us from future actions in closing the gap. It was a symbol. Stolen generations elder Auntie Lorraine Peeters said it was a 'symbol of the hope we place in the new relationship you wish to forge with our people'.
This bill will be another important step towards strengthening this relationship, recognising that Indigenous peoples hold the unique place of being Australia's first peoples, and establishing an act of recognition that will be a step on the longer path to constitutional recognition. Once this bill become law it will promote community engagement with the issue and assist in building a national consensus.
When we come to a referendum, there are few more tragic things one could imagine than for a referendum on constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians to be defeated. The track record of referenda is not good—eight out of 44—so we need community consensus. The Gillard government agrees with the expert panel's recommendation that we need to hold a referendum at a time when its chance of success would be highest. We know, too, from history that with those defeated referenda sometimes the questions do not come back for the best part of a generation afterwards. At the time of the referendum on four-year terms there was talk that if it were defeated it might be returned in some other form. That was 1988 and we have not had anything since. There was talk at the time of the republican referendum that if that model were defeated another could easily be put to the Australian people a few years later. That was 1999 and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since. Reconciliation Australia has reported that, while the idea of a referendum has strong awareness within Indigenous communities, fewer than one-third of non-Indigenous Australians are aware of the discussions. So it does suggest that we need to continue ripening the fruit of constitutional recognition before we reach to the tree and try to pick it.
This bill is a reflection of the Labor approach to Indigenous policy. In talking about the Labor tradition I want to recognise, as previous speakers such as the members for Aston and Hasluck have, that there have been important steps taken by the coalition. Many of the great steps have been bipartisan. But as a Labor member I do take particular pride in some of the steps that have been taken with compassion, with justice and with respect by leaders of my own party. Gough Whitlam championed Indigenous issues in his 1972 campaign. He spoke of:
… one group of Australians who have been denied their basic rights to the pursuit of happiness, to liberty and indeed to life itself for 180 years—since the very time when Europeans in the New World first proclaimed those rights as inalienable for all mankind.
That was the approach that Prime Minister Whitlam took when he upgraded the Office of Aboriginal Affairs to the ministerial level, after he was elected. It was the approach he took when pushing for the Racial Discrimination Act, in 1975. It was the approach he took when he supported the findings of the royal commission into Indigenous land rights, and it was the approach that became law with the passing of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. It was the approach also taken by another Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, when, 20 years later, he said in Redfern Park:
… we cannot confidently say that we have succeeded as we would like to have succeeded if we have not managed to extend opportunity and care, dignity and hope to the Indigenous people of Australia—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people.
That again articulated the Labor approach of compassion, justice, progress and respect. It is with that approach that we have to continue working hard and seeing results in strengthening communities.
My predecessors in the seat of Fraser probably never would have attended an event at which a traditional elder engaged in a welcome to country ceremony. Now welcome to country ceremonies are a normal part of formal events in the ACT, and the parliament begins every day with an acknowledgment that it sits on Ngunnawal and Ngambri land. I also have the honour to represent the Wreck Bay community in Jervis Bay, and there the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council has an elected executive.
We are investing in Indigenous education with over 200 additional teachers employed in remote community schools and supporting a school nutrition program that provides meals every day to around 5,000 children in remote Territory schools. We are improving funding for primary health care services in remote communities and also supporting Indigenous health centres such as Winnunga Nimmityjah here in Canberra. Recognising that rates of ear infections and oral health problems are higher in Indigenous communities, we are putting in place the Remote Area Health Corps and a mobile outreach program for Indigenous communities. Recognising issues of community safety, we have funded the continuing employment of 60 additional Northern Territory police officers working in 18 remote communities.
One way of thinking of much of what is happening in the Northern Territory is that at its heart it is about ensuring that children are able to attend school. That means you need to have housing right, you need to have health right, you need to have safe communities and you need to have communities with a commitment to learning.
After school, we are also recognising that it is important to provide additional employment opportunities. Our government has created 50 additional Aboriginal ranger positions. We have offered up to 100 local traineeships for people in remote communities and provided a job guarantee to young people completing year 12 in Territory growth towns.
I see much of this when I visit the Wreck Bay community, and people there speak about their pride of the work that is being done in the Booderee National Park. Taking care of country is something that Indigenous peoples have done for tens of thousands of years, and supporting the work of Indigenous people working in national parks is absolutely vital.
It is also important that we ensure that Australia's Public Service looks like the community it serves, so I want to acknowledge the work that has been done by the Community and Public Sector Union on making sure the government stays on track for our target to increase Indigenous employment in the Australian Public Service to a target of 2.7 per cent by 2015. This was an issue that was brought to my attention when the local Community and Public Sector Union moved a motion at the last ACT Labor Party branch meeting which noted that the State oftheservice report 2010-11 had found a decrease in Indigenous employees from 3,383 to 3,236—a four per cent drop and the first fall in the number of Indigenous public servants since 2010.
I believe that maintaining Indigenous employment in the Public Service is important not only as a way of making sure that Indigenous Australians have jobs but it is also important as a way of ensuring that the decisions that come out of the public sector are right for all Australians. So I have been working over recent months with ministers and speaking with them directly about the strategies that they are employing in order to boost Indigenous representation in the Public Service through programs that range from mentoring to providing apprenticeships, training programs, links with universities and making sure that Indigenous Australians are attracted to and retained by the public sector. That is a high priority for me and something that I fear may be threatened were those opposite to come into power. They speak very eloquently on the importance of Indigenous Australians playing a role in public life, but a policy that would see 20,000 public servants lose their jobs is almost surely a policy that would also see fewer Indigenous Australians employed in the Public Service.
A constitutional statement of recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—particularly noting their culture, their history and their connection to the land—a removal of references to race in reflection of Australia's rejection of discrimination and belief in equality and an acknowledgement that we need to make further efforts in closing the gaps in Indigenous disadvantage are an important part of what we are working towards. Reconciliation Australia and the You Me Unity reference group have been spearheading this push, and I am confident that—with more time and more work—compassion, justice, progress and respect will prevail and we will be able to hold a successful referendum.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (11:51): Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, it is always a pleasure to speak when you are in the chair, because I know you will be nothing but impartial.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Flattery will get you everywhere, mate!
Mr PERRETT: I also rise to speak on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012, and I thank the preceding speakers. I would also like to acknowledge the traditional owners and thank them for their continuing stewardship both here and throughout this nation. It is particularly important to speak today on this bill as we make significant progress in reconciling the link between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians with the fifth annual Closing the Gap statement made this week by the Prime Minister.
My very first day in office here in Canberra as a parliamentarian started at nine o'clock with a welcome to country—the first ever welcome to country, despite the 80 years of Canberra being the capital. There had never been a welcome to country until Prime Minister Rudd organised that welcome to country, which was a very moving event and also a very wet event, I seem to recall—there was water leaking through the roof, which made for an interesting morning. Then we moved from there to the apology to the stolen generations, which was surely an apology that was heard around the world and heard in every home, black or white, in Australia. It was a significant day and a further step towards the reconciliation that is occurring, that will occur and that must occur for this nation to be a truly great nation.
This legislation before us, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill, is also significant, and I am glad to see it supported on both sides of the chamber. I will just quote some of the things that it will do:
Recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
Acknowledging the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters;
Respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Every Closing the Gap report that I have heard since 2008 has indicated that it will require many years of complex steps towards annual reckoning until we repair the gulf that is currently separating both the health and the lifestyles of Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians—a gulf that sees way too many Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders die young and live without their dreams and aspirations being realised and without the dignity that our first peoples deserve.
In my home town of St George I grew up with a significant Indigenous population. I went out there for a week before Christmas to stay with a mate who is an Indigenous bloke, Peter Brown. As you do when you catch up with mates, we talked about what people are doing. My first speech listed my Indigenous friends who had died. When I went back out there at Christmas, we just added to that list of people. I am very young—47—and, sadly, there were so many people my age that should be running around working and contributing to society but had passed away, often in sad circumstances.
The Gillard Labor government's plan is to not only improve the lives of Indigenous Australians as the Closing the Gap report acknowledged but to achieve this in a shared ambition of partnership and respect, which is surely the only way forward. Signs and symbols are important. Anyone of faith or anyone who knows Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture knows this. This Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill, whilst not a solution to all the issues that have plagued and pervaded Indigenous communities over the last 225 years, is a positive step towards this nation achieving true reconciliation. Signs and symbols are very important. As a passionate republican, I would like to see Australia achieve a situation where we have an Australian as our head of state. It will not fundamentally change what Australians do in their day-to-day business but, as a passionate republican and as a member of the party that is committed to Australia being a republic, I know that signs and symbols are very important. Obviously, they are not everything, but they are very important when combined with the real achievements associated with Closing the Gap.
There is much work ahead of us to ensure that we meet these targets by providing Indigenous Australians with health care, education and job opportunities, better access to pre-schools than ever before and the opportunity to receive the community services they deserve. The Closing the Gap report identified this nation's commitment to reducing Indigenous Australians' disadvantages and lists the associated practical and real building blocks for action—and sadly, as we saw in the report this week, measures the regress of those key targets.
As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, chaired by the member for Blair, Shayne Neumann, it has been my privilege to be involved with some of the inquiries, which in many ways have been heartbreaking. One was 'Doing time, Time for doing', which was about Indigenous views on the criminal justice system. It really broke my heart going to prisons and hearing horrible data on the incarceration rates. And then there was 'Our land, our languages: language learning in Indigenous communities', which was a bit more uplifting in terms of the positive opportunities and some of the positive, practical reconciliation steps that are taking place at the moment.
The Australian Society for Indigenous Languages recognises that significantly improved circumstances for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities can only be achieved by improving their literacy and standard English proficiency, by improving school retention rates and learning in all subjects, by a reduction in antisocial behaviour and by progressing towards the Millennium Development Goals. I would like to commend the work of Dr Chris Sarra, who was a year behind me at Kelvin Grove Teachers' College. He has now gone on to do so much work in Indigenous education.
