The SPEAKER ( Ms Anna Burke ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand) (12:01): on indulgence—I intend to start this speech rather than finish it with my personal thanks, because I think they are the easy ones to miss at the end in a rush. All that we as politicians can achieve for the community fundamentally relies on a lot of other people. Families, friends and staff help us, support us, sooth us and share our triumphs. I have been incredibly blessed on all of those fronts: a wonderful mother and sisters, the best staff imaginable—a number of them are here today; you can see that getting this out early is a good idea—and, of course, plenty of friends in and out of politics have helped to keep me sane. Most of all I thank my gorgeous, reliable and very funny husband, Michael. Together, Michael and mum helped me manage a busy life as a senior cabinet minister with a young child, the first woman to combine such roles. Without mum travelling with me for the first year while I was breastfeeding, I am not sure I would have managed, and without Michael, then and ever since, I certainly would not have. Deb and Tiffiny have also helped make Rebecca the happy, confident and loving little bright spark that she is.
Mum is responsible for a number of funny moments in my political life, and the former Prime Minister might remember one of them. My favourite was in 2007 when mum marched up to Kevin, then just a newly sworn-in Prime Minister, on the very day that we were at Government House, pushing ministers to the side and demanding that he promise to give me some time off to get married, or she feared it would never happen. That is probably the only time I have seen Kevin stuck for words.
In 15 years in Canberra, I have also been very lucky to have good friends to flat with—for many years with Adrienne and for last four years with Lisa, Michael and their three children. Warm company, nonpolitical discussion and chocolate was a much needed balm on many occasions after a day in this place, and I thank them. Perhaps weirdly, I also need to thank Tony Abbott. I wish to thank him for providing the material for some of the most memorable moments of my political career: standing me up and then swearing at me at the Press Club in the 2011 election campaign, although it was awkward at the time, I think cost him and the Liberal Party much more; for producing those silly golf balls that made for an irresistible gag in the parliament; and for continuing to take donations from tobacco companies, allowing me to coin the phrase, 'Kick the habit, Mr Abbott.'
More seriously, thank you to the ALP members in Gellibrand and the electors of Gellibrand, allowing me the honour of representing them at five elections. From Western Health, ethnic community leaders, the Bulldogs and Maidstone community house to local councils, I have loved working with the community and hope that I have lived up to their expectations.
There have been more staff than I can thank here for their friendship and their hard work. Suffice to say that any of my successes were theirs too. I am glad some of them are here today. I am looking forward to the big cook-up that I am doing for them soon. Getting and keeping good staff is one of the best compliments a minister can get and is one of the wise investments to make in political life. I want to particularly thank my longest-serving staff member, Narelle, for her professionalism and friendship, and Angela for her brains and leadership over so many years. I would like to take this chance to wish Chris and Connie all the best for their upcoming wedding.
For colleagues, it is an exercise of love and loyalty to work for this great Labor cause that we believe in, but to do it together makes it even more satisfying. Thank you to my friends here, particularly to my Victorian colleagues, the class of '98 and my ministerial friends. A particular thank you to Mark, Justine, Warren and Catherine for their work as the health team during the very busy health reform days. This brings me to a special thank you to the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. She is an amazing Prime Minister, a great Labor leader and an impressive woman, and she is a good friend to me. We should be proud of her and her work, but more of that later.
Thank you also to the staff of the parliament and the two secretaries and staff of the departments of health and the Attorney-General's. People love to send up bureaucrats, especially Canberra bureaucrats, but I found you and your teams highly capable, very professional and hard-working—and I thank you. I fear that those opposite, in wanting to tap in to this common prejudice against public servants, will slash many staff without really understanding the scope of the work that they do. The PBS cannot list new drugs for sick Australians if bureaucrats do not work through the process of approval. Emergency hotlines cannot be staffed if the importance of having a person at the end of the line is not recognised, whether it is for flood assistance or a GP after-hours service. Already we know that we stand to lose more than 40 front-line health workers locally—psychologists, mental health nurses and pharmacists—if the Liberals are elected and abolish Medicare Locals, as they have committed to doing.
Of course, I could not stand up today in this place, in this line of work, and not acknowledge that it does not feel like I am giving a speech at a hard time from Labor. Even for true Labor believers there are times when it can feel frustrating or hard work to come out and support a cause that we all believe in deeply for a party that we all love deeply. But for Labor, by its nature and its causes, we are a party of optimists—a party that believes that we can, through politics and government, help improve the lives of those around us. We cannot let the critics, the nay-sayers and the nasties define us. They are never going to acknowledge our hundreds of achievements, so the truth is we might be down but we are not out. Our party is older than the nation itself. Our causes are timeless, although they take on different forms over different decades.
Whether it was Medicare and the Snowy Mountains schemes of the past or DisabilityCare and the National Broadband Network of the future, Labor are the only party that delivers compassion and nation building in equal measure. We can and should be proud of this. We can and should focus more on this. We have allowed internal tensions to overshadow our core mission for too long. We are a proud party with a proud record; now we need to start behaving like one.
Politics moves so fast these days that we find it hard to reflect on and absorb what has been done. The media struggle to report policies that salve decades-old ailments, preferring the daily itch. Perfect examples of this are the NDIS, health reform, the National Plan for School Improvement and the NBN, even the new ASIO review system. These are structural, compassionate, complex reforms and investments that will deliver lasting improvements for the nation. Because progressive parties like ours want to achieve so much, we do not often take the time to reflect enough on what has been achieved.
Labor in government has been so busy, arguably too busy, that we have been on to the next challenge without taking the time to stop, appreciate and be proud of all the work that we are doing. Retiring gives me a good excuse to pause and focus on what has changed in my time here; locally in my electorate of Gellibrand, but more broadly for the nation. Not all my hopes of 15 years ago in my first speech have been fulfilled—that is true; becoming a republic is one of them. But a great many others have, and those issues that are left and new ones to come just underline the point that Labor's mission is still a work in progress, not one where our work is complete.
Locally we can take great pride in the reduction in unemployment and pulling many thousands of families living in poverty up into better circumstances. We have opened up university for more kids than ever before. We have set up the National Congress for Australia's First Peoples. We have ensured that people have better access to doctors and nurses when they need them, and more chance of becoming them if that is what they want. We have put fairness back into the workplace and introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
As an issue I raised strongly in my first speech, I am pleased that we have achieved much for women; although that path still has a long way to travel. We should celebrate supporting pay equality for the lowest-paid women in the workforce; increasing government assistance for child care; having the first female Governor-General, Attorney-General and Prime Minister; and better protection from violence against women and children in family laws. And we have paid parental leave—at last—thanks to Labor.
We can be proud of those things and many more, yet I cannot help but despair a bit on this front as well. We have a capable, tough, smart, determined woman as our Prime Minister, yet she has been subjected to some of the most crass, silly, petty, sexist and just plain rude behaviour for years. At the same time we have the Defence Force grappling with degrading, demeaning and plain awful treatment of women in and out of the workforce. The proper treatment of women has long been a priority for me. In the law, before I came here, I acted for too many women, young and old, who were treated appallingly in their workplaces—from pizza shops to TAFE colleges. These latest events show us that there is a dangerous underbelly still compromising women in Australia and that the feminist cause is just as urgent as before.
It really is time for people to understand how corrosive sexism is, to acknowledge that it deliberately sets out to diminish authority and sideline the real issues, and to realise how constantly sexualising women disempowers them and how extreme and violent language can turn into or encourage violent and dangerous behaviour. I am proud to be on this side of the House amongst so many Labor women and men fighting to tackle these issues that affect so many Australians in many walks of life. Men are joining women in these fights. Stephen Smith, as the Minister for Defence, could not have been more clear in his expectations for our military despite his strong stand being criticised initially within defence. Bill is fighting to get rights to request part-time work into our laws. Simon and Kevin, as leaders, were never afraid to have good women in senior roles in their show.
Personally, I would like to thank Joe Ludwig for covering me so willingly while I was on maternity leave, and Anthony Albanese for insisting that I be given leave to attend Rebecca's first day at school. These fights are both small and big, national and personal. I am proud that, for Labor, it is the men and women fighting together for these changes. These changes will make us a better nation. They will utilise the nation's potential more thoroughly. After all, is that not what Labor is about? Whether it is women fulfilling their potential freely or getting all Australians access to high-speed broadband whether they are in city or country, rich or poor, for education, for employment or just for fun, or better schooling for kids who need the most help, this is the great work of our party. These issues along with many others highlight that our work is not yet done here and that our efforts are all part of a long Labor continuum that will continue well past today. Each step is just one in the great sweep of Labor history, taking years if not decades to build a better country.
As we fight each and every new challenge, we must remember that Labor is on the side of the nation's history. It is a record and history we need to discuss more widely and use to help shape a positive future. Focus on this example: when I was elected 15 years ago, a bright young kid in my electorate who dreamed of being a doctor could not train in the west of Melbourne at all. Now they can study in new science labs at Braybrook secondary school, or they can do their whole medical training in the west at Sunshine Hospital or at Werribee. Sunshine Hospital is home to Melbourne University's first new medical school in a century. They can train near home where their professional skills are sorely needed in a community they understand and are part of—all because of Labor investments. This story is replicated across the country, from the first Northern Territory medical school—making a medical degree more of an option for Indigenous kids wanting to stay close to land—to the Blacktown clinic or school training much needed health staff for the busy western suburbs of Sydney.
Of course, not all our kids want to be doctors, so we have invested in other facilities. In my electorate, budding young chefs can visit the hospitality school at Victoria University or see the new aviatronic centre being built at Footscray City College—all built as part of Labor's education revolution. We are the ones who rebuilt the schools and kept the nation's tradies in employment when other countries dipped into severe recession. We are the ones who invested in hospital, cancer and GP infrastructure. The states let down communities like Bega, Albury, Nepean, Whyalla, Townsville and so many more.
We have invested in people as well as infrastructure. In my part of the country that is the ring road, regional rail and now Melbourne Metro. All the while, the Liberals are promising to ease traffic burdens in the east. But this story is replicated across the nation. And that is not even to mention some of the long list of small investments, nevertheless significant, in Gellibrand such as the community chef in Altona; wonderful new housing for the homeless and disabled; the Australian Ballet warehouse; the Yarraville community centre; the Bulldogs sports centre; community child care; and green investments in industries such as Toyota and CSR sugar. The point is that locally and nationally we are giving people a better future, investing to build a nation and investing compassionately.
In my first speech, I mentioned my dad having died from cancer of the oesophagus when I was young. I did not imagine then that I would be later staring down tobacco companies and defending our actions in the High Court or that I would be speaking to the United Nations about our world-first plain packaging laws. Nor did I expect to be serenaded by Simon Chapman and Paul Grogan with their unique take on the song Leader of the Pack or to have Michael Bloomberg declaring in his New York drawl that 'when it comes to health prevention Nicola Roxon is a rock star'! I am very proud of that work. Whether it was my father dying too young 35 years ago or Minister Emerson's brother just last month, I am proud that we are trying to reduce the harm to other families. And I am proud of our regional cancer centres, PBS listings, High Court appointments and properly recognising midwives and nurses. I must say that the national pricing of performance measures in health and establishing e-health records must rate amongst the least sexy reforms to advocate, but they will enable efficiency and innovation into the future. I could keep going on with a much longer list—from the importance of setting up the royal commission into child abuse to at last seeing a national children's commissioner established—but I would keep you all here until dinnertime.
Form here on in, it is about members like all of you here and branch members, candidates and an army of Labor believers who will have a chance to play their part in the ongoing Labor story that we all work so hard to shape and deliver. The nation needs you to tackle the growing insecurity in employment that is starting to haunt workers, particularly women. We need you to jump on racism rearing its head again, whether in the AFL or close to home with the Sunshine police mocking our African communities. We need you to protect the environment and be champions of our mental health and dental care reforms. There are so many new chapters yet to be written in Labor's grand history and it is our collective responsibility to keep focused on this purpose, delivering to those in the community who need us to voice and act on their concerns. Nation-building and compassion, looking after those who need a bit more help and a lot more opportunity—this is Labor's enduring mission, it is one to be proud of, and it is a mission that we should fight for. Thank you.
The SPEAKER: I congratulate the member for Gellibrand on a fantastic valedictory speech.
COMMITTEES
DisabilityCare Australia Select Committee
Appointment
The SPEAKER (12:18): I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate concurs with the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on DisabilityCare Australia.
BILLS
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (12:18): I move:
That the following bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration:
Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013;
Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013; and
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013.
Question agreed to.
Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:19): The report-once, use-often framework will allow charities to report once to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and for authorised government agencies to then access this information, therefore eliminating the need for charities to report the same information to different government agencies. While the initial focus of the commission is to reduce reporting duplication at the Commonwealth level, it is also discussing the role it can play with states and territories. The commission is already proving to be an invaluable resource for charities and not-for-profits and demonstrates that this government's reforms are transforming the sector.
The bills we are debating today, the Charities Bill 2013 and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, are a part of this government's reform agenda. These bills introduce a statutory definition of 'charity' that applies to all Commonwealth legislation. The meaning of 'charity' and 'charitable purpose' has not been previously comprehensively defined for the purposes of Commonwealth law, but, rather, it has been administered on the basis of principles derived from common law. This has resulted in a charity law that is sometimes inconsistent and does not necessarily reflect the contemporary Australian charity sector.
The development of a statutory definition of charity and charitable purpose was first recommended in the report of the 2001 inquiry into the definition of charities and related organisations. It was reiterated in the recommendations of the Australia's Future Tax System Review in 2010. The Productivity Commission, in its 2010 report Contribution of the not-for-profit sector, also recommended the introduction of a statutory definition. A single statutory definition of a charity will provide greater clarity and certainty for charities, the public and regulators in determining whether an entity is charitable. In keeping with the government's broader reform agenda, it will also cut down on compliance costs for those wishing to establish charities and make the definition more accessible and easier to understand for the community. Importantly, the statutory definition will not be absolute; rather, it will retain the flexibility inherent in the common law that will enable the courts and parliament to continue to develop the definition within the statutory framework, maintaining its relevance to this evolving sector.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the public consultation that has been undertaken in the development of these bills. In my electorate of Canberra, we are home to a great many charities and not-for-profit organisations, as well as those that service the Canberra community, and we are home to many national and international organisations who choose to be based in our nation's capital. I know that these organisations were actively involved in the development and consultation on the statutory definition and I thank them for their contribution.
Finally, on Saturday I visited a wonderful charity in my electorate, the St Vincent de Paul Society—or 'Vinnies', as we know it—op shop at Narrabundah. I am sure many of my parliamentary colleagues all have a Vinnies op shop operating in some capacity in their electorates and know of the important work they do to help those less fortunate in our communities. Last Friday, Vinnies at Narrabundah celebrated its 50th anniversary of serving the Canberra community. It is an incredible milestone. Vinnies is an example of a charity that works tirelessly to support the community, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the countless volunteers who have given up their time and effort and energy to work at Vinnies over the past 50 years, particularly Maureen Johnston, the store's current manager. It has remained in the same location in Narrabundah for 50 years. While there have been a few revamps to the shop and the shopfront, it is essentially in the same location, serving the same strong community for 50 years. It is an extraordinary achievement.
This government is dedicated to supporting a strong, vibrant, diverse and independent charity and not-for-profit sector. These bills enable that and I know that they will be welcomed by the charities and not-for-profits in my electorate. I commend these bills to the House.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (12:24): These bills seek to introduce a definition of 'charity' and 'charitable purpose' that would apply across all government legislation from 1 January 2014 and constitute yet another example of Labor's regulatory overreach. The definition of charity and charitable purpose has not previously been comprehensively legislated in this country. Since Federation, the definition of charity has remained clear and consistent. It has remained a cornerstone underpinning what constitutes a charitable endeavour and what constitutes a charitable activity. The definition is based on a legal concept from 1601. It is widely understood and it is unilaterally accepted, having evolved over a 400-year evolutionary period in a manner that properly reflects changing community and societal standards.
But now that definition that has served us so well is in this government's firing line. The government wants to abandon what works, what has been proven and what has been broadly accepted by society and replace it with the government's own definition. Not even charities are safe from this government's obsession with regulatory overreach and the ever-present need for it to create more and more red tape, and so it goes. Now it has charities in its sights.
Australian charities law has closely followed the definition of charity based on the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth. English common law is the principal basis for charities law in Australia in both state and federal courts, and each of the state jurisdictions has retained almost identical interpretations of the common-law definition of charity. The government is now seeking to pretend that there is some desperate need to legislate in this area, acting as if it is charting new waters.
The great reality of all this is that the former, Howard government looked at the issue of creating a common-law definition of charity. Former Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the definition of charity on 18 September 2000. The inquiry reported in 2001 and it made 27 recommendations. Former Treasurer Peter Costello released draft legislation in 2003 which took the traditional four heads of charity and divided them into seven heads of charity, in line with the inquiry's finding—namely, the advancement of health, education, social or community welfare, religion, culture, natural environment and any other purpose that is beneficial to the community. The Board of Taxation reported on the workability of the draft legislation in 2004 and the then government, through the then Treasurer, announced that the common-law meaning of charity would continue to apply but that the definition would be extended to include certain childcare and self-help groups, as well as closed or contemplative religious orders. The government decided not to proceed with the draft charities bill. The former coalition government enacted the Extension of Charitable Purposes Act, which confined itself to enlarging the legal definition of charity for federal purposes to include childcare and self-help groups and closed religious orders. The Commonwealth's definitional extension has not been adopted by any state jurisdiction.
This bill would be the first time that legislation has sought to so comprehensively define it in statute for the purposes of Commonwealth law. Our concern is clear: why create statute where the common law has served and does serve us so well? Why depart from 400 years of clarity and consistency? There is a fundamental philosophical divide between the approach of the coalition and that of the government. The coalition's approach to charities is somewhat different to that of the government. Labor prefers unwanted, unwarranted intervention, and approaches the sector with distrust, demanding huge amounts of information and draconian reporting requirements, making it so tough for the volunteers and charities the government claims to support. They go along every day doing countless hours of volunteer work out there in the community.
The coalition's approach is all about empowering people, not exercising power over them. It is an approach that the Leader of the Opposition utilised when he referred to Abraham Lincoln's famous description of democracy as 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. It is not a new approach, but it is one which both the Rudd and the Gillard government have trashed beyond recognition. The coalition has confidence in civil society, and we believe that the political community should be of service to civil society.
Australian not-for-profits lend a hand to those in need and they make our country so much a better place through education, volunteers, sports, arts and welfare organisations. Every day Australia's charity and not-for-profit sector repeats countless hundreds and thousands of acts of kindness, and their generosity makes our country a much better place to live in. That is why the coalition is standing up for not-for-profits and charities in opposing Labor's proposed Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, which will result in the kind of regulatory overreach that has become so typical of the Gillard government—more red tape and more costs on a sector that is already under great pressure. Labor's proposed Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, the ACNC, is predicated on the belief that Australia's charities and not-for-profits are doing something inherently wrong and need greater government oversight. The coalition rejects this belief. The ACNC will make life harder for volunteers and it will discourage involvement in the voluntary and community sector. By failing to work with the states and territories to create a single national framework, the Gillard government will increase the costs of running a charity or not-for-profit organisation and give the government more say in how charities and not-for-profits are administered. Instead of reducing red tape and unnecessary costs, the ACNC will add more red tape for charities and for not-for-profits.
While the ACNC will initially only cover those charities with exemptions, Labor's framework will allow an eventual expansion. Under these bills, the ACNC will require more information from yet another agency of government: a new national charities and not-for-profits register will be created to include information regarding contact details, governing rules, financial and information statements of NFPs, and the information will be made available on the internet. It will increase reporting requirements. A new reporting framework will be established and all registered entities will be required to provide an annual information statement. Medium and large entities will also be required to provide annual financial reports.
What the government is calling the 'charities passport' is really a new 'red tape passport'; that is what they should call it. It will provide government with more powers to deregister charities. The ACNC will have the power to register and deregister not-for-profit entities. Registration would be required for organisations to access Commonwealth exemptions, concessions and benefits, including tax concessions. It will provide the ACNC with more powers than the regulators of Australian businesses. The ACNC will be able to demand information, search premises and inspect items on premises, and seize documents or electronic equipment found on premises. Enforcement of a range of laws will be the responsibility of the ACNC. The ACNC will have powers to issue warning notices; issue directions; enter into enforceable undertakings; apply to the courts for injunctions; suspend or remove responsible entities; and appoint acting responsible entities. The ACNC will also be able to remove responsible officers. It will give government a bigger say in the operations of registered entities. The ACNC sets up a framework for a set of governance standards which will apply to registered entities and have a set of external conduct standards which apply to all registered entities, regardless of entity type. These standards can cover such things as the content of a registered entity's governing rules, the conduct of the registered entity and the processes that the registered entity must have in place.
Nowhere are these unwelcome and unwarranted intrusions resulting from these bills more apparent than for schools and charities based in my electorate of Brisbane. Charities like the Red Cross, which is headquartered in Brisbane, Rosie's Friends on the Street, who work with homeless people, the 139 Club, and Communify in the suburb of Paddington, who work with refugees and the homeless, will all be impacted by these changes. In addition, the electorate of Brisbane is also home to many independent schools who have raised significant concerns with me about the impact of these bills.
In terms of the compliance and reporting regime prescribed by these bills, independent schools already report through the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations on their full financial status, and they are already required to submit audited financial statements to DEEWR annually. Independent schools in Australia already have extensive information available to the public on ACARA's My School, and this applies to all independent schools regardless of which ACNC registered entity category they are in. Requiring independent schools to report similar but different data to ACNC is another addition to Labor's smorgasbord of red tape.
In addition, independent schools provide financial reports to the state government. These bills will result in independent schools requiring more administrative positions to fulfil all of the reporting requirements, taking away funds from much-needed educational positions. The proposed compliance prescribed by these bills rivals that of public companies, and we have to remember here that these are charitable organisations we are talking about.
Independent schools are also concerned about the reporting requirements when they receive donations. For instance, will there be an additional level of reporting when they fundraise? In terms of the proposed statutory definition of 'charity', the independent schools sector is concerned at the time and financial costs of having to prove public benefit, when it has been long established. It is important for these schools to remain charitable in order to be able to reduce compliance costs and instead be able to concentrate and focus on education and reduce fees to parents. As to governance of entities, the regulations are yet to be defined. So we do not know what they will be and how they will impact on schools.
Taxation of 'unrelated income' and its definition is another area of concern for independent schools when there is already legislation in place to tax unrelated income, and especially when no definition has been established and there has been no consultation whatsoever with the school community. I want the minister to answer whether or not P&C shops selling uniforms and books will be taxed if they are separately incorporated. Will tuckshops selling goods be taxed? And what happens when these schools hire out their facilities for extra income to reduce fees or improve facilities?
The bills also provide no clarity as to the meaning of the phrases 'likely to contravene' and 'likely to not comply', as set out in proposed section 35-10(1)(c). Quite reasonably, a number of independent schools have raised with me their concerns as to what those words likely mean and how they will impact on schools. Section 35(10)(c) refers to an apparently discretionary power of the commissioner whereby the commissioner may revoke registration where the registered entity has contravened, or is likely to contravene or not comply with, a provision or governance or external conduct standard. No guidance or assistance is provided in the bill as to how the commissioner is to determine the intent or the mind of the entity being 'likely to contravene or not comply' with the act and the consequences of revocation of registration are significant to the entity. This is an example of particularly poor drafting and constitutes further evidence showing how little the minister and the government actually understand about the impacts of this proposed legislation on the sector. The phrases 'likely to contravene' and 'likely to not comply with' should be removed from this section entirely.
The independent schools in my electorate of Brisbane, like the rest of Australia, do not mind being transparent. It is just very hard for them when they need to redo their numbers in four different formats depending on which level of government they are reporting to.
As I have said, these bills are a classic example of regulatory overreach by a government with a history of legislative and public policy failures—yet another case of the Gillard government in action, with their reverse Midas touch at work. They are bad and unnecessary bills. (Time expired)
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (12:39): I rise to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. Hundreds of thousands of Australians each year participate in volunteering across Australia through local sports clubs, Scout groups, surf-lifesaving clubs, religious groups and many other community organisations. The most recent census showed that more than three million Australians participated in voluntary work for an organisation or group. Of course, this figure does not include the many millions of Australians who conduct selfless voluntary work for others in the normal course of their lives without even considering it to be volunteering their time. This disparity is reflected in the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010 general social survey, which indicated that more than six million Australians volunteer every year, including many from different cultural backgrounds who are frequently not even aware that some of their work in the community is actually volunteering. Their work is funnelled through the charities and not-for-profit sector, with thousands of Australians managing and handling the many hours of administration, financial accounting and reporting, and compliance with federal, state and territory regulations.
These bills seek to replace the common-law definition of charity and charitable purpose with a statutory definition which would apply from 1 January 2014 and would apply across all Commonwealth legislation. The coalition oppose this legislation because we believe that it is not a response to a genuine need or a solution to challenges within the current framework in which the Commonwealth treats charities. It instead imposes further prescriptive regulations on charities already struggling to keep up with administrative and compliance burdens.
The Labor government first announced in the 2011-12 budget that it would introduce a statutory definition of 'charity' based on the 2001 Report of the inquiry into the definition of charity and related organisations, also taking into account subsequent judicial decisions. Key features of the new definition include: an entity must have charitable purposes and must not have an independent, non-charitable purpose; an entity may have incidental or ancillary purposes that may be non-charitable when viewed in isolation but which must aid or further the charitable purpose. Furthermore, the following are presumed as being for the public benefit, unless there is evidence to the contrary: the purpose of preventing and relieving sickness, disease or human suffering; the purpose of advancing education or relieving poverty, distress or disadvantage of individuals or families; the purpose of caring for and supporting the aged or people with disabilities; and the purpose of advancing religion.
The public benefit test does not apply to open and non-discriminatory self-help groups, to closed or contemplative religious orders or where the purpose is directed to one or more individuals in necessitous circumstances as described in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. A purpose of engaging in, or promoting, activities which are unlawful or contrary to public policy is disqualifying, which refers specifically to such matters as the rule of law and system of government, as opposed to government policies. A purpose of promoting or opposing a political party or candidate is a disqualifying purpose. Categories of charitable purposes include: advancing health, education, social or public welfare; religion; culture; promoting reconciliation, mutual respect and tolerance between groups of individuals that are in Australia; promoting or protecting human rights; advancing the natural environment et cetera.
The list of categories and the definitions of charitable purposes go on—and on and on. With so much complexity in this bill, no doubt there will be many unintended consequences which could negatively affect the charitable sector. In fact, despite these extensive categories and definitions, the government has somehow managed to leave out 'housing' as a defined charitable purpose. I understand that stakeholders in the housing sector are therefore concerned about whether there is the potential to jeopardise future investment in public-private partnerships in that area.
The coalition believes that there is no significant reason that the government has outlined as to how the common-law definition of charity and charitable purpose is deficient. Therefore, Australia should maintain the definition of charity and charitable purpose which has been determined based on over 400 years of common law. This reflects the general conception developed over time of charitable purposes, rather than draconian definitions, categories and public interest tests of charity and charitable purposes, as proposed by this government.
There are over 600,000 not-for-profit entities in Australia, including approximately 56,000 charities. The government should be supporting the volunteering, charity and not-for-profit sector in this country as best it can. Instead, for years this Labor government has failed to provide certainty with regard to the obligations and responsibilities of organisations and of those governing these organisations. In 2011, the Labor government changed occupational health and safety laws, which effectively turned volunteers into workers, leaving community groups burdened with strict regulations accompanied by harsh punishments for noncompliance. Last year—in 2012—the government created the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, or ACNC, which, as I noted at the time, would increase red tape and increase compliance costs for the sector.
A fundamental value is the independence of the charities. Their ability to organise their structure and governance to suit their own activities should not be compromised by prescriptive and unnecessary standards. The coalition believes a one-size-fits-all approach to every charity and not-for-profit, which this Labor government continues to advocate, will decrease versatility within the sector. Once the ACNC comes into effect on 1 January 2014, these bills today may result in further transitional costs for some entities. I understand that there are concerns in the community about the conduct of some organisations to which they donate their money, but the government has not addressed those concerns in continuing to apply burdensome regulation to each and every charitable and not-for-profit organisation.
The coalition does have a plan to assist Australians effectively in this area. The shadow minister for families, housing and human services, the member for Menzies, has reaffirmed the coalition's commitment to reduce red tape for the charities and not-for-profit sector. A coalition government will shift the focus of the new Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission away from endless compliance and regulation to a smaller body that encourages innovation, education and best practice in the sector. This could entail a small, independent charities commission, which would serve as an educative and training body for the sector. Such a commission would indeed support the sector by providing information about the process of registration for new organisations, it would advocate for the rights of these organisations and, further, it would help facilitate the interaction between government and the charitable and not-for-profit sector. This type of coordination is what the coalition supports: real on-the-ground support for community organisations rather than a centralised government legislating the definition of charity and charitable purposes and introducing burdensome reporting and conduct requirements for charities.
Members should resist any push that proposes a 'government knows best' view and, indeed, any push that centralises functions of government to the Commonwealth where there is no rational basis to do so. Indeed, in this case, the government has not outlined why there is an urgent reason for implementing a statutory definition of charity and charitable purposes at this time. We must respect personal and community responsibility, which we see so often in the charity and not-for-profit sector. We know that by fostering community spirit we reduce reliance on government. I do not believe that implementing a statutory definition of charity and charitable purposes enhances these values. If elected, the coalition will repeal this bill.
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (12:48): I rise to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. The Charities Bill seeks to introduce a definition of charity and charitable purpose. The new definition would apply from 1 January 2014 across all Commonwealth legislation. This bill serves no purpose and is unnecessary. The definition of the word 'charities' is ingrained into our history and our culture, and it is a definition that is universally understood. The definition of charity has stood the test of time and is some 400 years old. British Commonwealth law has served us well. Since Federation, the definition of charity has remained clear and consistent. It has remained a cornerstone of what constitutes charitable endeavour and charitable activity across this nation.
The government are seeking once again to rush through legislation that has not been properly considered, with a lack of public consultation. The public consultation phase on the draft definition was open for less than four weeks. It is astounding to me that this government would think that they know better and, without extensive consultation, would seek to change 400 years of history that has served civil society well.
Let me remind the House what happened in September 2000, when the then Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the definition of charity. The inquiry reported in 2001, making some 27 recommendations. Former Treasurer Peter Costello released draft legislation in 2003 which took the traditional four heads of charity and divided them into seven heads of charity in line with the inquiry's findings—namely, the advancement of health; education; social and community welfare; religion; culture, natural environment; and any other purpose that is beneficial to the community. The Board of Taxation reported on the workability of the draft legislation in 2004 and the then government, through the then Treasurer, announced:
The common law meaning of a charity will continue to apply, but the definition will be extended to include certain child care and self-help groups, and closed or contemplative religious orders. The Government has decided not to proceed with the draft Charities Bill.
It perplexes me then why, after an extensive inquiry has already been completed into this issue and found that the common-law meaning of charity is still relevant and the most appropriate to use, this government is tracking down an alternative path. Why depart from 400 years of clarity and consistency that is relevant today and has worked and continues to work? Let me be clear in this House that we will seek to repeal this bill if elected. The coalition's approach to the charitable sector is based on the belief that Australian charities and not-for-profit organisations strengthen our nation through their contribution to communities right across Australia. We believe in empowering this sector. We understand that the charitable sector plays a role and fills a gap that government never could.
Before entering parliament I worked as a social work across Greater Western Sydney for 20-odd years. In my work I saw many charitable organisations on the ground doing incredible work in their local communities—some at a local level, some at a national or more regional level. These organisations are made up of mostly volunteers. Volunteers are on management committees. Volunteers develop and share a vision and a dream to make a difference in the communities, whether it is helping those who are disabled, empowering young people to have a better future or the continuing work done over the years by St Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army and so on. The many organisations that make up the charitable sector are trusted pillars in our community and our nation. The Red Cross, St Vinnie's, Wesley Mission—the list goes on. They continue to have a significant impact on our society and our communities. Families, single parents, the elderly and troubled youth rely on the helping hand of these organisations to bring support and hope during the tough times.
The community trusts civil society, and the coalition trusts civil society. It is Labor that assumes that we should look over their shoulder and force them to comply with overburdensome regulations. This is why we have announced that, if elected, we will abolish the ACNC. The purpose of the ACNC is to create more red tape and more costs for a sector that is already under great pressure. The ACNC is predicated on the belief that Australia's charities and not-for-profits are doing something inherently wrong and need greater government oversight. I reject this belief. The ACNC has made life harder for volunteers and will discourage involvement in voluntary and community endeavour. By failing to work with the states and territories to create a single national framework, the Gillard government will increase the cost of running charities and not-for-profit organisations and give the government more say in how they are administered. While the ACNC will initially only cover those charities with exemptions, Labor's framework will allow an eventual expansion.
Only the coalition understands that a government's role is to support and serve those organisations that are looking after the needs of our community. The last thing that the coalition want to do, especially in these fiscally difficult times, is hamper the activities of civil society in delivering on its aspirations and responding to the needs of individuals, families and communities. The coalition will oppose this bill, and, if we are elected to government later this year, we will repeal it.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (12:55): I appreciate the offer from the Assistant Treasurer to hand some notes over to help me make this contribution, but I will not need them. We stand as one in opposition to this bill. It is another step in the Labor Party's dream of regulating every aspect of our society. This is of course an area that has operated in our country at law prior to Australian courts being established. In fact, the definition of charity came under an English statute. This really gets to a difference in view between the Labor Party and our side of politics. The Labor Party seek to put strict black-letter law definitions around these sorts of organisations, whereas we think the common law definition has operated very successfully for a very long period of time. I know we should not breach the standing orders and discuss these matters across the chamber, but during one of the contributions it was mentioned that the former Treasurer, Peter Costello—Australia's greatest ever Treasurer—had looked at this issue when he was Treasurer of our country for 11½ years and he decided that it was not worth defining in legislation what charities are.
Mr Bradbury: He said it was too hard.
Mr BRIGGS: The Assistant Treasurer is right. He said it was too hard to define what charities are because they have varied operations, tasks and, more importantly, purposes. That is why we think that the common law definition, which has operated so successfully, should continue.
This is a government that is obsessed with regulation. The Assistant Treasurer's colleague, I think it was the member for McMahon when he was the Assistant Treasurer, promised in the lead-up to the 2007 election there would be 'one regulation in for one regulation out'. I think the record is 14,000 new regulations in and one regulation out. That has been the record of a Labor government. You cannot trust the Labor Party to make things simpler for business and charities. You can only trust them to make things harder because that suits their political desire to regulate our society to within an inch of its operation.
We saw that with the charities bill that they moved in this parliament some time late last year. We do oppose this bill. We, on our side of parliament, believe in civil society, we believe in community organisations and their ability to deliver services in our society that governments could not possibly ever seek to deliver or deliver well, because, ultimately, volunteers—
Mr Bradbury interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: Assistant Treasurer, that is the belief, on our side of politics, about our civil society. I can defend them from your vicious and ongoing attacks of trying to regulate every moment of their lives. We stand for charities in our society. We stand for our civil society. We stand in defiance of a government that is trying to make it harder for them to get on and do what they do so well. So many of our volunteer organisations, which deliver so many services in our communities, are there for the good of their people. It could not be delivered by government because, ultimately, government is too far detached—whether they have good intentions or not—compared to community organisations, charities and people who are doing it because they genuinely care and desire to do better in our society.
We will abolish this legislation if it does pass. I think it is one of about 40-odd bills still to pass the parliament between now and whenever the parliament rises, although I suspect the current Prime Minister wants the parliament to rise at 5 pm on the dot next Thursday afternoon. I suspect it is the first time in a very, very long time that the final sitting day of parliament before the election will actually be the allocated final sitting day, and I think we all know why that is. I suspect the Prime Minister is in her office making sure that COMCARs are ordered to be at the door for members: 'Is the member for McMahon's COMCAR ready to go at 4.45 next Thursday? Yep? Done—bang. Who's the next on the list? Make sure the member for Reid, from Western Sydney, has his car.' They do not want to be here for a moment longer than they have to be, so this might be one of those bills that do not quite get through, but it does again give us an indication of what the Labor Party's attitude to our civil society is.