I have confidence that the bill will also assist in improving incarceration rates in some small way for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, perhaps by improving the spirit and connection and hopefully in some small way reducing antisocial behaviour and increasing education and, therefore, job opportunities. Sadly, the incarceration rates, which have been in the media recently, show that there were 7,979 prisoners who identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as at 30 June 2012. This represented just over one quarter, or 27 per cent, of the total prison population, an increase of four per cent between 2011 and 2012. So some of those key indicators that we cover in Closing the Gap are not heading in the right direction. These figures are a clear indication that we need to make changes to help our Indigenous communities. As I said, we definitely do not need whitefellas in Canberra saying 'Thou shalt do this'. It must be in partnership, there must be consultation and there must be local Indigenous leaders guiding and leading. Hopefully the changes put forward in this Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012 are part of the process.
In my electorate of Moreton there is a significant Indigenous population, particularly in the suburb of Acacia Ridge. I know that suburb well. My grandfather moved there in the 1940s. He lived in a tent there before he built his house. It is a place I used to go to for school holidays and I have seen in that part of my electorate a fantastic attitude by Indigenous groups towards helping their communities.
The Aboriginal and Islander Independent Community School, which most people just call the Murri school, in Acacia Ridge is a private school. When I was a union organiser, I used to go there to do enterprise bargaining, and I am now proud to be their federal representative. It is a community run private school established in 1986. The school aims to promote the development of Indigenous students as independent and skilled people who are culturally, morally and socially responsible and, in particular, employable and capable of self-fulfilment and contributing to society. It is definitely an education success story. The Murri school has seen a significant move towards eliminating barriers that impede Indigenous students in some schools in terms of their access to and participation in mainstream primary and secondary education. These achievements are something we can aspire to achieve throughout Australia, and that is why the Gillard government has invested so heavily in education and employment. I am so proud of its GFC responses, which have been about investing in education.
Another school in my electorate, Southside Education, is a model school for educating young women, particularly those who have had babies while at school. The school educates a significant number of Indigenous girls who have started their families early or come from troubled homes. It is an amazing school. They have got a creche just around the corner so people can go and breastfeed during the breaks. They have got a multidisciplinary team of teachers, counsellors, youth workers and family workers. Some of their students are homeless as well, so it can be quite a challenge.
I see that the member for Newcastle, who was also a teacher, is in the chamber. One of the bugbears is also home work. It is a bit hard to worry about homework when you are worried about your student and their child having a place to stay that night. It is a wonderful school and I particularly commend the work of the employees there. Each year I am fortunate to have a student from Southside Education do work experience in my office. I am always astounded by their outstanding and positive attitude to life despite some of the horrific stories they talk about in terms of where they go to at night when they leave my office. But they still turn up with a professional attitude and it has been great for me to have some work experience students from Southside Education.
Two other schools I would particularly like to mention are Watson Road State School and Acacia Ridge State School. And there are many other schools in Moreton that have significant Indigenous populations. They are fantastic entities for education and make a great contribution.
I am proud to speak today in terms of the Gillard government's actions but I also acknowledge the Howard government's efforts in terms of reducing the flow of alcohol into some Aboriginal communities. As the husband of someone who has worked in child protection for 23 years, too often I have heard the horrible stories associated with big drinking days in Indigenous communities—in Queensland only, obviously. I have heard horrific stories from my partner about what can happen on big drinking days in Indigenous communities. We would all acknowledge that the cycle must be broken and we must close the gap by reaching education targets and improving access to health. We can identify that improving knowledge and employment, while still maintaining Indigenous languages, has positive implications for capacity-building in Indigenous communities—particularly through community involvement and employment resource management, particularly in the mining industry but also in the arts, tourism, broadcasting and interpreting.
In Queensland we have many Indigenous communities that will benefit in some way from the introduction of this bill. The Gillard Labor government is dedicated to providing equal opportunity and closing the gap. Sadly, the Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman, has not shown our Indigenous community the respect required. I think he was particularly heavy-handed, perhaps with the lord mayor, Graham Quirk, in closing down the embassy in Musgrave Park in South Brisbane, an area that even under Joh Bjelke-Petersen was recognised as a significant part of the Indigenous culture. Yet one of the first things that Premier Newman did was to send in the police to dismantle that camp.
There are the little things such as scrapping the Premier's Literary Award, which had a component for Murri writers and which was a slap in the face for the Indigenous community. Now, sadly, the Liberal-National Party government is contemplating changes to the grog rules, which will result in kids suffering and will result in families suffering. The member for Ryan is shaking her head. The reality is that the Northern Territory data show that in the Northern Territory there were 10,000 extra criminal activities—
Mrs Prentice interjecting—
Mr PERRETT: Yes, well, self-determination is great comfort to a kid that has not had a parent who is sober, to a kid that has been abused because no-one in the community is sober and child abuse is rampant. That is a great comfort to that child! Shame on the Liberal-National Party government in Queensland for contemplating these changes to the grog rules. These cuts will be felt in every Indigenous community and it is a shameful thing for Premier Newman to have done. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (12:06): I too rise to speak in support of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012, which will assist in achieving the ultimate goal of constitutional recognition for Australia's first people. As the member for Newcastle, it is worth noting that in 1993 it was Newcastle City Council that first signed a statement of commitment recognising prior Aboriginal occupancy of our land—the first agreement of its kind in the nation. The first female lord mayor of Newcastle, and of course of Australia, Joy Cummings, in 1977 was the first lord mayor in Australia to raise the Aboriginal flag over any city. So I think we have been on that path to reconciliation for a long time.
The bill before the House recognises the unique place that Indigenous Australians hold within our nation. For too long in our history since colonisation our nation's first people have been subject to gross injustices that have had an adverse intergenerational impact. As the world's oldest living culture, this has been greatly disrespectful to the original inhabitants and traditional custodians of this land. In his Redfern address Prime Minister Paul Keating said, 'It begins with an act of recognition.'
Certainly reconciliation has come a long way since 1991 and today we seek to pave the way towards a more absolute act of recognition, with Indigenous Australians being rightly recognised within our Constitution as our nation's first people. Currently, of course, our Constitution does not acknowledge Indigenous Australians as the First Australians—another one of the many injustices that we must correct as a nation. This bill is an interim measure towards constitutional recognition as we as parliamentarians, along with community leaders and Australian society as a whole, continue the task of raising awareness and the task of building a consensus for this momentous change.
Historically, Australia has succeeded in constitutional reform relating to the recognition of Indigenous Australians. In 1967, the constitutional referendum received overwhelming support, with over 90 per cent of voters indicating that they believed that Indigenous Australians ought to be recognised as citizens. We would like a 90 per cent result for a referendum in the future. In 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at the time delivered the historic apology to the stolen generations. He stated then that the symbolism of reconciliation must be accompanied by an even greater substance. 'It is not sentiment that makes history; it's our actions that make history,' he said. That is why I am pleased that we are progressing our quest to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians as well as gain constitutional recognition for them.
In 2010, the Labor government established the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians. Its role was to conduct wide-ranging consultations around the nation and to engage with local communities, reporting on potential options for change to the Constitution that would likely succeed if a referendum were to be held. In January 2012, a year ago, the expert panel recommended constitutional amendments capable of succeeding at a referendum. Further to that, it noted that careful consideration around timing would be required if a successful referendum were to be held. Thus, circumstances would need to be ideal for success. I note some objection recently by Aboriginal people to being British subjects, which would be implied by the Constitution. I have to say that, as a supporter of Australia becoming a republic, I quite understand that objection, so for me it would be wonderful to see these two things happen at the one time.
Besides issues such as this one, there are currently low levels of community awareness about constitutional reform and therefore low levels of support for this move. It is important that the government of the day get it right when it comes to this reform. Our government agrees with the expert panel that a referendum must be held at a time when it has the most chance of success. In agreeing to work with the opposition, the government established a joint select committee to achieve this objective. The committee reported in January 2013 and, much like the expert panel, heard from a range of people and agreed that a deferral of a referendum would be ideal in succeeding. In one submission, the Redfern Legal Centre wrote that its consultation with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians indicated a lack of awareness about this issue and it therefore welcomed the bill's approach of setting up a timetable for constitutional change rather than attempting to introduce constitutional change at this stage.
The bill's sunset clause provides recognition that this legislation is just an interim measure, appropriate to ensure that this symbolic parliamentary decision would not cloud eventual constitutional recognition. The sunset clause does not undermine the value of this legislation. Much to the contrary, each and every action and step we take is a step towards greater recognition and understanding of Indigenous Australians and their right to be recognised as Australia's first people in our Constitution.
In his Senate occasional lecture on 5 August 2011, Aboriginal leader Professor Mick Dodson noted that we must 'achieve the symbolic recognition in our Constitution that many of us desire' and that we must:
… make substantive change that is required … to reset the relationship, positively, between the first Australians and the rest of the country.
I agree with Mick, and one of the best conversations I have had in my time as a member of parliament was when sitting next to Mick Dodson on a plane from Broome to Perth—a conversation we continued with dinner at the house of Sharryn Jackson, the former member for Hasluck. Those are the conversations all Australians should have, and those are the conversations that build wonderful relationships and wonderful understanding. It is all those relationships that matter. They start on a one-to-one basis. So let us hope that everyone here takes up that challenge.
This week, Prime Minister Julia Gillard handed down the fifth annual Closing the gap report to parliament, marking a significant step as our government meets and delivers on the first of the target deadlines: access to early childhood education for all four-year-olds in remote communities. This monumental step will give each and every Indigenous child a better start in life. As the Prime Minister stated, preschool only takes us to the schoolyard gate, but as an educator I know that early intervention is always key to future success. So it is one achievement I think we should be very proud of.
The Prime Minister noted that significant progress has been made to halve the gap in Indigenous mortality rates for children under five within the decade from 2008. Having visited remote communities as part of the ATSI committee of parliament, the member for Murray, Sharman Stone, and I have both become concerned that there is just not enough prenatal support for young women having babies. Unfortunately, their first intervention is often when they arrive at a strange hospital in a strange town, in many instances not having English, to have their babies without that prenatal midwifery help that we would take for granted in our communities. It would be wonderful to see Indigenous women being trained as midwives, and we have recommended that the ATSI committee look particularly at those issues in the next term of government.