Of course, what we suspect might be going on here is that the Labor Party would like to use black-letter definitions of charity to reward some of its preferred charities—can we put it that way?—or organisations it would like to create the scenario to fund. As we have seen in the UK experience, it demonstrates how dangerous it would be to empower public servants to determine whether an organisation is a charity or is not. We do not need more bureaucrats to tell us what charities can do good work in our civil society. We believe in our people and in the way that the law has operated for so long. That is why we have such a great tradition in our country of such a strong civil society and such a strong charity sector. And that is why we are opposed to this bill. The former Treasurer, the greatest Treasurer the country has ever had, looked at this. We should follow in the wise direction that that Treasurer took, because he is a wise man and he understood that it was too hard to define what it is to be a unique organisation in our society that can deliver such important services.
We stand in contrast to those on the other side, who believe in regulation, believe in bigger government and do not believe in our people. We, on the other hand, believe in our people. We believe that they know what is best for them and are able to deliver the services as such. We stand opposed to this bill. We will repeal it if we are elected in September—if we get to September—because we do not believe it has good intent at heart.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (13:02): I rise today to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. To begin, I would like to pay tribute to all of those people who work, both paid and unpaid, in the charitable and not-for-profit sector. They are a critically important part of the Australian way of life, doing good works, and I commend them for that. All those thousands and thousands of volunteers simply work for the satisfaction that they receive from seeing the positive difference they make to other people's lives. It is only through the work of these very special and dedicated volunteers and the people who work in the charitable and not-for-profit sector that some of society's most important organisations are able to survive and do the work that they do—organisations like St Vincent de Paul, the Red Cross, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Salvation Army, to name just a few. These organisations heal the sick; they feed the hungry; they shelter the homeless. That is why it is so important that we as a parliament must never put in their way barriers or impediments to make it harder for them to do the work they do. Far from that, we should seek to make it easier for them to continue these good works.
One of the ways that we can do this is to ensure that we have the right regulatory framework. We must ensure that the demands on the volunteers and employees who manage these charities and not-for-profits are not unduly onerous and that any changes—any increased burdens—are properly evaluated to see if they are actually necessary. Importantly, we must look at the cost-benefit analysis.
We on this side of the chamber are very concerned that the government has not done this fundamental work. We are very concerned that the increased regulatory burden from the government, in setting up this new bureaucracy, will discourage people and organisations from pursuing the good works they do. The introduction of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission is flawed. It is flawed because the government said in the first instance that the reason it needed to bring about this new regulator is because it did not have confidence in the people who were working in this sector. It did not have confidence that they were doing the right thing. Based on no evidence whatsoever, it thought that a new regulator was required.
Secondly, the government said that the reason this new regulator was so important and why it needed to come out was to simplify the regulation that surrounds charities and not-for-profits. But far from simplifying red tape and regulation we have seen it do the opposite. The concerns that I raised at the time are the concerns that I still have today: that far from decreasing the regulatory burden on the not-for-profit and charitable sector we are going to see a significant amount of duplication. There will be no simplification because predicated on simplification is the view that states and territories come on board. They have not done so, so the government is proceeding on the basis that it will have support which it does not. There is no agreement with the state and territory governments to hand over powers.
I also have significant concerns about the scope of powers of this new regulator, that the regulator will be able to interfere and intervene in not-for-profits and charities without good cause. And I am still incredibly concerned that we are going to put off a number of very good people who would otherwise participate in our local communities by volunteering their time in these charities and not-for-profits by becoming directors and by serving them in other ways—on committees and the like. They will not do that because of the new onerous regulations and burdens that will be imposed upon them. I want to take the time today to touch on a couple of aspects of what I have just raised.
This new centralised statutory authority will add massive regulation and compliance costs that are simply not justified or warranted. In order to receive access to charitable taxation concessions from the Australian Taxation Office, it is going to be mandatory to register with this new regulatory body. The ACNC will have a new reporting framework which will require all registered entities to provide an annual information statement. Both medium-sized and large entities will also be required to provide annual financial reports. This is, obviously, over and above what currently applies. The ACNC will also have significantly increased powers: powers to register and the registered charities, and that power may be extended to all not-for-profit organisations.
What concerns me is that this will make it very easy for the regulator to reach into organisations that have been free from government interference and control up until this point. They have been free to innovate and free to go about doing the work that they do. Instead, they will now have to spend time satisfying the new regulator that they are, in fact, not in breach of any new piece of red tape or regulation.
What concerns me is that in order to enforce these new regulations, the ACNC will have unprecedented powers to demand information, to search premises, to inspect items on premises and to seize documents or electronic equipment found on premises. These are indeed new and uncharted waters. The ACNC will also have the power to issue warning notices, issue directions, enter into enforceable undertakings, apply to the courts for injunctions, suspend or remove responsible entities and appoint acting responsible entities. Finally, they will also have the power to remove responsible officers of charitable organisations. Who would want to work in, let alone run, a charitable organisation when the charity police can knock on your door at any moment and interfere with what it is that you are doing. We are not saying that those who do the wrong thing should not be punished for doing the wrong thing, but there are already existing laws in place for those who do the wrong thing. The circumstances in which that occurs are few and far between.
The government here in setting up this new regulator is finding a solution in search of a problem, which is so typical of this government's approach to everything. Its view is that government should be involved in every facet of people's lives, that government is the solution to every problem. We have a very different view on this side of the chamber. We believe that individuals should be able to shape and control their own destiny and that we should only involve government where it is absolutely necessary to do so. With the ACNC we are going to get a massive new bureaucracy with unfettered powers that will be able to intrude into charities and not-for-profits.
We have a different view of the charity and not-for-profit sector. We have faith in Australian charitable and not-for-profit providers, and we know that where there is misconduct those who are found guilty will be punished to the full extent of the law. We will not reverse the onus of proof, which is, in effect, what this government has done, and which will assume guilt until proven otherwise. That is why we have made a very clear commitment that we will abolish the ACNC and we will give people the confidence to remain involved in their charities and not-for-profits with the full knowledge that they can go about their business without increased burdens upon them.
What this particular bill will do is specifically define 'charity' and 'charitable purpose'. It is a new definition that will apply from 1 January 2014 right across Commonwealth legislation. It seems a strange thing that we are defining, in statute, 'charity' and 'charitable purpose' when there has been no misunderstanding as to these terms for more than 400 years of common law. The common law has been very clear on who is included in this definition, and that has been sufficient for legal processes to date. We cannot understand why the government is introducing new laws, new regulation, new regulators and new definitions when no case has been made. Importantly, it seems that no jurisdiction will adopt the new definition, which will lead to increased confusion and inconsistency, far from what the government says it is trying to promote. Why on earth would you create confusion where there is clarity? Why on earth would you create a mess for no discernible reason? These are the questions that the government needs to answer. The government needs to answer them in the chamber.
At the end of the day, this bill really does sharply define and highlight the distinction between this Labor government and the coalition. This Labor government is a government and a party that chooses intervention at every opportunity. This stands in contrast with the coalition and our approach. We trust people and we support a strong civil society. We want to make sure that people have faith in our charitable organisations. The only people to undermine the faith that people currently have in charitable organisations are, in fact, those from the Labor Party and this government who have called that into question for no reason whatsoever.
In conclusion today, I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those who work in our charitable and not-for-profit organisations. I want to thank them for the work that they do. They work so hard for so little reward. They work to try to make a better Australia for all of us, and I want to give them our assurance that we will not bother them with more meaningless regulation and red tape. We will restore hope, reward and opportunity for all.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (13:15): The Australian Charities Bill 2013 is a throwback to the lazy philosophy of Labor and the misguided principles of centralisation. Centralised policy is slow, ineffective and expensive. Liberals believe in establishing a minimal charity commission. This body would have the explicit and transparent objective of education and training. Devolution and a competitive marketplace of ideas are the key tenets of the Liberal philosophy.
This bill will enshrine a negative outlook in legislation—a normative framework that sees people as inherently corrupt, failing and in need of protection from one another. But we need protection from the real threat: government overreach. What Labor are proposing with this bill is no great surprise. It is no surprise in the sense that they will introduce yet another layer of bureaucracy and red tape, but it is frightening for small charities and not-for-profits.
There are a number of areas of the bill which trouble both my constituents and me. The stated goal of this bill is to establish 'one-stop, many uses' and to streamline the regulatory process surrounding the operation of charities and not-for-profit organisations in Australia. It is streamlined regulation with a new level of federal red tape. I cannot see how states would give up this right of jurisdiction. Without states jumping out, the new commission is simply jumping in with more regulation and more administrative burden. Constructive engagement was never really a priority—not with the states, not with the charities and not with Australians.
The only certainty is the additional $4.8 million net expense settled on the taxpayer this financial year. Remembering the fiasco of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012, page 5 of the explanatory memorandum states:
The compliance savings from introducing the ACNC and a new regulatory framework are hard to quantify, particularly for this sector, due to limited data availability.
Limited talent more like!
There is a $4.8 million net expense to make doing good in our communities more difficult, not less. This is the sentiment of David Gonski, the chair of the government's education review panel. He said that we are the first country in the world to make being a director on an NFP more onerous than being on a for-profit. This tired and troubled government is out of touch with reality. Labor is good at spending other people's money. That $4.8 million of extra red tape would keep many of my constituents' bank accounts out of the red.
In WA, the Water Corporation have thrown an extra $21.6 million on the backs of their customers because of the carbon tax. That $4.8 million would go a long way. The reality is that good and honest people in my electorate like Mr Colin Waddell and managers in local not-for-profit community enterprises are frightened. In a submission to the Catholic Church during the committee hearings, fear was the factor—fear of the unknown.
With so much regulation and so little time, organisations and individuals are afraid. The penalties are real, immediate and consequential. With so much regulation, so much legislation and so much dislocation, mistakes will happen. I support the recommendations and the views taken by the Catholic Church. If the prime objective is simplification—and I am in favour of that—then instead of having categories of 'deductible gift recipient' and 'basic religious charity', why not get them all to register for an ABN? Charity begins at home. President Reagan used to quip that the most important charities are made at the kitchen table. The bill before us today will make those decisions much easier—easier to put off saying: 'I can and I will give back to my country.'
Again, the explanatory memorandum accompanying this bill acknowledges that the total cost of action will increase with the cost of compliance increasing exponentially for small not-for-profits and charities. Small entities that currently have no reporting obligations are a minor exception. These entities would be required to report to the ACNC, increasing compliance burden. The coalition will go big for the little guy. If we do not, there is no doubt the ACNC will only grow in its scope and power to go big.
It is explicitly stated as such in the bill, and page 13 of the explanatory memorandum says that the role of the ACNC will expand. From an economic perspective, having many efficient, competitive regulatory markets is optimal. Having a minimal incidence of regulatory capture is ideal. Common sense, that rarest form, dictates that one should not fix something that is not broken.
What does a small charity or a not-for-profit in Tangney have to gain from the introduction of this bill? The one thing that a small charity is set to gain from the ACNC is an online presence through the web portal infrastructure. And yet the very same experts have an average of 350 views on their own YouTube channel. Paint drying has more channels and, on average, the paint drying clips have more views. This is not value for the trade-off: a new powerful federal body, the ACNC, with oversight and monitoring powers for 350 views.
A page on the ACNC website is the benefit they are selling us. Our charities and not-for-profits are more than circumspect about this; their fear is well founded. The government knew this all along, and that is the reason that one group was given just 11 days to make a submission—on a bill where the explanatory memorandum alone is 351 pages long. I ask: how can the bill' principals call this 'constructive engagement with stakeholders'? The machete management mafia will goad the unwilling into the light. It looks like intimidation. It smells like compulsion. In WA we call it Labor.
The Gillard government is saying that it is a voluntary sign-up. But if an organisation does not sign up then tax and concessions are withheld. They have six months to opt out, and it is only reviewed every five years. Never in the course of a government has so much been found so wrong with what is so right by so few.
I will just list a few highlights. The Charities Bill establishes a charity passport. What is it? Why do we need it? The Charities Bill also defines what a charity is. The bill states that receipt of government grants precludes an entity from being a basic religious charity. Why? With the not-for-profit sector being worth $43 billion and employing eight per cent of the labour force, and given the Charities Bill has information-gathering powers, the checks and balances for this commission are more than insufficient. This bill is the epitome of a federal government that takes too much tax from people, takes too much authority from the states and takes too much liberty with the Constitution.
Simple, honest enterprise is the Australian way. The coalition will honour those values and support them in every endeavour. The Charities Bill is typical Labor. Labor finds something that is working and tries to break it. We know from 'red-tape' Rudd to 'go-slow' Gillard that bureaucracy wins over business. The Charities Bill will have real consequences. Most serious will be the impact of unintended consequences. Unintended consequences brought the evil empire of Soviet Russia to its knees. Let it not take down our pride in our communities. Let us not change the current common law definition just for the sake of change. Further clarification is needed with regard to the treatment of housing as a charitable purpose. We are proud of our people and optimistic of their goodness, knowing always that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (13:27): I rise to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill) 2013, and much like the member for Tangney, who spoke before me, but with a slightly less eloquent flavour. I come to this from a very pragmatic point of view.
If you are talking about charities and about helping people, it should be about getting the dollars to the pointy end. It should be about how we maximise getting the dollars to the pointy end. I was speaking to Bruce Harmer from the Salvation Army in Townsville. They are very proud of the fact that 81.5 per cent of every dollar—81.5c of every dollar—that goes to the Salvation Army goes to front-line services. That means that only 18½c in the dollar goes to admin and all the costs. That, surely, should be our model. That, surely, should be what we as a parliament and as a society are trying to achieve. They are very proud that nearly 20 per cent of their money does not go to the back end, but goes to everyone.
This bill seems to be more about setting up a system. When you are thinking about systems the first thing that comes out of a system is to find a way around it. By way of explaining my position on that, can I go back to my banking days when I was in the credit card department of the Bank of New South Wales and Westpac. We used to let the branches decide who would get credit cards approved. We had a problem when the credit cards first came out because , if someone had money on term deposit, we automatically sent them a credit card—a Bankcard. But as we went through the eighties and credit card legislation started to come in, we came up with a system where the bank manager would sit there and say: 'What's your job? What are your prospects of making a repayment? How much is this actually going to mean?' And then he would sign off and approve it.
When banks became very aggressive in chasing market share, Westpac came up with a system called 'credit scoring'. With credit scoring the branch could still say yes or no, but if the branch said no we would take the decision out of the branch's hands and hand it to our credit-scoring system. It went on the length of time at your address, the length of your time in employment and all those technical things that would gloss over it. So the branch where the people were actually known could no longer say no. It came down to that.
At that time I was in credit cards. We used to call them 'wild cards', where people would get a credit card and rack up debts. It was before the magnetic strip, before you could get it all done, and they would have to ring up for authorisation, so if you knew what you were doing you could go. We had this bloke from Cooktown who got a new Mastercard. He had had the Mastercard for three days, he had a $2,000 limit and he was up to 6½ thousand dollars by then. So the first thing you do is try the work and home phone numbers. He did not have either. So you go and pull out the application. I rang the branch to complain about who the hell approved that application. They said, 'We didn't approve it, you guys approved it.' For your edification, Mr Deputy Speaker, can I walk you through the application and why this thing went through. Occupation? Unemployed. How long had he held that job? He had held that job for 32 years. Address? Care of the Lions Den Hotel in Cooktown—where every other hobo and desperate in the world gets his mail collected. How long have you been at that address? Twenty-five years. He got a credit score of 29 points. Someone like Kerry Packer would get a credit score of 30 points. So you would have this system where, if the information is put in incorrectly, all common sense goes out the window. That seems to me to be what is going on here.
We first went to common law for our definition of charities in the 1600s. We have had that definition for 400 years and it has worked. Tell me where it hasn't? I think that before we change things it should be demonstrated where the system is going so terribly wrong. That is what we have to get right—what is going wrong in the first place? Don't just see something and say, 'Hey, we can change that,' because as soon as you get a system there will be people who will find a way around it. Yes, there are people in our charities and not-for-profits who abuse the system and abuse their status, but this is not the way around it. The police are the way around that, and that means working with state governments, but this government would know nothing about working with state governments. What we should be doing as a parliament is speaking to our charities and not-for-profits about how they can get more dollars to the pointy end. What we should be doing as a parliament is getting rid of paperwork, not loading people up with it.
I will briefly go to the ACNC legislation, which we have said we will repeal. I am 100 per cent in lockstep on this with Kevin Andrews, the shadow minister, who will be the minister should we be fortunate enough to win the next election. When I had the shadow minister in Townsville we spoke to an aged-care facility. They have a facility in Townsville and there were two failing facilities, one in Ayre and one in Ingham. Ayre is 85 kilometres south of Townsville and Ingham is about 115 kilometres north of Townsville. Administratively, they were just getting killed, it just got too hard. So the Townsville operation said: 'We'll take you over. We'll do your paperwork centrally here, spreading the costs, so that you can provide the information and you can still do the services.' They sent their forms, the reports they have to do, to the government. The government came back and said, 'There are three organisations here.' They said, 'Yes, there are three organisations here, but we are doing the central thing here.' The government said, 'No, you have to do that report three times.' They said the report would be exactly the same. 'It doesn't matter,' was the reply from the Public Service, 'it simply has to be done.'
First and foremost, all this paperwork for these people is just loading them up. They know we are not reading it; they know the Public Service simply cannot get through all these forms. There are spot checks done. Aren't we better off saying to charities and not-for-profits: 'Listen, we are going to come down hard on those people that we think are doing the wrong thing. We are going to use the police and, as a federal parliament, we are going to work hard in cooperation with the states. We are going to have a look at taxation, we are going to do all these things and we are going to come down hard on those people'? That is better than going around and completely vilifying the whole organisation and then going and changing things.
Can I just say for the record that the coalition is committed to retaining the common law definition of charity. We have made this commitment on the basis that the government has not made out the case for the common law definition being deficient and that to change the current definition risks disadvantaging some charities and creating a new wave of legal disputes and test cases at a great cost to the sector. I think that is a fair statement. I think when a government are trying to make their case they should, in fact, make their case. If this was being driven by the charities and not-for-profit sector then I would understand it a little bit more, but it is not. It is not being driven by anyone I am speaking to in the charities and not-for-profit sector. As a matter of fact, they are running as far away from this as they possibly can. The shadow minister has said:
Stakeholders in the housing sector are particularly concerned that housing has not been listed as a defined charitable purpose and believe this has the potential to jeopardise future investment in public-private partnerships. They have stated that they will be more disadvantaged under the statutory definition than the current common law definition and have called for the bill to be amended to provide further clarification with regard to the treatment of housing as a charitable purpose.
Using that as an example, does this just become like the Family Law Act or the Child Support Act and we have amendments? You cannot amend it every time for every single thing, so then we will have cracks through which people fall. Aren't we better off concentrating on what we have and fixing the very real things that this government has got broken, fixing the very real things that are in front of this parliament that could be fixed, instead of going around and hunting for things that could be done? The list of stakeholders is just phenomenal. I will also read for the record here from a speech delivered by shadow minister Kevin Andrews where he said:
Former Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the definition of charity on 18 September 2000. The inquiry reported in 2001, making some 27 recommendations.
Former Treasurer Costello released draft legislation in 2003 which took the traditional four heads of charity and divided them into seven heads of charity in line with the inquiry's findings.
So they have gone out and consulted, then he came back and released proposed legislation for discussion in line with the inquiry findings—
namely, the advancement of health, education, social or community welfare, religion, culture, natural environment and any other purpose that is beneficial to the community.
The Board of Taxation reported on the workability of the draft legislation in 2004—
so, again, it has taken some time because you want to get it right. And, as Kevin Andrews went on to say:
The then government through the then Treasurer announced:
… the common law meaning of a charity will continue to apply, but the definition will be extended to include certain child care and self-help groups, and closed or contemplative religious orders. The government has decided not to proceed with the draft Charities Bill. The former coalition enacted the Extension of Charitable Purpose Act which confined itself to enlarging the legal definition of charity for federal purposes to include child care, self-help groups and closed orders. The Commonwealth's definitional extension has not been adopted by any state jurisdiction.
This bill would be the first time that legislation has sought to comprehensively define in statute, for the purposes of Commonwealth law, charity …
and here is the rub—
why create a statute where the common law has and does serve us well?
I think the onus is upon the government to prove that case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Why depart from 400 years of clarity and consistency?
There is no logical reason.
As an aside, every member in this House had the Oaktree Foundation come through to us about increasing our foreign aid to 0.5 per cent of GDP. It is a worthy goal. But when those guys sat down next to me, I said: 'Do you know what you are actually chasing? Are you chasing more money going into the system, or are you chasing a better result?' They are not the same. Some of the money we send overseas has as little as 16c in the dollar getting to the pointy end. So I said, 'Aren't we better off working with the money we have to get a better result on the ground?' Aren't we better off trying to raise that 16c to get to the Salvation Army's 81½c? Isn't that the goal—to make people better off? If someone could tell me how this place and this bill are going to make all the charity sector and all the not-for-profit sector and all the churches better off, I will be available for that meeting.
This just puts another border around which someone must work. This is just giving work to solicitors to come up with those sorts of things. It lets governments of whatever persuasion pick on someone and say, 'You do not quite fit that so out you go.' We are running a real risk with this, because we have a great number of things which must be done by this parliament.
I do not think that this is one of the things that we should be concentrating on. We should be concentrating on the things that make people's lives better. I want to see a bill in this place about homelessness. I want to see a bill in this place about doing all sorts of good things. This sort of mucking around with definitions and regulation for regulation sake does not do anyone in here any good. You are alienating an entire sector of the community. If this does go through, we will repeal it, and I am calling on all the charities and not-for-profits to make sure that their position is known to every Labor member and every Labor candidate and that what this government has done: load up red tape on this sector. We should be getting rid of red tape. Our aspiration should be at least the Salvation Army's 81½c in every dollar going to the front line of services. This bill is absolute rubbish and we should vote against it. I thank the House.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (13:41): I rise to speak on the Charities Bill and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, and in doing so emphasise the fact that the coalition—those members on this side of the House and certainly the member for Herbert who has just spoken so eloquently on this bill—support civil society. We in fact trust what civil society has done and the fact that it has taken generations upon generations of hardworking Australians and common-sense approaches to all matters of importance to communities to get to where we are now, and we want to empower civil society with those rights which have been enshrined in law since Federation and before.
The government's approach is, unfortunately, to treat civil society with a degree of distrust and suspicion, to seek to enforce laws which are onerous and uncalled for and certainly unnecessary. This government is all about applying burdensome regulation and creating more and more levels of unnecessary bureaucracy—agencies over the shoulders of organisations which have done a power of good for their communities over generations and a power of good for society over decades. The definition of charity, as we heard the member for Herbert just indicate and as we have heard the shadow minister Kevin Andrews tell us, is 400 years old. Common law has served us well. Why is there any need for this Labor government, which has been there for five years, a blink of an eye—really it is only this particular government in this particular term after the former Prime Minister, the member for Griffith was tapped on the shoulder by the member for Lalor on 24 June back in 2010—to overturn or change something which has served the Western world well for four centuries?
The coalition under the former Treasurer Peter Costello—and he was a great Treasurer—looked at the issue in great detail and put in place appropriate public policy. But that came after careful consideration and after consultation with key stakeholders. That came after doing something that this government has never had a wont to do and that is to talk to the people and the organisations that would be affected by it and to bring about not necessarily change for change sake but something that might improve the situation as it was then.
The United Kingdom experience demonstrates how dangerous it would be to empower public servants to decide what is charity and what is not charity. As the member for Herbert and the shadow minister have indicated in their speeches on this important topic, the coalition, if we are fortunate enough to be elected on 14 September, will seek to repeal this particular bill.
In this place we need to talk about our opposition to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and certainly members on this side are doing just that. We have announced that we will abolish the ACNC and repeal this legislation if we are elected to govern. One thing we do not need is a plethora of new bureaucrats. In my time in this place I have seen how onerous more and more bureaucrats can be. We have enough problems at the moment, with so many crossovers between federal and state departments, federal and state bureaucrats, and federal and state governments without putting another layer of bureaucracy upon those organisations which have long been regarded as pillars of the community—organisations such as St Vincent de Paul, the Red Cross, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Salvation Army. We all know those organisations; they are household names. They are respected organisations within our communities. When we speak of those organisations and others, we know what a power of work and a power of good they do when things go wrong. I refer to some of the natural disasters we have, unfortunately, experienced in recent years—floods, fires and droughts. Those are the organisations to which many people in the community who fall on hard times either through natural disasters or when other things go wrong often turn to first because they know they will be there when they are most needed.
Those sorts of organisations—Vinnies, the Red Cross, the Brotherhood, the Salvos—do not need a layer of bureaucrats looking over their shoulder, telling them what they should or should not be doing. We have seen this Labor government, in so many other ways, enforce and impose upon our society that creeping federalism, those Big Brother tactics that this government seems to think are necessary to enforce upon so many different sections of society which have existed since Federation very well and very nicely, thank you, without this government's intervention but which this government now thinks it needs to impose upon them at this juncture. It is Labor which assumes that we should look over these organisations' shoulders and, as I say, tell them what to do and, more specifically, tell them what not to do with overburdensome regulation.
The government have not demonstrated that the absolute mischief that the ACNC was established to deal with actually exists. They want to enforce and impose these regulations but have not really told us why it is absolutely necessary.
The coalition have announced that they will streamline regulation as it applies to family service agencies. Organisations certainly need to be transparent, something which the government is not. They certainly need to tick the necessary boxes to meet compliance measures, they need to ensure that the money that they are entrusted with is spent wisely and in the way that the community would expect and that it is spent for the good of the people they serve. These organisations are already self-regulated and are already governed by laws of the various states.
We heard the member for Herbert say, 'There's a problem with the way in which some individuals operate in some organisations.' I am certainly not pointing the finger of blame at anyone. But if there are problems, that is why we have the state police forces and it is why we have fraud squads. I am not suggesting in any way that there is a problem. But if ever a problem comes about then that is the correct and proper way for those problems to be dealt with, not through some new layer of bureaucracy or new layer of enforcement imposed upon it by a government which already has its tentacles stretched out far and wide in so many other sectors of society.
That is why this bill needs to be rejected, it is why this bill is totally unnecessary and it is why we should have great suspicion about this government when it wants to impose itself like Big Brother over our charities, which have worked well for many decades without an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy hanging over their heads.
As I said, when we do need our charitable organisations to serve us, they do it superbly, particularly in regional areas. I know you would be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, in your electorate of Maranoa of just how well charities operate and, as I mentioned before, particularly when they are most needed in times of crisis.
I note that the shadow minister in his speech talked about the history of the coalition and what we have done to improve certain areas involved in charities to ensure that there was greater transparency. This particular bill does not provide that. But we have certainly helped to enhance these organisations and to help them to better do the job that they are expected and required to do—that is, to help in their communities—and, as I have mentioned, they do a wonderful job in regional Australia.
The shadow minister said that this government is now seeking to pretend that there is some desperate need to legislate in this area, acting as though it is charting new waters. These new waters do not need to be charted. The reality is, as the shadow minister indicated in his speech on this particular bill, it was the former Howard government—and I might just add that that was a good government—that looked at the issue of creating a common law definition of 'charity'. Former Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the definition of 'charity' on 18 September 2000. The inquiry reported in 2001, making some 27 recommendations. Those recommendations were there to enhance the law as it then stood. They were not there to be some great big octopus like this government is, spreading its unnecessary federal tentacles into every way and means of life, as we now know. They were not there to be onerous, burdensome and unnecessary Big Brother tactics.
Former Treasurer Peter Costello released draft legislation in 2003 which took the traditional four heads of charity and divided them into seven heads of charity in line with the inquiry's finding: the advancement of health, education, social or community welfare, religion, culture, natural environment and any other purpose that is beneficial to the community. Certainly, when it comes to health and education there are no two more important aspects of society for most Australians than health and education. The Board of Taxation reported on the workability of the draft legislation in 2004, and the then government through the then Treasurer announced the common law meaning of a charity will continue to apply but the definition will be extended to include certain childcare and self-help groups and closed or contemplative religious orders. The government decided not to proceed with the draft charities bill. There we have a good government of the day—a Liberal-Nationals government of the day—seeing that there possibly needed to be an inquiry done, enacting that inquiry, consulting with stakeholders, taking the views of all concerned whether they were for or opposed to the inquiry, discussing it in a common-sense fashion, letting it sit on the table for some time while other people could have a say and then coming out and deciding that there was no need to proceed with the draft charities bill.
Why then, in 2013, when we have a government wracked with leadership problems and debt, and which is trying to spread its tentacles into lots of matters which used to be the prerogative of the states, do we have this federal Labor government, which thinks it knows better about everything and which the community knows does not, wanting to force this legislation through in the second-last or last week of the 43rd Parliament and expecting it to be of benefit to those charities which have served us so well for so many years? That is why this bill needs to be rejected. That is why this is not supported by the coalition. That is why I hope that the Greens member, whom I heard chattering behind me a moment ago—no doubt he was supporting what I am saying—does not support it. I know the member for Dobell is behind me, and he calls himself an Independent, but his voting record suggests otherwise.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I am watching my back, but I am sure the cameras are there to watch my back for me. But I hope they support the coalition's rejection of this particular piece of legislation. I hope they do it for the benefit of the charities, which, as I say, have supported us so well for so many years and do not need another layer of bureaucracy placed over them by this debt ridden government in a leadership crisis.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (13:56): If you wanted a better example of the philosophical divide between that side of the chamber and this side of the chamber, I think it is best encapsulated in the legislation that is before the House today. The Charities Bill 2013 and Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 really go to the core of that philosophical divide between the approach of the social democrats on that side and those of us who believe in the supremacy of the individual and the fact that the individual reigns supreme over the state, which is very much on this side of the chamber with perhaps a couple of exclusions—in particular the Greens, of course, who sit up in the crossbenches there.
The reality is that this bill is not a good bill. The coalition do not support it. We will repeal this legislation should we be fortunate enough to get elected on 14 September. At its core this bill represents another very large step in the ever-growing demand by the Labor Party to see more bureaucrats, more bureaucracy and a greater reach for state power. It is the coalition that virtually has a monopoly in this place on defending the opportunity for individuals and charities to stand up against the state. It is the Labor Party that hold at its core the view that the very best way any government can go about assisting the community sector or an individual is for the government to ensure that there are new regulations in place and a whole new mechanism which rolls out bureaucracy that will apply in this particular instance to the charitable sector.
This is nothing new. We have looked at this before. The previous coalition, when we were in government under John Howard, looked at this sector in great detail and took a number of decisions about what needed to happen. But it goes back even further than that. The definition of 'charities' dates back to 1601. It has been a common law definition that has applied since 1601—over 400 years—and that has well and truly stood the test of time. Yet, despite the fact that there are 400 years of precedent, the reality is that the Labor Party gets elected and, lo and behold, we have a new minister who says: 'We know better than the last 400 years of common law. We know better about what is good for the charitable sector.' The simple fact is that, in attempting to codify common law definitions of charities and put in place a whole new bureaucracy that applies to charities, the Labor Party will succeed in doing nothing more than applying a whole raft of regulation and bureaucracy to a sector that, frankly, does not need it.
If there is one part of Australian society that does not need extra red tape, it has to be the volunteers who work hard in the charitable sector. On this side of the House we understand the demands for the charitable sector. We know the volunteers who roll up their sleeves and go about undertaking the work they do to make Australia a better society. We know they have been working harder in the last six years than they had to for a great deal of time. The reality is that those people do so because of their passion for the cause. They do not do so because they have got a bureaucrat in Canberra who says to them what they must do.
The last thing they need is to divert their attention away from worthy recipients of charitable sectors towards other activities like red-tape compliance. That is precisely what this bill does. The simple fact is that there are some great charities out there. I think about one, for example, called beyondblue. Beyondblue, as we know, is chaired by a high-profile former Liberal, and I do not think that there is any demand for them to suddenly go about changing their name since the comments from the Prime Minister last week.
Debate interrupted.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:00): I inform the House that the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice will be absent from question time for the remainder of the week for personal reasons. The Attorney-General will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Carbon Pricing
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind her of comments by Cameron Clyne, National Australia Bank CEO, that there is 'a bias towards pessimism' among businesses because 'we currently have a national mood of gloom'. Will the Prime Minister help to lift this national mood of gloom by cancelling the carbon tax increase?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:01): I genuinely, genuinely thank the Leader of the Opposition for this question, because, of course, the Leader of the Opposition and his team are the creators of and contributors to this national mood. They are out there with their reckless and ridiculous claims about a budget emergency. He quotes Cameron Clyne from the National Australia Bank—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business is warned!
Ms GILLARD: He quotes the CEO of the National Australia Bank. I suggest the Leader of the Opposition get him on the phone and ask him whether or not he would endorse the opposition's language of 'budget emergency'. Of course he would not, because responsible businesspeople know that the Leader of the Opposition and his team are seeking political advantage by talking the Australian economy down. What they seek to do every day is to pretend that the Australian economy is somehow weak, to pretend that there is somehow an unsustainable burden of debt.
The Leader of the Opposition ought to know—though, given his lack of knowledge of economics, perhaps he does not—that, compared with countries around the world, the Australian economy is standing resilient and strong, having come through the global financial crisis by unions, businesses, this government and the Australian community working together to ensure we kept Australians in work. Having come through that global financial crisis strong, we are here today with sustainable public finances, a AAA rating by every major ratings agency for the first time in our nation's history and, despite all the ridiculous claims of the opposition, with modest debt—the equivalent of someone earning $100,000 a year having a $12,000 mortgage. We are in a position, therefore, having come through strong with strong public finances and a AAA rating, to build and invest for the future, which is precisely what this government is doing: investing in a clean energy future, which the Leader of the Opposition wants to wreck; investing in a National Broadband Network, which the Leader of the Opposition wants to wreck; investing in infrastructure, which the Leader of the Opposition wants to wreck; and, of course, he is wrecking our chances for our children to have a high-quality, world-class education so we can be a strong and prosperous nation in the future—something the Leader of the Opposition wants to wreck. National mood of gloom? Have a look in the mirror!
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. When will the Prime Minister finally stop blaming others and take responsibility for her own failure to deliver a surplus, her own failure to stop the boats and her own failure to be honest about a carbon tax? Why won't she rescind the increase due on 1 July?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:04): To the Leader of the Opposition: when will you stop this nonsense and start articulating policies for the nation's future? He comes into this parliament and quotes Cameron Clyne from the National Australia Bank. Get him on the phone and find out how he feels about your company tax increase, get him on the phone and ask him how much you are going to cost that bank, and get him on the phone and ask him how much of that is going to be passed through to people who have mortgages with the National Australia Bank. That should give you some information about how interest rates for people who are seeking to work hard, raise their families and buy their own home will be increased by your reckless policies and plans—just one thing you intend to do to hurt Australian families. Their interest rates will go up, their school kids bonus will be gone and their future that could be in high-wage and high-skill jobs will be destroyed by your recklessness.
The Leader of the Opposition has peddled falsehoods and nonsense for too long. He cannot—he is obviously unable to—articulate a vision for this country's future, other than the secret cuts that he does not want families to know about, and there is no better example than this question in question time today. National mood of gloom—that is the Leader of the Opposition. Positive plans for the future—that is what the government is doing: investing and creating a stronger, smarter and fairer nation.
Education Funding
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (14:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. How will students in New South Wales benefit from the government's plan for better schools? How will building better schools also build a brighter future for Australia?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:06): I thank the member for Parramatta for that question, and I thank her for her interest in making sure that the children in her electorate get a high-quality education and a great future. I know that the member for Parramatta is very focused on that. She wants to make sure the kids of her electorate do not get left behind as the education standards of the world continue to rise.
I can say to the member for Parramatta and to members in this place that the work we are doing on schools is a great Labor reform. It is only Labor that has ever worried about the quality of education for every child in every classroom. When we came to government, our children and our schools had had to tolerate a decade of indifference and neglect. Education was not at the forefront of Australia's public policy debate, because no-one cared. There was no information on what was happening in schools. There was no idea where disadvantaged students went to school, because no-one cared.
Well, I care. This government cares. And that is why we have ensured that there is more information available now than ever before for Australians on the quality of education. We have made sure that we have demonstrated and proved that, no matter whether or not children come from a poor home, you can lift the quality of their education. We have made sure as we have rolled out the national curriculum that, if you and your family move from state to state, you will still be learning a high-quality national curriculum.
Now we want to go further and make sure that, whether you are in a school in Parramatta or a school in any other part of the country, you are getting a great quality education. In New South Wales we know that not every Liberal leader needs to be a wrecker. Premier O'Farrell in his budget today has made appropriate provision to work with the federal government to lift the quality of schools in New South Wales. I do not want the kids on the other side of the border in Victoria or in Queensland to be left behind. I do not want them to be the kids without the specialist teachers, without the speech therapy, without the people focused on their literacy, without the breakfast clubs, without the homework clubs, without the school support mechanisms that engage their families in school, without the empowered school principals.
I do not want those children left behind. That is why we, having seen Premier O'Farrell reach across the political divide and make this historic agreement, are so determined to ensure that it rolls out around the country so every child in every school gets a great education and we will not let the Leader of the Opposition stop us delivering that.
Carbon Pricing
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (14:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that her carbon tax will rise in less than two weeks to $24.15 per tonne? Why is Australia's carbon tax going up and up while New Zealand's carbon tax is going down and down to an equivalent of just 75c a tonne today?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! If you are interested in the answer, we require some silence. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:09): Thank you very much, Speaker. I must thank the Leader of the National Party for his question because it enables me to restate what I said yesterday which is, of course, we want to reduce the amount of carbon pollution in our atmosphere. As I understand it, it is still bipartisan politics to see a five per cent reduction in carbon pollution. So we want to do it in the cheapest possible way. I know that the Leader of the National Party stands behind the Leader of the Opposition for doing it in a more expensive way. He wants the nation to pay more, he wants families to pay more, he wants businesses to pay more.
Now already in question time today we have had the Leader of the Opposition refer to Cameron Clyne, the CEO of the National Australia Bank, and his words on the economy. Well, let me also refer to the words of Cameron Clyne directly on this debate. I suggest that the Leader of the National Party take these words to heart and reflect on his silly question and, more importantly, the ridiculous policy of the opposition on carbon pricing. Mr Clyne says:
If you are asking for an economic assessment of the two the carbon price followed by an ETS is economically superior to the direct action policy.
It will drive certainty, it will drive investment and so as a straight comparison between the two that's the choice.
So having introduced Cameron Clyne as an economic expert into this conversation in question time today, I suggest the Leader of the Opposition—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business has already been warned.
Mr Pyne: Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked to explain why New Zealand's carbon tax is at 75c a tonne and ours is going up to $24.15 a tonne. She made no effort to answer that question.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Government Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I was asked about carbon pricing and I am answering. Let me refer again to the words of Cameron Clyne:
It will drive certainty, it will drive investment and so as a straight comparison between the two that's the choice.
What that means is that the Leader of the Opposition stands for less certainty, less investment. He used the word 'gloom' today and gloom is right for his policies, absolutely.
Education Funding
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (14:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government will deliver more support for schools and school communities under the National Plan for School Improvement?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:13): I very much thank the member for Moreton for that question. He has demonstrated during this week, day after day, how focused he is on the quality of education for the children in his electorate, bringing his lifetime passion for education into this parliament. Though I have never worked as a teacher, I can certainly join him in that. I want to make sure, as I have across my lifetime, that every Australian gets the transformative opportunity that comes with a great education. I want to make sure that happens for every child in every school.
The member for Moreton represents in this parliament schools like Oxley State School, a primary school of around 500 students. That school stands to gain around $3 million in funding over the next six years, an increase of 43 per cent. What is standing between that school and those students and those new resources and our plan for school improvement to lift the standards of education for those children?
What is standing between that school and having a more empowered school principal, who can choose teachers and the right mix of staff? What is standing between that school and a plan for school improvement where the community is involved in working out what would lift the kids up, and that is accountable and transparent on My School? What is standing between that school and the extra resources and ways of working, which will enable them to tackle very difficult problems like disadvantage, attendance and bullying? What is standing between that school and having the resources to have things like a family and community liaison officer to make sure that kids and families do not fall through the gaps and that they can build networks to ensure that those kids have strong community networks, including with local service organisations and local business?
Well what is standing between that school and those improvements, what is standing between that school and a great quality education, is the Premier of Queensland. He is standing between his schools and $3.8 billion of new resources for the kids in Queensland. Not every Liberal leader needs to be a wrecker. Premier O'Farrell has proved that, and Premier Newman could prove that too. But instead of lifting up the phone and saying yes to me, saying that he wants to improve schools, he is too busy taking the calls of the Liberal opposition saying: 'Whatever you do, don't sign up to the government's plan. Put political advantage before the advantage of the kids in your schools.' Well Premier Newman should stop listening to the Leader of the Opposition. Put Queensland kids first—that is what we want to do.
Economy
WYATT ROY (Longman) (14:16): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his new mobile app, the Fix-o-Gram, that allows constituents to identify problems directly with the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer outline the Fix-o-Gram solution to the $300 billion in debt and the $192 billion in accumulated deficits created by the government, the mining tax that collects 10 times less revenue than predicted, the carbon tax that is 32 times higher than New Zealand's, and a future surplus that relies on a 90 per cent drop in illegal boat arrivals?
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. If we are to have question time, then after a question is asked some courtesy needs to be shown or I will rule the questions out of order. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:17): I do thank the member for the advertisement for my app, and I invite everybody to have a look. The one thing we do on this side of the House is deal in facts. And when events occur in the global economy, we respond. During the global financial crisis we responded. We supported jobs and growth in our economy. We were opposed tooth and nail by those opposite—indeed, the current Leader of the Opposition slept through the vital vote in the House, the one that saved Australia from recession—so everybody on this side of the House is proud of what we did to support jobs and growth in our economy. We took on a responsible level of debt to support jobs and growth.
I welcome questions every day of the week in this House from the opposition about jobs and growth and about levels of debt because we have a responsible level of debt to support jobs and growth. The outcome of that is an economy 14 per cent larger than it was at the end of 2007. We did not, as a country, go into recession. If those on the other side of the House had had their way they would have slashed expenditure; we would have had high unemployment; we would have had higher deficits; and we would have had higher debt because there would have been enormous capital destruction, high unemployment and dislocation across all of our communities—particularly in the communities in Longman. It would have been savage if your party had their way during the global financial crisis. So we on this side of the House are proud of the fact that we put jobs and growth first.
Mr Hockey: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I would ask that you bring him back to the question that he was asked. How is he going to use his app to fix these things given he has—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: Speaker, we have a low and responsible level of debt that supports jobs and growth in our economy and provides job security for millions of Australians. This policy stands in stark contrast to the ones that those opposite are hiding from the Australian people. They are putting forward a proposition for a commission of cuts. They are not going to tell people before the election what they intend to do. But what they intend to do, if they are elected, is follow the example of Premier Newman—that is, take the axe to expenditure on health and education, which would have a massive impact—
Mr Tudge interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I warn the member for Aston!
Mr SWAN: on levels of employment in our economy. We welcome a debate about debt. We welcome a debate about jobs and growth because we on this side of the House are proud of the 960,000 jobs created in Australia as a result of the actions of this government because we on this side of the House had the courage to put jobs and growth first. On that side of the House, they will cut to the bone, they will slash jobs and growth, they will slash health and education, and unemployment, deficits and debt will go through the roof.
Mr Randall: Just tell the truth.
The SPEAKER: The member for Canning!
Water
Mr WINDSOR (New England) (14:21): Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Can the minister update the House on progress of the independent scientific committee and the minister's department on the development of the framework for bioregional assessments and the relationship of this work with the so-called water trigger?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (14:21): I thank the member for New England. Throughout the life of this parliament the member for New England, along with a number of others, has been very passionate in making sure that we take proper precautions with underground water and have a proper scientific approach to make sure that we get across the connectivity issues between different parts of underground water, and their connection to surface water as well. There are effectively three components, and bioregional assessment is one of them. The independent scientific committee that was established by this parliament and funded to the tune of $200 million deals with two different things. Firstly, it deals with providing independent advice project by project. Secondly, it is involved in providing bioregional assessments. These assessments will happen across many areas across Australia. At the moment there are the first four—in Namoi, in Gloucester, in Galilee and in Clarence—and I was meeting only this morning with the members affected as to the Clarence area, those from the north coast of New South Wales.
Those bioregional assessments have been supported and the work of the independent scientific committee has been supported by three separate government agencies. The work is led by the Bureau of Meteorology but also supported by the CSIRO and by Geoscience Australia. Effectively, what they are doing is bringing together in a bioregional assessment a series of different compartments of information: the data that we have, modelling that is available and the proper risk assessment, as well as an impact assessment of any work. What that then means is that in the future, when different projects come forward, we have a much more fundamental understanding of the full range of connectivity issues beyond the specifics of the project that is in front of us. But to be able to take all of this into account is the final part of the three parts of the approach, and that is what was referred to in the question as a water trigger.
We had already established all of this information, making sure it was being independently collected. The water trigger—which was before the Senate yesterday and was still before the Senate this morning, and I suspect it will continue to be before the Senate this afternoon as they are debating and working it through—effectively has one issue at its core. There is a large level of frustration that the states were not properly and fully taking all of this scientific information into account and it is to fill that gap, to make sure that there is a federal requirement. Now I have to say that the amendment that was moved by the member for New England and was supported by the government has again been challenged in the Senate. I am not sure what the point is in having a water trigger if the opposition say that you should then be able to defer it back to the states, because the whole concept of having the water trigger is that the states have not been doing their job. So to vote for a water trigger and then say we are going to give it back to the states anyway takes away what the public is demanding, that we are very careful with underground water.
Education Funding
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (14:24): My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Minister, will you please update the House on how the National Plan for School Improvement is being implemented in partnership with state governments, particularly that in New South Wales? Minister, can you also inform the House about the ongoing response to this implementation?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (14:24): I thank the member for her question. She is a great advocate for improved educational opportunities for the people in her region. The fact is that better schools mean a better future for Australia. If we look at a young person who is highly skilled, they can earn up to 2½ times as much over their lifetime as someone who does not have high skills, and someone who finishes school in year 11 is likely to earn about 10 per cent more over their lifetime, so it makes a big difference in a school how well a young person is educated. As the Prime Minister has already referred to in the parliament, the New South Wales government has delivered its budget and it has made the necessary investment in our plan for school improvement.
I just want to go back to what Premier O'Farrell said when they signed up, because he said it provides 'additional resources, fairer distribution to deliver higher standards and better outcomes in schools across New South Wales'. Today Minister Piccoli is saying quite clearly that New South Wales got a fantastic deal, a $5 billion deal—we contributed $1.7 billion—and they have followed it up by saying, 'We will always cooperate with the federal government to produce better outcomes for our students.' And we absolutely agree, because this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put our students above politics and to secure our future. That is why we voted in the House for the Australian Education Bill and that is why we are asking other states to get on board with this National Plan for School Improvement.
Now I am asked about responses and there is confusion among those opposite in terms of responses. I heard the member for Riverina lamenting the fact that in the top 50 schools in the region there is only one regional school and that is a private school and that is alarming, to say the least. Yes, it is alarming and the reason for that is that, under the new National Plan for School Improvement, regional schools would see specific loadings because they are regional schools. That may have passed by the member's notice at this point in time. Then we have got the shadow minister, the member for Sturt—he has never been interested; he never looked at the plan—dismiss the Gonski review in 20 minutes and describe our goal to have Australia's schools in the top five performing nations in education as a 'mad plan' and then he sort of said that, well, Gonski is 'conski'. Last night, I notice, the shadow minister said in the House:
With those few words, I point out that the coalition will not oppose this bill. … We cannot support it and we cannot oppose it …
There you go: 'we cannot support it but we cannot oppose it'. Well, what can they do about education in our nation when we are on the cusp of the most important reform to deliver a needs based funding system to make sure that every school in Australia is a great school?
Education Funding
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that, when asked yesterday about her $4.7 billion in cuts to education, she argued this question was based on false figures. I refer her to page 6-55 of last year's budget and to page 6-59 of this year's Budget Paper No. 1, which clearly show funding reductions of $1.15 billion, $0.2 billion, $1.3 billion and $2.05 billion, totalling a cut of $4.7 billion. Unless she is claiming the budget cannot be relied on, how does she reconcile her statement with—(Time expired)
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:28): I thank the member for Sturt for his question and I am more than happy to answer his question because the member for Sturt has been out there playing silly games with figures to try and confuse people. As to what he should be doing in this parliament, he should be referring to that section of the budget which shows increasing investment for our schools. Across six years it is $14.5 billion between state and federal governments and then, of course, there is the indexation figure and he should be looking at the note in that budget table that tells you the difference between our plan and the broken plan that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Sturt have decided that they support. The difference between those two figures, footnoted in the budget papers, is $16.2 billion. So the member for Sturt, if he wants to come in and quote the budget papers ought to take himself to that budget paper and ought to ask why he and the Leader of the Opposition stand by a funding system that would rip Australian children off, that would rip Australian schools off and which conservatives like Premier O'Farrell and his education minister, Mr Piccoli—conservatives—have referred to as 'a broken system'.
Why would the Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister stand behind such a broken system and a plan to rip off Australian schools? I do not think there is any mystery. These are the people who went to the 2010 election saying that they would rip more than $1 billion out of investment in trades training centres for schools and saying that they would rip almost half a billion dollars out of improving teacher quality—our national partnership to make sure that quality teachers are teaching our kids, driven by the research which shows that there is nothing more important to the outcomes of a child's education than the quality of the teacher standing in front of the classroom. The Leader of the Opposition says to that, 'Cut it by half a billion dollars.' Some $330 million of cuts for our poorest schools is what the Leader of the Opposition took to the last election, ripping off the most disadvantaged kids and disadvantaged communities.
It goes on and on. In fact, between the last election campaign and cuts announced in February 2011, almost $3 billion of cuts to Australian schools have been announced by the Leader of the Opposition. He and his shadow minister are not done yet. That is just a curtain-raiser for the amount of hurt and harm they want to do to Australian schools and the prospects of our children getting a great quality education. That is who they are. That is what they stand for.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:31): Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of comments of Lisa Paul, the Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, who said in Senate estimates about education funding:
… the best guide is not the budget papers , because of these assumptions which really are no longer true …
How does she reconcile her answer with Lisa Paul's statement that the assumptions in the budget 'really are no longer true'?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:32): I can give you a very specific answer to that. It has got to do with state Liberal cutbacks to education, because of the way in which indexation works for Australian schools. The fact that the opposition frontbench and backbench are tossing their heads at this shows a decade of indifference when they were in government and have never bothered once to understand how schools are funded. The Leader of the Opposition runs out the door and says that he stands behind this broken model of school funding. Premier O'Farrell said that it is a broken model. He has never understood the details of it. The Leader of the Opposition ought to try to understand.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To be directly relevant the Prime Minister must explain why she is not admitting the cuts that she is making—
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar will resume her seat!
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: and for once can she accept responsibility for her own policies?
The SPEAKER: As predicted, she did abuse the standing orders. There is no use of debate during a point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: And in that alleged point of order the member misled the House.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will withdraw.
Mr Abbott interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will not tell me how to do my job! The Prime Minister will withdraw. There are other forms of the House if she wishes to pursue the issue she raised.
Mr Albanese: On the point of order, Speaker, with respect: the Prime Minister indicated that the member for Mackellar had misled the House. She did not use the term 'deliberately misled', which is what would be inappropriate and unparliamentary and would require a substantive motion.
Mr Randall interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Canning will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Canning then left the chamber .
The SPEAKER: The silence was to give me some time to prepare a reasonable response. I would have thought that in the circumstances that was warranted. But obviously any adherence to the standing orders by anybody in this place is not. I will ask the Prime Minister to withdraw. I do understand completely what the Leader of the House has said but, given the circumstances, I am going to ask her to withdraw for the benefit of the parliament.
Ms GILLARD: Speaker, I withdraw. Let me continue with what I was saying before, because the opposition clearly does not understand the school funding system that they stand behind—the broken funding system. The indexation rates in that broken funding system are a function of what state governments are investing in education. So if state Liberal governments are cutting, it cuts the indexation rate. That means what the Leader of the Opposition stands for is state cutbacks that then equal federal cutbacks. He is already on record as wanting to rip billions of dollars out of our schools. What he has got is an agenda of cuts and harm for Australian schools. He does not believe in their future. He will not dissuade us from getting on with the job. (Time expired)
Economy
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh—Second Deputy Speaker) (14:36): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how Australia's economy has remained strong, despite difficult global economic conditions? How will the government's investments in a smarter and fairer Australia make our economy stronger and more competitive into the future?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:36): I thank the member for Hindmarsh for that question because Australia has a world-beating combination of economic strengths. Everybody on this side of the House is very proud of Australia's achievements over the past five years—solid growth. We are 14 per cent larger than we were at the end of 2007. We have low unemployment and nearly one million jobs have been created in our time in office. We also have low and responsible levels of debt, which are in fact a very important buffer against global uncertainty. And of course, as the Prime Minister said before, we have the AAA credit rating from the three major global rating agencies, with a stable outlook, and that is not something that occurred at any stage in the 12 years that those opposite were in power. We have got to this point because, at every stage over those five years, we have put jobs and growth first. We have got the big economic decisions right, and the consequence of that is that strong set of economic outcomes, which are providing resilience in the Australian economy.
For those that want to talk our economy down, it is worthwhile looking at the Reserve Bank minutes that have been published today, because they still point to modest growth in non-mining investment. Of course, we know—and we see this again in the Reserve Bank board minutes today—that mining investment will stay at very high levels for some time to come. They also point to the strong growth in commodity exports, which is also important, and they also point to historic low interest rates and the stimulus that that is providing, particularly to the housing sector.
But you never see that acknowledged by those opposite, who come into this House day after day and trash-talk our economy. It is deeply, deeply irresponsible, because we have an economy which is in transition: in transition from mining sources of growth to non-mining sources of growth and in transition from mining investment to mining production. In the middle of that, we have continuing global uncertainty. That is why it is so important to continue to get the big calls right, as we have done in terms of our fiscal policy: slowing down the return to surplus to support jobs and growth; giving the Reserve Bank maximum room to adjust monetary policy, which they are doing; and making the big investments for the future—the big investments that make our economy stronger by investing in education, smart investments that build stronger communities. That is what this government is all about. We understand that tomorrow's prosperity is built today, and investing in education is the most fundamental thing that you can do to lift productivity in your economy for the longer term, which is why it is so tragic to see those on the other side of the House side with the conservative premiers to oppose the school improvement program. Nothing—nothing—could be more important to the long-term economic and social interests of this country than investment in education, and those opposite, in opposing these reforms, show how unqualified they are for high office.
Broadband
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can she confirm that, after paying $120 million for spectrum in 2011, the NBN Co.'s fixed wireless rollout is stalled because its planned network interferes with the existing Optus wireless network using the same frequencies? Given the failure of pink batts, green loans, cash for clunkers and school hall programs, what confidence can Australians have that her government can deliver faster broadband when it cannot even get the basics right?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:40): I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. It is absolutely no wonder that the opposition has moved off questioning about schools. But to the member for Wentworth's question on broadband: let me assure him that what the Australian people know from this government is that we will ensure that fibre gets to the premises—that is, we will do it once and do it right for Australia's future. Not for us the member for Wentworth's 'fraudband' policy, which of course would cost a lot of money and deliver very slow access, relying as it does on the copper network, which is decades and decades and decades old.
Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was about the wireless rollout. The Prime Minister is talking about a fixed-line network.
The SPEAKER: The member for Wentworth will resume his seat.
Ms GILLARD: I would refer the member for Wentworth to the question he asked, which had a very all-embracing second sentence. Let me answer it given that he has asked it. The member for Wentworth has asked in the most general terms about whether or not people can rely on this government—
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! The member for Dickson! The Prime Minister has the call and has the right to be heard in silence.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much. The member for Wentworth has raised in the broadest possible terms the future of our nation in telecommunications and who can be relied on to deliver that future. I can answer the member for Wentworth very clearly: the Australian people can rely on this government to ensure that they get the telecommunications our nation needs for our nation's future. That is because we are pursuing a real plan to make sure that people get the ability to move information around in the modern age that the modern economy requires. We are doing that and we will continue to do that. I am amazed that the member for Wentworth, of all people, would come into this parliament with a question like this. His deep discomfort with the opposition's 'fraudband' plan was on display the very day he announced it—adding, of course, to his deep discomfort with the Leader of the Opposition's so-called direct action policy. Well, let me assure the member for Wentworth of this: this is a government focused on the future, the NBN, the clean—
Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowper! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Wentworth can raise a point of order on anything other than relevance.
Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister is defying you and the standing orders—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wentworth will resume his seat. The question was full of rhetoric. The Prime Minister is being relevant to the question.
Ms GILLARD: As I was saying in answer to the very general question I was asked, Australians can rely on this government to invest in the future. Whether it is the National Broadband Network, wireless technologies, a clean energy future, the future of Australian schools, or roads, rail and ports, we are the government determined to build the nation, whilst you pursue your plans for wrecking.
Education Funding
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, Minister for Trade and Competitiveness and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy. Minister, why is investing in the education of our young people important for Australia's competitiveness in the Asian century, and what are the obstacles to this?
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (14:44): I thank the member for La Trobe for her question. The member for La Trobe is a great example of a Labor MP advocating for high-quality education for the children in her electorate—and why wouldn't we on this side of the parliament? Here we are in the Asian region in the Asian century looking to the sources of competitiveness that will secure for our young people the splendid array of diversity and career opportunities. Do you know, Speaker, that, in the Asian century, four of the five top schooling systems are in our own region? That is our competition in the Asian region.
When you look at the sources of competitiveness in the Asian century, the preeminent source of competitiveness is investing in the talents of our young people, developing the skills and nurturing the creativity of our young people. That is what the National Plan for School Improvement does, and our aspiration is to be in the top five schooling systems under the blueprint by 2025. But the obstacles are there in numbers on the other side of the parliament. On the other side of the parliament sits a man who strains every sinew in his body every day trying to work out new ways of pressuring state premiers not to sign up to the National Plan for School Improvement. This is the man who puts his personal ambition ahead of the ambitions and aspirations of 3½ million Australian schoolchildren. As he turns his back, he is saying that his ambitions are more important than the aspirations of 3½ million schoolchildren.
We stand on the threshold of great Labor reforms in the great Labor reforming tradition. Universal health care through Medicare, universal retirement incomes through compulsory superannuation and universal high-quality education through the National Plan for School Improvement. Every one of those are great Labor reforms. What else do they have in common, apart from the fact that they are great Labor reforms? Every one of them has been vehemently opposed by the coalition—Medicare, superannuation and the National Plan for School Improvement. In relation to Medicare, we prevailed. You had, on the other side, a surrender. They said Medicare must stay. They opposed compulsory superannuation every time, but we prevailed. And on the National Plan for School Improvement, Labor will prevail. We will defeat you; we will see you off because it is a great Labor reform in the Labor reforming tradition. (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Daily Telegraph today describing former Prime Minister Rudd as the 'master and commander' of the influx of boat arrivals under the Labor government? If not, does she accept responsibility for the change to our border protection policies that has resulted in more than 44,000 illegal arrivals by boat since 2008 on her watch?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:48): I thank the member for his question. I very rarely find myself in agreement with the Daily Telegraph and I did not today either.
Education Funding
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Employment Participation and Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare. Has the government delivered fairer and more affordable child care for families and higher quality early childhood education?
Mr Hockey interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Early Childhood has the call, the member for North Sydney does not! The Manager of Opposition Business is on very, very thin ice.
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide—Minister for Employment Participation and Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare) (14:48): I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and his commitment in this area. He knows that our government have taken real action to help modern families with childcare needs and to make sure that our kids do not get left behind because we are a government that knows that we need a quality early childhood education and care sector if we are to build a stronger, smarter and fairer Australia. That is why we are incredibly proud of tripling the funding to the sector. We are proud of increasing the childcare rebate from 30 to 50 per cent and we are proud of improving the affordability of care for Australian families. But it is also why we have worked so hard to lift the quality of care.
We on this side of the House know that things have changed. We know that we can no longer view this sector as a simple babysitting service. This is about critical early childhood education and care. It is about investing in our children's future. We all now know that over 90 per cent of brain development occurs in the first five years of a child's life. All of the research clearly shows that what happens in these years is critical to their future educational attainments and social and health outcomes. That is why we have worked to successfully negotiate agreement with every state and territory government of every different political persuasion to work together to lift the quality of care for Australian early childhood education and care. We have done this with the new child-to-staff ratios. We have done this with higher qualification standards so that we can be sure that children get the care, expertise and attention they deserve.
We are the party that believes that education is the way we transform people's lives and ensure they have greater opportunities than the parents and the grandparents that came before them. We have invested over $25 billion in this sector going forward to see better outcomes for children's learning, to see a commitment to quality education, and to, of course, support parents' workforce participation. A Labor government would never risk leaving children behind by returning to the underinvestment that we saw under the coalition government. We know that families are deeply concerned that the opposition today will not commit to the current levels of investment in quality early education and care. We know that they are all over the place, flip-flopping about their commitment to these quality reforms, because it turns out that they do not actually care very much about education.
Only Labor has plans to build a stronger, smarter and fairer Australia. Early childhood education and care is a key foundation of a stronger and fairer nation, and only Labor can be relied upon to invest in the sector and to save it from the devastating cuts that those opposite have in mind.
Asylum Seekers
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (14:51): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of her statement in 2002:
The navy has turned back four boats to Indonesia. … It has made a very big difference to people-smuggling that that happened.
If it was possible to turn back boats in 2002, why is it not possible now?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:52): I thank the member for her question, and the answer really is a simple one. I am surprised that members opposite do not recognise it. People smuggling, like other transnational crimes, change the way in which they work depending on law enforcement. Of course, what started to happen because of turning back boats was that boats were sabotaged, people were in the water and, of course, Australian personnel then went to their assistance because they would not leave them there to drown.
That is the circumstance to which people like former Chief of Defence Force, Admiral Barrie, have been referring in recent days; referring to a circumstance where that puts our ADF personnel at risk. So I would say to the member that if she is seriously interested in this—seriously interested, as opposed to trying to make a political point—that she study the words of our former Chief of Defence Force, who you would assume, in all courtesy and respect, would know something about those circumstances on the high seas. I do not see how anybody in the parliament or the advisers box could seek to treat a person like that with discourtesy or a lack of respect.
So in his professional opinion, Admiral Barrie has said loudly and publicly that this puts ADF personnel at risk. Understanding that—understanding the facts of the matter—ensuring that we work in accordance with the best possible advice and ensuring that we do not put our ADF members at unnecessary risk, the government have understood that you cannot embark on such a policy and end up risking lives.
To the Leader of the Opposition and others in the opposition who say, slogan-wise, that they want to pursue this kind of policy, can I suggest that they reflect very, very deeply on the risks to Australian personnel and the risks to life that they are talking about. In this area where the opposition are so given to sloganising, at some point they may want to produce a detailed, costed document—not something full of assertions about what they can do with Indonesia but something that deals with the facts; not something full of assertions about turning back boats but something that deals with the facts; and not something full of assertions about temporary protection visas but something that deals with the facts.
The Australian people are entitled to that degree of courtesy and respect. Unfortunately, day after day after day the opposition refuses to show it.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:55): We have in the gallery this afternoon the former Australian cricket captain, Allan Border. We welcome him to the House today. We wish our cricket players well, and England, at the moment!
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Automotive Industry
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation. What is the government's plan to support the automotive industry? What other plans are there, and what would be their impact?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation) (14:55): I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. He has a lot of workers from the car industry in his electorate, and so he has a very keen interest in the industry. Of course, auto manufacturing is a very important industry in this country, and it is also a very graphic example of how the stupid and irresponsible policies of the opposition are undermining business confidence, how they are undermining investments and how they are destroying job security. This is an industry that provides jobs directly and indirectly to about 250,000 people in this country. It is an industry that generates skills, research and development and industrial capabilities, like robotics and advanced manufacturing, that are very important for the economy. Those are some of the reasons why the government remains very committed to auto manufacturing in this country.
Our new car plan provides for $5.4 billion of assistance to the sector to the year 2020. But what an astonishing thing: at a time when we have pressures from the high value of the Australian dollar, the pressures of global economic uncertainty, the pressures of intense international competition and the transition that is taking place in our country, how astonishing that notwithstanding all of those things the greatest threat to every motor-vehicle-manufacturing worker's job in this country are the opposition leader and the coalition's policies. They are the ones threatening this industry.
This is the fact of the matter: the opposition plans to cut assistance to this industry by $500 million to the year 2015—over the next two years—and to put at risk a further $1½ billion beyond 2015. You could not have a more concrete example of a policy position that can destroy an industry and destroy tens of thousands of jobs. That is exactly what the coalition is proposing to do, and it could not have been made any more clear than by Mr Mike Devereux, the general manager and CEO of General Motors Holden in Australia, just last week. He spelt out exactly what the coalition's policy will mean. This is important for many, many workers and their families in South Australia and in Victoria in particular, because Mr Devereux said quite clearly that Holden would cease manufacturing in this country should the coalition's policy be implemented. It would destroy tens of thousands of jobs. You could not get a more concrete example of the choice that people have at this coming election. If you stand for the car industry and workers in it, vote Labor!
Migration
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that her government has introduced a bill to require employers to study labour market research trends for six months and to gain expressions of support from public authorities before they can employ a 457 visa holder. Given that her communications director holds a 457 visa, what steps did she take to ensure that there was no Australian qualified to undertake that role? Did she study labour market research trends and gain expressions of support from public authorities before his appointment? (Time expired)
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:59): It has been getting clearer and clearer across question time but it is crystal clear from this question: we are dealing with an opposition with no policies and plans for the nation's future and so they come in here with ridiculous questions about political staff. Well, you would think that the Leader of the Opposition might have more on his mind than this game playing, but of course he does not, because they sit there mired in their negativity with no plan for jobs, no plan for health, no plan for education other than plans for cuts. To the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cook is reasonably seeking the call.
Mr Morrison: Madam Speaker, on a point of order on specific relevance: the question was about the Prime Minister's hypocrisy.
The SPEAKER: The member for Cook will resume his seat.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Cook will withdraw. For the benefit of the House, if he had not gone to that I would have actually ruled in his favour. The member for Cook will withdraw. It is an abuse.
Mr Morrison: I withdraw. On the point of order, I would ask the Prime Minister to be relevant to the question.
The SPEAKER: If the member for Cook had done that, he would have been—
Mr Windsor: Much better.
The SPEAKER: I thank the member for New England—exactly right! The Prime Minister has the call and needs to be relevant to the question before the chair. I am sorry I do not have a number for the member for New England. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much. To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question, I actually think the parliament is better than this—than stupid things about political staff. For the government, what we believe in is putting the jobs of Australians first. All this has proved is the vacuousness of the opposition and their lack of policies.
Infrastructure
Mr LYONS (Bass) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Leader of the House. Will the minister advise the House why it is important for infrastructure projects to be properly assessed, planned and costed, and how does this compare with other proposals for infrastructure?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:02): I thank the member for Bass for his question. Indeed, when it comes to infrastructure funding, on this side of the House we do the analysis, we undertake the proper process and we ensure that we have the business cases. That is why we established Infrastructure Australia, one of our first pieces of legislation when we formed office, introduced in February 2008 in the first fortnight's parliamentary sittings. The Leader of the Opposition last week was committing to establish Infrastructure Australia when he said, 'If we are elected we will form an organisation called Infrastructure Australia.' It is typical of the lack of policy detail of those opposite when it comes to infrastructure.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert is warned!
Mr ALBANESE: In a way it would be funny if it was not so serious, if those opposite did not seek to control the treasury bench. This month I was in Launceston with the member for Bass and there I announced funding for a detailed business case for the Launceston bypass, part of our $500 million fully costed commitment to upgrade the Midland Highway—to upgrade parts of it, making it clear what we can do with that money and what we cannot do with that money.
The Leader of the Opposition has promised $400 million to fully duplicate the Midland Highway. Unfortunately, it is a $2.7 billion project. When he was asked about it, they did not have any proper analysis but he said, 'I certainly have been in informal discussions with people.' That is what he said. Well, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: give us the mob that can build a $2.7 billion duplication of the Midland Highway for $400 million and we'll sign up straightaway! This was a policy that was done on the back of a coaster somewhere in Tassie. Probably after a light beer shandy, the Leader of the Opposition got out the coaster and wrote out this policy. Of course he has got form, because he also said when speaking about the East West Link that he had spoken to Infrastructure Australia, and we know that that is not true. When he speaks about roads he repeats the falsehood. When he speaks about roads he speaks about ' aspirations'. Now we have apparitions—apparitions instead of real projects with real money to create real jobs to create real roads. (Time expired)
Mr LYONS (Bass) (15:05): Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Why is parliamentary leadership important in the national interest?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will allow the question, but I will be listening with interest.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: how can the question of whether their parliamentary leadership is important be a question to the Leader of the House rather than the Prime Minister or the member for Griffith?
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Again, like the member for Cook, he was on a reasonable track until he had to abuse it at the end. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:06): Indeed, and as Leader of the House I was pointing out that what we have done is have proper legislation introduced through the parliament to ensure that we have proper processes in place to put policies in place in the interests of the nation. That is important. It contrasts with the lack of leadership of those opposite. And today the hand-picked former parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, Cory Bernardi, has showed it up with: 'I was right on gay marriage and bestiality.' That is what he said. 'I said this would happen,' Senator Bernardi said, 'and it is happening.'
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The member for Stirling has the call.
Asylum Seekers
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (15:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the government has just announced that we have had another boat arrival in Australia, carrying 68 passengers, does the Prime Minister still believe that this is another policy failure?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:08): I thank the member for this question. It enables me to restate what I have said to the parliament frequently and during the course of this week. What addressing these issues requires is not only a government that is determined and guided by experts but also the opposition to not use its negativity to block legal changes that would make a difference. The member who asked the question put his hand up for more boats.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Cook!
Family Payments
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Government Whip) (15:08): My question is to Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Disability Reform. How are the government's policies building a fairer future for families? Why is it important for families that these policies are consistent? What obstacles are there to this?
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (15:08): I thank the member for McEwen very much for that question. He represents an area with a lot of young families and does a great job in it. He understands, like everybody on this side of the parliament, that Australians face a very, very clear choice between a government that will do everything possible to support families and those opposite who just want to cut to the bone.
We of course are the government that introduced Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme and I can tell the parliament that it has now benefited 300,000 families in Australia. Three hundred thousand families have benefited because of this government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. And of course it was this government that introduced the schoolkids bonus to make sure that children and their families get the money when they need it and this is helping around one million Australian families. One million Australian families are getting that extra cash to help them meet the costs of their children going to school.
What do we know about those opposite? Those opposite are going to claw back every single cent of that schoolkids bonus—$15,000 will come out of the pockets of families over the school life of their children. I have been surprised to receive some letters from those opposite, writing to me about constituents of theirs who would like to receive the schoolkids bonus. I would say to the member for Stirling: have you informed all of your constituents—all the thousands and thousands of families who currently get the schoolkids bonus—that if the Liberal Party is elected at the next election you will remove all of that money from those families? Have you told them, the member for Canning or the member for Barker up the back there? All of them out there are saying to me, 'Our families want to the schoolkids bonus.' It is up to you to get out there and make sure you tell each and every one of them that you will be taking $15,000 out of the pockets of those families. This Labor government will make sure that they get the help when they need it.
Ms Gillard: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:11): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ABBOTT: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr ABBOTT: I wish to raise two particular misrepresentations today. The first by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport who claimed that I said, 'If we are elected we will form an organisation called Infrastructure Australia.' I never said that. The newspaper in question corrected the quotation in subsequent editions. A further misrepresentation was in a dodger distributed in his electorate. The member for Corio—
Mr Albanese: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to table the correction so at least we can see it.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: In a dodger distributed in his electorate, the member for Corio claimed, 'Tony Abbott gave up and said, "Geelong may no longer be in the years ahead a motor manufacturing city." I added, 'But it can be a city of learning, a city of administration, a city of culture, and I look forward to working with the people of Geelong … to try and bring that about.' (Time expired)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:13): I table the South Coast Register, 14 June 2013: 'Abbott show rolls into town'.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to table a document?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): I seek leave to table the correction in the electronic version of the South Coast Register.
Leave granted.
The SPEAKER: As I do not have the ability to make a personal explanation, putting out flyers in my electorate, if this is going to be how it is played, might need to be considered. If at every question time we are going to be correcting information put out, then perhaps we need to think about what is going around in people's electorates.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Reports Nos 46 and 47 of 2012-13
The SPEAKER (15:14): I present the following Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2012-2013 entitled Audit report No. 46, Performance audit: compensating F-111 fuel tank workers: Department of Veterans' Affairs; Department of Defence, and Audit report No. 47, Performance audit: AUSTRAC's administration of its financial intelligence function: Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC).
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
COMMITTEES
Broadcasting Legislation Committee
Appointment
The SPEAKER (15:15): I have received a message from the Senate informing the House of Representatives of the following resolution agreed to by the Senate today:
That the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation be amended by omitting paragraph (16) and substituting as follows:
(16) the committee may report from time to time but that it make a final report no later than 24 June 2013.