Steady progress is being made in education. In 2006, 47 per cent of Indigenous 20- to 24-year-olds had a year 12 or equivalent qualification. In 2011, this had risen to 54 per cent, but this is still substantially behind the 86 per cent reached for non-Indigenous Australians. So we are halfway, but we have a lot of work to do. Educational success has been mixed. Seventy-eight per cent of Indigenous year 3 students reached or exceeded the 2012 benchmark in writing, but the figure declined in reading after improving in the years to 2011. I must say that under the National Plan for School Improvement—of course, I give a Gonski—we would love to see measures specifically designed to support Indigenous students and additional resourcing as well.
During a recent visit to the Northern Territory I was very concerned at the mandatory teaching in English for the first four hours of each day. Yes, we know English is an important language for ongoing success in our society, but for any child a first language is the way to learn and if the first language is not English then it is a wonderful foundation for any other language learning. I am concerned that sometimes our educators in states and territories are perhaps not employing the best methods.
We have made, and we will continue to make, great strides but much is still to be achieved. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported in December 2012, that more than 17,000 dental and 9,000 ear checks have been carried out, along with around 3,000 ear, nose and throat checks as part of the Child Health Check Initiative Closing the Gap program since 2007. I am blessed with a friend—a very eminent person in this field of audiology—who upon retirement decided to go out and be part of the Northern Territory intervention. She described to me the first time she looked into a young child's ear and she had no idea what she was looking at. There was no tympani: the structure had completely eroded away. We were discussing this she said, 'Yes, we are making a difference, but there is so much to be done'. So, to people like her who volunteer to apply their wonderful expertise, I say thank you.
Reconciliation Australia research released this week shows that only half of those surveyed felt proud of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services cultures—a very different result to the 95 per cent who said they were and who came from an organisation with a reconciliation action plan. Reconciliation Australia says that such plans have an enormous impact on reducing mistrust and ignorance, and on building real personal relationships between first peoples and other Australians. It was wonderful to see the RA Program here today this week from Reconciliation Australia and it is very exciting to know that they will be funded for another four years.
Another initiative that is making a real difference to improving those conversations has been NITV. Indigenous broadcasting reached a momentous landmark in 2012 with the launch of Australia's first ever free-to-air national Indigenous television station, broadcasting live from Uluru in December. I know Minister Jenny Macklin speaks highly about that amazing day. It is a federal government initiative to begin that broadcasting opportunity, and I congratulate the minister for her tireless efforts towards the betterment of Indigenous Australians. It was wonderful when recently I switched on to NITV and watched the Freedom Ride on the Freedom Bus again. I remember it, but many young Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people will not recall the struggle and they will not know the progress that had to be made and that has been made in this country. That is something that I think is really contributing.
There are other wonderful things that mainstream Indigenous and non-Indigenous people are enjoying, things like the success of The Sapphires and Samson and Delilah, and to see these on the national and international stage winning awards and exceeding their own expectations has been wonderful. It is incredibly important that Indigenous stories are being told and are also being listened to.
Approximately 3,500 Indigenous people live in my electorate of Newcastle. It is higher than the New South Wales and Australian averages and we host a number of Indigenous cultural, language, education and arts centres, all of which enhance and add to the rich dynamic of Newcastle. Over the 12 years that I have been the member for Newcastle, I have seen wonderful progress and development. I have seen pride built, but one of the most important things has been the east coast language centre, and this federal government's funding for Indigenous language. It has been almost like a revivalist movement, and it is wonderful to see the great pride that it gives young people to hear someone—another Indigenous person—speaking to them in their native language. That has been amazing.
Overall, there have been some wonderful programs running. I think over $1 million in funding was just recently made available for NAIDOC Week, which has become a real celebration for us in our city. Youth arts programs at The Loft have also been highly successful, and in September Newcastle's newly refurbished NovaSkill Indigenous and industry skills centre was opened, benefiting from over $700,000 from the federal Labor government. The centre is already benefiting local Indigenous students across a range of trade and business areas: building and construction, hospitality, aged care, retail, IT and services. And Newcastle university is a standout in that it has trained almost 75 per cent of the Indigenous doctors in this nation, having started a long time ago in 1986.
The late Dr Ross Ingram was the first Indigenous person from New South Wales to be accepted into our medical school; today we are seeing Indigenous medical specialists. Professor Ian Anderson has noted that Indigenous Australians enrolled in first-year medical studies have reached national parity with non-Indigenous counterparts; that is a great tribute to the contribution made by the University of Newcastle.
Finally, in 2012 the federal government provided $10 million to Reconciliation Australia to promote public awareness and community support for constitutional reform. And now the Prime Minister has announced a further $14.4 million for that work.
Credit goes to Reconciliation Australia and to all those around the nation who have pushed for this reform, from organisations such as You Me Unity, along with the minister and the tens of thousands of individual advocates around the nation. As the minister has stated, we cannot underestimate the challenge of achieving consensus with a referendum across the country, but this change will come when the timing is right.
In supporting the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012, I pay my respects to all Indigenous people of this land and to their elders past and present. I also register my strong support for constitutional recognition of Australia's first people.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (12:21): Australia remains the only Commonwealth country without a treaty with its Indigenous inhabitants. We have never properly acknowledged that Indigenous Australians never ceded sovereignty. We have never properly acknowledged that what we call 'settlement' was accompanied by violence, at times and in places extremely brutal. Until we acknowledge this, and until we acknowledge it in the form of a treaty, these wounds at the heart of our country are going to continue to fester.
I was proud, like many others, to celebrate Australia Day. For me, the values that I celebrated on Australia Day are what I think to be the very important, uniquely Australian values of multiculturalism and egalitarianism. But, Australia Day, which of course happened very recently, is a difficult day for Australia's first peoples. I went to a number of events where we were warmly and generously welcomed to country by people to whom we owe a debt. The first event of my day on Australia Day was to join with a number of Indigenous Australians and a number of non-Indigenous Australians in Fitzroy to mark the serious parts of our history that are often overlooked. I long for the day when everyone in this country can celebrate Australia Day; when it is a day where we mark not only those values of multiculturalism and egalitarianism that bind us all together but when it also becomes a day where our first Australians can celebrate because we are celebrating a treaty.
But at least we are taking a step towards recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution, and at least we are able to debate this legislation this week. It is appropriate that we are debating it this week because part of 'closing the gap' on Aboriginal health is taking steps to improve social and emotional wellbeing, and an act of recognition is an important part of that work.
The committee that looked into this bill heard significant evidence about the importance of recognition of wellbeing. The comments of the Human Rights Commission are particularly relevant today. The human rights commissioner focussed on how a lack of recognition impacts on the social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly young people. The Australian Greens agree that at each step toward what we hope will be full constitutional recognition, it is crucial that the process improves emotional and social wellbeing amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Also, it is crucial that it takes care to avoid creating significant uncertainty within the process, which could trigger distress or disengagement by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
My colleague Senator Rachel Siewert has made additional comments for that inquiry, and will address our concerns in greater detail when this bill reaches the Senate. The Australian Greens will support the passage of this bill as an important step along the path to constitutional recognition. However, I do want to note that we are disappointed that there has by now not been further progress towards substantive constitutional recognition.
Ultimately, the Australian Greens believe that recognition needs to occur in the Constitution, along with concrete action to address the racism that remains in the text of the Constitution. The Australian Greens have a long history of supporting Aboriginal rights and promoting recognition and reconciliation. We want to see further reforms and the end of policies that have a disproportionally negative impact on people, such as income management. For this reason we will continue to work towards constitutional recognition, but we will not settle for symbolism over substance. It is also clear to us that there is still significant work to be undertaken to reach agreement, not just on the most popular model of recognition but to ensure that the final model is the most appropriate model—and one that has the support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
There is still insufficient clarity about what the next steps towards recognition are. Reconciliation Australia, which has been empowered to promote constitutional recognition through the Recognise program, demonstrated to the committee examining this bill how difficult it is to advocate for a successful referendum when the model of that referendum is still unclear, and the enduring problem this presents to their work to build public awareness.
Although the bill provides the trigger for a review that will investigate the way towards constitutional recognition after one year, it is clear that there will also need to be significant multi-party commitment and leadership in order to build the understanding and excitement of the Australian people to get behind an important history-making campaign to say 'yes' to recognition and 'no' to racism. For the Australian Greens this bill is a good step forward, but constitutional recognition will remain firmly on the agenda as the ultimate goal.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (12:27): For some time now there has been some debate and discussion in many quarters within the community about the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the most critical document to our nation, the Australian Constitution. These conversations have been ongoing. They have been across many places. They have in some cases generated agreement and in other cases not. Having said that, people do recognise that a Constitution that aims to bind all people within one country should be representative of all people within this one country. From my perspective, for us to have a situation where some are included in recognition and others are not does not ensure that our Constitution is as strong as it can be, but, importantly, it is an oversight, as I would describe it, in a way that marginalises and does not prove to be as fully inclusive as we all hope it would be. In this country we hope that we do ensure in all the organs of our nation, in both a practical and a symbolic sense, that people do feel that they have a part to play and that they are truly included. For us, ensuring that the Constitution does that is critical.
This bill is a touchstone, but it is only one. It needs to in one way, shape or form move us closer to agreement, but we are not there yet. Through the course of the contributions here today, and elsewhere, others have expressed their disappointment that we have not moved that quickly. I certainly share that view. But, again, for the purpose of our end objective, which is to have people feel that they are being included, we need to ensure that we are all in agreement along the way. So, for us, this is only a touchstone in terms of recognition of Australia's Indigenous peoples in the Constitution, but it is still recognises at this point the special place of Indigenous people as the first Australians.