The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:15): I move:
That the message be considered immediately.
Question agreed to.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:15): I move:
That the resolution of the Senate be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:16): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansardand I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 Report on the operation of the Act for the period 1 September 2012 to 28 February 2013.
Treaties
Bilateral Text, together with national interest analysis Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay on the exchange of information with respect to taxes (Montevideo, 10 December 2012).
Multilateral Text, together with national interest analysis and annexures Agreement on port State measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (Rome, 22 November 2009).
Debate adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Economy
The SPEAKER (15:16): I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The urgent need for stable government to build a stronger economy for all Australians.
I call upon those honourable 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 ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:16): With the standing of the government and respect for this parliament at near record lows I regret to say that this parliament, the parliament now drawing to its close, has been a low and dishonourable one.
At the beginning of the life of the current government, the Prime Minister stood and said to the Australian public that she would be:
… faithful to the trust that has been extended to us.
In 88 days time the public will finally have their chance to pass judgement on just how the Prime Minister has been faithful to the trust that was placed in her. I suspect that that will be a critical judgement because, wherever you look, this is a parliament which has let down the Australian people and a government which has betrayed the trust that the people extended to it—only just, nevertheless, they did extend to it—at the last election.
There is the carbon tax that was never going to happen, which did happen. There was the surplus—the 'no ifs, no buts surplus'—that would happen come hell or high water and that has never happened. Instead, we have a debt that is now racing towards $340 billion. There is the mining tax, which has achieved the extraordinary outcome of damaging investment, damaging confidence and employment, without actually raising any revenue.
There was the live cattle ban, in panic at a television program—perhaps the most disastrous decision ever taken towards one of our near and important neighbours in our country's history. There was the political execution of an excellent Speaker because it suited the political convenience of the Prime Minister. We have had three leadership challenges in three years. We have had the protection racket that has been extended towards the member for Dobell by a Prime Minister only too familiar with the operation of union slush funds—
Ms Roxon: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have ruled before that that language is not appropriate to be used with regard to the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to the member for Dobell. I ask that the member withdraw.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has the call but I will advise that, as the member for Gellibrand rightly points out, the language has been asked to be withdrawn. I am not going to do it on this occasion, but I will be mindful of other words in the member's statement.
Mr ABBOTT: I appreciate your forbearance, Madam Speaker. There was the Australia Day riot, which turned out to have been orchestrated out of the Prime Minister's office. But, above all else, there was the failure that will haunt the memory of this parliament and this government: the ongoing disaster on our borders, a disaster that the Prime Minister promised to fix on 24 June 2010.
We have had almost 45,000 illegal arrivals by boat—more than the population of Gladstone, more than the population of Coffs Harbour, more than the population of Shepparton and more than the population of Mount Gambier. No-one wants to see any Australian government fail. No-one wants to see any Australian government give up on governing but that, I regret to say, is what this government has done.
We have 88 days until the election. The people will then have their chance to pass judgement on this government. They will have a choice between an incompetent and untrustworthy government and a coalition that will stop the boats, that will repeal the carbon tax and that will get the budget back into the black. That is the pledge that we make to the Australian people and that is a pledge that we will honour.
As things stand, the Australian people are frustrated and angry. They are frustrated and angry with a government that has let them down and a government that has repeatedly betrayed them. Indeed, Labor people—decent, honourable Labor people—are embarrassed and even ashamed at the performance of this government. I am pleased that the member for Hotham has stayed in the House to listen to this MPI, because the member for Hotham called it for Australia. That is what he did: he called it for Australia when he said he could no longer serve on this Prime Minister's frontbench. I regret to say that this particular government is now beyond cure. This particular government is now past the point of no return. The poison is so deep, the division and dysfunction so deep that there is nothing that can save the contemporary Labor Party except time out to decide what it actually stands for and what it now believes.
The Australian people are an optimistic people. We know that better times can come. We know that better times are ahead of us but what we need is a government that you can trust and a government that is competent to deliver effective administration. I want to say to the Australian people: I am proud of the team that I lead. I am proud of the fact that the team I lead is representative of the breadth and depth of the Australian people. I am confident that there would actually be more former tradesmen on this side of the parliament these days than on that side of the parliament. I am proud of the fact that the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives is sitting on this side of the parliament for the Liberal Party. I am proud of the fact that, if every coalition candidate in this election were to come to this parliament, the most common name in the Liberal Party party room would be Nguyen. It is a sign of just how much the modern Liberal Party is standing foursquare with the decent people of our country.
I know that our team is ready to form a stable and competent government. My team does not need to learn on the job, because my team has done the job before. Sixteen members of the shadow cabinet were ministers in a government that did stop the boats, that did bring the budget back into the black, that did get taxes down, that did abolish unnecessary taxes. We have done it before and we will do it again. We understand in the marrow of our bones that you cannot have a strong society, you cannot have strong communities without a strong economy to sustain them, and a strong economy pivotally depends upon profitable private businesses. We understand this. We get this. We know that it is not government that creates wealth; it is business that creates wealth. No government has ever taxed a country into prosperity. Plenty of governments have taxed a country into the ground. Not one has ever taxed a country into prosperity.
So our economic plan starts with abolishing the carbon tax and the mining tax. We will cut red tape. We will boost productivity so that the creative businesspeople of this country can get a fair go to survive and prosper, and so the workers of Australia can get a fair go to keep their jobs and to prosper. A strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia—that is how this coalition will deliver hope, reward and opportunity should we be entrusted with the government of this country in 88 days time. We will relieve the pressure on families. We will relieve the pressure that we know the families and households of Australia are under. Under us they will keep the tax cuts and pension and benefit rises, but they will most assuredly lose the carbon tax.
This is not just about creating a richer country; it is about creating a better country too. What I want to achieve—what my team wants to achieve—is giving the Australian people confidence that we can come closer to being our best selves. We are all conservationists now. That is why I want direct action to improve our environment, not a great big new tax that will clobber the economy without actually reducing our emissions. As well as an emissions reduction fund for more trees, better soils and smarter technology, there will be a green army 15,000 strong marching to the help of our degraded land and waterways. Anyone who looks at our country knows that land care needs more than the largely volunteer efforts of farmers and of understaffed local councils. We will give our country the workforce it needs if our remnant bushland is to survive and if our creeks are to run clean. We will give idealistic young people and older people a way to turn their environmental commitment into practical action so that our gift to the future will be a country in better shape than that which we inherited.
Should the coalition win the election, I will continue my practice of spending a week a year as a volunteer in a remote Indigenous community. If people are expected to live there, a Prime Minister should be prepared to stay there and senior public servants should be prepared to stay there too. Nothing would focus people's minds more on the issues of remote Australia than conducting the government from there even if it is only for a week. I do not underestimate the challenges of crafting an Indigenous recognition amendment that will be an advance for Aboriginal people without creating two classes of Australian. No, I do not underestimate the difficulty of this challenge; but, should there be a change of government on 14 September, we will persevere and get this right. In so doing, this nation of ours—this great nation—will finally be made whole.
Everyone knows that I am a late convert to the cause of a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme. I am a late convert, but I tell you I have a convert's zeal. Why should people get their full pay while on holiday and on sick leave and just a welfare wage while on parental leave? If blokes had babies, this never would have been tolerated. I did not always understand this, but I do now. A fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme is an important economic reform. It is good for population, it is good for productivity, it is good for participation—in fact, all three of the Ps which economic strength requires. Most of all, a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme is an issue of justice—justice for the women of our country that will finally be delivered under a coalition government.
I know I surprised people three years ago with this commitment to a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme, but serious people do have the capacity to grow and I am pleased to say that I understand this issue much better now than I did a decade ago. I have learnt from watching the example of good leaders—people like Bob Hawke as well as John Howard, who made the transition from tribal chief to national leader. I understand that a Prime Minister should never set out to deliberately divide one Australian from another, as we have seen in this current parliament. A Prime Minister should never think that he or she is somehow bigger than the party or the country. Prime ministers must always be the servants of their party and, above all else, the servants of their country.
Finally, should there be a change of government on 14 September, this parliament must be a better place. There has been too much venom and too many baseless accusations of bad faith—and I suspect we might even have a few in a few moments. We are better than that, and I hope to have a chance to demonstrate that we are better than that. After 14 September I am confident that the people of Australia will be able to have more pride in their parliament. (Time expired)
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (15:31): I have now heard it all and I have been in this parliament for 15 years. For the Leader of the Opposition to complain that there has been too much venom in this parliament, while the coalition spits venom across the table on a daily basis, is the height of hypocrisy. This is a man who said he wanted a kinder, gentler parliament and then set about systematically to try to destroy the reputation of this parliament. He tried to destroy the reputation of this parliament to create a sense of chaos every day in an economy and in a society that has actually been going pretty well.
The objective evidence of that is actually provided by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which only a few weeks ago completed its analysis and released it publicly. On a range of 11 different indicators—not only economic indicators but also quality of life indicators, such as longevity and sense of community—where do you reckon Australia came? No. 1 in the world; Australia is the best country in the world. But you would not have known it from this coalition after the last 2½ years, because they have spent every day in this parliament spitting venom and trying to trash talk the economy in the hope that, although it would cost tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Australian jobs, it might advance their own pathetic, personal ambitions. That is what has happened in this parliament. The interests of the coalition and their ambitions to climb up the ladder have stood and ranked above those of the everyday Australians who we are here to represent.
This is a matter of public importance debate about the strength of the economy. Now let us go to the strength of the Australian economy. The OECD projects that in the coming two years we will grow faster than any major, advanced country on earth. When we came to government, the Reserve Bank cash rate was 6¾ per cent; it is now 2¾ per cent. That is such a large reduction in interest rates that it is saving an average household with a mortgage of $300,000 at least $5,000 a year. That is unambiguously good news for mortgage holders and also for small businesses. Why have interest rates been able to fall? Because inflation is contained. The Reserve Bank is an inflation-targeting reserve bank and it has been comfortable with the inflation rate under this government. Compare that with the inflation rate and the interest rate performance of the previous coalition government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister: after the 2004 election, when John Howard promised to keep interest rates at record lows, they went up 10 times because inflation went up. The Reserve Bank's arm was forced because the previous coalition refused to invest in skills, refused to invest in the education of our young people and refused to invest in infrastructure.
All of those investments are now taking place under the Gillard Labor government. We have eased those capacity constraints and as a consequence of that we have had very strong growth compared with all major advanced countries at a time when 28 million jobs were lost around the world because of a global financial crisis—a debate through which the Leader of the Opposition slept—which senior members of the coalition now claim did not exist: 'It was a little blip in the Northern Hemisphere.' Through that period, when 28 million jobs were lost through a so-called 'blip' in the Northern Hemisphere, 961,000 jobs had been created in Australia because the Labor government puts jobs first. That is in our DNA. We were created as a political party to advance the interests of the working men and women of Australia, and we stood up for the working men and women of Australia during the global financial crisis, which became the deepest global recession since the Great Depression.
The truth is the former opposition leader at least provided some support for our stimulus package, but the present opposition leader has senior frontbenchers, such as the Manager of Opposition Business, saying, 'A coalition government would never have gone into deficit.' Confronted with a write-down, a reduction, in expected revenues of $180 billion, the prescription of the Leader of the Opposition's team would be to match it with cuts of $180 billion. That would deliver in Australia, over that time, a deep and prolonged recession. But that was not just a mistaken quote from the Manager of Opposition Business. The shadow Attorney-General said the same thing. That it should never have gone into debt.
What did the Leader of the Opposition say? He said, 'I cannot see what was wrong with the New Zealand response to the global financial crisis.' Well, I can tell you what was wrong with it—a recession lasting more than a year. But the opposition do not mind recessions because they focus the attention, as far as the coalition is concerned, of the workers on their jobs so that they are good compliant workers because they are fearful every day of losing their jobs and worry if they can ever get one during a recession and its aftermath.
The indicators of a strong economy are the AAA rating of the Australian economy not by one or two but all three international ratings agencies. That is a gold standard assessment, yet we have the coalition every day in the parliament saying the economy is a disaster and a mess. Their policy prescriptions are a worry if the diagnosis from the coalition is that the economy is in an emergency situation and a mess, notwithstanding that we have inflation contained, interest rates down, a AAA rating and growth stronger than every major advanced country. They say that is an emergency.
When that is the prescription and the diagnosis, what is their policy? We know what their policy is. Their policy is to cut to the bone. They believe that we should never have had debt in this country. They think that, if they get into government, the objective is to race for a surplus. How do you race for a surplus? By cutting jobs and services. We know already that they have promised to cut 20,000 jobs in this country. They have also said that they will cut services. They will cut Medicare Locals and they will cut GP superclinics. They will cut the services on which the Australian people rely. We know some of that, but we do not know all of it. The reason we do not know all is that the mechanism that they have already announced is a commission of audit, otherwise described by the Treasurer as a commission of cuts.
There is form for this. We can check the form guide. Not only has Campbell Newman in Queensland used this device to conceal from the Queensland people the extent of the savagery of the cuts from which the people of Queensland are still reeling but the previous Howard government did the same thing. After the 1996 election, instead of laying out what they were going to do if they were elected, they had a commission of audit. What did they do? They cut training. They cut the vital services that were so important—TAFE funding—and we are only just recovering from those savage cuts. They lacked the courage to tell the Australian people and now what is the Leader of the Opposition—the big he-man who says, 'Look at me'—doing? He is hiding behind the commission of cuts. If he is elected, he is going to use exactly the same device as Campbell Newman. Campbell Newman's cuts are but the curtain-raiser to the cuts that the Leader of the Opposition would implement. Why? Because the shadow Treasurer has said that we are in an emergency. He has said economic growth is flatlining at trend. This is a new concept. This is the level of economic literacy. No wonder the Leader of the Opposition has been described as economically innumerate and illiterate.
A government member: Who said that?
Dr EMERSON: It was actually Professor John Hewson and Peter Costello. They would know a thing about it because they have been in shadow cabinet with the guy. He was employed by Professor John Hewson. He knows the form of the Leader of the Opposition very well. I will tell you who knows it even better and that is former Treasurer Peter Costello. They described the Leader of the Opposition as economically illiterate and innumerate. But his diagnosis is that the economy is in an emergency situation. Why? Because of flatlining at trend. You cannot believe the economic incompetence of these people in the coalition. So they say, 'We need a commission of audit.' But we have been able to ascertain a few of the decisions that they have made.
We have coalition members of parliament writing to our minister for families saying: 'Some of our families are missing out on the schoolkids bonus. What are you going to do about it?' For goodness sake, write to the Leader of the Opposition and ask him what he is going to do about it. He has a sense of equity. There will not only be a few who miss out on the schoolkids bonus. He is going to be fair. Everyone misses out on the bonus because it is going to be axed. That is $15,000 for two kids over the lifetime at school of those kids. That is $15,000 ripped out of families trying to send kids to school and getting a bit of support from us to do so.
Wait, there is more! We have had a debate about superannuation in this parliament for about 20 years. The defining feature of superannuation is that Labor introduced compulsory superannuation to extend it to the men and women of Australia for universal retirement income. The defining feature of this coalition is they have opposed every single increase in superannuation that has been implemented by a Labor government. The shadow Treasurer went public and said, 'We support the legislation to increase superannuation from nine to 12 per cent.' That is blatantly untrue. They came in here and voted against it. Worse than that, not only did they oppose abolishing the superannuation contributions tax for people on low incomes, part-timers, students—mostly women—but they have promised to reimpose it. We have here in the parliament a speech by the Leader of the Opposition saying: Look at us. We are the party of lower taxes.' The party that has a policy to increase taxes is the Liberal Party. It has promised to reimpose a 15 per cent contributions tax on 3.6 million low-income, vulnerable Australians—casuals, part-timers, mostly women—and it says it is the low-tax party!
What else are they doing on the tax front? They actually opposed the reduction in the company income tax from 30 per cent to 29 per cent, which ended up, because we could not get it through, funding the schoolkids bonus, which they are going to axe if they get elected. What else are they doing? There is that great big new tax on everything you buy, their paid parental leave. Their gold-plated paid parental leave: a 1½ per cent increase in the company tax rate and the Leader of the Opposition said: 'Coles, Woolies, the banks and the petrol companies will absorb that. They won't pass that on. They're the good guys; they won't do that.' Of course they will. In fact, the banking industry is complaining because they are saying they will pass it on, so everyone will pay for this gold-plated paid parental leave scheme with increased taxation. And the Leader of the Opposition said, on climate change, 'We'll get rid of the carbon price and we'll put in this kind of like costless direct action plan.' Costless? At $1,300 per household! That is an increase in taxes. No wonder they call him economically illiterate. That is an increase in taxes.
The truth is it is not just a philosophical divide between Labor and the coalition; it is a chasm. You have Labor, which has presided over a resilient economy, which has reached out to people, making sure that no-one is left behind—a middle of the road party—and you have an opposition leader, who has dragged the Liberal Party to the hard Right, a party which has promised, with great zeal, that if it got elected it would scrap the national school improvement plan because it does not believe that every young Australian deserves a great education. From our hearts, that is what we believe in, that is what we have fought for. And the coalition is saying to state premiers, 'Don't do that, because our ambitious, our plans are more important than theirs.' It is a complete disgrace.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): The member for Hotham is well aware of standing order 62(b).
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (15:47): Just 88 days to go. Just 88 days for the people to decide whether this government deserves another term or whether they have had enough. It seems to me, as I walk around Australia and talk to voters, they are looking forward to 14 September just like children are looking forward to Christmas. They have had enough. For almost three years this government has fallen further and further into the mire and the moral abyss. The Prime Minister drank the Kool-Aid that the Greens had served up, and she accepted the poisoned chalice of the new paradigm from the members for New England and Lyne, and set about establishing this government. These colleagues, the Greens and the Independents, have been with Labor through every stumble, through every misstep along the way over the past three years. As this incompetent government lurched from one disaster to another, the Greens and the Independents were there with them, propping them up. Their full-throated support for the carbon tax and all of Labor's legacy fiascos has reduced them to an echo of this Prime Minister and the people have stopped listening to all of them.
At what point during these three years did it first occur to the Prime Minister to go back on her solemn promise to the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led? Was it seconds or just milliseconds? Was it even a consideration? Did her word ever matter to her? She lost the trust of the people of Australia in her very first days after the last election. Did she ever give a thought to the rank betrayal that she was inflicting on the entire nation? No, her political survival was always at the top. Honour and integrity have had no role in the life of this government and the Australian people have endured an endless chain of bungles, scandals, backroom deals and lost opportunities.
The national accounts show that this government has squandered the resources boom. Labor headlined its previous two budgets as spreading the proceeds of the boom and then set about spending the money that it expected to be raised over the years ahead. But in fact the boom has not come. Labor busted the boom before it even existed with its ill-considered new taxes and incompetent policies. This budget was something different. It forgot about sharing the proceeds of the boom. We were told it was a budget that was about growth and jobs, except it was predicted to have lower growth than the previous year and higher unemployment. So the very objectives that the Labor Party set for itself in its budget were in fact shattered by its own predictions for the year ahead. The truth is businesses are cutting investment, and that means lost opportunity. Consumers are not spending, and that means fewer jobs.
Our domestic economy is going backwards with just paper thin growth, just over 0.6 per cent—and, frankly, we would not have had that if confidence was not so low that imports have been declining. At the heart of what is afflicting our nation is a debilitating case of despair. I think of the words of Cameron Clyne, chief executive of the National Australia Bank, when he said that there is a 'bias towards pessimism' among the business community. He said:
We have a national mood of gloom …
Well, if the head of a bank thinks things are gloomy, what do their customers think? If the banks are worried, how can small businesses ever hope to succeed? We could call the Treasurer's Fix-o-Gram to find a solution. You will not find any fixes in the budget; you just have to subscribe to his app Fix-o-Gram. Unfortunately, this government has been too much about fixes over the years—deals, fixes—but no solutions to the issues confronting the Australian people.
The lack of confidence that this government inspires spreads throughout the business community and households really like a cancer. Their record is of failure and of ineptitude, of a people incapable of governing let alone in the national interest. They are unable to govern themselves. Here we are, only 88 days away from an election, and we still do not know who the Prime Minister is going to be on that day. Is it going to be the Rudd-Gillard government or is it going to be the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government? We have another few days and so it might be the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd-Gillard-Rudd-Gillard government. This is because Labor cannot even make up their own minds about who should be their leader. How can the public have any confidence in that kind of rabble?
Is it former Prime Minister Rudd who failed on border protection or is it Prime Minister Gillard, who on election promised to fix it? Should we be holding former Prime Minister Rudd to account for the failed mining tax or should we be holding to account Prime Minister Gillard, who promised to fix it and did not do it? Should we be holding the Prime Minister to account for the carbon tax that she promised to fix? Or do we hold the inventor of the tax, former Prime Minister Rudd, to blame for all of these debacles?
An opposition member: Both!
Mr TRUSS: Yes, as I have just heard, they have both failed. They have both failed their party and, more importantly, they have both failed the Australian people. There are so many examples of failure: the carbon tax that the Prime Minister said in government she would not deliver; the supposed community consensus before any action would be taken on climate policy; a people's assembly to build that consensus. These are all government election promises and they have just disappeared. There are the secret deals with the big three miners, who carved themselves out of the mining tax and left the small miners to carry the can; the roof batts program that burnt down people's houses; the overpriced school halls; and GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch that never got off the ground. Now we have, of course, 'asbestos watch' while the NBN continues to squander the nation's savings. The NBN itself is an example of a $90 billion white elephant which no-one is signing up to. Clearly, there are more years of costly delays ahead. They gave Telstra $11 billion to stop using their own perfectly functional network and they have got nothing much to replace it with.
Take the private health insurance rebates that Labor swore were part of the family budget and as such were guaranteed would remain untouched. In almost every budget Labor have sought to reduce the private health insurance rebates. They have offered to take five asylum seekers from Malaysia for every one person sent by them: 'Hey, we've got 44,000! How many are you going to take?'
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TRUSS: Yes, this is a good deal for Tom Waterhouse! Of course, there was the mining tax that collected only 10 per cent of what was expected and the near destruction of Australia's northern beef industry because of a panicked overreaction to a television program. On this government's watch a manufacturing job in Australia has been axed every 20 minutes. How is that for the party for jobs? Now we have got Ford, after being given $34 million to save jobs, closing its plant down. What about the future of Simplot and SPC, the last of our major food-processing establishments in this country? Labor has no answer. It is doing nothing for employers and it is doing nothing for employees as factories close down one after the other.
There has to be a change. We do need to have a government that has actually got a plan, a vision, for our country. All this would be laughable if it were not so insulting to the people of Australia. In 88 days the people will decide whether they want this tragic soap opera as a rerun or they want a change, a coalition government that has a plan to bring the budget into balance and to start paying down Labor's runaway debt. Abolishing the carbon tax is a positive action to reduce costs for families and businesses, as is abolishing the mining tax, cutting red tape by $1 billion a year to give small business the relief that they need, or creating two million new jobs. We will cut the green tape and will have a no-nonsense, one-stop shop to fast-track approvals. Our plan provides families with the surety that they need to be confident for their future. We have the experience. We have the record. We have done this before. We have created jobs and we will make sure that Australia grows— (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (15:57): I rise to speak on this MPI, having listened to the member for Wide Bay's contribution—and, unfortunately, it is a bit of my life that I will never get back—but I was looking for him to be a bit fair dinkum. As he is a Queenslander, I thought he might have touched on a couple of the significant things about stable government. I thought that, rather than talk about his dream of two million jobs, he would have spoken about the 960,000 jobs that have actually been created since he has been sitting on that side of the chamber. I thought he would have spoken about that. I thought that perhaps he, as a world-travelling man—and I have travelled overseas with the member for Wide Bay—might have touched on what conditions were like around Europe. We have 5.5 per cent unemployment—and it went down last month—but you can look at places in Europe where it is 11.9 per cent. There are places in Spain where one in two young people are unemployed. I thought he might have mentioned that because he does come from a part of Queensland that has higher unemployment. I thought as a Queenslander he might have mentioned that.
I thought he might have mentioned how proud he was to be in a nation that has a AAA credit rating from all three ratings agencies. I thought he would have been bipartisan enough to say that that is a good thing, but he forgot to mention it. Only eight countries of 200 countries around the world have this status. That is an empirical fact. That is not a press release; that is an empirical fact from the ratings agencies. Since he moved to that side of the chamber, how have we performed in terms of the size of our economy? He talks about doom and gloom and the need for stability. We have changed from being the 15th biggest economy in the world and moved up to being the 12th biggest economy in the world. I thought he would have said, from pure pride as an Australian, that he is proud—but no mention of that. And we have performed six times faster than those powerhouse countries like Germany and the United States.
He did not mention the global financial crisis. That two years has been taken out of the LNP history books. It is almost a Goebbels-type experiment in removing things from history: 'This did not occur.' The reality is we did have a global financial crisis. You look around the world and see the results of that and how they are still flowing through—how homes have been destroyed, how jobs have been destroyed, how whole communities have been destroyed by the impact of the global financial crisis. Under the Labor government, under Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard, we have steered through with a focus on jobs. That is the reality that I thought the member for Wide Bay would have touched on. That is the reality I thought the Leader of the Opposition would have touched on. The Leader of the Opposition understands these facts. I think he has a degree in economics. I thought he would have been aware of this.
The reality is the world has changed for those on that side of the chamber on two significant dates. Obviously, 24 November 2007 was a tough day for many of them when they got thrown out of government by the people of Australia. That was tough and some of them have never recovered. They churned through a couple of leaders—not deputy leaders, we still have a deputy leader who has loyally served three different leaders. We went through Brendan Nelson and the member for Wentworth and then moved on to the member for Warringah.
Then there was 1 December 2009—and didn't the world change for that side of parliament from that day onwards? I have only been a member of parliament since 24 November 2007, so I can only see it through that prism. I have had two parliaments to see it through—the 42nd Parliament and the 43rd Parliament. That is what my observations are based on. Remember 1 December 2009, when the Leader of the Opposition was wholeheartedly endorsed by his party room by one vote, with one spoiled ballot and one absent vote? But for that moment in history, the history of Australia could have been changed perhaps.
Then we go through to the election day and those 17 days of desperate negotiations from the Leader of the Opposition, where he was prepared to do anything. He made that clear. He made the call to the member for New England, saying, 'I will do anything.' I think he made it very clear as to what he would do to grab power. He was happy to have power without glory. That has been the journey ever since.
Let us look at what has gone on in the 43rd Parliament in particular. As I said, I am comparing the 42nd and 43rd parliaments. Let us look at some of the little things that have happened around this place under the Leader of the Opposition. First a simple little thing. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government used to play touch football every morning. The member for Rankin used to play—
Dr Emerson interjecting—
Mr PERRETT: I think the member for Rankin might be misleading the parliament there!
Dr Emerson: But not deliberately!
Mr PERRETT: But not deliberately. It was a very harmonious place, where people, irrespective of the party they came from, would go down and play touch football together. From 24 November 2007 the member for Warringah said he would not play touch football anymore. Then in the 43rd Parliament it changed again. He has actually frowned upon people even playing touch football together. So that has ceased.
What are the other things? I notice a member from the Labor Party on the Speakers' panel. The member for Warringah said, 'No member of the Liberal and National parties will be a member of the Speaker's panel, apart from the member for Maranoa.' He ordered that they would not contribute to the democratic process, thus on one level saying, 'We support the democratic process,' but on the very other giving specific direction that undermines the political process.
Let us look at some of those other white-anting processes—not just removing people from the Speaker's panel and not just removing people from participating in sports but saying no to everything in the legislative program. If you look at the percentage of votes in the 42nd Parliament where we had unanimous support from the parliament compared to the 43rd Parliament, it has decreased about 15 per cent. All those common-sense pieces of legislation that parliament just grinds out, irrespective of who is in power—which parties are on which side of the chamber—the member for Warringah has made it specific, has made it clear, has given directions to the Liberal and National parties that 'No!' is the starting point for any piece of legislation and then negotiations occur from there. What are the ramifications of that? That means that someone who has a sick child cannot even get a pair to go and see their kid. He has been white-anting democracy throughout—ever since 1 December but particularly since that election in 2010.
Why is that so? Maybe he has to examine his own soul in terms of the trap that he has laid for Australian democracy. Because he has such a naked desire to grab power at any cost, he has betrayed Australian democracy. Maybe that is something that happens. We are not dissimilar in age. Maybe as the member for Warringah is getting on in years he thinks: 'This is my chance. This is the time for me to make a mark on the world stage or the Australian stage'—or whatever stage he thinks he is strutting on. The reality is that he is prepared to do anything and bring down Australian democracy in that process—and to do so in a way which is so hypocritical. On the one hand he says, 'Oh, no, we are very bipartisan,' but at the very same time he is putting dog whistles out there in the community, sending out his spear throwers to attack great Australian institutions like the Public Service. Things that are normally supported in a bipartisan approach, this member for Warringah has undermined. He has undermined those democratic processes.
We all know that saying about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely. That is what we are staring at—the fact that we might be contemplating on 14 September. Imagine a leader of the government, a leader of this nation, who is prepared to do anything to gain power. If you do not have the moral compass, if you do not have a soul that dictates what you do, then you are a rudderless person. You are unable to make the correct decision, the moral decision, the right decision—the decision in the nation's interest. This 'hate song of J Alfred Prufrock' that we have been hearing since election day from the member for Warringah has, I think, created a festering in Australian democracy, and it will come home to roost if on 14 September the Leader of the Opposition is made the leader of the government—and heaven help us if that does take place. (Time expired)
WYATT ROY (Longman) (16:07): It is interesting to follow the bizarre lecturing of the member for Moreton on politicians doing anything to seize power. Perhaps he should spend some more time speaking to the Prime Minister or the member for Griffith, his neighbour in Queensland. But I rise to talk about what is becoming a matter of urgency: the need to install a new government of Australia that will put an end to the chaos and confusion that have seeped into everyday life, sapping confidence and dulling spirits. We are so much better than what the Labor Party has determined for us over the last 5½ years, and that is at the crux of this sorry story of the federal Labor government.
On our side of this place, we believe all Australians should have the right to self-determination along the precious journey that is their life. That is freedom to choose their path, not have it charted by the government. We believe that a hand-up will always be better than a handout; we believe in the idea that equality of opportunity is the great leveller in our society, not subsidy; and we believe in the principle that if you work hard you should be fairly rewarded for that hard work, not penalised. Indeed, we are bound by the idea that liberalism is the path to fairness and the knowledge that, conversely, enforced equality never liberates anybody.
Our nation deserves and is now hungering for a strong, steady, reliable government to fuel and reinvigorate our economy and return it to prosperity. To make that happen, we need to unlock the potential of the Australian people by removing government from their lives. On 14 September, the Australian people will have an important choice. On one side is a divided and dysfunctional Labor Party that is only focused on itself. As the member for Swan has often said to me, the Labor Party wants the Australian people to re-elect it on another dubious promise, not its performance. On the other side is a coalition that has positive plans for real solutions for all Australians.
We are ready to govern. We have the experience, the know-how and the attitude, and we have 12 rock-solid layers of policy priority. First, the coalition will build a strong, diversified economy by lowering taxes and delivering more jobs, higher real incomes and better services for all Australians. We will then secure this prosperity by reining in the budget and cutting the waste and mismanagement of Labor. The coalition are proven prudent financial managers who will keep interest rates as low as possible and safeguard the Australian economy from economic shocks. We will help families get ahead by abolishing the carbon tax, the world's largest carbon tax, which has proved a springboard for electricity and gas prices. By reducing taxes, regulations and onerous reporting requirements, we will help small businesses grow and expand to employ more Australians. We will cut red and green tape by $1 billion every single year. We will create even stronger job growth by building a diversified five-pillar economy, generating one million new jobs over the next five years and two million jobs within 10 years.
We are committed to building better and more modern roads and infrastructure to get things moving, with a special emphasis on reducing the bottlenecks on our gridlocked major roads and highways. We will deliver better services, including health services, by increasing cooperation with the states and territories and by putting local communities in charge of improving the performance of hospitals. Similarly, we will deliver better education by giving communities, parents and principals carriage in the running of their local schools. On the environment, we will take direct action to reduce carbon emissions within Australia, not overseas, as well as establishing a 15,000-strong standing green army to clean up the environment. We will deliver stronger borders when the boats are stopped with proven tough measures. Finally, our united and experienced team will deliver a strong and stable government set on restoring confidence and accountability. We are the team that will not only rebuild the economy but renew the bonds of trust between the Australian people and the parliament.
Perhaps it is because I am a product of generation Y or perhaps it is because, like my colleagues, I care about the future, but I am alert to the fact that Australians can no longer turn a blind eye to what is a brewing coalescence of intergenerational issues. We are now a land uniquely placed in the heart of a globalised world, between the dominant West and a rising Asia. While this changed landscape will assert its own influences, the next generation will face additional changes such as the ageing of our population. There will be a greater burden on a government drawing from a smaller revenue base. When the baby boomer generation fully leave the workforce, they will take with them not only their skills but their taxpaying capacity. While the preceding generation saw 2½ million Australians enter retirement, we are now on the brink of four million Australians edging towards retirement, about to draw on age pensions, pharmaceutical benefits and other assistance from government.
As a nation, it is absolutely critical that we meet this challenge from a position of strength. But instead, with the approach to this watershed challenge ticking down, this Labor government has chosen to pursue its own agenda and to turn inward and concentrate on its own political survival ahead of listening to real Australians—those hardworking Australians simply trying to make their way in life. In the shadow of an epoch of intergenerational challenge, this government has embarked on a sustained preoccupation with incompetency, broken promises and spin. Labor promised that there would be no carbon tax, yet we have a carbon tax. For this deceit, I am sorry to say that we are about to pay more. From 1 July, struggling businesses and family budgets will be hit with a five per cent rise in the carbon tax. It is another cruel blow for an already hamstrung economy, adding to cost-of-living pressures and placing jobs at risk. Under this federal Labor government, electricity prices have risen by 94 per cent nationwide and gas prices have increased by 62 per cent. On 1 July they will go up again.
A few days ago, I received an email from a local businessman who was closing his small to medium enterprise as a result of this government's taxes and regulation. He said:
I have conceded. That's it; I'm out.
While his story is especially tragic, the thrust of it has been echoed by many hard-working local business owners and managers who I have met over recent months.
One shop owner in Burpengary told me he was coughing up an extra $1,300 a month in carbon tax bills. Meanwhile, small business across the region has been damaged further by this government's overregulation and inflexibility in the workplace. A popular local coffee shop owner told me he wanted to expand and hire more staff, but rising overheads and reams of paperwork were a serious barrier.
In 5½ years, the Rudd-Gillard—now possibly Rudd—government has created 21,000 new regulations and 39 new or increased taxes. If a strong and stable government—a coalition government—are elected in September, we will keep income taxes cuts and fortnightly pension and benefit increases. So, that is tax cuts without a carbon tax, and, yes, we will cut red and green tape by at least $1 billion every year to give small business the chance to breathe, grow and thrive again.
While this Labor government has turned a $20 billion surplus under the Howard government into nearly $300 billion of debt, the next coalition government will draw only on its political pedigree and inheritance. It was Sir Robert Menzies who said:
We are a tax-reduction party.
Menzies understood, as the coalition does today, that:
… real tax reductions would be the best of all incentives to increased effort, earnings and production.
Australians require a government that will scrap unnecessary taxes, cut wasteful spending and reduce the tax burden on business. We need a government that is guided by the discipline that governments do not have any money of their own, just the people's money held in trust. We need a government that recognises that it may not have a solution to every problem, but, all too often, it is the problem. We need a government that does fewer things, but does them better.
This is the territory of the coalition: a government of hope, reward and opportunity. On 14 September, the could not be clearer.
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (16:17): It is a great pleasure to speak on today's matter of public importance about stable government and a strong economy. Stability of government can be measured in a very simple fashion. The measure is: can the government of the day propose and pass its legislative program through the parliament? The answer for the Gillard-Labor government is, definitively, yes. That is why more than 400 bills—I think, by my rough counting, 482—have passed this parliament since September 2010. There are a few people here saying that it could be even more than that, and they may all be right. I hope it is because it is a bigger measure of our success.
Every sitting day in this place since September 2010, we have heard the ranting, the complaints and the stream of abuse from those on the opposition benches and, dare I say it, their fellow travellers in the media. It is a common perception. The story of the day that comes up from the other side is usually read in the paper that morning. Despite all the words and rhetoric of September 2010 in the lead-up to Labor forming a minority government, the reality is that the Liberal and National parties have never accepted that they lost election in 2010. As the Leader of the House has said on so many occasions, it is the longest dummy spit in Australian political history, and I have to agree with him.
During the 17 days following the 2010 election, we saw statements from the Leader of the Opposition. He said he would dignify the parliament and respect whatever decision the crossbenchers made. We had the parliamentary reform agreement, which went to a point where the speakership would not have even been partisan, if that had gone the whole way through. The Liberals and the Nationals agreed to it, not under coercion, but voluntarily. It was signed by the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the crossbenchers.
Every sitting day, the Liberal and National parties' whole political strategy has been to wreck the parliament and disrupt the daily proceedings. The Leader of the Opposition has boasted about wrecking about the parliament. He has tried to do it on issue after issue. Who can forget the moving of more than 50 suspensions of standing orders by the opposition during question time in this parliament? Too lazy or too arrogant to ask questions of ministers during the time specially allotted to it, the opposition have repeatedly used up this time put aside for question time as a platform to deliver their media line of the day.
What we see, and continue to see, is the first opposition in Australia's is history that are not actually worried about policy, the details or the details of what is happening during the parliamentary day. They are more concerned about what the media line is for their side rather than worrying about the debates that affect the future of our country. I think the Australian public deserves far better than that. With their current numbers, the opposition form almost half the House, yet in spite of the fact that they are in a position, if they were to win support from the crossbenchers, to make a difference to the way this nation operates, in terms of policy, they have achieved nothing through this term of the 43rd Parliament.
The constant talking down of the Australian economy by the opposition for political advantage is proven wrong time and time again, yet it is so often repeated in the conservative press that one may well think it is Groundhog Day. For example, on 12 June this year a story ran that cited the private economist from Goldman Sachs who predicted that there was only a 20 per cent chance that Australia would head into recession. I suppose that is fair enough; he is entitled to his outlook as an economist, but so are the hundreds of other private-sector economists not all of whom share that same despondent outlook. So instead of fair or balanced coverage—let alone positive coverage—on that day we saw journalists, who should know better, blindly taking the hook, splashing the word 'recession' all over the headlines and lead paragraphs as though there was some consensus to this and that it was a credible view of our economy. The consequences, as we know, of this kind of misrepresentation about our economy live on for much longer than the 24-hour news cycle.
I would much rather rely on a credible authority, one who works as a highly respected senior public servant—indeed, the Secretary of the Treasury. As the Treasury secretary, Martin Parkinson, said earlier this month:
I do not think anybody should lightly throw around accusations that we are in recession or on the verge of recession. The most important thing when you think about economies is confidence. Trashing confidence, for whatever reason and however it is done, is not something that I think is in the national interest.
That was what Martin Parkinson, the Secretary of the Treasury, had to say, and I completely concur with that statement. But the newspaper report on 12 June was the third time in the last five years that economists from Goldman Sachs have predicted the same chance of a recession in Australia. Did these predictions come to be? No, they did not. But was it mentioned in any of the TV spots or newspaper headlines on the day? Of course not.
Too often we see both the Liberal and National parties—the opposition—determined to talk down our economy at every turn; to be slippery with the truth and to tell straight-out untruths about the economy. In particular, I am reminded of the opposition leader's pledge to return growth to the economy, which I find a bit strange. It is actually more than stretching the truth; you cannot return growth to something that already has it. Our economy is growing, so it is impossible to return growth to it.
Just because the Liberal and National parties cannot accept the facts it should not give licence to others outside this place who do know better but then ignore their responsibilities to base their assertions on reality. I think that is all that anyone can ask in this place—that the facts are put out there and that people can judge those. But when other assertions are made that have no factual basis, they should not get the same sort of coverage nor, indeed, any coverage unless they can be proven.
Australia has been through the GFC and we still, of course, have the effects of the GFC. But like so many of us who have been elsewhere during that time and seen the effects on other countries, I am always amazed at how much our domestic economy is talked down by people here, almost blindly, with regard to other countries across the world. I have been to Europe and other countries in that time and seen the effects on employment rates, on investment rates and on company profitability. It is something that is pervasive; it goes right through an economy and it drags people's wills down. I think that in Australia we are an optimistic bunch, most of us. We do look at the bright side of things because we have very good reasons to in this country—and that is a great thing.
Since late 2007 our economy has grown more than any major advanced economy to become the 12th largest in the world, climbing up from 15th. But if you look at that in terms of population we are only the 51st-largest country in the world. That is not a bad example for anyone to follow. We have unemployment with a rate that starts with a 'five' and an official cash rate at 2.75. And, even more importantly, from the point of view of someone who has a mortgage, we have a variable mortgage rate now at the bank that I use—Members Equity—of 5.63 per cent. One only has to think back to a few years ago when it was almost impossible to get a variable rate loan under 10 per cent. In fact, when my wife and I first took out our loan our house it started at nine per cent, and within six months it had gone over the 10 per cent rate. So if we look at how much mortgage rates have gone down over that period of time, the savings to households are huge.
The wiser households, rather than just spending that money on something else, of course have used it to pay down their debt. That is a good thing; that is a great thing, because so many people do worry about how much money they owe. That is fair enough. Having low interest rates is one of the best things that a government can do for our economy to help out people in that situation.
The position of strength that our economy faces is better than just about everywhere else in the world, but it is not the same world that we see those opposite living in. It always strikes me that where we see opportunity and where we see a future, from the other side of this place we see this never-ending stream of negativity. One would have thought that Australia had gone down the drain. Of course, it is far from it, and I will finish on this positive note: I know that the Gillard Labor government has been a great force for our economy through the GFC, to take us to where we are now and to lead us on to even better and brighter things in the future.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (16:27): I do appreciate the opportunity to speak on the MPI today. This MPI is about stability and this MPI is about a stronger economy. Having just listened to the member for Deakin, there was a fair bit of paranoia there. It was as if the media were against them; it was as if the opinion of the public had nothing to do with this. You would think that it was all just about our opinion over here as opposed to what so many people around the country are saying. If you look at the letters to the editor and if you look at not just the front pages but even the ABC—that network really does represent mainstream Australia, whatever that is: 41 per cent Green voters and 32 per cent ALP voters—
A government member interjecting—
Mr SIMPKINS: Even the ABC casts doubt on you guys! It is not just some right-wing media. Even the ABC has a go! The government just dismisses the instability. Have you really read what is going on? Do you really have confidence in the fact that people are behind you and your Prime Minister? The contrast on the other side is a team that is absolutely united behind someone who people can have trust in.
A government member: Who is that then?
Mr SIMPKINS: Yes—you would know that. It is the guy that the government has been talking about. Not a sentence goes past without the government mentioning Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition. Not a sentence goes past! It is like word bingo—
Government members interjecting—
Mr SIMPKINS: You guys have to live with it! You keep thinking that there is a liability here, when he is our greatest strength. He is someone with integrity, and that is in contrast to the Prime Minister—
A government member: Oh, it's Tony!
Mr SIMPKINS: That is so clear now. Even the ABC says that. Even the media says that. The Australian people say that as well. That is why there is so much instability over there, because you guys know it as well. You know what the liabilities are—and they are all sitting over there.
When we talk about what is going on around here, what the Australian people look to this place for, and look to any government for, is to make their lives better. That is why we are here. We are not here because we suddenly want to sit on that side. We are not here because we want the chequebook. We are here because we believe that this country can be a better place and that our role, everything we do, is about making the lives of people on the streets of our country better. That is what it is all about. It is not about who sits on that side. It is about the lives of the people of this country. That is why we are meant to be here and that is what we should be concentrating on.
I go out on the streets and I doorknock a lot. People come up to me in the shopping centres of my electorate, and even in some other places as well, and they talk about the things that are most important to them. They talk about three things constantly when I am out in my electorate. The first points are about trust and failures, which they talk about with regard to this government. There is the carbon tax: five days before the election the Prime Minister said 'no carbon tax under a government I lead' and after the election there is a carbon tax. Of course the deal had to be done with the Greens, so that was the very clear betrayal of the people by the Prime Minister.
On failures, there is the mining tax: the tax that has been negative for investment and cannot even recoup the money that the government now spends against that tax. There was a ban on cattle—that overreaction. What happened with that? It cast all sorts of problems on the north of Australia. It put Indigenous people out of work, caused businesses to fail, destroyed or damaged the livelihoods of so many people in the north and damaged our reputation with Indonesia. It was: 'Oh, yes, I've got a good idea'—because of some social media program, some ABC report—'let's suddenly just tell Indonesia we're not sending them any more food, just cut off the food.' No wonder they took that pretty hard. The surplus is another failure of this government. So many promises, so little delivery—pretty typical, sadly. And there is the NBN: a lot of problems these days, massive cost blow-outs, way behind schedule and now the asbestos fiasco as well. It just goes on and on.
Today the minister of mendaciousness, the man who uses the thesaurus to cast the word 'lies' across the chamber, had the gall to lecture us on Holden when this government presided over the departure of Ford from this country—$34 million and Ford ceased production on the day before the government's new emission standards started. That is not exactly a record they should be proud of.
The next point that people are raising is about the budget. Throughout my time here, since I was first elected at the end of 2007, on no occasion have the budget figures of surplus or deficit or even the predictions of the government figures ever matched up. They have always been worse than the government have predicted. There have also been the massive borrowings that now see gross debt closing in on $300 million, and apparently it will exceed that before the end of the year. And another betrayal, which I missed mentioning before, was on the private health insurance rebate: the government said they would not touch it but they have.
I am now running out of time, but the next point—which is a Western Australian thing, though I guess it is raised more and more across this country—is the government's failure on boats. This is the failure that former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd presided over. He assured us in this place that the changes he would make would not see the boats commence again. How wrong that was. We are now up to more than 700 boats and more than 44,000 illegal arrivals—all, of course, at the cost of those legitimate refugees who are out there in refugee camps around the world and do not have money to bypass the system. I ask: how compassionate is that?
This government is constantly on the lips of people who come up to speak to me about trust and failures, about Labor's budget failures and their mismanagement of the boats, the borders and immigration. Alternatively, what is required? What is required is the return of hope, reward and opportunity in this country, with a leader that can be trusted, backed up by an experienced team. As was said earlier, on the opposition front bench there are 16 former ministers and a team of people who have great experience from across business, from trades, from science, from so many different areas. That is what is available to the Australian people. So there is an alternative option here: a proven track record from a successful government, a government that knew how to control the borders, how to balance a budget, how to keep this country in good shape. Australians may choose to take up that opportunity, and that opportunity is coming in some 88 days.
There is a contrast. There is a leader with integrity, a front bench with experience and a back bench with a great range of skills across so many different areas. Alternatively, what have you got? The latest government play book will be about blue ties, raising state issues like abortion as if that is suddenly some sort of banner the Prime Minister can hang her hat on, and 457 visa attacks. That really does go to it, doesn't it? The Prime Minister would not want to talk about visas when she herself has a 457 visa holder in her office, but 457 visas is something the government wants to pursue. So there is a great contrast between integrity, trust and experience on this side and a proven mob of failures, of people without trust and with failures on budgets, immigration and boats.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! This discussion is now concluded.
BILLS
Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments—Excise) Bill 2013
Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Sidebottom.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (16:38): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013 and the Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 were introduced into the House of Representatives on 5 June 2013. These bills provide the mechanism to implement key elements of reforms to sugar research and development (R&D) arrangements requested by the sugar industry.
Under the reforms, the Sugar Research and Development Corporation (SRDC) and BSES Limited will be wound up and their assets and research and development functions, along with the research coordination activities of Sugar Research Limited, transferred to Sugar Research Australia Limited (SRA). SRA is an industry owned company recently established by the sugar industry.
The Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013 provides the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with the power to enter into a funding contract with an eligible company, currently proposed to be Sugar Research Australia Ltd to enable it to receive and invest levies collected by the Commonwealth for research and development. It will also allow it to receive the Commonwealth's matching funding for eligible research and development expenditure up to a determined funding cap.
Once the funding contract is in place and the minister is satisfied that SRA will comply with its contractual and statutory obligations, the minister can declare the company to be the industry services body.
The industry services body will be funded by a statutory levy of 70c per tonne of sugar cane that is processed, or sold for processing, to be paid equally by growing and milling businesses—35c per tonne each.
Currently, the Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 includes provisions that relate to imposition and collection of the sugar cane levy. It also covers matters arising from the transition to a new industry services body.
Section 55 of the Constitution states that laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.
Consequently, this bill together with the government's amendments to the Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, are required to ensure that the sugar reform legislation does not contravene section 55 of the Constitution.
The government has prepared amendments to the Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 to separate those provisions relating to imposition of the levy from those relating to collection and transitional matters by removing the imposition provisions. The imposition provisions are now included in this bill.
This will ensure the provisions relating to collection and transitional matters will have full effect. The policy and provisions remain unchanged. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
Charities Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (16:42): I have the pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. For some 400 years the definition of charity has been recognised through common law but today this bill seeks to introduce a definition of charity and charitable purpose from 1 January 2014 across all Commonwealth legislation and to enshrine it in statute. These changes, as with many other changes we see from this government, risk disadvantaging the very charities that we are seeking to support and creating a new wave of legal disputes and test cases at great cost to the sector and ultimately of no benefit to our communities.
Currently, charitable purposes are commonly categorised, following the terminology of the Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v Pemsel rulings as the four 'heads of charity'. These are: the relief of poverty; the advancement of education; the advancement of religion; and other purposes beneficial to the community. For a purpose to be charitable within the legal meaning under the common law, the purpose must be within the 'spirit and intendment' of the Statute of Elizabeth, and for the public benefit.
But now we see a change in all of that. The government say that they want to provide greater clarity and certainty for charities, the public and regulators in determining whether an entity is charitable—because they obviously do not believe in the people, the unpaid workers and volunteers who run these organisations. Through trying to provide 'greater clarity', the proposed amendment to the charitable purposes has been changed from the four 'heads of charity' to a list of 12. I do not know how that provides any greater clarity, so let us go through them for the sake of discussion:
advancing health;
advancing education;
advancing social or public welfare;
advancing religion;
advancing culture;
promoting reconciliation, mutual respect and tolerance between groups of individuals that are in Australia;
promoting or protecting human rights;
advancing the security or safety of Australia or the Australian public;
preventing or relieving the suffering of animals;
advancing the natural environment;
any other purpose beneficial to the general public that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, the above purposes;
promoting or opposing a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country, in furtherance or protection of one or more of the above purposes.
That is wonderfully clear. When I examined this legislation, one of the biggest issues I had, particularly because there are many people in the electorate of Forde relying heavily on this particular form of charity at present, was that nowhere in this legislation was the issue of housing reflected and it failed to list it as a defined charitable purpose.
Just this week, an article in the Albert & Logan News highlighted the issue of homelessness and the need for housing. The article stated:
TEN homeless people a week are being turned away at a Waterford homeless shelter before the harshest period of winter even begins.
The general manager, Jason Loakes, said that homeless people are trying to injure themselves, to get into a warm hospital bed, or are committing petty crimes to get a jail cell for the night. I spoke today to Lisa Loakes, the director of this not-for-profit shelter, Sheltered by Grace. She said that, unfortunately, at this time of year this happens. It is true that they have had to turn away at least 10 people on average each week. In Lisa's own words she described the Labor government's fiddling with the charity sector as a 'red-tape bonanza.' She said that the doubling-up of paperwork is unnecessary. She said that the fiddling with charitable purposes does not make any sense. Under existing charitable purposes 'housing' would sit under 'the relief of poverty' but under the new purpose guidelines the only place she could see where it could possibly fit was under 'advancing social or public welfare.' Lisa went on:
In many cases, advancing social or public welfare can only come after the relief of poverty. I don't believe that in Australia we are at the level of advancing social or public welfare. Changing the focus or not putting enough emphasis on preventing or relieving poverty, distress or disadvantage and instead focusing on "advancing" social or public welfare is not enough.
Lisa also went on to comment about some of the features of the new definitions. One of those was:
An entity must have only charitable purposes and must not have an independent, non-charitable purpose. An entity may have incidental or ancillary purposes that may be non-charitable when viewed in isolation but which must aid or further the charitable purpose.
Lisa commented on this particular provision:
Sometimes the independent, non-charitable component will actually fund or prop up the charitable purposes—there is a need to use discretion here so as not to stymy or restrict the work that NFP—
not-for-profit—
can actually do.
Another definition:
The purpose of preventing and relieving sickness, disease or human suffering, the purpose of advancing education, the purpose of relieving the poverty, distress or disadvantage of individuals or families, the purpose of caring for and supporting the aged or people with disabilities, and the purpose of advancing religion are presumed as being for the public benefit, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Lisa further commented:
There is a need to ensure that the definition incorporates the housing of individuals at risk of homelessness or domestic violence. Safe and appropriate housing is the first step in relieving poverty, distress or disadvantage and it may need to be listed independently to ensure that it is included in the new definition.
I am sure that Lisa would much rather be spending her time working on fundraising towards the $100,000 goal to expand the shelter to be able to provide more services but, as I have touched on and as we saw with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012, this sector is getting buried in more and more red tape.
A spokesman from the Salvation Army in Beenleigh was also quoted in this article in the Albert & Logan News, saying that over the past weekend she had been contacted by three families looking for accommodation. She was only able to find one of those families a home because nearby facilities were stretched ahead of winter.
She said, 'Most families are really only a pay packet away from homelessness' and she is not the only person in the electorate of Forde to tell me that.
It is people such as Lisa and the wonderful volunteers at Sheltered by Grace who are part of a terrific community of volunteer workers in Forde. They include organisations such as Nightlight, NAPCAN, Helping out Children, Fishers of Men, the Queensland Youth Housing Coalition, Eagleby Salvation Army, Soroptomist, local Lions Clubs, Rotary, the Eagleby Community Association, the Benevolent Society, St Vincent de Paul, On the Edge, Rosies, Quota, Junior Quota, Beenleigh PCYC, Tudor Park PCYC, local Probus clubs, Neighbourhood Watch, Beenleigh Scouts and the Loganlea Community Centre.
It is these organisations that provide such tremendous services in our community to those who are struggling. Our local food welfare services include Lighthouse Calvary Care, the Twin Rivers Centre, the Soul Centre, Upper Coomera Community Pantry and Centro Care. Together these organisations support hundreds of locals doing it tough.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the wonderful volunteers of these organisations and many others for being the backbone of our local charities and the saviours of those who are less fortunate. Without their dedication, selflessness and devotion to improving the lives of others, the community as a whole would suffer.
As we have seen frequently over the past six years, we face a Labor government that believes in big government and small communities. Yet there is an alternative: the coalition side of politics, where we believe in small government and big communities. I remain passionate about continuing to work out how we can all get these wonderful community organisations and charities together in our community so we can continue to identify and solve problems as they arise—hopefully without the need for the government to get involved. But, as we have seen with the legislation last year and this bill today, we keep facing hurdles of increased red tape at the very time when these organisations are working their hardest to solve the problems in our community. I call on the government not to proceed with this legislation and to allow our community and charity sectors to do the work that they are there to do: to look after and care for the needy in our community, not to get caught up in the unnecessary regulatory burden that this government keeps imposing on our community. This legislation 'appears' to be doing something for our charities; but, at the end of the day, it is not solving the problems for this sector. It is only creating more.
As has been said by the previous coalition speakers on this bill, we will be opposing this legislation because of the negative impact it has on the people who are doing some of the best work in our communities to fix up problems that are being created in our communities by the failed policies of this Labor government.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (16:54): Ronald Reagan famously said:
… government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
That cannot be much truer than on this piece of legislation. I rise to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013—bills which encompass everything that is wrong with the Gillard Labor government and the general labour movement. This is bad legislation from a bad government; and, if the coalition is fortunate enough to be elected on 14 September, we will repeal it. Big, centralised government, red tape, regulation—that is what this bill is all about. It seems that not even the charities are safe from this Labor government. Our priceless volunteers are being picked on by this Labor government.
The definition of charity is hundreds of years old, a common law that is older than the settlement of Australia itself, and yet here we have a Labor government less than five years old that thinks it knows best about these sorts of things. It knows better than the test of time.
So on this side of the House we support civil society. We trust and want to empower civil society because we know how fundamentally important that is to our freedom. In the coalition we are so proud that we stand to protect the institutions that have shaped modern society as we know it today and that will support the growth of civilisation into the future.
If we look into the bill a little bit further we see that it 'appears' that, as part of this new charity order, opposing a political party or candidate may very well be a disqualifying purpose, the purpose mechanism being that which defines what constitutes a charity. So I pose the question: does this mean that, if a charity is to express dissatisfaction with and/or oppose a government decision, they will be disqualified as a defined charity? Our strong democracy is the root of our society. It defines what we are as a people, and we are a great people. It is of great concern that this is a government that wants to interfere with charities.
I am involved in a number of charities myself, including SIDS and Kids NT and the Cancer Council, and I know firsthand how important our volunteers and these charitable organisations are to our community. Charitable work is akin to freedom of speech. Charitable work is the way in which many fine people express themselves, so Labor now wants to vet them too.
There are extreme elements of both the Labor government and the union movement that I can see and I fear will want their hand on this disqualifying purpose. Would that be to see a charity supporting Israel perhaps refused registration under this mechanism? It is laughable for the Labor government to assure that its legislation has been designed—
Dr Emerson: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take deep offence personally and on behalf of the Australian Labor Party and ask that it be withdrawn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): What is the point of order?
Dr Emerson: The point of order related to banning any charity that supports Israel. That is a disgraceful comment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Solomon, to assist this House, will withdraw.
Mrs GRIGGS: It is outrageous but, if it pleases the House, I will withdraw.
But it is laughable for the Labor government to assure us that this legislation has been designed to prevent this sort of discrimination. This bill is absolute nonsense. Big Brother's fingerprints are all over this bill. I believe it is also very important to look at the small charities—those charities that are there to support the families in Darwin and Palmerston when they need help. What is going to happen to them? Many of these small charities are run by volunteers who give up time to help vulnerable members of our community and who are now to be expected to spend time doing annual reports or audits to make it easier for the bureaucrats in Canberra to keep track of them. This is absolutely farcical.
What worries me most—and maybe you will have the answer, Mr Deputy Speaker—is who will decide what constitutes a charity? I see no evidence that will ensure that this person will be impartial, and even if this Labor government tell us that they are impartial, how can we trust them? If we just remember back to the failed Big Brother internet filter that Labor tried to introduce back when they were first elected, it was made up of a black list that was only meant to stop child pornography and other illegal content. Yet, somehow, a Brisbane dentist got onto that list. This Labor government have a terrible track record of implementing policies—we all know that. We just have to look at the pink batts, the cash for clunkers, the digital set-top boxes—just to name a few. The Rudd and Gillard experiments have failed. The socialist, Big Brother approach of Labor over the past five years has failed. Debt, deficit and waste—that is all they have to show for it.
I believe it is also important to raise the issues that will affect future generations. There is no evidence in the legislation that this bill will provide the flexibility to adapt the definition of 'charity' in the future. If a new issue were to arise in the future and individuals wished to set up a charity to provide for it, how would provisions be provided to allow the changing of this definition? The answer is that they do not know. This is yet another example of Labor's policy on the run. What I also find astounding is that Prime Minister Gillard and the Labor government would bring this piece of legislation through the parliament at this time. They are trying to rush it through, like they have done so many times before. We all remember the media reforms, do we not? This Labor government have such little faith in its own well-intentioned citizens that it cannot overlook the enormous problems confronting Australians to introduce such uncalled for laws.
This legislation should be consigned to the rubbish bin. Instead, the Labor government should be concentrating on reeling in their wasteful spending, securing our borders and solving their leadership tensions, so that the people of my electorate in Darwin and Palmerston can once again feel certain about their futures. But that will never happen. The election is only 88 days away and we are not even certain who will lead the Labor Party to the election. Will it be the Prime Minister, the member for Griffith or perhaps the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations? The people of my electorate, of Darwin and Palmerston, tell me that 14 September, just 88 days away, cannot come soon enough. They are tired of the Gillard Labor government soap opera.
This legislation, as I said, needs to be put in the bin—just like the Labor government. Australians are looking for strong leadership and a plan. They are tired of the Gillard Labor government, which is mired in chaos and indecision, demonstrating day after day that it is hopelessly divided and dysfunctional. But there is another way: the coalition can deliver Australia with the strong, stable and accountable government that our country needs. We have a positive plan based on hope, reward and opportunity, and that plan will delivery a stronger and prosperous economy and a safe and secure future.
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (17:03): Perhaps the key difference between the coalition and the Labor Party is our view on the size and the role of government. The Labor Party, with its socialist roots, has always believed in big government. It believes that the government should be at the centre of economic activity, as Kevin Rudd has articulated, and that it should be the answer to almost every social ill in the nation. If there is a problem then government is the solution, according to the Labor Party. This view leads to a government which grows over time and reaches into almost every aspect of our society. On the other hand, the coalition believe in small government, but big individuals and big communities. Our view is that there is a role for government, but that it should be minimal in order to allow maximum freedom for individuals, for families and for communities. We firmly believe that a society is at its best when there is a strong, civic engagement from people acting voluntarily for the betterment of their community. That is the context in which we debate this bill: what the central role of government is and what the role of government is vis-a-vis the community sector. As I said, we firmly believe in fostering volunteerism and a strong civil society.
The name of the bill that we are debating today suggests that it is relatively inconsequential. It is called the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, and I would imagine that this bill will not receive much media attention or publicity—there is virtually nobody on the Labor side of the House who is speaking on this bill or discussing it—and that there will not be much debate after the members of the coalition have spoken in relation to it. But this bill is actually immensely important and deserves considerable scrutiny, because it will impact hundreds of organisations, it will potentially have a significant impact on taxpayers and it will overturn 400 years of history.
For those three reasons, it is an immensely important bill that does deserve considerable scrutiny and I believe it deserves to be rejected. I am encouraged that so many people—at least in the coalition—are taking this bill very seriously and are debating it, analysing it and working out what it means for the Australian community. I must say that I am disappointed that the government has put this through without much debate or consultation, and that there is so little interest amongst the Labor members on the other side of the chamber to even speak on this bill or to put forward its particular case.
The bill seeks to introduce a definition of 'charity' and 'charitable purpose'. This definition would apply from 1 January next year and would apply across all Commonwealth legislation. Up until this point the definition of 'charity' has not previously been legislated in statute. Rather it has been based on 400 years of common law. It developed and evolved in a methodical manner through the common law system. The common law system over these 400 years has settled on a pretty clear definition of what a charity is. A charitable purpose is commonly characterised to fall within one of four categories: the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion and for other purposes beneficial for the community. These definitions have served us well. Those four definitions were most clearly articulated in a British House of Lords case—the Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v Pemsel in 1891—and that has served us very well.
My key critique of this bill is that there has been no rationale as to where the problems with the current definition lie. My view is that if something is not broke we should not try to fix it. It is incumbent upon those who are putting forward a change to prove where the problem lies and to articulate how that proposal will fix that problem. This government have done no such thing. They have not come in here and outlined where the problems currently lie in relation to that 400-year-old definition of charity. They have not then gone and said, 'Due to those problems, we are going to introduce these measures which will fix those problems.' Far from it—they have introduced this relatively out-of-the-blue. They have had almost no speakers articulate the case for it and they will no doubt guillotine this bill through the parliament, as they have guillotined all the other bills over the last couple of weeks in the dying days of this parliament.
Why does this matter? The definition matters because if an organisation is characterised as a charity they get great privileges. Those privileges are largely financial ones. It means they do not have to pay income tax. It means they typically will not have to pay GST. Usually it leads to them having charitable status from the point of view of being able to receive donations and those donations being tax deductible. So it confers enormous financial privileges to be deemed a charity. At its essence, we as a parliament representing the people need to take great care in determining what actually should be the definition of organisations that should have those benefits conferred upon them so they will be getting, in essence, financial assistance to do their work.
As I said, that 400-year-old definition appears to have worked. There has been no outcry for it to change. There have been no great movements of people knocking on our doors to change that 400-year-old definition. It has worked. Those individual entities that have not been able to get charitable status, and hence have been unable to receive donations and be able to make donations tax deductible for donors, have been able to make a submission to the government and to the parliament to have their particular organisation listed for deductible gift status, DGR status, which then enables them to receive donations that are tax deductible. It is something which many organisations obviously seek. So the system works at the moment and I believe there is no reason to change it.
My second concern in relation to this bill is that it changes the definition from four categories into almost eight to 10 categories of charitable purpose. This includes advancing health, advancing culture, promoting or protecting human rights and advancing the security or safety of Australia or the Australian people. It includes advancing the natural environments and the catch-all category of promoting or opposing a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a state, a territory or another country and furtherance for protection of one or more of the above purposes. We have gone from having a relatively narrow defined definition of charity which we can all accept to one outlined here which is enormously broad.
My concern with this very broad definition is not necessarily the financial aspect of it to the Commonwealth but rather because I think it will lead to the breaching of one of those core principles over which we have had bipartisan agreement for a long time and which there has been no outcry to change. That is the broad principle: that political advocacy should not attract public funding and should not attract any financial or public benefits for it. That has been the broad principle which there has been agreement on across this parliament for a long time. We have not allowed that in the past.
In fact, this bill specifically says that political parties will not receive charitable status, but it allows many other organisations to receive charitable status through these provisions which are not charities and really are political organisations. I think particularly many of the green groups that we know that can be aggressively political will seek charitable status under this new definition, should this bill pass this parliament. I believe that many of those green groups do not act in the interests of our nation; therefore, I do not believe that the Australian people would think that it is right that some of their taxes should go towards subsidising green activities. I raise a particular example of the Wilderness Society. It is an organisation which is known very well and which has run an enormous campaign to lock up Cape York Peninsula against the wishes of the traditional owners. And many of those traditional owners and many of the Cape York leaders, led by Noel Pearson, want to be able to have sensible development in their communities so that they can be beneficiaries—they can grow fruit, they can raise cattle, they can have other businesses and therefore help sustain their communities—and have economic developments in their area.
The Wilderness Society ran a huge campaign to try to make that impossible. They were so successful that they managed to convince the previous Bligh government to pass a series of laws—the wild rivers legislation—which had the practical impact that no businesses were able to start up throughout most of Cape York Peninsula. It is fine for the Wilderness Society to run that sort of political activity—we live in a free society and we allow such activities to occur—but my argument here today is that such an organisation should not receive any public support for doing such an activity, because I do not believe that their activity supports the overall benefit of the nation. In fact, it was contrary to the interests of Indigenous people who have been looking after that land for thousands upon thousands of years.
That is just one example, but it goes to the key principle that I have been articulating: that Australian taxpayers' funds should not be directed to organisations for political activity. I believe if we pass this legislation we will have many organisations who otherwise may not fit the present common law charitable definition that I outlined fitting under the definition of 'advancing culture', 'advancing the natural environment' or 'promoting or protecting human rights' and therefore be, in essence, recipients of special tax treatment.
This bill is not a good bill. We have not had a case for a change made by this government. It has not been made in this parliament. I know that many in the charitable sector are concerned about this bill. They are concerned that the charities commission that will oversee the operation of this bill, that will make decisions in relation to who is given charitable status, may not operate as well as the government says it will operate. They are concerned that it will add red tape to its activities, which will just cost those organisations money rather than that money going towards doing the good work that they do in the communities.
Our existing charities—the Salvation Armies of the world, the St Vincent de Pauls of the worlds, the Red Crosses of the world—do fantastic work in our community. We want to support those organisations. We want to support the volunteering in our community, but we do not think that we should be completely changing the definition of charity and, through that process, enabling a lot of political activity to, in essence, be deemed to be charitable activity, which I do not think it is.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (17:18): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. In rising to speak, I note that this government's enthusiasm for prescriptive Canberra-led social engineering really knows no bounds. The coalition are opposed to the legislation that is before the House this afternoon. We believe that the case for these extensive changes to the regulation of charities and to the law determining the definition of charities has not been made. We believe that this is a case, yet again, of this Rudd-Gillard government deciding that officials in Canberra know best and that what we need are pages of prescriptive, detailed, intrusive microregulation setting out—in paragraph after tedious, enumerated paragraph—minor gradations of policy, which must be followed in scrupulous detail by members of the community who are trying to advance the cause of recipients of the needs that their charity serves. We believe that what this bill demonstrates once again is the profound gulf between the attitude of the Labor Party and of the coalition towards charities and towards people who are seeking, through their own voluntary efforts, to make our society a better place.
In the time that I have available to me, I want to make three fundamental points: first, that this bill is yet another example of this government's deep suspicion of the charitable sector and its deep hostility to the notion of people within our community making an effort themselves to improve our community, to improve our nation; second, that the specific merits of the definition that is proposed in this legislation raise serious questions; and, third, that on this side of the House we take a genuinely small 'c' conservative position. If the case has not been made out for change, then do not change. We believe, when it comes to this bill, the case has not been made out for change.
Let me turn firstly to the proposition that the approach of this government to the question of the regulation of charities is very different to the approach that the Liberal and National parties would take. On our side of the House, we congratulate those who carry out charitable endeavours. We congratulate all of those who serve on the boards of charities, all of those who organise raffles, all of those who organise fundraising balls and dinners and all of those who organise fun runs and sausage sizzles. There are so many other day-to-day examples of people in our communities coming together to raise money for important causes. It might be an educational cause such as funding the opportunity for children in rural and regional Australia to get education in the cities. In mentioning that, I think of one particular charity in my own electorate. It might be the running of a school, a hospital or an aged-care facility. It might be the operation of a church. All of these things are done around our country by voluntary organisations, charitable organisations.
We on our side of the House congratulate all involved and we ask ourselves the question: why is it that the default attitude of the Rudd-Gillard Labor government is that people who are engaging on a voluntary basis in raising money for charitable purposes and people who are engaging on voluntary basis in providing charitable services be treated with suspicion? Why is it that this government has set up an Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission that will dramatically increase the regulatory burden on charities, one that falls particularly upon charities that are run by volunteers, as opposed to paid employees? Why is it that this government has done that when purportedly it was going to achieve a single layer of regulation for the charitable sector? Instead, as has been conceded by officials of the new commission, in fact the premise that the states were going to vacate the field and leave it to a single, uniform national layer of regulation of charities has not been made out and the states have not agreed to do that. It is for that reason, amongst others, that the coalition have been very clear that we intend to abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.
The point I make to the House this afternoon is that the Charities Bill 2013 before the House is redolent of the very same suspicion of the volunteers running charities around Australia which we saw in the earlier legislation establishing the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. So the point I make to the House is that the philosophical hostility of the Labor Party to self-help efforts, to community based efforts and to people doing things for themselves rather than looking to Canberra is deeply embedded in the legislation we see before us this afternoon. Inherent in it is the notion that we must have further and more detailed and more prescriptive supervision of the charitable field from Canberra, that we must have page after page of detailed enumerated rules as to what constitutes a charity and what does not, and that if a likely consequence of that is that there will need to be a wave of litigation, testing the breadth of this new definition, apparently this is a cost that simply has to be borne so that the near-infinite wisdom here in Canberra can be sprinkled like stardust over the charitable sector. We on this side of the House reject that approach. There is a clear philosophical division between the parties in our attitudes towards the charitable sector, and let nobody say that the two major political parties are coming closer and closer together because in area after area they are not. We on the coalition side of the House are pleased to stand up and nail our colours to the mast and say we reject extra prescriptive regulation of the charitable sector and we support the ordinary people of Australia who are working in so many charitable endeavours around the country. That is what we support, that is what we encourage and that is what we celebrate, and for that reason we stand opposed to the provisions in the bill before the House this afternoon.
Secondly, I want to turn to the merits, such as they are, of the definitions which are contained in the legislation before us and I do so against the backdrop of making the point that the meaning of 'charitable purpose' has not previously been comprehensively legislated. We have previously relied upon the common law, that golden thread based upon many hundreds of years of British and subsequently Australian jurisprudence. Under the common law, there are the famed four heads of charity, which I well remember being drummed into the heads of students of trust law at the University of Sydney in the late eighties, including me. The four heads of charity set out in the relevant case are the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion, and other purposes beneficial to the community. Now the point I make is that against the simplicity of this background we have the page after page of complexity set out in this bill, demonstrating, as it does, the anxious, never-ending bureaucratic impulse to add more detail, more regulation and more prescriptive control—so more of the 'Canberra knows best mindset', which is so common in everything that this government does.