We arrive here as a result of the unanimous recommendations of the government appointed the expert panel on constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. The work of this expert panel, across the course of 2011, ultimately reached its peak when it handed over its report in January last year. It represented a great deal of work in talking to the community about what they expected, and gaining their views and ensuring that they could be best represented in the final report of that expert panel. Ultimately, it will be the voice of the Australian people who give constitutional recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:30): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Broadband
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Chief Opposition Whip) (12:30): I welcome this opportunity to again address the scourge of internet trolls. Since my last speech, many people have revealed their experiences with Cairns blogger Brian McCarty. I have also found out that, although hillybillywatch.com is the brainchild of McCarty, there are others, such as Deryck Thompson from Machans Beach, who are also contributors. I put them on notice that they will also be held accountable. It is clear that McCarty's influence has spread far beyond just my electorate and is a national and an international issue. On 14 January, in a groundbreaking move, a South Australian court gave Google 28 days to reveal the identities of the persons behind five Google-owned blogs. These blogs allegedly defamed the former footballer turned businessman Shane Radbone and he rightly wants to sue the blogs' authors. This is an Australian first. No longer will bloggers be able to hide behind anonymity and its expected that Google will name Brian L McCarty as the key perpetrator.
I must point out that Shane Radbone has never met Brian McCarty; their paths only crossed when Mr Radbone was the CEO of Allied Brands. Allied Brands is the company that owned and operated the Baskin-Robbins ice-cream franchise. For a number of years, Brian McCarty has held the franchise for Baskin-Robbins in Cairns. He used his position there to undermine the Baskin-Robbins franchise by establishing a fake Allied Brands blog. Allied Brands tried to terminate this franchise, but were unsuccessful. It would be interesting to see how the current owners, Dunkin' Brands International, will respond to McCarty's behaviour.
McCarty's revenge on Mr Radbone, as the CEO of Allied Brands, was singlehanded, vicious and defamatory. McCarty emailed the school that Mr Radbone's children went to claiming that Mr Radbone was a fraud and a crook. He contacted family members and business contacts, directing them to a blog which said that Mr Radbone was a criminal and an incompetent footballer. The final straw was when he targeted Mr Radbone's wife, Victoria.
Mr Radbone is a pretty tough sort of person—to play top level football and then become the CEO of major international brands, you would have to be—but there are others who do not have the profile and the funds to take on this individual. They are desperate to clear their names. People such as Jack Sakalisfrom Melbourne and Tony Cavanaghfrom Brisbane were high-level executives earning in the region of $150,000 to $200,000. Tony now has been forced to change his name. Why? Because when prospective employers search his profile online they come across McCarty's lies.
I have also learned that a gentleman by the name of Robert Morein, from Pennsylvania in the USA, has had McCarty writing blogs and professional references in Mr Morein's name for at least the last 10 years. He and his family have been continually harassed. McCarty even distributed leaflets around his neighbourhood describing Mr Morein as a dangerous stalker and a mental case. After talking to McCarty's victims, his modus operandi became clear: he is skilled at stalking people online, corrupting their networks and impersonating correspondence. He uses sexual innuendo and demonstrates his misogyny by insulting people's wives. Personally, I do not understand what pleasure McCarty takes in ruining the corporate and personal reputation of people he has never met. However, he has now come up against something that he never thought possible. Hopefully, after the court imposed deadline, McCarty will have to face the music, and there are many out there that are going to be watching as this event unfolds.
Let's not forget the pressure that is also on Google. Google are culpable here because Shane Radbone told them about these defamatory comments being posted on Blogspot four years ago and they did nothing. Adding to this pressure is the fact that Google recently lost another court case in Victoria, having to pay a Melbourne man $200,000 after linking his photograph to a notorious Australian criminal. From a legislative point of view, something has to be done to stop individuals like McCarty using the internet as an unregulated forum to vent lies and ruin lives. I eagerly await Google's revelations later this month.
Shortland Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (12:35): I rise to acknowledge four wonderful people that live in the Shortland electorate who were acknowledged in the Australia Day Honours list. The first person I would like to acknowledge is Terence Watson of Belmont North who received the Ambulance Service Medal. His involvement in ambulance service began as an honorary ambulance officer in 1975, working one night a week, before he become a permanent officer in 1977. Mr Watson has worked on the research and development of new patient-assessment tools allowing paramedics to bypass hospitals and giving patients, particularly those located in rural areas of the Hunter region, access to thrombolysis. He is a fantastic man who gives an enormous contribution and is really deserving of recognition for the work that he has done whilst employed within the ambulance service.
The next three people I will be recommending were all awarded the Order of Australia Medal. The first is Robin Gordon. Robin is an outstanding citizen in the Belmont area. She is very community minded and involved in every activity within that community. She has been involved in the Save Belmont Library committee—and was one of the people responsible for saving that library—and the Belmont Hospital Watchdog Group. She is co-author of TheGolden Age of Nursing and Newcastle High School: The First 75 Years. She is also involved in the Belmont Red Cross. I really think that there is not a community group within the Belmont area that Robin Gordon does not support. Her contribution is well and truly appreciated.
Keith Graham is one of those quiet achievers. Keith is a person that comes up to you and raises issues all the time about what is happening in the Swansea part of the electorate. He has been secretary of Meals on Wheels at Swansea since 1974. He has been secretary of the Coon Island Land Care Group since 1991, and the secretary of the Swansea Advisory Committee since its inception in 1976. Keith is one of those guys that you feel really privileged to know. He does what he does because he believes in his community, he likes to help and assist people, and I think he embodies what the Order of Australia Medal is about—as does Robin.
I would like to talk about Roger Greenan at some length. He comes from Windale, which is another area of the electorate. He retired in 1997 and since that time he has been so active in the community. There was a Windale Renewal Scheme that was advertised for people to become involved in. Windale is a fairly disadvantaged area and Roger, when he saw the notice for people who were interested in trying to empower and change the image of the suburb to come along, put his hand up. When Roger puts his hand up to do anything, it means that he is there for the long haul and that he works really hard. That renewal scheme made some really major changes in that area. They organised some festivals, newsletters and lots of other community activities—community empowerment. In addition to that, he has been involved in the Men's Shed at Windale. The Windale Men's Shed is one of the landmark Men's Sheds in Australia. The peak body came out of that Men's Shed, and Roger has been at the forefront all the way along. He really does some fantastic work. He is also involved in the volunteer brigade and he is a man who is totally committed to his community.
The one thing all these people have in common is their commitment to community and their desire to make their communities better places and support all members of their community. They embody what the Order of Australia medal is all about.
Superannuation
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (12:40): I rise to speak on the topic of superannuation and the importance of the superannuation system in funding the retirement incomes of Australians. The sole purpose test in section 62 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act requires that the trustee of a regulated superannuation fund must ensure that the fund is maintained solely for the benefit of each member of the fund. The reason for spelling this out in legislation is of course that the agglomeration of substantial economic resources—extremely substantial in the case of the $1.5 trillion superannuation sector—naturally presents temptations. This includes the temptation for those with influence and control over those economic resources to use them to advance interests which are different from the interests of members of the fund in maximising their retirement savings.
There is presently a troubling example of how this temptation can play out. The Victorian branch of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU is pressuring the Building Industry Superannuation Fund, Cbus, in relation to property developments pursued by Cbus. This follows a major industrial dispute last year between the CFMEU and the construction company Grocon. According to media reports last month, the CFMEU's Victorian Secretary, John Setka, said its members were angry that Cbus had awarded Grocon a $430 million project in Sydney. He said, 'I reckon it is a slap in the face for the union, what Cbus has done.' It was reported that the CFMEU has sought expressions of interest from other superannuation funds to become its default fund. Presumably what it intends to do is to use the award process to have Cbus removed as the default fund for workers covered by the relevant awards, and this in turn would stop the flow of contributions from such workers into Cbus. This is an attempt by a union to use the economic resources of a large superannuation fund over which it has substantial influence, including the appointment of three directors, to secure industrial or political outcomes—in this case, to advance its industrial dispute with Grocon.
What would such action mean for the interests of the 655,000 members of Cbus? Presumably this property development venture is being pursued to generate economic returns to fund the retirement incomes of members of Cbus, members who, by operation of statute, have a proportion of their remuneration paid in the form of employer superannuation contributions. Grocon has presumably been chosen using normal commercial processes with a view to getting the development done as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. Yet the CFMEU is proposing to subjugate the interest of all of these Cbus members to the furtherance of the industrial agenda of the CFMEU in Victoria. How could it be compliant with the sole purpose test for Cbus to agree to the CFMEU's request? This situation raises a very clear question as to the approach that the three CFMEU appointed directors on the Cbus board intend to take.
Cbus is not unique in facing these sorts of conflict. Consider TWUSUPER, a fund with $2.6 billion under management and four directors appointed by the Transport Workers Union. In 2011 the Transport Workers Union vigorously attacked changes proposed by the management of Qantas to the operation of the company, changes that management said would improve the company's financial performance. Members of TWUSUPER have a right to expect that the sole consideration exercising the minds of directors is how to maximise the financial returns generated by the fund. But an obvious question arises: how do the directors of TWUSUPER who are also union officials think about equity investments in Qantas or other companies in the transport sector?
The recent Cooper review recommended major changes to the existing so-called 'equal representation' system of unions and employer organisations appointing directors to the boards of superannuation funds. The Rudd-Gillard Labor government has done nothing about these recommendations but they will not be ignored by the coalition should we come to power.
Million Hearts, One Voice Campaign
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (12:45): On 10 December last year, I had the privilege of attending the Million Hearts, One Voice campaign held at Freedom Plaza in Cabramatta. I was there to accept a human rights petition on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bob Carr. The Million Hearts, One Voice campaign is a worldwide petition initiated by Mr Truc Ho, the CEO of a Saigon broadcasting television network in the United States. The purpose of the petition is to highlight and draw attention to the ongoing human rights abuses in Vietnam.