We have this lengthy range of charitable purposes set out in the definition before us. We have many different heads of 'advancing health', 'advancing education', 'advancing religion', 'promoting reconciliation, mutual respect and tolerance', 'promoting or protecting human rights', 'advancing the natural environment' et cetera. There is 'any other purpose beneficial to the general public that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of' the aforementioned purposes and there is also:
… the purpose of promoting or opposing a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country …
The length, complexity and breadth of this definition raise serious questions in the view of the coalition as to the certainty with which these provisions will operate and as to the basis on which it has been thought necessary to change the existing and well-established law as to the definition of a charity and as to the definition of a charitable purpose. I remind the House that this is a question which was considered by the previous Howard government. At that time, after an extensive investigation into the issues and after an extensive investigation into the question of whether there was in fact a need to vary the existing, well-established common law definition of a charity and the definition of charitable purposes, a view was taken that it made sense to extend the definitions in a small number of defined categories. Hence, the coalition government at the time enacted the Extension of Charitable Purpose Act, which extended the legal definition of 'charity' for the purposes of Commonwealth law to include child care, self-help groups and closed religious orders.
That brings me to the third point I want to make this afternoon, which is: has the onus of proof been discharged by the Rudd-Gillard government that there is now a pressing case to throw all of that long-settled and long-established law out the window—to throw out of the window 400-plus years of common law as expanded by the bill and an act passed in 2004 following careful scrutiny? Has a case been made to throw all that out the window and replace it with the extensive provisions contained in the Charities Bill 2013? That is the question which this government needs to answer and, more importantly, that is the question to which this parliament needs to turn its mind, because we are being asked this afternoon to change in a fundamental way the definitions of 'charity' and 'charitable purposes' which have served this nation and other nations under the common law so well for such a long time.
As the House considers the case as to whether the merits of that change have been established, as the House considers the case as to whether it makes sense for us to support this change to the law which is proposed by the Rudd-Gillard government, it would be irresponsible not to bear in mind a range of factors. The first factor that we need to bear in mind, as I have already alluded to, is the clear and demonstrated hostility of this government to the voluntary ethos on which so much of today's charitable endeavour depends. This is a government which is hostile to the notion of people in the community doing things for themselves. It is hostile to the notion of community organisations conducting their activities in an unsupervised way. What this government wants to do is extend the long arm of Canberra ever more closely into the activities of charities around the country. Against the backdrop of that proven hostility toward the charitable sector, we need to consider the proposed changes before us.
The other thing we need to consider is this government's proven track record of rushing legislation through without having properly consulted with the affected sectors, without having made the case and leaving things until three minutes to midnight. That is clearly what has happened here. This bill is one of a large backlog of bills which the government is rushing through. The coalition looks at this bill with clear and justified suspicion based upon the track record of this government. The government needs to make the case of why there needs to be change and that case has not been made out. (Time expired)
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (17:33): I rise to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. I believe that strong local communities are critical to the future of our nation and I believe it is our job as parliamentarians to help facilitate stronger, healthier and more vibrant local communities in our electorates. As parliamentarians we are elected to support our local communities by empowering local not-for-profits and charities to carry out their work in a way that effectively addresses the specific needs of our community.
Only our local community charitable organisations see day in, day out the real nature of what is happening on the ground in our communities. The people who are involved in the not-for-profits often are there at the coalface and see both the demand that is required of their charitable organisation and the challenges that people are confronted with because of decisions that are made in the context of their life and the life changes that occur, sometimes by their own doing but often not—often by policy changes and shifts. They are ideally placed to deliver targeted services meeting individuals where they need assistance. Rather than trying to deliver misplaced assistance, these local charities are the ones who offer a hand-up to our community members who are less fortunate, helping them get back on their feet.
In my role I have seen time and time again the difference that the charitable organisations make to the overall wellbeing of my community. I have also been a contributor and a member of many not-for-profit and charitable organisations in the endeavours to make a difference for the quality of life of people by providing opportunities for families and individuals who require support across a range of sectors. In particular, Indigenous organisations were the focus of my work in my early years but, as I became much more attuned to the needs across the diverse demographic of the community in which I lived, I contributed many hours to helping attain the goals of those organisations. In fact, only last Friday night I recognised several groups from my own electorate who were doing a great job in serving our local community in various ways.
What confounds me is why this government is intent on doing its very best to attack this sector. Why is this government trying to interfere with what these organisations do best? These bills are the latest incarnation of a saga that has been dragging on for a couple of years now under this government. This government has a bee in its bonnet about charities and seems determined to introduce government interference into a sector that has been quietly going about its business for many years. The whole issue of compliance and the time it takes, taking people away from frontline services and delivery in the context of already strained resources, is problematic. Many I have spoken to have no problems with the fact that there is a compliance requirement, but the degree of that compliance and the reach of Canberra into the work they do will only be a further impediment to their work and their focus on making a difference to the lives of so many people who require their help.
In May 2011, this government signalled that it would be making substantial changes to the NFP sector. This government announced that it would be giving the industry less than two months to understand and accommodate changes which were to come into effect in July 2012. There was such an outcry from the sector at the fact that this government would want to impose these changes without consultation and without a reasonable time frame, and this government finally bowed to pressure to extend the deadline by just a few months, and that was done. Despite this, in talking with charitable organisations and not-for-profits within my community—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr WYATT: Whilst you might say they are not true, I certainly take the word of those on the ground about the pressure put on them. You may not have directly done that, but certainly government agencies in the consultation may have done that. I do not have a problem with what they share with me. Despite this, when the government released the bills and the terms of reference for a committee inquiry into changes, stakeholders were given just nine days to make submissions relating to the bills. This alone illustrated this government's blatant disrespect for this sector and the contribution it makes to our nation. Perhaps this government fails to realise that our country benefits from more than 730 million hours of volunteers' time each year from over six million Australians.
It would be good, Minister, if you had some frank discussions upfront with people who deliver on the ground, because I am sure that they would appreciate the opportunity to let you know firsthand what it is that you are expecting of them and how there will be a drawing away from the front-line services that they deliver. Many of the hours that are contributed to our communities through volunteering are conducted through charities. This is a sector that is obviously for the most part well trusted by local communities. If we take that trust list in the paper today then they do far better than politicians do. It is a sector that has earned the dedication and generosity of many volunteers, who align themselves with the many and varied charities.
This government is attempting to put a spanner in the works of a system that is working well. This government is creating government interference through legislating for a sector which has been working effectively for many years. This is why I am strongly opposed to this legislation. This legislation seeks to introduce definitions for 'charity' and 'charitable purpose'. This legislation would ensure that these definitions would apply from 1 January 2014 across the entire scope of the Commonwealth government. Effectively, this legislation is attempting to regulate the not-for-profit sector through a troublesome bureaucracy that would itself make determinations on the charitable status of an organisation.
The definition of charity has been used for over 400 years. It is certainly not a new concept and it is not a concept that requires any redefinition in the way that it is occurring. Our understanding of 'charity' under common law has served us well for all of this time with the wisdom of those who have gone before us. Where is the sense in fixing something that is not broken, has served the community well and is there when it is required by those who have the need to draw on charities' services and support?
This government has pursued this legislation under the assumption that it is considering landmark changes that have not been mooted previously. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 2000, the former Prime Minister John Howard announced that there would be an inquiry into this sector. After an extensive inquiry resulting in 27 recommendations, which were then debated extensively, the coalition made the decision to legislate to add to or enhance the common law, not to overrule it. It did not make sense then to redefine charities, and it does not make sense now.
There is no sense in what this government is trying to achieve through this legislation, which is why, if elected, a coalition government would repeal this legislation. This Labor government seems to have an innate distrust of civil society, which is demonstrated in its repeated attempts to mandate more burdensome regulation and to create more government agencies to look over civil society's shoulder. The last thing that this sector needs is the burden of more red tape.
Some months ago I was speaking with stakeholders that I interact with in my electorate and through my various committee commitments. The information that was shared with me was that it appeared that this government's decision to overhaul this sector would mean that organisations would need to put on one full-time staff member simply to cover the costs incurred through the additional red tape and paperwork. It hardly seems sensible to be taking the focus of these community-oriented organisations away from the community and to paperwork simply because this government is determined to undermine a sector that is doing so much good in our local communities. Strong communities are communities that are self-sufficient. They are communities that are able to identify the needs of schools, families and individuals and are able to meet these needs through goods and services.
Unlike those opposite, we in the Liberal Party have a great respect for what our charitable organisations deliver into our local communities. The coalition support civil society, we trust civil society and we want to empower civil society. Labor's approach is to treat civil society with suspicion and distrust. The UK experience demonstrates how dangerous it would be to empower public servants to determine what is charity and what is not, particularly given the range of organisations that exist across a number of key areas and those that evolve in times of extreme need to provide a service for a troubled family or community. We have announced that we will abolish the ACNC and will repeal the legislation, and we certainly are not committed to creating a new army of bureaucrats looking over the shoulder of civil society. Organisations such as St Vinnie's, the Red Cross, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Salvation Army et cetera are trusted pillars of the community. The community trusts civil society and the coalition trusts civil society. It is Labor that assumes we should look over civil society's shoulder and force them to comply with these overburdensome regulations. Doing so takes them away from their front-line service.
The challenge, in terms of regulations, is that they are dependent upon interpretation at the various national, state and regional levels, and you will often get varied opinions as to where an organisation may be in contrast to what is required under those regulations and how they should proceed with respect to both their reporting and the information provided. What I am interested in is the final outcome of what those reports will mean and how they will be used, other than for the collection of data that may make not one iota of difference in the way that they operate. Alternatively, the risk is the collapse of charitable and non-profit organisations because of the compliance requirements that are enshrined in this legislation. The government have not demonstrated the mischief that the ACNC was established to deal with.
More broadly, we have announced that we will streamline the regulation as it applies to family service agencies. The coalition will oppose this bill and if we are elected, as I have said earlier, we will repeal it, because we believe that these organisations provide an invaluable service to the communities in which they function, operate and are located. Minister, it would have been good for you to have spent some time with some of those key organisations within the Perth metropolitan area—or certainly within my electorate—because they would have shared with you their concerns and views about a whole range of issues.
Mr Bradbury interjecting—
Mr WYATT: Minister, the process can still occur if you wish to sit and listen. But I would also then expect you—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms O'Neill ): Through the chair if we can, please, Member for Hasluck.
Mr WYATT: Sorry, Deputy Speaker. I would certainly invite the minister, after the next election, to go back and revisit some of those organisations to get an on-the-ground sense of the frustration that they will experience because of what the government are establishing. It is a pity in a sense that the consultation process was not so comprehensive that the truth of the impact on these organisations was better understood, and it would certainly have reflected that there is strong opposition to many aspects of the increased burden of regulation and red tape, which may shift people from front-line services—away from those very things that I have heard argued about in this chamber that are making a difference for battling families and for communities who require the types of services offered by these organisations. It is a pity that the minister has not consulted much more strongly. I conclude on that comment.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (17:47): I am very pleased to be able to sum up the debate on the Charities Bill 2013. Perhaps it is because I am an idealist, but I really do hold very dear to my heart the notion that members who come into this place and seek to purport to represent their communities might actually read the bill that they are debating rather than reading the talking points that have been shabbily and hastily put together by the shadow minister. I know that there have been various contributions, and I want to really focus my response to those contributions around a couple of points.
I begin by saying that I welcome the member for Hasluck's contribution to the debate. He made a range of allegations about a lack of consultation. I am not aware of any previous efforts on his part to bring any organisations that have concerns about this legislation to my attention. Had he done so, I would have done what I am about to do now, and that is to extend to him the opportunity either to bring those organisations here to Canberra or to facilitate some sort of contact. I would be more than happy to meet with them. If he is fair dinkum, he will take me up on that offer. He made a number of claims about how people on the government's side have no understanding of charities. Indeed, he said, 'All they want to do is saddle charities with red tape.' Let me just remind the member for Hasluck—who, like me, was not in this parliament when his side of politics were in government—that I took a very close and active interest in the charitable and not-for-profit sector back then. I recall very well the treatment that the not-for-profit and charitable sector were subjected to under the coalition government.
I begin with gag clauses. He waxes lyrical about how they want to support the not-for-profit sector. They wanted to support them so much while in government that they slapped gag orders on them. They shut them up and shut them down. They cut their funding if they spoke out.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: The member opposite said, 'Don't be so ridiculous.' Right across the charitable and not-for-profit sector people are in fear that if there were to be a change in government you characters will return to type and do exactly what Newman has done in Queensland and O'Farrell has done in New South Wales to silence these organisations. The member opposite said that this is just additional red tape and that we have a tried and tested definition of charity; it is in the common law and it has been there for 400 years. You know what? The Commonwealth of Australia has not been around for 400 years. In fact, white settlement in Australia did not begin 400 years ago. The point is that the definition of 'charity' goes all the way back to the statute of Elizabeth. I know that those opposite have a penchant for the mother country. So dear is that to them that they want to retain in place a definition of 'charity' that began with the statute of Elizabeth in 1601.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: The member opposite said that the wheel was invented a lot earlier than that. He is contributing in his Neanderthal way. I thank the member for his contribution. The point is that this is a definition that has evolved over a period of 400 years. I want to share with the member for Hasluck a personal experience. When I first began as a tax lawyer many years ago undertaking a pro bono project for a charitable client, they came in and said: 'We want to know if we're a charity. Can you please tell us?' You would have thought that that would be a pretty simple thing to do. Listening to the member for Hasluck talk about this well-worn and acceptable notion of charity that has been developed over 400 years, you would think that that would be pretty easy to do. I have to say that working in a corporate law firm and having spent hours and hours to put together a letter of advice that was between 12 to 15 pages long, I simply ask this question: do you really think that that is good enough for the charitable and the not-for-profit sector? Any organisation out there simply wanting to know if they are a charity needs to go and get legal advice that runs to tens of pages.
Mr Wyatt: They still will.
Mr BRADBURY: The member opposite says that they still will. I tell you what, though: they will not have to wade through case law. There will be an act of parliament that will consolidate these matters in a way that will simplify the process of determining whether an organisation is a charity.
The member opposite also made the point that former Prime Minister John Howard did initiate a process and did indicate that there was to be an inquiry into the definition of charities and related organisations in 2000. But what he did not say is that the then Prime Minister, John Howard, said: 'The common law definition of a charity, which is based on a legal concept dating back to 1601, has resulted in a number of legal definitions and often gives rise to legal disputes.' It was on that basis that he initiated a process of review. The member says that after having gone through the review the reason the then government decided not to legislate was because they decided that that was the better outcome. But that is not what happened at all.
What happened in the end was that, because they botched and mishandled that process so badly, the charitable and not-for-profit sector truly were up in arms. The member opposite says that the charitable and not-for-profit sector are up in arms now. Where are they? I do not see them in the gallery today. But I tell you what: when your side of politics was in office and you tried to do this you botched it and mishandled it so badly that in the end the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, squibbed it. He walked away with his tail between his legs after deciding that it was all too hard. They are the facts; that is what happened. Notwithstanding that, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of those who have read the bill and sought to contribute to the debate in an informed way.
The statutory definition of 'charity' is an important reform and a key part of our government's not-for-profit reform agenda. This agenda focuses on supporting a strong, vibrant, diverse and independent NFP sector. And, when we say 'independent', that means not slapping on gag orders and putting gag clauses into people's contracts, and making sure that if they do speak out on behalf of the disenfranchised then their funding is not ripped away.
This is sensible and evidence-based reform and will provide more certainty and clarity about the meaning of charity and charitable purpose. It will cut down on compliance costs. So, to those who say that this is about more regulation, I say that it will streamline the process. It will make it easier for people wishing to establish charities and will make the definition easier for the community to understand. They will not have to wade through a long list of cases that have determined what the notion of charity is. The reform has been recommended by numerous reviews and inquiries—this is something glossed over by those opposite—over many years and has widespread support from right across the NFP sector. The member opposite said that there has not been consultation. Well, the truth is that this notion has been consulted upon for a very long time. In fact, the fact that there is so much support in the charitable sector for what we have come up with is testament to the hard work of, in particular, those Treasury officials who have been in the chamber working tirelessly to make sure that we have a product that reflects the attitudes of the community.
A joint media statement issued yesterday by 11 organisations from across the NFP sector makes clear just how strong the support is, and I would be happy to table that document later on if that assists. These organisations include Philanthropy Australia, the Australian Environmental Grantmakers Network, and the Community Council for Australia. In the media statement the executive director of the Public Interest Law Clearing House, Ms Fiona McLeay, summarises why this legislation is so important. She says:
Currently small, volunteer led organisations have the unenviable task of trying to comply with laws that are unclear and sometimes inconsistent. By transferring 400 years of case law into one Plain English statute, the bill will make life easier for hard working individuals, serving the community.
I would simply say to those who might be listening to the broadcast of these proceedings or who might be reading the Hansard: do not listen to the false claims of those opposite about what the charitable and not-for-profit sector is saying; listen to what the sector is saying. And you have it there from Fiona McLeay.
The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the ACNC, is Australia's first independent and dedicated charities regulator. It has been up and running since December last year. Those opposite opposed it, and they say they will repeal it. But it is an organisation that is adding value and supporting the sector. The statutory definition will assist the ACNC in its work, strengthening and supporting the sector as it grows into the future. The bill aims to preserve common-law principles, with some minor variations. Charities must be not-for-profit and have only charitable purposes, except for any ancillary or incidental purposes that further or aid the charitable purpose. The charitable purposes must be for the public benefit. It sets out the main purposes that the courts have considered charitable and retains the long-established presumption of public benefit for certain charitable purposes. And I want to emphasise the importance of that point, because that is where the former government got themselves into so much hot water; they wanted to tamper with that particular element of the notion of charity.
This reform retains the flexibility inherent in the common law that enables the courts as well as parliament to continue to develop the definition to ensure that it remains appropriate and reflects modern society and community needs as they evolve over time. Importantly, the bill incorporates the outcome of the Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation case, which extended the ability of charities to advocate and advance public debate. The government is tabling an addendum to the bill's explanatory memorandum to provide further clarity and certainty regarding charitable purposes, disqualifying purposes and the assessment of whether a purpose is for the public benefit.
I would like to take a few moments to address some of the other remarks made by some of the opposition speakers and in particular the member for Menzies. Despite the overwhelming evidence base for this important reform, the opposition, as they have done many times before, have decided to ignore that evidence. The member for Menzies says that this is an unnecessary bill and that since Federation the definition of charity has remained clear and consistent. Rather than pay attention to the misinformed perspective of the member for Menzies, let us have a look at the evidence. A statutory definition of charity has been recommended by numerous reviews and reports, including—and let me go through them—the 2001 inquiry into the definition of charities and related organisations, Australia's Future Tax System Review in 2010, and the Productivity Commission Contribution of the not-for-profit sector report, also from 2010. These reviews and reports were undertaken by esteemed Australians, such as Mr David Gonski, Mr Robert Fitzgerald and Dr Ken Henry. They were informed by detailed consultation and hundreds, if not thousands, of public submissions.
In its 2010 report the Productivity Commission stated:
Submissions indicated that there was considerable confusion and inconsistency around the definition of charitable purposes (including PBI) for the determination of tax concessions.
The member for Menzies not only seems to disagree with the Productivity Commission and those other well-informed reviews but it seems he also disagrees with former Prime Minister John Howard in his view that this was an area where we can do better and provide more clarity and certainty to Australian charities.
What happened after the inquiry is another matter. The Howard government not only squibbed it when it came to putting into the statute a definition of charity but they also put in place gag clauses to restrict the ability of charities to undertake advocacy, and they also in many respects intimidated those organisations that were simply seeking to represent, in many cases, the disenfranchised and vulnerable sections of the community.
The opposition position on this bill is once again an example of their failing to listen to stakeholders. They come into this place and talk about the impact on charities. Members opposite have said this will add to the regulation of charities, that it will add red tape. I asked them to tell me how it will add to red tape, because those charities that are already charitable—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: The member opposite refers not to this bill but to other matters. If he is referring to this bill then I ask him to provide me even with some speculation on where there might be additional regulation. There will be no additional regulation, but this will make things a lot simpler for organisations that have not yet established as charities.
The government has seen the evidence, not just in the course of our consultations but those that have come before us. Also, we have worked with stakeholders and listened to their views, and now we are acting on their views. That is why we are progressing this important bill. I understand why those opposite, who failed to do this when they were in government, are determined to stop us from doing it. But we want to push ahead because we know how important this is to the charitable sector.
I table the addendum to the explanatory memorandum.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [18:07]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Third Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (18:13): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time. It is a cognate bill; there are two bills, and we are going into the second charities bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (18:14): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (18:15): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (18:16): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (18:17): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
DisabilityCare Australia Select Committee
Appointment
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (18:18): I move:
That order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (18:18): The purpose of this bill is to provide a framework of standard regulatory powers exercised by Commonwealth agencies. These are the powers of agencies to enter and search premises, require the production of documents and compel attendance for examination under oath. Familiar examples include the powers in part 3 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and section 155 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, although many regulatory, security and law enforcement agencies have similar powers of entry, search and investigation.
The matters to be subject to the framework are monitoring, investigation, civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. The framework has no immediate effect. Rather, it is intended that any new or amended legislation affecting the coercive powers of agencies will be expressed by reference to this bill. Should the framework be inappropriate for a particular agency—for example, security agencies—there is no requirement to adopt it.
The coalition has reservations about the extent and use of coercive powers by Commonwealth agencies and particularly about their increasingly arbitrary use and the impositions that they place on business. This bill does nothing to alleviate those concerns. Important matters such as the right to legal representation under coercive questioning have not been addressed. The framework template in relation to investigation, enforceable undertakings and injunctions appears to have been largely lifted from the Competition and Consumer Act, the relevant provisions of which have been unchanged for 15 years and are unlikely to be controversial.
Other components of the framework are also of familiar construction and relate to entry and seizure under warrant, infringement notices and concurrent liability for civil penalties and criminal prosecution. However, there is some concern that the existence of this framework legislation may facilitate the proliferation of the use of coercive powers by ever more Commonwealth agencies and that the framework does nothing to constrain the use of these powers by agencies that already have them.
The government has introduced amendments today to this bill and the coalition is supportive of them. Therefore, we do not oppose the passage of this bill through the House, although, as ever, we reserve our right to have another look at it in the Senate should the need arise. This is one of the many bills that pass through this House that is not particularly controversial. Normally, we would deal with these sorts of issues within the Federation Chamber, but the fact that the government have moved their own amendments to it means that it did need to come back before the House. It is very difficult for me to use up much more of the 30 minutes that I am allocated as the first opposition speaker and the only contributor in this debate. Clearly, it is one of the mechanical things that governments need to do. In light of that, the bill is not opposed by the coalition.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (18:22): I thank the member for Stirling for his contribution to this debate. In 2012, this parliament had 188 bills, totalling 8,203 pages, introduced to this chamber. If it were not for bills such as this, a bill which cuts legal red tape, the number of pages that we would have to consider would be significantly larger. A primary function of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2012 is to provide a statutory framework that will reduce the size of legislation by standardising common regulatory powers provisions across Commonwealth legislation.
The 2003 report of the Australian Law Reform Commission Principled regulation: federal, civil and administrative penalties in Australia, ALRC 95, recommended that a bill of general application should be enacted to govern non-criminal contraventions of federal law and led to the provisions in this bill. Over the years, regulatory powers provisions have been amended or new provisions added without particular regard to the overall clarity of this legislation. Many of the provisions also retained the old drafting style of the early to mid 1900s and are no longer appropriate to the work of the regulatory agency.
This bill addresses these issues by providing a consistent and central framework of regulatory powers so that regulatory laws affecting agency performance are both consistent and flexible. This will mean that the law is sufficiently certain and predictable but still flexible enough to take into account differences in the functions of regulatory agencies. This bill represents an important step for the government in improving Australia's law and justice system. It is a key achievement of the Attorney-General's Department clearer laws project. By improving the accessibility and consistency of the Commonwealth statute book, the law can be better understood, complied with and administered.
The standardisation of Commonwealth regulatory powers will help to reduce the complexity and inconsistency of legislation that has developed since Federation. Complex and inconsistent legislation makes it difficult, expensive and time-consuming for people to understand their legal rights and obligations. This creates burdens for business and restricts access to justice. Lack of knowledge about the law often means that individuals and families do not get a fair go under the law. This bill is therefore an indication of the government's ongoing commitment to take measures to improve the clarity and accessibility of laws. I thank the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for the significant time and effort that went into preparing this bill. I commend that office for the quality of the bill and its commitment to maintaining the accuracy and clarity of the Commonwealth statute book. I also thank the members of Parliamentary committees: the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for their consideration of the bill. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (18:26): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (61), as circulated, together.
Leave granted.
Mr DREYFUS: I move:
(1) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 16 and 17), omit "or by a regulation".
(2) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 18 and 19), omit "The power to make a regulation triggering this Act must be found in another Act.".
(3) Clause 7, page 8 (line 13), omit "or a regulation".
(4) Clause 7, page 8 (line 21), omit "or a regulation".
(5) Clause 9, page 9 (line 21), omit "or a regulation".
(6) Clause 10, page 9 (line 26), omit "or a regulation".
(7) Clause 11, page 10 (line 3), omit "or a regulation".
(8) Clause 11, page 10 (line 6), omit "or a regulation".
(9) Clause 12, page 10 (line 14), omit "or a regulation".
(10) Clause 12, page 10 (line 23), omit "or a regulation".
(11) Clause 13, page 11 (line 7), omit "or a regulation".
(12) Clause 13, page 11 (line 16), omit "or a regulation".
(13) Clause 15, page 12 (line 4), omit "or a regulation".
(14) Clause 15, page 12 (line 11), omit "or a regulation".
(15) Clause 16, page 12 (line 25), omit "or a regulation".
(16) Clause 16, page 13 (line 1), omit "or a regulation".
(17) Clause 17, page 13 (line 23), omit "or a regulation".
(18) Clause 18, page 13 (lines 26 to 29), omit the clause.
(19) Clause 24, page 18 (line 22), omit "or a regulation".
(20) Clause 37, page 30 (line 9), omit "or a regulation".
(21) Clause 37, page 30 (line 19), omit "or a regulation".
(22) Clause 39, page 31 (line 12), omit "or a regulation".
(23) Clause 39, page 31 (line 15), omit "or a regulation".
(24) Clause 41, page 32 (lines 2 and 3), omit "or a regulation".
(25) Clause 42, page 32 (lines 7 and 8), omit "or a regulation".
(26) Clause 42, page 32 (line 16), omit "or a regulation".
(27) Clause 43, page 32 (lines 28 and 29), omit "or a regulation".
(28) Clause 43, page 33 (line 7), omit "or a regulation".
(29) Clause 45, page 33 (line 24), omit "or a regulation".
(30) Clause 45, page 33 (line 31), omit "or a regulation".
(31) Clause 46, page 34 (line 11), omit "or a regulation".
(32) Clause 46, page 34 (line 20), omit "or a regulation".
(33) Clause 47, page 35 (line 6), omit "or a regulation".
(34) Clause 48, page 35 (lines 8 to 11), omit the clause.
(35) Clause 54, page 40 (line 21), omit "or a regulation".
(36) Clause 78, page 61 (line 7), omit "or a regulation".
(37) Clause 78, page 61 (line 12), omit "or a regulation".
(38) Clause 81, page 62 (lines 24 and 25), omit "or a regulation".
(39) Clause 82, page 62 (line 30), omit "or a regulation".
(40) Clause 82, page 63 (line 7), omit "or a regulation".
(41) Clause 83, page 63 (line 19), omit "or a regulation".
(42) Clause 84, page 63 (lines 22 to 25), omit the clause.
(43) Clause 101, page 72 (line 10), omit "or a regulation".
(44) Clause 103, page 73 (line 4), omit "or a regulation".
(45) Clause 104, page 73 (line 10), omit "or a regulation".
(46) Clause 104, page 73 (line 18), omit "or a regulation".
(47) Clause 105, page 73 (line 30), omit "or a regulation".
(48) Clause 105, page 74 (line 7), omit "or a regulation".
(49) Clause 106, page 74 (lines 17 to 20), omit the clause.
(50) Clause 113, page 82 (line 8), omit "or a regulation".
(51) Clause 115, page 82 (line 23), omit "or a regulation".
(52) Clause 116, page 83 (lines 3 and 4), omit "or a regulation".
(53) Clause 116, page 83 (line 12), omit "or a regulation".
(54) Clause 117, page 83 (line 24), omit "or a regulation".
(55) Clause 118, page 83 (lines 27 to 30), omit the clause.
(56) Clause 121, page 86 (line 8), omit "or a regulation".
(57) Clause 123, page 86 (line 20), omit "or a regulation".
(58) Clause 124, page 86 (line 25), omit "or a regulation".
(59) Clause 124, page 87 (line 9), omit "or a regulation".
(60) Clause 125, page 87 (line 21), omit "or a regulation".
(61) Clause 126, page 87 (lines 24 to 27), omit the clause.
In response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report into the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2012, the government has made a number of amendments. The report was tabled on 18 March 2013 and recommends that the bill be passed, subject to four substantive recommendations. The government has accepted, or accepted in principle, all of the recommendations. First, the government has accepted the committee's recommendation to remove the power to trigger the provisions of the bill by regulation. This will enhance parliamentary scrutiny. Second, the government has accepted in principle a recommendation for all new bills to explicitly articulate and explain that the standard provisions will be triggered in the explanatory memorandum. Third, the government has accepted in principle a recommendation for new bills to clearly set out the agency's current regulatory powers, a comparison with the powers in the bill that will be triggered, and, where there may be any expansion of the agency's powers, a detailed explanation of the reasons for the expansion of powers. Fourth, the government will review legislation currently before, and recently passed by, the parliament that deals with regulatory powers to assess whether it would allow regulations to be made that would provide regulatory powers to an agency and consider amendment where appropriate. I commend these amendments to the parliament and thank the Attorney-General's Department and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for this work on the Clearer Laws project and this legislation.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (18:28): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (18:30): I rise on behalf of the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, to speak on the Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013. The coalition will be supporting this legislation—necessary legislation to amend the government's own recently passed bill to clean-up yet another mess created by this chaotic government. The bill before the House now seeks to amend the government's own policy that was announced late last year—a policy motivated by this Treasurer's waxing desperation in the face of his then waning budget surplus.
The government's evaporating surplus late last year sent it, as we all remember, into a feverish quest for savings, some of which were announced in MYEFO December 2012—actually it was earlier than December. This search for every dollar and cent it could find led it to announce an array of changes relating to unclaimed moneys in bank accounts, life insurance accounts, superannuation accounts and corporations. The changes, as many members will recall, sought to shorten the time period before money can be considered lost or unclaimed. That is precisely what the government's announced policy and legislation did sometime ago. For bank accounts, the time period was reduced from seven to three years. For life insurance, it was likewise cut from seven to three years. For superannuation accounts, the inactivity period was slashed from five years to just 12 months, after which superannuation accounts of unidentifiable members are transferred to the Australian Taxation Office. Superannuation accounts with balances of less than $2,000 and accounts of unidentifiable members that were inactive for 12 months were required to be transferred to the commissioner. Any unclaimed property of corporations was to be counted as part of the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund upon receipt by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which we all know as ASIC, not the companies and unclaimed moneys special account.
This was all designed with one purpose in mind: for the government to boost their underlying cash position. It was the desperate grab for money that led the government to consider these changes which it had never considered in any of its previous years. Indeed, the measures that were announced, we were told, were expected to net the government nearly $900 million over the four-year period to 2015-16.
A government controlled Senate economics committee inquiry was held into the bill and recommended that the bill be passed, but coalition members of the committee inquiry at the time disagreed and chose to publish a dissenting report. The coalition then moved a series of amendments that sought to delay implementation of schedules 1 and 2, which relate to bank accounts and first home saver accounts, for a full year so that they would commence from 31 December of this year to feed into the banks' annual processes, which had largely been completed for this calendar year when the government made its MYEFO announcement last year. The coalition also sought to delay schedule 4 relating to superannuation accounts for a full year in order to align with the deadline of the autoconsolidations necessary under the previously announced SuperStream reforms, which are due to commence from 1 January 2014.
When the coalition's amendments were defeated on the floor of this House, the opposition voted against passage of this bill both here and in the other place. The government then introduced its own amendments that, amongst other things, sought to change transitional arrangements for Australian deposit-taking institutions and first home saver accounts. These amendments were introduced so that Australian deposit-taking institutions and first home saver accounts could choose between assessing unclaimed moneys at 31 December 2012, in line with the original seven-year period, and having a supplementary assessment date of 30 May 2013 for payment to occur in line with the revised three-year period. The bill stated:
… ADIs are required to report and transfer all unclaimed moneys as assessed on the applicable assessment date, including reactivated accounts, to the Commonwealth regardless of whether transactions have been made on the accounts prior to the reporting date.
As a consequence, Australian deposit-taking institutions, as well as first home saver accounts, either would be committing an offence by not transferring all unclaimed moneys to the Commonwealth or would need to close the reactivated accounts and transfer these to the Commonwealth.
Some Australian deposit-taking institutions have reported and transferred unclaimed moneys to the Commonwealth, including amounts for reactivated accounts. But as a common courtesy to their customers, rather than closing and transferring the reactivated accounts to the Commonwealth some Australian deposit-taking institutions have kept the reactivated accounts of their customers active and retained their customer's balance amount, but paid the required unclaimed amounts on behalf of their customers from their own funds. In other words, deposit-taking institutions moved to shield their customers from the consequences of a government policy that served no real purpose other than to prop up a budget position at the expense of Australian account holders.
This brings us to this set of amendments, which is to fix up, frankly, the government's own stuff ups. That is what these amendments are: they are amendments to fix up the government's stuff-ups. That is why we are back here again before the House, trying to make bad legislation better. The government, as they have always done in this parliament, have rushed, listened to no-one and made errors that they have then been forced to confront, and that is why we are back here fixing them.
The Commonwealth, as a result of the government's original policy and legislation, does not currently have the authority to refund monies to those Australian deposit-taking institutions directly, even though they have acted as an intermediary returning unclaimed monies to account holders. The amendments we are debating today will permit such refunds so that these Australian deposit-taking institutions are able to receive a refund directly from the Commonwealth for the money that has been collected. The amendments will also allow Australian deposit-taking institutions to exclude reactivated accounts from transfers of unclaimed moneys to the Commonwealth.
How embarrassing! This, as I said, is another example of this government rushing and mucking up their legislation, and then trying to clean it up. It all comes from the Treasurer down—the Treasurer's Keystone Cops habit of making policy on the run.
There have been many media stories relating how the bank accounts of families, pensioners and even children have been raided. It has been an absolute disgrace. I will take the time just to refer to a couple. On 26 May the Sunday Herald-Sun, my hometown paper, under a headline, 'Raid on kids' cash: Government grab nets boys' savings,' talks about the Hadfield family, who:
… were shocked to find the savings of their eldest children … had gone into government coffers last week
And up in the state of Queensland, the state where my good friend the member for Moncrieff is a representative, in The Courier Mail:
Savings snatch $150,000 plucked from account under new laws. A BRISBANE woman has had more than $150,000 taken from her bank account by the Federal Government in the latest example of savers suffering under recent legislative changes.
And there was another story in The Courier Mail about a Queensland pensioner recovering from a quintuple heart bypass only to find his bank account had been emptied, handing $22,000 to the federal government.
And all of this was so unnecessary. We support these amendments to seek to repair some of the worst aspects of bad legislation by this bad government. But what has also been obvious all along is that this government have not just a capacity for continual chaos on the policy front—and I know that my colleagues, the members for Gippsland and Moncrieff will agree on this—but also a strident and unembarrassable feature about them: at no point have this government said, 'Look, we got it wrong; we're sorry'.
In fact, if you look back to the second reading speech from the responsible parliamentary secretary—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer—introduced on Wednesday 29 May, he talks about the amendments in a very matter-of-fact way. But at no point does he say that these amendments are necessary because of government oversight. He does not even have the candour say, 'Look, on behalf of the government I apologise: we got it wrong'. You see it even in those newspaper stories I referred to just before. I think it was the Sunday Herald-Sun story in particular. If you look at the end of that story you see:
A spokeswoman for Treasurer Wayne Swan said people would be better off under the new rules.
That is unbelievable.
This series of amendments will clean-up some of the mess created by the government, but it is, in so many ways, not only a window into this government's chaotic approach to policymaking but an illustration—another example, of which there have been so many on so many pieces of legislation—of where the government refuses to consult, refuses to listen and insists on rushing. Then the Australian people—families and small businesses—have to deal with the consequences of this government's incompetence.