I too remain concerned about the Vietnamese government's repression of freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of information, and its denial of the right of assembly. This suppression of basic freedoms has led to hundreds of Vietnamese citizens being imprisoned, detained and abused for something as basic as seeking one's fundamental human rights, the rights that we here in Australia often take for granted.
I have spoken in this House on many occasions on the issue of human rights abuses in Vietnam and I make no secret of my respect and admiration for the courage of the human rights defenders in that country, both past and present. It is these defenders of conscience who have the bravery to use their voice on behalf of many people in Vietnam. They have the courage to stand up for the rights of others, often to the detriment of their own families who continue to pay a very high price for their commitment to fairness and decency. We should always speak out for those in our global community who do not have a voice with respect to human rights, and that is precisely what this Million Hearts, One Voice petition is about.
Vietnamese people are being denied their basic human rights by a system that fails to honour freedom, fairness and equity. This petition is an opportunity for the global community to voice their concerns in support of the people of Vietnam. I am very proud to be a signatory of the Million Hearts, One Voice petition, along with 116 Vietnamese organisations around the world. More than 15,000 signatures were received from our local Vietnamese communities here in Australia alone. In total, the number of signatures is somewhere in the vicinity of 135,000 obtained globally. Individuals and organisations from around the world have joined together to raise their voice for human rights activists and for Vietnam. The number of signatories is certainly indicative of the enormous amount of support felt for the people of Vietnam from the various communities around this globe.
I have the honour of accepting the petition from Dr Phong Nguyen, who is a representative of the organising committee here in Australia. Dr Nguyen, like me, has advocated for fundamental human rights issues facing Vietnamese citizens, and I thank him for his ongoing commitment to the Vietnamese community. Mr Tri Vo is the national president of the Vietnamese Community in Australia, and I have had a long association with him. I am very proud to call him a very close friend. For many years, the VCA has represented the interests of many Vietnamese refugees and migrants here in Australia. I thank Mr Vo and the staff of the VCA for their continued service and dedication to the Australian Vietnamese community.
Although human rights may be an issue that is often thought to be the concern of older generations, many youth groups around the world have also come together to support the Million Hearts, One Voice campaign. Tam Hoang, the president of Vietnamese Students Association in New South Wales, has spent a lot of time and effort raising awareness for the younger generation about human rights issues in Vietnam. Since the fall of Saigon almost 38 years ago, the Vietnamese community has been a very active and positive part of Australia's multicultural society. It is now our turn to assist by recognising and condemning the violations of basic human rights still occurring in their homeland of Vietnam.
Cybersafety
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (12:50): The growth of the internet has been remarkable. It is estimated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics that more than 12 million people in Australia have internet subscriptions, and the Australian Communications and Media Authority has estimated that there are nearly 10 million mobile phone internet subscriptions. Social media has also grown rapidly, with Facebook having more than 11 million users in Australia. An estimated 90 per cent of Australian high school students have a Facebook account. This trend line of growing internet usage and access will only continue over time.
While many benefits flow to our community from higher levels of online connectivity, be they related to social interaction or to commerce, there are also many pitfalls and dangers. Many citizens in our community, particularly our young people, are left more vulnerable now to bullying online as well as to illegal conduct and other forms of inappropriate activity. This is why initiatives like Safer Internet Day are so important. Organised on a global scale, each year thousands of people right around the world come together to promote safer use of the internet. This year is the 10th anniversary of Safer Internet Day, with Australia being one of the founding 14 countries. The theme this year is online rights and responsibilities and it is captured with the slogan 'Connect with respect'. To mark Safer Internet Day this year in Australia, over 1,500 children in schools right across the country were involved in a cyber-smart challenge which involved interactive activities designed to better inform young people about safe usage of the internet. Also, more than 17,000 Australian students received the internet safety awareness presentation Cybersmart Outreach, which also encourages informed decision-making when it comes to using the internet.
I am very pleased that the coalition has taken the lead in the important area of cybersafety. Last year Tony Abbott set up a working group which consulted widely around the country and then released a discussion paper in November last year. Submissions are being taken on this discussion paper right now and they will close at the end of March. Significantly, the working paper does raise the possibility of better coordination of content and messaging with regard to online safety; more effective engagement with internet content providers and media outlets which deliver product and services that children in particular access online; and a single content point relating to online safety. The paper also raises important initiatives around 'establishing a children's e-safety commissioner to take a national leadership role in online safety for children; implementing rapid removal protocols with large social media outlets for material that is targeted and likely to cause harm to Australian children, through a cooperative regulatory scheme; and better support for schools through a stronger online safety component within the National Safe Schools Framework'.
I also think it is important that senior members of our community, the so-called silver surfers, are given assistance and support around education in online safety—tips on changing passwords, how to use attachments, how to close accounts and how do deal with unsolicited emails and SMS messages seeking personal information. These are all important protocols. If seniors learn about them now, they can avoid trouble in the future.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is a critical area and it deserves bipartisan support. We need to maintain a watching brief as technology is changing very rapidly and it is so important that we protect our children online.
Sri Lankan Refugees
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (12:55): I rise to speak to join the thousands of Australian Tamil constituents in the Chifley electorate—joined by those who live in the electorates of Greenway and Parramatta—to express my utter disbelief at some extraordinary events that unfolded right here in Canberra this week. Earlier in the week, shadow foreign minister Julie Bishop and shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison effectively re-announced not only a short-sighted policy but one that potentially breaches international law. It was not just the re-announcement that was stunning; it was what it overlooked and how that was explained, and I will return to that later.
This coalition policy announced in September last year would see the coalition enact into law a plan to return any asylum seekers arriving here from Sri Lanka who were intercepted at sea, without even assessing or determining their refugee claims. Shortly after this plan was announced, I moved a private member's motion supported by the member for Greenway, Michelle Rowland, to highlight the serious problems associated with this move. I stated at the time that there was absolutely no context provided as to why, out of all the nationalities of asylum seekers arriving here, Sri Lankans have been singled out. The plan by the coalition for a forcible transfer agreement would more than likely breach the refugee convention on nonrefoulement. The coalition's plans were grossly hypocritical given that they had refused to back our transfer agreement with Malaysia on the grounds that Malaysia was not a signatory to the convention, yet here they are, planning to forcibly return people to Sri Lanka, a country that is also not a signatory.
The world has recoiled at the atrocities that have occurred in Sri Lanka during the course of its brutal civil war. It has been estimated that the conflict cost the lives of 100,000 Sinhalese and Tamil civilians between 1972 and 2009. While some might argue that the circumstances are improving in that country, others claim that the path to recognition is a long one. I have previously pointed out that one of our closest allies, the United States, welcomed UN resolutions carried last year calling on Sri Lanka to credibly investigate war crimes that have been alleged to have occurred. The Sri Lankan government, disappointingly, has refused to acknowledge the resolutions that have been carried by the UN.
Let me return to a point I made earlier. In the last few weeks two senior coalition frontbenchers, the shadow foreign minister and the shadow immigration minister, visited Sri Lanka. I actually thought that this might have been a visit to better acquaint themselves with the situation and potentially moderate policy. What has stunned many is not just that they did not do that but some of the reasons they used to justify not doing it. Many Tamil MPs in Sri Lanka who actually met these two frontbenchers are simply staggered by what they have heard this week. Let me quote from one, Sivagnanam Shritharan, who said:
I am very hurt by Julie Bishop's false claims. Spreading lies with no conscience—
His words—
about a race that is being wiped out saddens us. We feel that we have been deceived.
That is contained in a media statement issued today. According to a statement issued via the Tamil Refugee Council, Mr Shritharan, along with other Tamil National Alliance colleagues, said they had spent several hours with both of these frontbenchers. Both denied this week that they were made aware during their trip that the lives of many Tamil asylum seekers would be in danger if the coalition's forcible transfer agreement plan went ahead. Yesterday on ABC radio, Fran Kelly asked shadow minister Julie Bishop about the claims of abuse against Tamils and she replied:
We didn’t hear of ongoing Tamil abuse by the Sinhalese, that’s the point.
Mr Shritharan said that this claim was untrue and that he and his TNA colleagues had told them about, for example, the arrests of university students and their jailing in rehabilitation camps, the forced removal of Tamils from their land and houses, the fear that some Tamils live in because of a massive military presence and claims of torture. Mr Shritharan went on to say:
All those international representatives I have met with in the past four years as a parliamentarian were all unbiased with their questioning and came with an open heart. I felt Julie Bishop and her colleagues were taking sides with the Sri Lankan government. They did not care about Tamil grievances. The actions of people like Julie Bishop hurt us.
… … …
They did not want to understand our reasons.
When they visited Tamil areas, they did not speak to any Tamil civilians.
There is little I need to do to condemn the actions of these two frontbenchers, because they are condemned by their own inaction and by the deep dismay conveyed in the words of those who expected better from them. If a refugee claim fails to have validity it is rejected, and it is right to do so, but international law gives people the right to make the claim, especially if they feel they are under threat.
Australian Tamils who have been resettled here are and who are making a great contribution are right to be outraged, and I stand here today to let them know that I deeply object to these plans and will do all I can to fight them.
Question agreed to.
F ederation Chamber adjourned at 13:00
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service: Staffing
(Question No. 1021)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, (d) 2011-12, how many redundancies have been issued to Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff based at (i) Sydney Airport, and (ii) the Sydney International Mail Gateway Facility.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The number of redundancies issued to Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff at Sydney Airport and the Sydney International Mail Gateway Facility is as follows:
(i) Sydney Airport
|
(a) 2008-09 |
(b) 2009-10 |
(c) 2010-11 |
(d) 2011-12 |
Number of redundancies issued |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
(ii) Sydney International Mail Gateway Facility
|
(a) 2008-09 |
(b) 2009-10 |
(c) 2010-11 |
(d) 2011-12 |
Number of redundancies issued |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
All of these redundancies were voluntary.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1023)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
(1) Has it ever been the policy of the Government or the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to scan and/or inspect every item of baggage that is brought through Sydney Airport by international air passengers.