As I said, the coalition supports this legislation to try to help clean-up the government's mess. But in the dying days of this parliament, the Australian people would do very well to look at the record of this government when it comes to legislation, to look at how it has rushed through bill after bill. My friend the member for Moncrieff was here just the other week when, three years after being told that this was the parliament where we would let the sunlight in, the opportunity was denied for even an inquiry on a piece of legislation. To the Australian people who have had to endure this for the last three years, and as we come to the final days of sitting in this parliament, the government is truly showing its approach to governing. In their heart of hearts they have had enough evidence now to know that a bad government will never get better.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (18:46): I, too, rise to support the Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013. The coalition supports it not because it is some brilliant piece of policy work by the Labor Party, not because it in some way represents the zenith of attainment when it comes to good fiscal and monetary policy by the Labor Party, but because this bill goes to correcting yet another mistake made by this government and, hence, the need for another amendment moving through this chamber as the government attempts to put another bandaid on a broken piece of legislation.
This Labor Party is quite extraordinary. Time and time and time again we have seen examples of how the Labor Party has, frankly, misused legislation and policy decisions, not in the interests of the Australian people but for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is the political interests of the Australian Labor Party. The forefather—for lack of a better term—piece of legislation for the amendment currently before the House has to do with the government's attempts to prop up this year's budget as part of their 'guaranteed' budget surplus. My constituents in Moncrieff and on the Gold Coast have heard, I believe, on more than 500 occasions the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and a whole raft of backbenchers and members of the Labor Party say, as they looked Australians in the eye: 'The good times are back. We're delivering a surplus.'
Who would forget the Treasurer last year standing up at the dispatch box, staring down the camera and saying, 'Tonight's the first night of a budget surplus and will be the first of four years of budget surpluses'? That is what the Treasurer said. There may even have been some Australians who thought: 'The member for Lilley seems like a decent bloke, he's regarded as the world's greatest Treasurer, so it must be true. Clearly, they're going to deliver a budget surplus.' And to drive the point home, on 500 occasions they roamed about the country saying, 'This is the first of four years of budget surpluses.' What do we know to be true? Unfortunately, entirely consistent with Labor Party genealogy, entirely consistent with Labor Party form, instead of having a budget surplus—oops, a $19.4 billion deficit. 'That's okay, just missed it by that much—next year we know that we're going to have a budget surplus.' Oops, no, another $18 billion of deficit. 'It's okay, year 3—that's the year for the surplus.' But again, alas, a $16 billion deficit.
This is a government that has simply lost its way when it comes to spending. That is the reason this government has racked up $192 billion worth of budget deficits since it was elected. That is the reason this government presides over peak gross debt approaching $340 billion currently and on its way to more than $400 billion. That is the legacy of the Labor Party.
The amendment before the House tonight goes to the very core of their political manipulation to try to prop up the budget bottom line. How do they seek to do it? They seek to prop up that pathetic budget bottom line that the, apparently, world's greatest Treasurer has presided over by saying to the Australian people: 'We've got a brilliant public policy initiative.' Currently—that is, prior to the announcement—if an account had no transactions upon it for a period of seven years it would be deemed to be unclaimed money and the money would effectively be forfeited to the Commonwealth to become part of consolidated revenue. So, with a brilliant piece of financial engineering by the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan, they said, 'We're going to reduce it from seven years down to three years without there being any transactions on an account,' not because it was good public policy but because of the financial impact it would have.
What was the financial impact? By doing that, in that first year alone—that is, the financial year 2012-13—it meant an extra $93.4 million for this government. More importantly, they also included in schedule 4 of the original bill the unclaimed superannuation accounts. What did that mean for those who had unclaimed super? An additional $513.5 million for the Labor Party in the financial year 2012-13. And for companies and corporations unclaimed funds, it represented $94 million for 2012-13. So a grand total of $700.9 million has resulted from this change to public policy by, apparently, the world's greatest Treasurer.
That is the legacy of the Australian Labor Party: to make whimsical changes to policy that have a direct impact on people's lives just so they could attempt to prop up their budget bottom line and deliver the then forecast budget surplus of $1 billion or $1.5 billion. How pathetic! It is the reason the Australian people see straight through the member for Lilley and straight through this Prime Minister, because they know that they cannot trust the Australian Labor Party when it comes to financial management. Because they were in such a tremendous rush to push the legislation through and because the Labor Party was so focused on doing whatever they could to prop up their pathetic budget bottom line, they made some mistakes including, for example, the fact that now under the legislation as it currently exists, deposit-taking institutions that had for all intents and purposes an unclaimed savings account—let us say it was an offset account that someone was using against their mortgage—sitting there without transactions on it as an offset account, that money would be claimed by the Commonwealth and effectively go into consolidated revenue. Because there was a difference between the assessment date and the date the funds were referred to the Commonwealth, you actually had occasions arise when money that qualified as being 'unclaimed' as of the assessment date would then subsequently have transactions on the account prior to the date the money was referred to the Commonwealth. In that situation it did not matter, because under the law as rammed through this parliament by the Labor Party, that money had to come to the Commonwealth.
So people would have funds—as I said, to use the hypothetical situation of an account that was used as an offset against someone's mortgage—sitting there that would be deemed to be unclaimed funds. Wayne Swan's hand would reach through the bank, rip those funds back to the Commonwealth and then maybe someone would put a deposit down or make a withdrawal on that account. But it did not matter. Even though the account was still active, under the legislation that was rammed through this parliament by the Labor Party, they still had to give the funds to the Commonwealth.
That gives rise to the reason why we have legislation before the House now amending that perverse situation. Quite clearly, the account is not unclaimed. Quite clearly, if there are transactions on the account which take place after the assessment date then it should not be qualified as unclaimed funds. So the government attempts now to stick a bandaid on their rather broken-down and grubby piece of legislation, that was first introduced by the Treasurer and rammed through this parliament. That is the reason why the coalition supports this legislation. It is not because it is the zenith of good policy insight from the Australian Labor Party but rather because this is a much-needed correction to a defect that exists in the original legislation.
The simple inescapable reality though is this: there would be absolutely no need for this amendment or indeed the original legislation had the government managed Australia's economy a little better. There would be no need for the Commonwealth, in my view, to inappropriately take funds after only three years purely and simply as an attempt to prop up what is, effectively, one year of the government's bottom line as part of their quest to achieve a paltry $1 billion to $1½ billion surplus. Now that we know that the actual deficit was $19.4 billion, it all seems rather tawdry. It all seems rather tawdry that constituents had to come into my office only three weeks ago wanting to know how they had to go about claiming back their own money in order to be able to have it back under their control and not under the Commonwealth's control. I can only imagine what it must feel like for those who are not tuned into the daily to-ing and fro-ing of the financial world and of this parliament—for example, a retired couple who might have toiled their entire working lives to squirrel away some money to have as an offset against their mortgage or some kind of savings account for a rainy day or, indeed, for their retirement, to wake up and perhaps check the balance of their account to find the money gone. They would wonder and fret about what that actually meant and not know that it is all part of an attempt by the member for Lilley to prop up the media headlines and his pathetic budget balance in one financial year as part of this government's attempt to try to make out that they were delivering the budget back to surplus.
That is the real-world impact. That is the real-world impact on people who are not, perhaps, incredibly financially literate and who wonder where their money has gone. Is it any wonder that we see headlines like these: 'Savings snatch $150,000 plucked from account under new laws', or this: 'Savings grab a heartless act—Bank gives "unclaimed" cash to Canberra'. Australians rightly think that this is theft. Certainly there is not an intention to permanently deprive, granted, but that notwithstanding, it is in their eyes—and I know from speaking with people who have been affected by these changes—that they view it as theft. I think that they have every right to view this is theft. They have got every right to be very angry with the Australian Labor Party when they see their funds being transferred from their accounts straight into the government's coffers because Wayne Swan wants to prop up his bottom line. Australians lost their confidence in this government quite some time ago and this latest change, the legislation to alter the time frames on unclaimed money, is simply the latest nail in the coffin, frankly, about why the Australian Labor Party is just so on the nose with the Australian people.
Legislation before the House that seeks to amend the original piece of legislation does deserve to be supported, not because, as I said, it is a positive step forward but because it corrects an error from the original legislation. But more broadly than that, there is at stake a fundamental principle here: the right for Australians to think that this is a government that is concerned with their welfare and their financial wellbeing, as opposed to a government which in reality, as we all know, is more focused on their political survival and about propping up their pathetic bottom line than about making those good policy choices.
Another point of concern to me is that I have a regular spot on ABC radio in Brisbane against the member for Oxley and when I called the member for Oxley on Labor's policy I said, in sentiments very similar to those I have expressed this evening, that this was a gross grab for cash by the Labor Party and that it represented a net gain of some $900 million—nearly $1 billion—for the Labor government. The member for Oxley, much to my amazement, rejected it and made the statement that the changes had no net impact on government revenue and that, in fact, it was in the interests of the account holders, because the funds could have been sitting in an account without any interest but now they would be going to the government where they would get interest. If this does not represent what is going on, if it does not represent the low point in public policy debate and if it does not represent how much this is a government obsessed with spin about what it is up to, then I do not know of a clearer example that possibly exists today.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:01): I rise to speak on the Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013. This bill is nothing other than a fix-up of yet another of the government's stuff-ups. That is no surprise when you look at the speakers list. There is not one speaker from the government listed to speak on this bill and to defend what is happening here because they know, to their embarrassment, that it is a complete stuff-up and they do not want to be associated with it.
This bill amends section 69 of the Banking Act to exempt reactivated accounts from being reported and transferred to the Commonwealth. It will also give the Treasurer power to refund moneys to authorise deposit-taking institutions if moneys are collected unnecessarily. The bill will provide transitional provisions for the supplementary statement and payment, allowing ADIs to exempt reactivated accounts from being reported and transferred to the Commonwealth and will give power to the Treasurer to refund any reactivated accounts which have already been collected. As I said, this bill is just another example of the failure of this government, another example of bringing in rushed, ill-considered legislation to this parliament and of mistake after mistake that needs to be rectified.
We should go back to try to understand how the government actually came to this complete mess. It is necessary to go back to those heady days last year, when it was all about returning the budget to surplus. We heard that mantra time and time again: 'We are returning the budget to surplus.' We had the Prime Minister getting around the country saying, with respect to returning the budget to surplus, 'Failure is not an option.' We had Senator Wong telling us:
… the government has made it clear that the return to surplus is not negotiable …
We had the Treasurer promising to return the budget to surplus and that it would be done 'come hell or high water'.
Who will ever forget the Treasurer's opening line on budget night last year—a line that will go down in history, along with the lines of the Iraqi Information Minister, 'Comical Ali,' known for his grandiose and grossly unrealistic propaganda broadcasts, extolling the invincibility of Saddam's army—when he, the Treasurer, standing at that very dispatch box, boldly proclaimed on budget night last year, to the hysterical laughter around the chamber:
This Budget delivers a surplus this coming year, on time, as promised, and surpluses each year after that, strengthening over time.
It reminds me of one of Comical Ali's best performances when, standing in front of the TV cameras, he said:
There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad.
And behind him we had American tanks rolling along.
We even had the member for Lindsay, to his internal embarrassment, sending out letters throughout his electorate, proclaiming: 'This government actually achieved returning the budget to surplus.' I wonder if he has actually sent out an apology for that. Albeit that this great surplus that we were returning to was just $1.5 billion and that came after this government had delivered the four largest budget deficits in our nation's history—a cumulative $172 billion in the red—the government said, 'We're returning the budget to surplus; we have $1.5 billion.' What brilliance!
With such political imperative of returning the budget to surplus the government were like an addict looking for a quick fix. They went on the look for cash. They had their eyes on the bank accounts of Australian mums and dads. They had their eyes on the bank accounts of pensioners and even on the bank accounts of children. 'What a bounty; if only we could get our hands on that money and transfer it to government revenue.' So they came up with this scheme, under the unclaimed moneys rules of the Banking Act, which gave them the ability to raid every bank account in the nation that had simply not had a deposit or withdrawal made to it in the last 36 months. That did not include interest payments.
There were thousands of accounts around the nation that people had put their money in for a rainy day. They were watching the interest going in, thinking their money was safe in the bank. But, after 36 months, that money was now going to get paid directly into consolidated revenue to prop up this government's accounts and its reckless spending. What legitimacy was there for this three-year period? What was the legitimate reason to reduce the period from seven years when many other countries have a period of 15 years before money is deemed as unclaimed? What was the legitimacy to reduce it to three years? There was simply none.
And what about the effects on the psychology of Australians, who think when they put their money into a bank account that that money is safe, if they find out that 36 months later that money has been withdrawn by the government? What was to happen with this money that was being transferred? The other part of the plot was that, come 30 June, the end of this financial year, when accounts were reeled off, this government would be able to have over $100 million of money that would otherwise have been deposited in the accounts of mums, dads, pensioners and kids, transferring it into consolidated revenue so they could say, 'Hey presto, we have delivered a surplus.'
That was the plan; but, like everything this government touches, it simply ended in tears. Despite this raid on bank accounts, the surplus, like a distant mirage, has simply vanished. The surplus that we were promised is now, at the latest forecast, a $19.8 billion deficit. You can bet London to a brick on that, when that final number is revealed—coincidentally after the election date—it will be somewhere north of $20 billion.
When the government introduced this legislation they simply failed to listen to the warnings of the experts in the banking sector who had to apply and actually do this work. When the bill was being debated in parliament the banking industry clearly warned about the dangers of the short time frame from the announcement of the policy to the implementation on 31 December. The Australian Bankers' Association noted:
The ABA notes that the proposed timing for implementation and a commencement of 31 December 2012 is unrealistic, being in less than 2 months and falling during a period when banks implement freezes on any technology or IT systems changes. It is estimated that banks and other ADIs will require at least 6 months to make all the necessary changes, inform customers in a legally compliant manner, and meet compliance requirements. It should be noted that individual banks and other ADIs will have different implementation issues. Therefore, the ABA believes that a 12 month transitional period for compliance is appropriate to ensure the legal, technical and practical issues can be addressed and ensure that the new regime can be streamlined into the existing annual process without disrupting banks' systems or bank-customer relationships.
That advice from the banking association was simply ignored because this government wanted to get their hands on that cash. They wanted to raid the bank accounts of Australians, so they completely ignored that mess. Now we have this confusion and chaos, a trademark of this government. Even when the legislation was brought in, the originating bill had seven amendments.
After this law was passed Labor gave the banks four months—from 31 December 2012 to 30 April this year—where they had to deliver a statement of any money in any bank account in the nation that had not had a deposit or withdrawal even as little as 5c. They had to give a statement of those accounts and they had to pay the money to the Commonwealth to put into this year's budget. What an example of dysfunction. This raid was expected to net this government over $100 million to put into this year's budget to try to deliver that surplus which we have never had.
What did the government do? What about an information campaign? What about an advertising campaign to let people know that the Labor government are coming for their money and, if they had an account which they had only had in there for close to three years, to rush and put a dollar in or take a dollar out? We have seen advertising campaigns for a whole host of other things from this government, but no—deadly silence.
So we had people who thought they had nest eggs stashed away. They were in for a very nasty surprise. Here are a few examples of this government plundering money from people's private bank accounts, taken without their knowledge or consent. On 22 May a 77-year-old pensioner, Mr Alan Duffy, arrived home after spending 21 days in hospital following a heart bypass and found that the $22,616 he had saved over 14 years and put away for that medical emergency had been seized by this government. Of the experience, Mr Duffy said, 'I call it stealing'.
On 25 May young Seamus Hadfield, aged five, and his little brother Eamon, aged three, found that $3,000—money their grandparents had given to them when they were born to put away for when they were older to help pay for their education—had been raided by this Gillard Labor government. Their parents said at the time: 'We were pretty shocked. Who expects to see their kids' accounts closed and the money taken by the government?' Well, Mrs Hadfield, welcome to the workings of the Labor government in Australia in 2013.
On 1 June a 47-year-old mother of two, Margaret Franklin, found out $157,644 had been cleaned out of her bank account to be used to prop up this government's finances for the year. Mrs Franklin said she was 'shocked and angry beyond belief' when she found her money—$157,000—had been siphoned from her account, leaving her with a zero balance, and that the money had been used to prop up this government's finances. These are just a few examples of the thousands and thousands of Australians who are finding this has happened to them.
Although these citizens can get their money back, they have to apply for it, and they do not get their money back until next financial year, enabling this government to have that money in their account come 30 June. This is a tragic example of the flaws and dangers of this government. The coalition supports this amendment bill, which fixes up some of the mistakes.
We need to inform every citizen in this nation that, under this Labor government, if you have saved and put money away—it may be grandparents who have put money away for their grandkids, it may be a pensioner who has put money away in case of a medical emergency, it may be someone who has put money away for a rainy day—and you have not made a deposit or withdrawal on those accounts in the last 36 months, that money will now be taken by this government. We should be having an advertising campaign. People need to be aware of this. All citizens of Australia need to watch out: their money is no longer safe in their bank accounts when this Labor government is around. 14 September cannot come quickly enough.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (19:16): I am very pleased to be able to follow the very eloquent contribution by my friend and colleague the member for Hughes, who spoke with such passion on the Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013. It is important to point out this evening, in this place, the context around the bill that has been presented to the parliament. It is important to point out the context because it says everything you need to know about the government, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister.
For those who are not aware, late last year the government decided to make a change to unclaimed moneys. The government decided to make this change after the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook Statement in order to prop up its budget bottom line. The government was claiming, even at that point, that it was going to be delivering just over a $1 billion surplus this coming budget. They had downgraded that forecast from $1.5 billion, but said that they would be able to get just over $1 billion. It is important to understand this because the government has made much of what they call their 'economic competence'—the Treasurer goes on and on about it; in fact, he rather likes the description of 'world's greatest Treasurer'—but when you examine the facts, nothing could be further from the truth.
We have seen a complete reversal in the fiscal position from the previous coalition government to the current government. The current government inherited $70 billion in net assets in the Future Fund and a $20 billion surplus with no net debt. We had repaid $96 billion of Labor's debt and we were paying no interest bill because we had no borrowings. Under the current Treasurer, the situation has been radically reversed. In each budget he delivered a deficit, and it is now adding up to more than $192 billion. We have most recently seen a net debt of more than $150 billion, and we are told that, before the end of this year, we could well see the gross debt ceiling of $300 billion broken. This is after the government had already increased the ceiling from $75 billion. It increased it another four times up to $300 billion and said it would never get past that point. The government is now paying an interest bill of around $8 billion each year, which is almost enough to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
The reason I say this is that the government maintained that it was going to get back to surplus. In fact, it promised it more than 500 times. This embarrassed the Assistant Treasurer because he had put out a piece of paper to his electorate saying that they had delivered a surplus—and the current Treasurer, in the previous budget, also made a similar claim. When they realised that it was going to be very difficult to deliver a surplus because they had not reigned in a lot of the wasteful and reckless spending that they had been conducting, they realised that they needed to find a new source of funds, and what better source of funds than the Australian people yet again. This is a government that has no respect for the Australian people, and it demonstrated that by bringing forward the unclaimed moneys bill last year. The unclaimed moneys bill allowed the government to appropriate just under $1 billion over four years—$900 million, about the same amount that they said would be the surplus. It was a desperate attempt to shore up the budget bottom line. How did they set about doing this? They set about raiding money from bank accounts, from life insurance, from superannuation and from corporations.
The key changes were these: in bank accounts, moneys were deemed to be unclaimed if no money went into or out of the account within a three-year period—it was previously seven years, but they dropped that to three years—and interest did not count as activity. At this point, the money was directly appropriated by the government to go into consolidated revenue. With life insurance, money was previously treated as unclaimed after seven years but that has now been reduced to three years.
Like with bank accounts, with life insurance moneys there is no limit. The government could not just take out $500, $2,000 or even $500,000
There is no limit to what the government can appropriate. If you had $2 million sitting in your account and you had not touched it for three years for whatever reason, the government could raid the lot. Superannuation accounts with balances of less than $2,000 could be appropriated if there had been no activity for 12 months and, if there was no identifiable member of a superannuation account, the time period was reduced from five years to 12 months before the money can be transferred to the ATO. Finally, unclaimed property of corporations is now recognised directly as a result of this change in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, propping up the budget bottom line, upon receipt by ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, instead of being put separately in the companies and unclaimed money special account.
Why is this meaningful? It is meaningful for several reasons. It is meaningful because it goes to Australians who are doing the right thing, saving money not only for their future but also for the future of their families. Through no fault of their own, through no wrong doing, government seeks to come in and claim the money for the most tawdry of political reasons—that is to prop up its budget to disguise its fiscal incompetence.
Let me just give you a couple of scenarios as to how this money can raided by the government. Imagine the birth of a new child. The parents or grandparents may decide to give that child a great start in life by putting some money aside perhaps to be given to them on their 21st birthday or to save up for their future education expenses. It may well be that there is no money put into that account for a period of three years. Under this legislation and under the legislation previously passed by the government, that money can be directly appropriated by the government. This is quite wrong.
Let me give you another example of a young couple saving up for their mortgage, wanting to purchase their first home. They may have put money aside separate from their normal day-to-day accounts so that it would not be touched and not drawn down. They may have had different periods throughout their lives where they have been able to make contributions to that savings account. Again, if it is untouched for three years the government can take the money.
We might have an example of an elderly couple where one member of that couple needs to go into an aged-care facility. They sell the family home and invest some of that money into an account to provide for the care of both—one in the aged-care facility and the other perhaps in a smaller unit or in a family member's home. Again, if the money is not touched for three years, they may wake up to find on the day that they really need that money it has gone. It is no longer there.
Recently I was contacted by a very concerned parent who was notified by his son he no longer had any savings in his savings account. This is quite remarkable. This very concerned parent called me up and said, 'My son who has been working overseas in London for four years, and who had put some money aside as part of his savings and was going to be coming back to Australia in November of this year, checked his account only to find all of the money gone.' After making some inquiries, he realised this was as a result of the unclaimed moneys bill and set about trying to recover the money.
It is not easy to recover money. Firstly, this parent who has power of attorney for his young adult child trying to make a go of it overseas has had to provide passport information and a drivers licence. He has had to fill in quite a number of forms. He has had to not only prove his power of attorney but also get evidence of the fact that the power of attorney has not been revoked. In fact, it has been too difficult for this very educated man and his son to get the money back and so much so that his son is not going to bother to recover these funds until he comes back in November. This is indeed a great shame. There are multiple examples of offset accounts that could be appropriated by the government. In fact, there are so many examples that they are too numerous to mention.
What I want to come to now is exactly why there is another bill before the House in order to make further amendments to the original unclaimed moneys bill. This bill has been brought forward because the government in its haste to get its hands on people's money pushed the bill through the parliament in a record amount of time with little scrutiny. As a result, this bill is riddled with errors. Some of the amendments that are being made here in this bill today include the fact that there is now no minimum amount that can be transferred out as part of the unclaimed moneys bill. There is no longer a $100 limit before the money can be transferred. No, the government wants to take it all. It does not matter if it is less than $100, the Labor government still wants to get its hands on your money.
We have also had the ridiculous situation where an account may have activity but, if an assessment has already been made, the banks—the authorised deposit institutions—have to transfer the money. They are forced under the previous legislation to transfer that money through to the government, irrespective of the fact that there may well be activity after this assessment date. This is a travesty. At least this bill before the parliament now will correct that; it will stop that transfer. It will also make amendment to the refunds that authorised deposit institutions require as a result of keeping accounts open when in fact they have transferred the money through to the government. It rectifies this great injustice as well.
This government has been reckless with the finances of our nation, and it is the Australian people who have paid the price for that. Children, young people, elderly people—it does not discriminate. It is prepared to take anyone's money. You simply ask yourself the question: why? One can only say that the culture that is across the aisle here—and we have heard of members of unions using funds for their own purposes—has infected this parliament and that the Labor Party thinks it is within its rights to be able to utilise the money of ordinary Australian taxpayers—and it is wrong. (Time expired)
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (19:31): As we have just heard from the member for Higgins, as well as from the member for Moncrieff and the member for Casey, it is becoming an unfortunate habit for people on this side of the House to have to clean up another mess of this government, but more particularly to clean up another mess of this Treasurer. The member for Moncrieff was right to highlight this Treasurer's appalling track record.
Mr Randall interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: Yes, I take the member for Canning's interjection, that the member for Lilley is supposedly the world's greatest Treasurer. But one thing he will be remembered for is his consistency. As the member for Moncrieff pointed out, the Treasurer has been consistently about $20 billion wrong in every budget he has delivered. What is $20 billion between friends? Well when it comes to the Australian people, $20 billion amounts to about $192 billion worth of deficits. We have had year upon year of deficits from a Treasurer who claims to be in a position to deliver a surplus. And oh how he must hate former Treasurer Peter Costello; how he must hate that guy with his year after year of surpluses. What would the member for Lilley, the current Treasurer, give for just one surplus, just one? How he would love to be able to get out a black pen for once rather than continuously finding himself surrounded in red ink. But, alas, this Treasurer has put us into a position as a nation where we face an enormous deficit and a crisis of confidence in the community that I believe will be up to the coalition to repair come September this year if we are blessed with the vote of the Australian people.
Today's amendment had its genesis in this Treasurer's desperation, in his determination to secure just one surplus. We had this desperate Treasurer making desperate moves to try to prop up his already failing reputation and try to achieve that surplus. That was the one, that was the surplus that the Treasurer promised and the Prime Minister promised to the Australian people hundreds and hundreds of times. He promised it time and time again. In fact, he started his budget speech in 2012 by telling us the years of budget surpluses were upon us. That was his gold-plated guarantee to the Australian people, that he would deliver a surplus in 2012-13. But in this indecent rush to secure that surplus, he mucked it all up. That is why we are here today trying to clean up the mess, as the member for Moncrieff and others quite rightly pointed out and highlighted in their addresses tonight. As the member for Casey also mentioned in his comments to the House, there has not been one blush, not one hint of apology, not one request for forgiveness from this Treasurer.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! The member has got a bill before him and I ask the honourable member to speak to the bill. It is—
Mr CHESTER: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is a very tight bill and I ask the member to come back to the bill.
Mr CHESTER: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
Mr Randall interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Did the honourable member just reflect on the chair?
Mr Randall: No, I said the Treasurer should be embarrassed by what he has done.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the honourable member to stay out of the debate. He has not got the call.
Mr CHESTER: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I take your point that the bill before House does seek to amend this government's own policy, which was introduced late last year. It was a policy position that was motivated by the Treasurer's desire to achieve a surplus because the basis of this whole piece of legislation was to try to secure an improvement to the budget bottom line for the Treasurer. What we have seen, in the indecent haste, is a mess that now the House is seeking to clean up through the amendment. All of this would not have been necessary if only this Treasurer had the capacity to live within his own means and to live within the means of the government and deliver value for money to the Australian taxpayers.
In this search for every dollar that we saw at the end of the last calendar year, the government announced that it would shorten the time period before money could be considered to be lost or unclaimed. In bank accounts, for example, that time period would be reduced from seven years to three years; for life insurance, likewise: it was going to be cut from seven years to three years. For superannuation accounts, the inactivity period was slashed from five years to 12 months, after which superannuation accounts of unidentifiable members would be transferred to the Australian tax office. And superannuation accounts with balances of less than $2,000 and accounts of unidentifiable members inactive for 12 months were required to be transferred to the Commissioner of Taxation. Also, unclaimed property of corporations was to be counted as part of the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund upon receipt by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, not the companies and unclaimed moneys special account. But it was quite a bonus for the underlying cash position of the Commonwealth and hence the efforts by this Treasurer where the government were hopeful that these measures would net the government nearly $900 million over the four-year period to 2015-16.
As you may be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, the government-controlled Senate economics committee inquiry was held into this bill and recommended that the government bill be passed but the coalition members on that Senate committee inquiry gave a dissenting report. What we are left with today is, as I referred to earlier, an effort by the House to clean up the government's own errors in the drafting of the legislation as to what we regard as a poor policy measure. The government has failed in its duty of responsibility to the Australian people to manage the economy in a way which delivers good value for money and also in a way which builds trust with the Australian people. We have ourselves in this situation due to the Treasurer's ineptitude, and I feel that come 14 September this year the Australian people will judge this government and this Treasurer very harshly not only on this measure but also on other measures.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (19:38): I rise to speak on the Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013. I want to reiterate what the members for Higgins, Moncrieff and Gippsland have just said: that we are in this terrible situation of having to come into this House to clean up a bill because the 'world's greatest Treasurer'—and he was 'presented' a plaque at the campaign launch of my opposition the other day with the 'world's greatest Treasurer' on it—has had in the recent budget a $20 billion blow-out. So we have now got to find the money from somewhere. So what do we do? We go looking at ways by which we can get the money back and we go looking at people's bank accounts. This bill exempts reactivated accounts from being reported and transferred to the Commonwealth as unclaimed moneys and allows the Commonwealth to provide refunds to authorised deposit-taking institutions, or ADIs, if moneys are collected unnecessarily.
In the 2012-13 MYEFO, in an attempt by the government to find savings to bolster their now-defunct commitment of delivering a surplus in 2012-13, the government announced an array of changes relating to unclaimed moneys in bank accounts, life insurance accounts, superannuation accounts and corporations. These changes sought to bring forward the period of time at which money is recognised under the relevant law as being lost or unclaimed. These changes can be referred to as Labor's desperate cash grab—and that is all it is, a very desperate cash grab—where the Gillard government seeks to ambush by stealth the newly classified unclaimed moneys in savings accounts, life insurance accounts, superannuation accounts and corporations. As with every piece of shambolic legislation that is put forward by this government, the devil is in the detail and with these changes the devil is in the new period for accounts to be treated as unclaimed moneys, which this fiscally challenged government has significantly shortened. Since the government has been trying this week to claim that it is committed to dealing in facts, here are the facts about this blatant cash grab—and I repeat that that is all it is, a cash grab—and the changes it has made so that it could raid these accounts.
If you have a bank account, it is now reduced from seven years to three years. If you have life insurance moneys, they were previously treated as unclaimed after seven years but that has been reduced to three years. Superannuation accounts with balances of less than $2,000 and accounts of unidentifiable members that have been inactive for 12 months were required to be transferred to the Commissioner of Taxation. The changes reduce from five years to 12 months the period of inactivity before which the superannuation accounts of unidentifiable members are transferred to the ATO. The unclaimed property of corporations is now to be recognised directly in the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund—impacting the underlying cash position of the Commonwealth—upon receipt by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, as opposed to the companies and unclaimed moneys special account. These measures have netted the government nearly $900 million over a four-year period to 2015-16.
A government controlled Senate economics committee inquiry was held into this bill and recommended that the government bill be passed. The coalition members of the committee inquiry gave a dissenting report. The coalition series of amendments sought to delay implementation of schedules 1 and 2, relating to bank accounts and first home saver accounts, for a full year to commence on 31 December 2013 to feed into the banks' annual processes that had largely been completed for this calendar year when the MYEFO announcements were made. The coalition sought to delay schedule 4 relating to superannuation accounts for a full year in order to align with the deadline of the autoconsolidations necessary under the previously announced SuperStream reforms, which are due to commence from 1 January 2014. The purpose of the coalition amendments was to allow the banking and finance sectors to put in place proper governance processes for the implementation of these changed time periods—and I have got to say that the amount of regulation that has been put on the banking and other sectors has just been absolutely incredible.
But, no, this government was not interested in the interests of ordinary Australians and ensuring that their savings accounts were not ambushed. So desperate have the government been, because of their woeful mismanagement of their budget, that they have just wanted to grab the cash of ordinary Australians as quickly as they could in a vain attempt to prop up the ever-growing debt that they have racked up year after year. The coalition amendments were defeated on the floor of the House of Representatives and the coalition voted against the passage of this bill in both the House of Representative and the Senate.
How repugnant is it to steal someone's money from their bank account, and I want to go through a few examples of that. A particularly disgusting example was hijacking a bank account in the case of Adrian Duffy, a Brisbane pensioner, who emerged from a quintuple heart bypass—if going in for a quintuple heart bypass isn't stressful enough—only to find his wife's $20,000 Suncorp account empty because the bank gave it to the government.
Mr Randall: It is lucky he didn't have a relapse.
Ms GAMBARO: The member for Canning is quite right: he is lucky he didn't have a relapse. It could have brought on another heart attack. Mr Duffy is now looking at a very lengthy battle to have his savings restored. He is a 75-year-old. He doesn't need this stress. He already spent 21 days in hospital following the quintuple heart bypass and a second operation in April. He does not need the stress of having now to sort out his banking details. When Mr Duffy and his wife went back to check their Suncorp account, they discovered their balance had plummeted. Can you imagine! You go to your bank account and check out the balance. You remember that you had $22,616 and you find you have a zero balance. A note on the 1 May entry had the quite ominous message 'Closing WDL Govt unclaimed monies'.
This couple—this is quite sad—had saved for 40 years in preparation for a major health related costs just to have a cash-strapped and broke Gillard government rip it out of their bank account right under their very noses. Mr Duffy and his wife are now working to recover the money, but they say they are quite lucky to have had a little bit of other savings that they can draw on. As Mr Duffy said to the media about the traumatic event:
If we didn't have the money elsewhere, we would now have to be paying for cardiologists, visits to surgeons, ECGs, x-rays, whatever is involved in the follow-up.
I know how expensive operations are. Many of my constituents come to see me every day about the extras that they have to pay after their health insurance.
Not all those who fall victim to this cash grab by the Gillard government can be so lucky. I had a case recently in which a lady came to my office. She had gone overseas for eight weeks only to discover upon her return that the Gillard government had ripped approximately $30,000 out of her ING Direct savings account. It had been sucked dry. Imagine that! Every person who goes overseas right now must have the fear of God in them that, if they haven't done anything about an account, while they are overseas they can have that money ripped out of their bank account. The lady contacted the ASIC call centre and was advised that:
They are still working through the detail of the legislation. You won't be able to see how much they actually took until July 1 and the money won't be returned until 10 weeks after that.
There are many examples that come to mind. Will they be returned with interest? Ten weeks! What if you needed that money desperately? There are many examples of people who have money that is left in accounts. We have always been encouraged by governments of all persuasions to save, and many Australians have money in fixed accounts. I will give you the example of someone who has left money in a will. A small amount is left in an account; they leave it in there. That is the sort of money that can be ripped out of their account.
A few months ago I had a charitable church group come to see me. They are a conglomeration of groups of churches—they buy equipment, they buy teaching aids. The bank account had not been active for some time and they were advised that if they did not make a transaction soon that money would be ripped out of their account. The secretary of this church organisation was outraged. She said to me: 'Teresa, do I have to put $10 in the bank account only to take it out so that we can have some sort of transaction? That is absolutely outrageous. I have sent them an email and I have told them that it is a legitimate account, but to no avail.'
So you have church groups, charitable organisations, individuals, young people and old people. This bill does not discriminate. It takes money out of people's bank accounts. It rips it out of your account if you are overseas or you have gone to have an operation, as I have just demonstrated with Mr Duffy. More than understandably, this lady that I just spoken about who was told she would have her money returned after 10 weeks was not particularly happy. She wants her money now. It is her money.
It is not just everyday Australians who think these changes are absurd. Even the Australian Bankers' Association has accused the government of putting its own financial circumstances ahead of customers' needs, leaving them facing 'months of delays trying to reclaim their own money'. They have to show all sorts of identification to get their money back. It is just the most incredibly convoluted process—to get back their own money! It is extraordinary.
More specifically, the acting chief executive of the Australian Bankers' Association has said that he believed there was 'no benefit for customers from these changes'. I remember sitting opposite with the parliamentary secretary and commenting to him when the bill was introduced that this was just an effort by the Gillard government to steal people's money. He said, 'No, no, no, Teresa; it is about reuniting people with their super quicker.' There is nothing about reuniting people with their super quicker here; it is about taking people's money. It is a blatant, blatant cash grab.
The issues which this bill seeks to amend are a direct result of the government's own errors in drafting the legislation for this very, very poor piece of policy. It is poor policy. They decide to do something and they worry about the details later. They worry about the details later when hundreds of thousands of people have been hurt by the decisions that they have made.
In the transitional arrangements, ADIs are expected to assess the moneys at an appropriate date and transfer them to the Commonwealth by the due date. Under the existing legislation, ADIs are required to report and transfer all unclaimed moneys as assessed on the applicable assessment date, including reactivated accounts, to the Commonwealth, regardless of whether transactions have been made on the accounts prior to the reporting date. Consequently, these ADIs would either commit an offence of not transferring all unclaimed money to the Commonwealth or need to close the reactivated accounts and transfer them to the Commonwealth.
On the other hand, some ADIs have reported and transferred the unclaimed moneys to the Commonwealth, including the amounts for reactivated accounts. However, rather than closing and transferring the reactivated accounts, ADIs kept the reactivated accounts active and retained the balance amount but paid the required unclaimed accounts from their own accounts
Sounds complicated? You bet it is.