(2) In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how much or what proportion of baggage brought through Sydney Airport by international air passengers was scanned and/or inspected.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Customs and Border Protection has no record of a policy to scan or inspect every item of baggage at Sydney International Airport.
(2) The number of bags examined by Customs and Border Protection was:
(a) 2008-09 126,197
(b) 2009-10 129,079
(c) 2010-11 108,506
(d) 2011-12 115,543
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service: Staffing
(Question No. 1024)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
How often are security clearances reviewed for Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff working at Sydney Airport, and has this policy changed since 2007; and if so, how.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The regulations that dictated the requirements for security clearances in 2007 was the Protective Security Manual (PSM). At this time the security vetting function for Customs and Border Protection was conducted within the agency. The periodic review of clearances occurred as directed by the PSM or more frequently as information was obtained through a 'change of circumstances' of the employee or intelligence provided by an investigation that may have led to a 'review for cause' which is a review of a candidates suitability to hold a security clearance and access to security classified information.
Based on the position's duties and requirement to access classified information, the vast majority of staff within the Sydney Airport environment would require a PROTECTED security clearance. This level of security clearance required review after 10 years.
The timeframes for periodic review of security clearances is provided in the table below.
Security Clearance level |
Revalidation period |
PROTECTED |
10 years |
HIGHLY PROTECTED |
5 years |
SECRET |
5 years |
TOP SECRET (NEGATIVE VET) |
5 years |
TOP SECRET (POSITIVE VET) |
5 years with annual review |
The Australian Government announced on 1 December 2009 that Commonwealth security vetting processes would be centralised to the Department of Defence. This central vetting unit is known as the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency (AGSVA). The AGSVA, operational from October 2010, began conducting security vetting for all Commonwealth agencies (apart from exempt agencies). Clearances granted by the AGSVA have whole-of-government effect.
With the introduction of the AGSVA the clearance level of PROTECTED altered to BASELINE and this level now requires review after 15 years. The regulations that dictate the requirements for security clearances is now the Protective Security Policy Framework.
Customs and Border Protection has also introduced an agency specific pre-employment check; the 'Organisational Suitability Assessment' (OSA). The OSA is undertaken every 5 years or when individual circumstances alter or an individual is brought to the attention of the Integrity and Professional Standards Branch. This level of scrutiny includes specific checks relevant to the law enforcement environments. These checks were previously undertaken during the security clearance process, within the agency, as the 'fit and proper' component.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service: Staffing
(Question No. 1025)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff were employed at the Sydney International Mail Gateway Facility.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The number of Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff employed at the Sydney International Mail Gateway Facility is as follows:
|
(a) 2008-09 |
(b) 2009-10 |
(c) 2010-11 |
(d) 2011-12 |
Number of staff employed |
99 |
97 |
100 |
98* |
* Staff numbers for 2011/12 are as at 8 June 2012.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1027)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, (d) 2011-12, how many referrals have been made to Australian Customs and Border Protection Service's Investigations Branch relating to firearms and how many of these referrals have resulted in (i) prosecutions and (ii) convictions.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) In 2008-09, the Investigations Branch of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs and Border Protection) received 141 referrals involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these referrals, three cases led to court proceedings, two of which resulted in convictions being recorded. In the remaining case, the offence was proven, but s19B of the Crimes Act 1914 was applied and no conviction was recorded.
(b) In 2009-10, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection received 118 referrals involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these referrals, eight cases led to court proceedings, five of which resulted in convictions being recorded. In the remaining three cases, the offences were proven, but s19B of the Crimes Act 1914 was applied and no convictions were recorded.
(c) In 2010-11, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection received 74 referrals involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these referrals, three cases led to court proceedings, two of which resulted in convictions being recorded. In the remaining case, the offence was proven, but s19B of the Crimes Act 1914 was applied and no conviction was recorded.
(d) In 2011-12 the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection received 137 referrals involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these referrals, one matter is currently before the courts and other investigations are ongoing.
These statistics relate to both civil and criminal prosecutions and cover the importation of firearms and firearm parts such as barrels, silencers, stocks and ammunition. Referrals not accepted by the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection all undergo compliance or enforcement action, either by the originating area, another area within the agency, or a separate agency with the capability to take appropriate action. Regardless of other enforcement outcomes, all firearms and firearms parts detected that are prohibited imports are seized at the border, unless the importer is able to provide a valid import permit.
It is worth noting that a decision to refer a matter for prosecution is made in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. Where a matter is not prosecuted, there are a range of other actions that can be taken depending on the particular circumstances of the case at hand. These actions include; seizing the item and issuing a warning letter, initiating further audit activity, and issuing an infringement notice under the infringement notice scheme.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1028)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
Are freight forwarding companies involved in delivering freight to Australia, required to provide background checks to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service for staff involved.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Freight forwarding companies that apply for or hold a customs broker, warehouse or depot licence are subject to fit and proper checks for the company and certain staff.
Depending on the nature and location of their work, the freight forwarding companies or their staff may be subject to relevant checks under other Commonwealth schemes such as the Maritime and Aviation Security Identification Card Schemes.
Operation Polaris
(Question No. 1029)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
What proportion of investigations launched as part of 'Operation Polaris' have resulted in criminal convictions for (a) cigarette smuggling, (b) illegal firearm smuggling and (c) illicit drugs.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Four (4) investigations have been undertaken into cigarette smuggling with no criminal convictions at this stage1.
(b) No investigations have been undertaken into illegal firearm smuggling.
(c) 14 investigations have been undertaken into illicit drugs which have resulted in two persons, both from the same investigation, being convicted of criminal charges. Both these matters remain before the Court pending sentencing2.
Footnote 1:
Three (3) investigations have prosecutions before the Courts.
One (1) investigation is ongoing.
Footnote 2:
Five (5) investigations either have matters before the Courts or are still being investigated.
Four (4) matters are inactive at the moment.
Four (4) matters are closed.
Operation Polaris
(Question No. 1030)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In respect of 'Operation Polaris', (a) when was it formed, and (b) how many investigations have resulted in (i) prosecutions, and (ii) convictions.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Operation Polaris was formed on 1 July, 2010.
(b) (i) Six investigations have thus far resulted in prosecutions.
(b) (ii) One investigation has thus far resulted in a conviction (two persons).
Operation Polaris
(Question No. 1031)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
How many Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers have faced criminal charges as a result of investigations conducted by 'Operation Polaris?'
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
To date no Customs and Border Protection officers have faced criminal charges as a result of investigations conducted by 'Operation Polaris'.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service: Staffing
(Question No. 1032)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In respect of investigations of Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers for drug use, (a) how many have there been, and (b) how many have led to criminal convictions.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
From 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2012, there were 4 allegations or reports of Customs and Border Protection officers using drugs. All 4 allegations were investigated by Customs and Border Protection Integrity and Professional Standards.
There were no charges or convictions as a result of these investigations:
Two allegations were found to be vexatious, malicious or unsubstantiated.
Two Customs and Border Protection officers were referred to the Organisational Suitability Assessments section for a review of their suitability with no adverse determinations made.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service: Staffing
(Question No. 1033)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In respect of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers investigated for (a) importing illicit substances, and (b) importing prohibited items, (i) how many officers have been investigated, and (ii) how many of these investigations have resulted in criminal convictions.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
For the period 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2012, there have been two allegations of Customs and Border Protection officers importing illicit substances. All matters have been investigated and no criminal convictions have been recorded.
In relation to allegations of Customs and Border Protection officers importing Prohibited Imports there have been two allegations. Both matters have been investigated and no criminal convictions have been recorded.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service: Staffing
(Question No. 1035)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
What procedures have the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service initiated since 2008-09 specifically targeting corrupt activity in its officers.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Staffing
Between 2007 and 2010, staffing increased from 5 to 45 and in December 2009, the Internal Affairs area changed its Branch title to Integrity and Professional Standards (I&PS) to reflect the broader role encompassing fraud control and corruption prevention.
All staff as a minimum possess a Certificate IV in Government (Investigations) or Certificate IV in Personnel Security or similar qualifications.
Case Management System
2009 – Implementation of a Case Management System – CRIMEIA – to capture all allegations and complaints and to case manage all I&PS investigations, intelligence and incidents and to record critical decisions.
2012 – CRIMEIA – Single database implemented for Case management across both Criminal and Administrative (Code of Conduct) cases within the agency.
Intelligence Capability
An Intelligence capability was established in 2009. The Intelligence area has grown in strength from one Intelligence Analyst to four Analysts. The intelligence area undertakes intelligence activities into allegations of criminality or serious misconduct made against Customs and Border Protection employees and conducts strategic intelligence assessments aimed at identifying trends of corrupt or serious misconduct.
Integrity Risk Capability
The Integrity Risk area is staffed by six officers to deliver Corruption Prevention including the development of formal Fraud Control and Corruption Prevention Plans and education and training of all Customs and Border Protection employees.
December 2007 - Fraud Control responsibilities transferred to Integrity and Professional Standards Branch.
Two Fraud Control and Corruption Prevention Plans have been developed
o Fraud Control Plan 2008 – 2010; and
o Fraud Control and Corruption Prevention Plan 2010 – 2012.
Fraud Control and Corruption Prevention Plan 2012-2014 in development stage – to be completed by November 2012.
Rolling program of integrity risk assessments provides assurance around the appropriate management of a broad range of integrity risks including the "single point of failure" work.
Fraud Control and Corruption Awareness Training – Nationwide refresher and induction training program – delivered to approximately 3000 staff from January 2010 to June 2012 including information about the role of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
Commenced in 2012 a program of briefings for officers at all security clearance levels, travelling overseas on official business, to raise awareness on corruption and security risks relevant to the country(s) being visited.
A mandatory online training program was developed for all staff covering security awareness (current program) and fraud control/corruption awareness is to commence in November 2012.
Integrity awareness campaigns and dissemination of Z Cards – initially rolled out in 2009 and updated in 2011 the campaigns provide an awareness to all staff of the multiple channels for incident reporting.
Ethics and Integrity Handbook updated and made available to all staff both online and via individual hardcopies outlining the standards of behaviours and ethical conduct for Customs and Border Protection employees.
Pre-Employment Clearances
Implemented from October 2010
Security Clearance Vetting Process transferred to Australian Government Security Vetting Agency (AGSVA) which assesses an applicant's ability to acquire a whole-of-government security clearance. All Customs and Border Protection officers must hold the minimum PROTECTED clearance.
Improvements to Organisational Suitability Assessments (OSA) – OSA complements the AGSVA process by conducting additional agency specific checks to assess an applicant's suitability to operate in the Customs and Border Protection environment (eg probity checks against law enforcement and intelligence databases).
Post-Employment Clearance Reviews
Additional rigour surrounding
o Change of circumstances – requirement for staff to report circumstances of potential concern (eg associations; gambling; financial changes; relationship changes).
o Contact reporting – requirement for staff to report interaction with high risk persons (eg foreign intelligence officials; criminals etc).
o Risk based reviews of OSA and/or security clearance on occurrence of specific events (eg – critical incident; receipt of adverse intelligence etc).
o Security Investigations – initiated to investigate security breaches.
o Revalidation periods for Commonwealth security clearances range from 5 years to 15 years, depending on the level of clearance held by individuals.
Tone at the Top / Organisational Support
Transition of Internal Affairs to Integrity and Professional Standards Branch to also include Security function.
Additional resourcing provided.
Branch reports directly to CEO on integrity matters.
Monthly reporting to the Executive Committee on integrity and security issues and trends.
Integrity Committee and Security Committee created to oversight the appropriateness of anti-corruption and security measures across of organisation. Committees involve representation from senior executives and are chaired by the COO.
Integrity Partnership with ACLEI
Customs and Border Protection came under the jurisdiction of ACLEI on 1 January 2011.
Funding provided to support ACLEI's expanded role.
Investigators and Intelligence support joint ACLEI / Customs and Border Protection and/or AFP operations as required. Officers are seconded on joint operations.
I&PS has representation on the "Community of Practice" with ACLEI, AFP and ACC.
New Measures
The Government has introduced legislation to implement a range of measures designed to enhance the corruption resistance of Customs and Border Protection and other Commonwealth agencies.
On 30 March 2012, I announced that the Federal Government will introduce legislation to conduct targeted integrity tests on Commonwealth officers suspected of corruption.
This includes officers from the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) and Customs and Border Protection.
Integrity tests are observed covert simulations designed to test whether a public official will respond to a situation in a manner that is illegal or would contravene an agency ' s standard of integrity.
Examples of integrity testing include:
A covert operative handing a wallet containing cash to officers and observing that correct handling protocols are observed;
Leaving valuable goods at a simulated crime scene or suspected shipping container to test whether an officer steals the item;
A covert operative offering a Commonwealth officer a bribe; and
Putting false information in a database to catch a person suspected of unlawfully disclosing information.
Under the legislation the ACLEI and agencies including the AFP, Customs and Border Protection and the ACC will have the power to conduct targeted integrity testing.
The Integrity Commissioner, the head of the agency and/ or delegated SES will be responsible for authorising integrity tests.
The Integrity Commissioner will be made aware of all integrity tests being undertaken by agencies, and thereby have visibility of the operation of the integrity testing system.
Oversight of any use of covert police powers will be provided by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.
Employee representatives are also being consulted on the development of the system to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place.
The legislation will build on the powers that the ACLEI already has including:
coercive powers to gather information through hearings and notices;
telecommunications interception and data access;
electronic surveillance;
controlled operations and assumed identities;
search warrants; and
scrutiny of financial transaction records.
On 28 April 2012, I announced further reforms to make law enforcement more corruption resistant:
1. Doubling the number of enforcement agencies oversighted by the ACLEI. New agencies to be oversighted by ACLEI are:
o The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Biosecurity Staff (formerly the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service);
o The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre; and
o CrimTrac.
2. Doubling the resources allocated to ACLEI to oversight Customs and Border Protection.
3. A series of new measures the AFP and ACC are undertaking and the extension to Customs and Border Protection of the same integrity powers as the AFP and ACC. These include:
o The power to authorise drug and alcohol testing;
o The power for the CEO to make a declaration terminating the employment of an officer for serious misconduct; and
o The introduction of mandatory reporting requirements, whereby Customs and Border Protection officers are required to report any misconduct or corruption activity.
On 19 September 2012, I introduced legislation the Law Enforcement Integrity Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 into Parliament to bring about the measures announced.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service: Staffing
(Question No. 1036)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, what was the number of full time staff employed in the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Investigation Branch.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The number of full time staff employed in the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Investigation Branch is as follows:
|
(a) 2008-09 |
(b) 2009-10 |
(c) 2010-11 |
(d) 2011-12 |
Number of full time staff employed |
138 |
137 |
130* |
122** |
* Staff numbers include one Non Ongoing Full Time Employee.
**Staff numbers for 2011/12 are as at 8 June 2012.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Investigation Branch
(Question No. 1037)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many referrals have been made to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Investigation Branch for (i) illegal firearms, (ii) illicit drugs, (iii) cigarette/tobacco smuggling, and (iv) steroid importation.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) In 2008-09 the following referrals were made to the Customs and Border Protection Investigations Branch:
(i) Illegal firearms and firearm parts - 141 referrals.
(ii) Illicit drugs - 277 referrals related to precursor chemicals. Detections of border controlled drugs such as narcotics and amphetamines are referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.
(iii) Illicit tobacco/cigarettes - 155 referrals.
(iv) Steroids – 645 referrals.
(b) In 2009-10 the following referrals were made to the Customs and Border Protection Investigations Branch:
(i) Illegal firearms and firearm parts - 118 referrals.
(ii) Illicit drugs - 428 referrals related to precursor chemicals. Detections of border controlled drugs such as narcotics and amphetamines are referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.
(iii) Illicit tobacco/cigarettes - 57 referrals.
(iv) Steroids – 831 referrals.
(c) In 2010-11 the following referrals were made to the Customs and Border Protection Investigations Branch:
(i) Illegal firearms and firearm parts - 74 referrals.
(ii) Illicit drugs - 414 referrals related to precursor chemicals. Detections of border controlled drugs such as narcotics and amphetamines are referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.
(iii) Illicit tobacco/cigarettes - 67 referrals.
(iv) Steroids – 963 referrals.
(d) In 2011-12 the following referrals were made to the Customs and Border Protection Investigations Branch:
(i) Illegal firearms and firearm parts - 137 referrals.
(ii) Illicit drugs - 566 referrals related to precursor chemicals. Detections of border controlled drugs such as narcotics and amphetamines are referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.
(iii) Illicit tobacco/cigarettes - 84 referrals.
(iv) Steroids – 904 referrals.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1038)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In respect of undeclared firearms, parts and accessories, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, (i) how many were detected by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs), (ii) how many were seized by Customs, and (iii) how many were seized by Customs, were later returned.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Customs and Border Protection firearms statistics are referred to in terms of undeclared detections and seizures.
An imported firearm is considered an undeclared detection and detained at the border when it has been detected and identified by Customs and Border Protection as a prohibited or restricted firearm, AND where it has not been declared to Customs and Border Protection in accordance with the import requirements.
Seizures occur when the detained firearms have failed, or will fail, to meet import requirements.
Many are subsequently released after the importer has been given the opportunity to meet import requirements (eg. obtaining relevant import permits).
Table 1: Undeclared detections / seizures / releases of non-air, conventional firearms, parts and accessories, and magazines
Year |
Undeclared Detections |
Subsequently Released |
Seized |
2008-09 |
1022 |
943 |
79 |
2009-10 |
1896 |
1820 |
76 |
2010-11 |
1179 |
880 |
299 |
2011-MAR12 |
1086 |
771 |
315 |
TOTAL |
5183 |
4414 |
769 |
Note: All figures are correct as of the date each respective yearly report was produced.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Investigation Branch
(Question No. 1039)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In respect of investigations launched by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Investigation Branch into suspected firearm smuggling, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, (i) how many were initiated, (ii) how many have led to referral for prosecution, and (iii) how many have led to criminal convictions.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) In 2008-09, the Investigations Branch of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs and Border Protection) initiated 42 investigations cases involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these cases, three led to court proceedings. All court proceedings produced successful prosecutions, of which one resulted in a criminal conviction being recorded.
(b) In 2009-10, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection initiated 30 investigations cases involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these cases, eight led to court proceedings. All court proceedings produced successful prosecutions, of which one resulted in a criminal conviction being recorded.
(c) In 2010-11, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection initiated 23 investigations cases involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these cases, three led to court proceedings. All court proceedings produced successful prosecutions, of which one resulted in a criminal conviction.
(d) In 2011-12, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection initiated 38 investigations cases involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. One of these cases is currently before the courts. Investigations in relation to the remaining cases are ongoing.
Investigations undertaken by the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection are all managed to an appropriate conclusion. Regardless of other enforcement outcomes, including whether or not prosecution is undertaken, all firearms and firearms parts detected that are prohibited imports are seized at the border, unless the importer is able to provide a valid import permit.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service: Staffing
(Question No. 1041)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many staff were employed at (i) the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) container examination facility at Port Botany, (ii) Customs' air cargo branch, and (iii) Customs' national and regional head office in Canberra
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The number of staff employed at the Customs and Border Protection's container examination facility at Port Botany, Customs and Border Protection's Air Cargo Branch, and Customs and Border Protection's National and Regional Head Office in Canberra is as follows:
(i) Customs and Border Protection Service's Container Examination Facility at Port Botany
|
(a) 2008-09 |
(b) 2009-10 |
(c) 2010-11 |
(d) 2011-12 |
Number of staff employed |
54 |
52 |
51 |
52* |
* Staff numbers as at 8 June 2012
(ii) Customs and Border Protection's Air Cargo Branch
|
(a) 2008-09 |
(b) 2009-10 |
(c) 2010-11 |
(d) 2011-12 |
Number of staff employed |
154 |
115 |
121 |
111* |
* Staff numbers as at 8 June 2012
(iii) Customs and Border Protection's National and Regional Head Office in Canberra
|
(a) 2008-09 |
(b) 2009-10 |
(c) 2010-11 |
(d) 2011-12 |
Number of staff employed |
1614** |
1659** |
1633** |
1767* ** |
* Staff numbers for 2011-12 are as at 8 June 2012
** Staff numbers include operational staff including Seagoing Marine Operations staff assigned to Customs and Border Protection's National Head Office in Canberra
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service: Managed Deliveries
(Question No. 1042)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many managed deliveries have Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers arranged and completed.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers arranged and completed:
(a) 34 managed deliveries in relation to the illegal import of prohibited or regulated goods in 2008-09;
(b) 50 managed deliveries in 2009-10;
(c) 61 managed deliveries in 2010-11; and
(d) 75 managed deliveries in 2011-12.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1043)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In respect of referrals accepted for investigation by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service that have resulted in prosecution through the courts, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011‑12, (i) how many have there been, and (ii) how many were successful.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) In 2008-09, the Investigations Branch of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs and Border Protection) prosecuted 203 cases through the courts and had 199 successful prosecutions.
(b) In 2009-10, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection prosecuted 222 cases through the courts and had 211 successful prosecutions.
(c) In 2010-11, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection prosecuted 143 cases through the courts and had 129 successful prosecutions.
(d) In 2011-12, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection prosecuted 157 cases through the courts and had 147 successful prosecutions.
The interval between the commencement and completion of prosecutions often overlaps from one financial year to the next. Therefore the figures given above for prosecutions may also include prosecutions commenced in previous years.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1044)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many drug seizures made by Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) were (i) the subject of warrant action conducted by Customs, and (ii) resulted in controlled operations by the Australian Federal Police.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
When Customs and Border Protection detects drugs at the border they are referred to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for further action.
Under the Crimes Act 1914, the AFP must submit a report to the Minister of Home Affairs and Justice, setting out the details required by subsections 15HM(2), (2A), (2B) and (2C) in relation to controlled operations for which the agency was the authorising agency during the previous 12 months. The data the AFP submits for this report does not distinguish between controlled operations conducted as a result of drug seizures made by Customs and Border Protection, and as such the AFP would be unable to provide figures to answer this query.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1045)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In respect of controlled actions by Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in regards to drug seizures resulting in prosecutions, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, (i) how many were there, and (ii) how many were successful.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Customs and Border Protection does not undertake controlled actions with regards to drug seizures. (See response to QoN1044).
The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) who undertake prosecution action in these matters advise they do not keep statistics on whether controlled actions were involved in the cases being prosecuted.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1046)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In respect of Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers charged with corrupt activity, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, (i) how many were there, and (ii) how many prosecutions were successful.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Financial year 2008/2009
Customs and Border Protection raised two Briefs of Evidence for CDPP consideration involving two officers. One prosecution was successful.
Financial year 2009/2010
Customs and Border Protection raised four Briefs of Evidence for CDPP consideration. One prosecution was successful. The CDPP is deliberating on one other.
Financial year 2010/2011
Customs and Border Protection raised one Brief of Evidence for CDPP consideration. The CDPP is deliberating on this matter.
Financial year 2011/2012
No briefs of evidence were raised by Customs and Border Protection for corrupt activity.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1047)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
On what date did the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service first raise concerns with the Government about the potential for the Integrated Cargo System to be monitored by corrupt or criminal elements?
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
16 May 2008.
The Integrated Cargo System (ICS) is primarily used by importers and the cargo industry reporting to Customs and Border Protection the movement of cargo across the border. Because of this primary role, the cargo industry needs to have a degree of access to the information held on ICS about cargo of direct interest to them. As such, limiting access beyond a certain point is not feasible as it would have a detrimental effect on the movement of trade.
However, Customs and Border Protection employs a number of operational contingencies to mitigate the risk. This includes:
External users can only access the ICS Customs Interactive with a digital certificate. Digital certificates provide both Customs and Border Protection and our external users assurance in regard to:
o Authentication (knowing who the message is from);
o Integrity (knowing it has not been tampered with);
o Non-repudiation (knowing that the sender cannot deny having sent it); and
o Confidentiality (knowing that no unauthorised reading has occurred).
Customs and Border Protection is able to identify individual users as they access ICS and specifically the ICS screens and information viewed.
On 9 May 2012, a change was introduced into the ICS that limits access to specific cargo information to those in the cargo industry who have reported a direct and legitimate interest in the movement and clearance of cargo.
On 23 September 2012, the ICS logon screen was updated to include a warning about the penalties for misusing of the information in the system. Users need to accept this message before proceeding to log in.
The following reviews are underway:
A review into functional access controls within the Integrated Cargo System (ICS). The focus of the review is the access controls delivered by the ICS application that limit or restrict the functions available to an authorised user of the ICS.
A risk-based review of the audit and monitoring capabilities of the ICS is in progress. The objective of the review is to improve the timely detection of fraudulent or inappropriate use of Customs and Border Protection systems using automated tools.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1048)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many calls have been lodged with the 'Customs Watch' information line.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) 2008-09 - 1547
(b) 2009-10 - 1506
(c) 2010-11 - 1515
(d) 2011-12 – 1392 as at 29 May 2012
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1049)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In respect of the calls to the 'Customs Watch' information line, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, (i) how many raised allegations of corrupt action by Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff, (ii) how many resulted in prosecution for criminal offences.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(i) (a) 2008-09 - 4 allegations
(b) 2009-10 - 5 allegations
(c) 2010-11 - 6 allegations
(d) 2011-12 (as at 30 April 2012) - 7
(ii) How many resulted in prosecution for criminal offences – None to date. One is still the subject of investigation.
The nature of these allegations range from minor complaints against Customs and Border Protection officers in carrying out their duties at the border, to more serious allegations of misconduct.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
(Question No. 1050)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2012:
In respect of (a) the potential for outside visual monitoring of Port Botany's Container Examination Facility, and (b) the use of contracted labour to pack or unpack shipping containers transported through Port Botany or any other Australian port, (i) does the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) have any concerns, (ii) have any concerns been raised with Customs, and (iii) has the Minister's office received information on any such concerns.
Mr Clare: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) (i) The Port Botany Examination facility is located outside the Port precinct proper and therefore truck movements to and from the facility from the wharves can be observed from public roads and other public areas. The 'hard stand' (concrete) area of the facility can be observed from neighbouring premises. Customs and Border Protection takes necessary precautions to protect the integrity of its operations and all examinations are conducted inside the Examination Hall.
(ii) Yes, concerns have been raised with Customs and Border Protection.
(iii) Yes, the Minister's Office has been briefed on action being undertaken by law enforcement agencies that are part of Taskforce Polaris to address these concerns.
(b) (i) Contracted labour is used to perform manual unpacking and repacking of sea cargo containers at examination facilities in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Fremantle, Adelaide, Darwin, Townsville and Newcastle. All contracted labour are required to undergo a baseline security clearance and are supervised while working at facilities.
(ii) Yes, concerns have been raised with Customs and Border Protection.
(iii) Yes, the Minister's Office has been briefed on action being undertaken by law enforcement agencies that are part of Taskforce Polaris to address these concerns.
Fair Work Australia
(Question No. 1290)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 26 November 2012:
In respect of the decision of Fair Work Australia (C2012/1050, C2012/1051, C2012/1052) which set aside agreements purportedly entered into between Macquarie Health and the Australia Nursing Foundation on the grounds that the employer's purported 'bargaining representative' had not been validly appointed under the Act, (a) what are the wider ramifications of Fair Work Australia's decision, (b) how will this affect the operation of 'Individual Flexibility Agreements', (c) what measures will be put in place to ensure that all bargaining representatives are properly appointed under the Act, and (d) what measures will be implemented to ensure that both employers and employees are given the tools to enable them to verify whether bargaining representatives have been properly appointed under the Act.
Mr Shorten: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) It is not apparent that the Full Bench of FWA decision in Kaizen Hospitals (Essendon) Pty Ltd; Kaizen Hospitals (Malvern) Pty Ltd; Kaizen Hospitals (Mount District) Pty Ltd v Australian Nursing Federation [2012] FWAFB 8866; and the recent decision of Hamilton DP in Australian Nursing Federation [2012] FWA 9905 on 20 December 2012 have any wider ramifications. These cases were decided on the basis of their highly unusual facts and are consistent with the policy that a bargaining representative for an enterprise agreement must be validly appointed.
(b) It is not possible to answer this question without knowing the details of any arrangements that may have been made and considering how those arrangements may interact with any applicable industrial instrument.
However, in general terms, individual flexibility arrangements (IFAs) made under an enterprise agreement operate as a term of the relevant enterprise agreement. Terms of an enterprise agreement only have effect whilst the instrument is in operation.
(c) & d)
The Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and the Fair Work Australia Rules 2010 (the Rules) include a number of safeguards concerning the appointment of bargaining representatives and the agreement of the parties, including that:
an employer must appoint its bargaining representative in writing (s 176(1) (d) of the Act);
an employer must provide an employee bargaining representative with a copy of the instrument of appointment of its bargaining representative if the employee bargaining representative requests it (s 178(2) (b) of the Act);
the Rules require employers and employee bargaining representatives to file statutory declarations in support of the applications for enterprise agreement approvals, in which they must attest that all statements in the declaration are true in every particular; and
if one party considers that the other is not acting in good faith, they can apply to the Fair Work Commission for a good faith bargaining order under s 229 of the Act.
The Government is committed to strengthening protections for employees during the bargaining process. For instance, the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 inserted new subsections 174(1A) and 174(1B) into the FW Act to provide that a notice of employee representational rights can only contain the content prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (the Regulations), must not contain any other content and must be in the form prescribed by the Regulations.
As noted by the Full Bench, the circumstances in this case were very unusual and the Government does not consider that the circumstances warrant legislative reform.