The Commonwealth does not currently have power to refund moneys to ADIs directly though ADIs are the intermediary returning unclaimed moneys to their owners.
These measures within this bill seek to allow 'ADIs to exclude accounts that have transactions after being assessed as unclaimed from unclaimed moneys which need to be reported and transferred to the Commonwealth'. The bill seeks to allow 'the Treasurer to refund moneys to ADIs that are collected unnecessarily'. Well, that's a revelation, isn't it?
While the coalition did not support the passage of the original legislation through the parliament, this amendment bill should be passed, as it was made necessary by the government's incompetence and the urgent need to amend their own very poor and shabby policy. The other notable display of incompetence from the government is in the drafting of the bill that relates to the government's claims as to financial impact. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states:
The financial impact from the Bill is likely to be low but is difficult to quantify due to insufficient data being available.
Given that the Commonwealth is effectively reimbursing those ADIs who have been kind enough to use their own funds to fulfil the government requirements in relation to the unclaimed amounts, there may be a future cost to the national budget for the interest paid to ADIs in recompense. This kind of legislation has become commonplace—bad legislation and a bad policy outcome from the Gillard government.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (19:53): I am very pleased to rise to speak this evening on the Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013. The purpose of this bill is to make certain amendments to the Banking Act 1959. The reason that this bill is necessary is an earlier, extremely ill-judged, badly designed and sloppily implemented set of measures introduced by the Rudd-Gillard government. Under the legislation as it stands today, authorised deposit-taking institutions, or ADIs, are required to report and hand across to the government all unclaimed moneys based upon the status of an account as at an assessment date. As I will come to speak about later, as a consequence of changes made by the Rudd-Gillard government some time ago, the point at which the long arm of government extends into the bank accounts of Australians has been brought forward so that it now occurs within an unreasonably short time. As a result of these arrangements now being in place, it has emerged that there are some serious technical and operational flaws in the legislation that currently applies.
The first of those, as I have mentioned, is that authorised deposit-taking institutions are required to report and hand across all unclaimed moneys, and the status of an account is determined at a particular assessment date—that is, at that date the authorised deposit-taking institution is required to determine whether it is an account which contains unclaimed moneys. But this is where it gets really curious. As the law presently stands—this ill-judged, badly drafted, rushed, poorly implemented, poorly thought-through piece of legislation which has now been in place for some time—in circumstances where, as at the assessment date, the account satisfies the definition of containing unclaimed moneys, even if subsequent to that date a transaction occurs on the account, the ADI is under a legal obligation to collect the moneys in that account and to hand them to the Commonwealth. That obligation exists once the status has been determined as at the assessment date even if, as I say, after that date the account holder transacts on the account. That is clearly a nonsensical and illogical result and it reflects poor drafting and poor implementation by a chaotically disorganised government that was so desperate in its grab for cash that it did not take the time to think through the implications of how the legislation was drafted.
The consequence of the provisions operating as they do in the way that I have explained is that authorised deposit-taking institutions are placed in a remarkably invidious position in circumstances where the assessment date has arrived, as at the assessment date the account satisfies the definition such that the moneys within it are considered to be unclaimed moneys, and subsequent to that date but before the ADI hands the money across to the Commonwealth there is a transaction on that account. In those circumstances, the ADI is in an invidious position because it faces a choice between two unsatisfactory alternatives: either it must commit an offence of not transferring all unclaimed moneys to the Commonwealth or it must close the account—even though, to the certain knowledge of the ADI, that account has in fact been reactivated and the moneys in it therefore are not in substance unclaimed moneys—and transfer the contents of the account to the Commonwealth. This is a choice between two equally unattractive options. At this point I want to particularly acknowledge my year 8 English teacher, Mr Cody, who repeatedly informed his year 8 English class that the true definition of 'dilemma' is a choice between two equally unattractive options. ADIs, in the circumstances I have described, face a true dilemma. Mr Cody, who was a stickler for the definition of 'dilemma', would absolutely agree that the circumstances I have described present ADIs with a dilemma.
How have ADIs chosen to deal with this dilemma? In some circumstances, some ADIs have chosen to keep the reactivated account active, to retain the customer's balance in the account and then to pay the amount which by law is required to go to the Commonwealth from the ADI's own funds. That is clearly an undesirable state of affairs from the point of view of an ADI, and it creates this particular further problem: the Commonwealth, under the law as presently drafted, does not, in the circumstances I have described, have the legal power to return the money which has been paid to the ADI. That is so, because the way the legislation has been drafted does not contemplate the scenario I have just described in which the ADI makes payment to the Commonwealth; it assumes the payment always comes directly out of the account holder's account.
That is the backdrop against which the House is considering the bill which is before us this evening. The bill contains provisions which would, firstly, allow ADIs to exclude accounts from being treated as containing unclaimed moneys in circumstances where, as at the assessment date, they met the test. That is to say there had been no transactions on the account for the specified period of time, but subsequent to the assessment date there had then been at least one transaction. That is the first measure relevantly within the bill.
The second measure would allow the Commonwealth, in the circumstances I have described, to repay the amounts that had been paid to the Commonwealth and to repay those amounts not to the account holder but to the ADI, where it is the ADI that has paid out of its own funds to the Commonwealth.
The coalition is of the view that these amendments are necessary to correct patent, glaring and obvious errors in the poorly drafted act, which is presently on the statute books, by reason of this government's ill-judged and chaotic grab for cash.
I want to make three of brief points. Firstly, the whole reason this bill is necessary and the whole reason that there is an issue to be addressed is that the Rudd-Gillard government has made a desperate grab for cash in the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Act, an act which has been on the statute books for sometime now. Secondly, the poor drafting of that act has given rise to an unnecessary burden and extraordinary difficulties for ADIs. Thirdly, I make the point that it is unacceptable that, yet again, this parliament is spending valuable time fixing mistakes in legislation which should not have been made and which were made as a consequence of this government's rushed chaotic approach to introducing and passing legislation.
I turn to the proposition that the underlying issue this bill addresses arises as a result of the government's desperate and unseemly grab for cash. Legislation was introduced following a measure included in the 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The effect of that legislation, which, as I have indicated, has been passed into law for sometime now, is that the time periods before which a bank account can be treated as unclaimed moneys has been shortened from seven years to three years. There have also been changes regarding life insurance and superannuation accounts. This was a desperate grab for cash which will net the government nearly $900 million over the four-year period to 2015-16, but the ethics of this approach are highly questionable. It calls to mind the image of a desperate parent who has so mismanaged the household finances that he or she is reduced to breaking open their child's bank account to scrabble for some coins to try to deal with the chaotic situation of the family budget.
As other speakers from the coalition have articulately pointed out this evening, there has been a storm of community protest about these extraordinary provisions. I quote from a constituent:
I am writing to inform you that today I went to my bank account to complete a transaction where I was informed my account had been closed and my money had been sent to the government.
As my member of parliament, I would like you to ask the government why it believes it has the right take my money from my account just because I haven't transacted during a certain period.
The bank is the only safe place I have to keep my money—money that I wish to keep for a time when I decide I need it. I needed money today. I had money in my account, yet, when I went to get it, I learned the government had taken it.
Another comment I have received from a constituent in West Pymble states:
I am just writing to say that I am appalled at the Labor Party's grab on inactive accounts after 12 months. My four children have a small super fund and a savings account in that super fund which holds a small balance under $1,000.
There has been no activity in this account for 12 months, and now the government has absconded with their funds and we are faced with what will undoubtedly be an administrative nightmare just to get our own money returned to us. This is a hassle we do not need and bitterly resent.
It is bad enough paying thousands in taxes every year without the government stealing money from our bank accounts. We understand the principles behind remitting funds in inactive accounts to a government agency and have no argument with the basic objectives, but the new 12-month rule is just a nightmare and an extremely inconvenient government intrusion into our personal affairs for no useful purpose.
We feel we have been mugged and our money stolen. It is an absolute disgrace.
I think my two constituents, who I have quoted, have put this matter very well.
The second point I put this evening is that authorised deposit-taking institutions have been put into a very difficult position in needing to comply with this legislation. For example, the Australian Bankers' Association had this to say:
The ABA believes there is no benefit for consumers from the changes. The banking industry did not support the changes to the law.
Since the new law has been introduced, the ABA has been working with the Treasury to address unintended consequences and to ensure necessary technical amendments are made.
Banks must comply with these new laws. Banks have faced legal and technical issues trying to implement a new unclaimed monies regime without sufficient time or adequate rules to support the implementation of the new regime.
Isn't that just the constant chorus from every stakeholder dealing with this government: 'without sufficient time' and 'without adequate rules to support the implementation'?
In the brief time remaining I want to turn to my third point, which is that the whole reason this bill is necessary tonight is to correct grave and gaping errors in the act that presently sits on the statute book and which was passed into law only quite recently. This occurred because the government rushed it through. When the bill was before the House we urged the government to slow down and we urged it to take time to address the issues carefully, rather than rushing the bill through in a disorderly and chaotic way. Of course, yet again, the hopelessly chaotic, disorganised and unprofessional Rudd-Gillard government failed to accept that advice. As a result, they have created an extraordinary mess and it has now been necessary to pass this additional piece of legislation to correct the mess. This bill makes necessary changes, but to a very bad underlying piece of legislation.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (20:08): Jack Donahue, Frank Gardiner, Johnny Gilbert, Ben Hall, Ned Kelly, Dan Morgan, Andrew George Scott—alias Captain Moonlite—and Frederick Ward—alias Captain Thunderbolt—all names from the 19th century and all bushrangers. They stole from other colonial Australians to feather their own nests. And we thought that they belonged back in the 1800s but, alas, the bushrangers ride again. They are on that side of the House, and now they are coming to a bank account near you.
This Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013 is seeing yet another raft of bushrangers coming to a bank account near you. It could be anyone's bank account. If it has not been active in the last three years then look out! Certainly, there has been a chorus of complaint right across this wide brown land about the 21st century bushrangers who are just waiting to take unclaimed money. This is, after all, theft by any other name.
I am going to quote from the Hervey Bay Independent—
Mr Neumann interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Pardon? I am sorry: the parliamentary secretary at the table is saying something I cannot hear, but I will allow his interjection. What was that?
Mr Neumann interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: No, it is theft, and you know it is theft! The member at the table knows that it is theft. The member for Blair probably has examples in his own electorate: people who have had their bank accounts raided by this Labor government. He has some explaining to do when they ring his office and say: 'Mr Neumann, why are my bank accounts being taken by your government in the dead of night? It's not fair.' He knows it is not fair, his colleagues know it is not fair and we on this side certainly know it is unfair.
I was going to quote from the Hervey Bay Independent of 31 May:
The family of a 95-year-old Hervey Bay pensioner who had $50,000 forfeited from a bank account because it hadn't been used for seven years is warning others to be aware of the laws.
Craignish resident Jan Powell said she was shocked last week when she went to check on the status of an account her mother opened in 2002, established to pay—
wait for it—
her own funeral costs, and found the balance had gone from $49,000—
to what? What do you think it was?
Mr Van Manen: Zero!
Mr McCORMACK: Absolutely zero! You are right—you are so correct, member for Forde. It was absolutely zero. Mrs Powell said:
I contacted the bank and after being shuffled around I was told that it was Federal Government law that if an account had been inactive for seven years the money was forfeited to the government …
I can just imagine what people are feeling now these bank accounts have been reduced to a three-year period. I continue to quote Mrs Powell:
I was furious and asked why my mother wasn't contacted and told it would be taken. She has another account with the ANZ Bank that she has her pension put into—so it couldn't have been too hard to track her down.
This account was opened in 2002 after her husband died and she saw the strain the funeral costs put on the family so she wanted to save for her own funeral so this wouldn't happen again.
Under Australia law cheque or savings accounts that have been inactive for more than seven years are forfeited to the crown.
We have known that, but now it is down to three years.
Banks must, by March 31 each year—
A government member interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Stop interjecting and listen; you might learn something:
… deliver to the Treasurer a register of all unclaimed accounts worth $500 or more, which is then published in the Government Gazette.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission reports Queenslanders' pool of unclaimed money from dormant accounts is now more than $71 million.
This actual bill is going to mean that there could be a boost to the budget bottom line of almost $900 million—that is nearly $1 billion under a plan to transfer millions in unclaimed money to the taxman and the corporate regulator.
And who is putting this in place? Is it Ned Kelly? Is it Johnny Gilbert? Is it Ben Hall? No—it is the Treasurer! It is the Prime Minister! It is this government, who are 21st century bushrangers coming to a bank account near you—probably your bank account. The government is going to collect an extra $675 million—and I am quoting from the National Times of 22 October 2012:
In a measure announced today, the government will collect an extra $675 million by lowering the threshold at which lost superannuation accounts are automatically moved to the Australian Tax Office.
But why is this necessary?
We all know it is necessary—well, not really 'necessary'; that is probably not quite the correct word to use—that it is happening because this government cannot manage its own finances. It will do anything and it will stop at nothing to balance its books, even if that means taking money out of people's bank accounts where they have saved for their own funerals. Even if it means taking some of those children's Dollarmite accounts that have been inactive for three years and even if it means—as in some examples from near my electorate down in the Riverina—taking the money from people's farm management accounts. Those people have put their money in and they expect it to be there. They have had a hard enough time in recent years with drought, with floods, with fires, with poor water policy from the government. Now they have the 21st century Ned Kellys coming along and taking their hard-earned money. It is outrageous. It is simply unbelievable. But this is the Labor government of 2013. Ben Hall rides again! Never mind the Eugowra Rocks gold robbery, the stagecoach hold-up; this is classic bushranging in the 21st century. People are having their hard-earned money taken from them just to help balance the Treasurer's books. It is just incredible.
I refer to a website, Simplifying Your Life Choices, and a comment piece by Rachel Tyler Jones. On 27 February this year in an opinion piece called 'The dummies guide to losing an election', she wrote:
I'm no politician, but even I know that taking people's money is a stupid way to win an election. The Government did not consult the Australian Bankers Association … about the new three-year time limit—the figure appears to be an arbitrary one. Even as a Labor supporter—
Her words, not mine. I am certainly no Labor supporter. Rachel Tyler Jones further wrote:
Even as a Labor supporter, I am struggling to see this as anything but a desperate grab for money by a government that can't live up to its (retracted) budget surplus promises.
We have just heard the member for Bradfield describing this as ill-judged, chaotic, desperate, unseemly and an ethically questionable grab for cash. He talked about the extraordinary provisions that this government has gone to to raid what in some cases are people's life savings, to raid what some people have put away to pay for their own funerals, to raid farm bank accounts and to raid kids' Dollarmite savings accounts. It is truly extraordinary.
On the website freedomwatch.IPA.org.au of the Institute of Public Affairs, Simon Breheny writes:
The Gillard government's plan to take money from dormant bank accounts is a shameful grab for cash and a significant attack on property rights.
He is the Director of the Legal Rights Project at the Institute of Public Affairs, a free-market think tank. What he has said here is what people right across Australia are saying, right at this very minute. They are not just coalition supporters, they are Labor supporters—they are once rusted on ALP voters, unionists who have also had their bank accounts raided by these modern-day Captain Moonlites and Captain Thunderbolts. They are not riding in on their horse or holding up a stagecoach or jumping through your window in the dead of night; they are coming through by stealth—coming to a bank account near you. I urge anybody listening to consider this if they have a dormant bank account that they have their funeral payment savings tucked away in, or if they have a farm deposit management account. Any kids who are still up, at 20 past eight this evening, and are perhaps watching this because the cartoons are not on any more, I would urge them to ask mum and dad to make sure they check their bank accounts, because the Labor government might be coming to take them. That is a dreadful thing to say to the children, and I certainly do not want to scare them, but it is the truth. It is the reality of the 21st century Ned Kellys we have got all the other side of the House. Mr Breheny said:
People should be able to leave money in bank accounts for as long as they wish without the fear that the government might come along and steal it from them. To do so is an arbitrary acquisition of property by the government.
The seven-year clause has been in place for some time, but we have reached a new low now that this government has reduced that to three years. Why has it been reduced to three years? Simply to pay for the Treasurer's inefficiency. He has had six goes at getting the budget right. How many times do you think he has produced a budget deficit? Any guesses? He has not produced one single surplus. He has produced six out of six budget deficits.
When the election is held on 14 September, if we on this side of the House are fortunate enough to get the faith of the people of Australia and they vote for our side of politics to once again restore dignity to the parliament and to govern Australia for the 44th parliamentary term, it is going to take 20 consecutive years at over and above any surplus that the Howard government ever produced to make sure that the debt that this government has racked up is paid off. I repeat: it is going to take 20 consecutive years at above the highest surplus that the Howard government ever produced to pay for the debt that this mob has racked up. That is shameful. This raid on people's bank accounts is also shameful. To think that we in Australia, in this great country of ours, have to have kids' and pensioners' and hard-working Australians' bank accounts pinched, robbed, raided, taken, stolen—call it what you like—by people from the Labor side is just truly remarkable. It is a disgrace.
We thought that the bushrangers belonged in the Edgar Penzig books. We thought that they belonged in Robbery Under Arms and those other great books and movies about 19th-century colonial Australia. But, no, they belong here again—they are running the Treasury on the Labor side of politics. It is truly a disgrace. We have got poor Jan Powell concerned about the missing $50,000 her mum had tucked away to help pay for her own funeral. We have got farm management deposits scheme raided, when the poor farmers are under enough pressure as it is to try to make ends meet because there has never been good public policy in the last five years from this Rudd-Gillard, possibly Rudd again, government.
We have now possibly got the kids' school bank accounts under threat because they have not had any activity in three years. All this is because the Treasurer simply cannot add up. The Treasurer simply comes out and says that he is going to produce a budget surplus, and we have got the Prime Minister backing him up and saying, 'Yes, we are going to produce a surplus,' over and over and over again. Hundreds of times the Prime Minister and her loyal deputy are on the record saying, 'We are going to produce a budget surplus,' and what did we get in the last budget—another deficit and more debt.
And on top of all that, we are now getting the kids and pensioners and the hardworking businesspeople and families of Australia having their bank accounts pinched, robbed and taken by this government. It is simply a disgrace. People will not stand for this and nor should they. They should not have to put up with this. This place should be the epitome of democracy. This government should be ruling for all Australians and showing that they care about hardworking people's bank accounts, about the Dollarmite savings accounts and about funeral nest eggs for people, but they do not. They are just pinching it to make up for their Treasurer's absolute ignorance as to how he could possibly ever produce a budget surplus. (Time expired)
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (20:23): It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Riverina and his very comprehensive expose of why we stand here again tonight debating another piece of legislation in this place. Once again we have a government that has not listened to what the Australian people have to say and has not listened to the sensible ideas of the coalition when it first implemented this legislation some six or seven months ago. This Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill again demonstrates the government's incapacity to introduce legislation that is well thought through and well organised. The original legislation was introduced in a hurry and in a rush, purely to cover up, or to try to mitigate the effects of, its poor budget management. It is a poor policy measure in its original form and it has affected people with bank accounts right across the nation.
But it is not only ordinary bank accounts. As the member for Riverina rightly pointed out, it is also farm deposit accounts and things like mortgage offset accounts and savings accounts for children. There are any number of people who have been affected by this ludicrous grab for people's cash to fix their own budget profligacy. It reminds me of Robin Hood—except this government gets everything upside down. It is a Labor government's version of Robin Hood—take from the pensioners and give to the government! That is a new version of Robin Hood, the 21st century version of Robin Hood for this government across the chamber.
Just to give you an example of one instance that was quite justified in relation to the original legislation and was reported in the The Courier-Mail on 21 May 2013. It reads:
A QUEENSLAND pensioner emerged from a quintuple heart bypass only to find his bank had emptied his account, handing more than $22,000 to the Federal Government.
For what purpose—to make them look good, to try to offset the effects of their budget profligacy. This 75-year-old person had spent 21 days in hospital following quintuple heart bypass surgery and a second operation in April. When he and his wife, 57-year-old Mary Jane, went to check their Suncorp account they discovered their balance had plummeted from $22,600 to zero, and a note on 1 May read: 'Closing WDEL: government unclaimed moneys'. The sad irony of this story is that the couple had saved for 14 years in preparation for major health related costs. These people are the very people that we should be supporting. We want people to save for their own health related costs in retirement or as they get older. We want people to provide for themselves, yet here we have a government that takes people's money when they do exactly what we should be supporting them to do.
Suncorp claims that the letter was sent at the end of March notifying them that the account held in Mrs Duffy's name had been inactive for more than three years and would be closed if no action was taken. It says that attempts were made to call the couple on 16 April, followed by an account closure letter on 30 April. I respectfully suggest that if Mr Duffy was recovering from a quintuple heart bypass that maybe the phone call and this correspondence were not attended to in a timely manner. It is fully understandable given the Duffys' circumstances.
Mrs Duffy is quoted in The Courier-Mail article as saying, 'I call it stealing.' I would have to agree with Mrs Duffy. My understanding of the definition of stealing is to take something without somebody's knowledge and not to tell them. As far as I am concerned, that is exactly what happened. 'The government took it without telling us,' Mr Duffy said. Suncorp to their credit fully refunded the $22,000 out of its own coffers, but if I were Suncorp, I would not be holding my breath waiting for the government to refund that money to me any time soon. The reason the government are so desperate for Mr Duffy's money and other Australians' money is that they have none of their own left to play with.
We have seen six years of profligate spending, resulting in six budget deficits, total accumulated deficits of some $172 billion and gross debt of around $270 billion. We know from the budget papers that, ultimately, we will finish up with gross debt in the region of $340 billion. The government does not even want to admit that to the Australian people. It refuses to acknowledge or refuses to put before this parliament, before it rises for the election, a bill to increase the debt limit to a limit that will accommodate the debt that this government will accrue in the forward estimates, because it does not want to admit to the Australian people its failure and incompetence in managing the budgetary situation of this country.
But, fortunately, the Australian people will have a positive option on 14 September: the coalition, with a positive plan to deliver a diverse powerhouse economy, with legislation and a framework put in place to help create many jobs in the coming years; to return a positive mindset to the Australian economy and to the Australian people, so they know that they will have a positive future to look forward to, not one filled with debt and deficit as they are presently looking forward to with the current government.
I think it is instructive to have a look at a bit of history. When the bill was originally put before this House, for the very reasons we are here today to discuss these issues, the coalition did not support the passage of the original legislation through this parliament. Consequently, as a result of this legislation we now see ADIs either having to commit an offence of not transferring all unclaimed moneys to the Commonwealth or needing to close reactivated accounts and transfer them to the Commonwealth. On the other hand, some ADIs have reported and transferred unclaimed moneys to the Commonwealth, including amounts in reactivated accounts. But, either way, the end result is that Australian people still lose out.
As a result of this government's profligate spending, the Treasury has confirmed that the Treasurer will break his own $300 million debt cap. In an effort to try to mitigate the effects of that, we have seen this government break one of the key tenets our democracy is built on. That tenet is the protection of private property rights. The government in this legislation is trampling on people's private property rights in having initially reduced the term with respect to unclaimed moneys from seven years to three years. We are now seeing directly the unintended consequence of that because, as with many pieces of legislation that go through this House, this government fails to think through the consequences of the legislation that it seeks to pass.
Not only are the government complicit in this, but those on the crossbenches are as well because they have supported the government in the removal of people's assets and private property rights in order to balance the budget to offset their spending profligacy. As I touched on earlier, the government have now refused to admit that, at some point, the debt limit will need to be increased above $300 million. Any increase will be the fifth such increase because, firstly, they increased it to $75 billion, then to $200 billion, then to $250 billion and then to $300 billion. In the 2012 budget, the Treasurer told the House:
We would be at the end of each year within the $250 billion cap.
We are already in excess of that and, given the current government's spending profligacy I do not see us getting back to anywhere under $250 billion, let alone staying under the $300 billion in the forward estimates.
I think it is worthwhile in the context of this matter to give a bit of background to this. The government attempted, in the 2012-13 MYEFO, to find savings to bolster their now defunct commitment of delivering a budget surplus. Interestingly, earlier this year, the budget deficit was going to be in the vicinity of $7 billion. We finished up with a budget deficit of $19 billion. They are just making it up as they are going along.
The government has announced an array of changes relating to unclaimed moneys in bank accounts, which we have already touched on. Not only was the time period reduced from seven years to three years with respect to bank account funds being claimed but also the time period with respect to life insurance moneys, previously treated as unclaimed after seven years, was also reduced to three years. Superannuation accounts, with balances of less than $2,000, and the accounts of unidentified members that had been inactive for 12 months were also required to be transferred to the Commissioner of Taxation. In addition, there was the reduction from five years to 12 months for the period of inactivity before which a superannuation account of identifiable members was transferred to the ATO.
Unclaimed property of corporations is now being recognised directly as Commonwealth consolidated revenue, impacting the underlying cash position of the Commonwealth, upon receipt by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission as opposed to the Companies and Unclaimed Moneys Special Account.
All of this is aimed to boost the budget bottom line by some $900 million. To what effect? If the budget blow-out from earlier this year was from $7 billion to $19 billion, I do not think $900 million is going to make much of a difference. The consequence is it creates issues for ordinary Australians because they did not know and were not advised.
The coalition is an alternative with a positive plan for our economy: to create a powerhouse and diverse economy that is geared towards creating new jobs over a five- and 10-year period, by removing the red weed of regulation that is invading our economy courtesy of this government opposite. It is almost like the Labor government version of War of the Worlds. You see this red weed of regulation spreading throughout the economy, entangling and choking the life out of our business community.
The coalition has a four-point plan for the economy if elected and we will offer consistency and stability in government.
Government members interjecting—
Mr VAN MANEN: I thank the members opposite for their contribution, but the coalition is committed to restoring sound public finances. We will get rid of the waste and get Australia back onto a financially responsible track. We will provide hope, reward and opportunity. (Time expired)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (20:38): I move:
That the debate be adjourned, and the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the debate be adjourned.
The House divided. [20:43]
The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke
Dr STONE (Murray) (20:52): There is no doubt at all that Labor wants to shut this debate down because it is all about—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murray will resume her seat and her colleagues will graciously leave the chamber so she can be heard in silence. I ask people to quickly and quietly leave the chamber.
Dr STONE: Let me start again and say this is historic in that the Gillard government has not shut down this debate. There are enough people with decency in this House to say we must have the debate here, that this is the most extraordinary grab for cash that this government, and perhaps any federal government, has ever attempted.
Imagine the plight of Morice Holland, an 82-year-old from Picola, a tiny little place nestled against the Murray River. He drives to his nearest bank 54 minutes away in Shepparton. He goes in to take some money out of his bank account. He knows there are thousands of dollars in his bank account. He does not use that account very often because he is saving steadily for his extreme old age. Imagine his shock when the teller tells him, 'I am sorry, Mr Holland, there is no money in your account.' As Morice Holland said, 'It was a kick in the guts for me. I was stunned and shocked. I don't want anyone to have that experience again.'
In a rather touching loyalty to his bank, Mr Holland does not want to name which bank it was in Shepparton but he is stunned and shocked. In all of his 82 years of life he never expected a democratically elected federal government to make a grab for his hard earned cash. He was told he would have to fill in lots of forms. He may get his money back in three months if he is lucky or he could go and check out the ASIC website where he could search for his money on moneysmart.gov.au. Mr Holland continues to be shocked and disappointed but he is amongst thousands of Australians who just cannot believe that this government has stooped to such a low ebb that it will do anything to try and get some money onto its side of the ledgers.
We are told they would reap about $900 million over a four-year period to 2015-16 by reducing the time before an unoperated or inactive account ends up in Treasury. Can you imagine how many of our older Australians are putting a little bit of money aside for their grandchildren or who want to see their children inherit a little from their hard earned savings? They do not touch those accounts, often for years. Can you imagine the older Australians who are putting aside a funeral fund, hoping that the interest might accumulate over the years so their children do not have to pay for their funerals? Can you think about those who have had some money put aside for a deposit for a house or in another one of the cases of my constituents for a farm? They commit to buying that property, knowing that their bank account has $100,000 or $200,0000 carefully tucked away. They sign the paperwork for the deposit on that property and then, to their shock and horror, they discover that their bank account has been cleaned out. There is no cash there but they have signed up to purchase that property. There was money there. They have not spent it but, unfortunately, they have not activated that account for a shorter period of time than was originally the case.
There are credit ratings that can be trashed in this process. One of the people caught up in this is wondering what will happen with their attempt to buy a property, given that they do not think they will see their cash returned for another six months. This is the most extraordinary grab for cash we have ever seen. We have bank accounts with unclaimed moneys that were going to the federal government after seven years but that has now been reduced to just three years. We have life insurance moneys previously treated as unclaimed after seven years. That is now only three years. Imagine if you think you have life insurance support but you actually do not.
Superannuation accounts with balances of less than $2,000 and accounts of unidentified members that have been inactive for 12 months are required to be transferred to the Commissioner for Taxation. That in particular picks up all of the overseas international backpackers. When they come and pick fruit in the Goulburn Valley, they frequently end up with superannuation accounts of less than $2,000. That happens quite regularly. Now they are going to lose all that money. It is going to go back to revenue even though they have sweated under the sun of the Great Northern Plains picking fruit. They have earned income, they have earned some superannuation, but it is less than $2,000. That is gone.
They are going to also reduce from five years to 12 months the period of inactivity before which the superannuation accounts of unidentified members are transferred to the ATO. It is also about unclaimed properties of corporations. They are caught up in all of this too.
We wonder: why would any government expose themselves to the distress and shock of our hardworking, diligent older and younger Australians? Why would any government do this? It is an extraordinary act. In the case of my great constituent, the 82-year-old Morice Holland, I doubt if he will ever get over the shock of going to the bank and finding that none of his money is there. I don't think the persons who thought they were buying a farm will ever get over the shock of finding that they cannot honour the commitment they made to the seller that they were going to pay a deposit by a certain date.
Why has the government done this? Well, the answer is shocking. We have as a confirmed fact that Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, will break his own $300 billion debt cap sometime very soon. The Treasury said the expected peak of Commonwealth government securities on issue, subject to the cap, will be a massive $340 billion.
The coalition left Labor with a $20 billion surplus, no net debt and an unemployment rate of around four per cent. But now I am afraid we have the Treasurer's recent budget with a $20 billion blow-out in the space of only six months. The government has already increased the debt limit on four occasions—firstly to $75 billion, then to $200 billion, then to $250 billion and then to $300 billion. When you have this circumstance, I guess you can expect to see a government like this stoop very, very low indeed. They have already trashed the economy, they are already heavily in debt, they are already borrowing to curtail the lifetime opportunities of our children and grandchildren. They are already doing extraordinary things like having line items in the budget of some $500 million without any actual description of what the money is for and every cent of it is borrowed.
So when you have this circumstance, when you have promised six years in a row that you will produce a surplus and instead you have had six years of deficit, I guess, if you have a little imagination, you can put your hand in the back pocket of ordinary Australians and take their savings. The trouble is that is not conscionable. It is not what Australians expect a democratically elected government, even a Labor government, to do. The shock, the stress caused to people like Mr Holland is something that, at the age of 82, he is not likely to get over very quickly. It is a tragedy when people in their late 80s who thought that they were going to have money for their funerals hear it may be six months before they can get their money back and they have to fill out a lot of paperwork first.
The banks are not even required under this legislation to tell their account owners when the government is reaching into their accounts because they have not been active for a couple of years. Some banks are electing to tell people, but others are not. So you can imagine the distress and the shock when someone goes to their bank, a bank which has not chosen to inform their clients, and the piggy bank is empty. The people coming to me in shock and despair have particularly been older Australians, and in particular they have mentioned their children's inheritance. They have mentioned their own life insurance. They have mentioned thinking that they had money put aside for a rainy day. What they have instead is a nasty and rude shock.
In my electorate of Murray not many people have ever chosen to vote Labor, but those few who have are now totally disenchanted. When a government starts to behave like this it does describe new lows of behaviour for any democratically elected government. I know there was an expectation that it would be able to cream off some $900 million out of people's bank accounts over a four-year period, but surely it would be much more conscionable to have looked at government savings, to have looked at, for example, less advertising of the NBN—the National Broadband Network. Wouldn't it have been better to have looked at that pork-barrelling prior to the election with that $500 million, not as yet accounted for, and whether that was really something that could be exchanged for raiding ordinary people's bank accounts?
I have to wonder if the people of Australia will forgive the government for these dishonourable acts. I wonder if on 14 September, when people go to the polling booths, people like Mr Holland, if they will have come close to forgiving the government for giving them the shock of their lives when they found their hard earned savings had been taken without their permission? And simply telling people to go off to a website in order to apply to claim their money back is not good enough. Most of the people in my electorate do not have access to a website. In particular, my older Australians do not know how to operate a website and look for lost moneys, and they often do not have an 11-year-old grandson at hand to help them.
This is a disgusting piece of Australian government policy. This particular bill just neatens up what has already been done. The coalition opposed the contracting back of the time frames for when money could be taken out of bank accounts. We opposed it in the Senate and we opposed it in the House of Representatives. It is an unconscionable act for any government to go into people's bank accounts—accounts which, often for very good reasons, have not been activated for long periods of time—and to take money, and to make it difficult for people to get that cash back. Six months is a very long time in the life of an 82-year-old; it can perhaps be too long for those who cannot get back their funeral benefits fund within six months. I call on this government to really think a bit harder about this. It is not too late for it to have a strong attack of conscience and to look again at what it has done. I suspect though it is all locked away. That $900 million is going to be very important for a government that has this massive $300 billion debt cap approaching.
For a government that inherited a $20 billion surplus, no net debt, unemployment rates at around four per cent, this has been an extraordinary performance. We have had things like the pink batts fiasco; the Building the Education Revolution, which gave people schoolrooms they did not want instead of toilet blocks, and in the country areas they were not allowed to make use of local tenderers; the cash-for-clunkers scheme; GroceryWatch; and the NBN, which is not going to come near any of my communities for so very, very long. There are all of those sadnesses, disappointments for a government that does not seem to have learnt from its first term, and now we have this: people who thought they had their life savings tucked away—people who were putting aside money for their children's inheritance, for their life insurance, for their funerals, for that property they wanted to buy—going to the bank and finding, oops, the Treasurer, Mr Swan, has been there first.
I condemn this whole business of the government emptying people's accounts. I think it is a desperate move from a desperate government. It is not the way to behave. It is a tragedy that the government is in such dire straits with the economy. I know so many people in my electorate are counting down the days until 14 September. In the case of Mr Holland, he is just hoping that his money reappears in his bank account. He has been promised it could be there in two or three months if he is lucky. He has filled out the paperwork. He has driven the 50 minutes back to his property at Picola, now he sits and waits—a deeply disappointed man wondering what unAustralian activities or actions might still be in store for him as he continues to live under the regime of the Gillard government.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (21:06): Having risen to speak to the Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013, I note it does afford the opposition, or indeed aggrieved members of the government benches if they choose to do so, the opportunity to draw attention to the fact that the legislation that said that the government could thieve, purloin, take away and deny people their own money was introduced firstly as the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This bill before us highlights the fact that there was a severe impediment in that original legislation. What it does, and this is why we will of course be supporting this amendment bill, is actually permit the government to refund money taken from people whose accounts had been so-called 'dormant' as at a date set by banks or deposit-taking institutions but that subsequent to that date had been reactivated—for example, they had transacted business—but because it was after the set date the government still took the money. This bill is to allow that money to be repaid, so, of course, we will be supporting the bill. But the important point to make is that this whole legislation is totally and utterly unprincipled.
The member for Riverina spoke powerfully and strongly when he began his speech by listing the names of famous bushrangers who were, in fact, people who had a reputation for breaking the law. But compared to the actions of this government, they look like principled men. The fact of the matter is that the original legislation which is being amended by this bill, whereby the Banking Act itself is being amended, now means that the time has been shortened from seven years to three years to treat money as unclaimed. But this time the money goes straight into the government coffers and it resulted over the forward estimates in some $900 million being used to prop up the bottom line for the government when it was in its phase of saying, 'We are going to have a surplus.'
Nobody on this side of the chamber ever believed that the government was ever capable of delivering a surplus. After all, they have not delivered a surplus in the entire time that the member for Longman has been alive—and they were certainly not likely to be delivering a surplus in the last budget we received. In fact, we saw the hysterical events whereby we went from hearing the government say there will be a surplus to hearing the government say the deficit would be $7 billion and then, no, it would be $12 billion—and finally, of course, it is $19 billion. But that is only what we have until we see the final figures. When we finally go to the election and we see Treasury's figures, as distinct from the Treasurer's figures, and then we will really know what the extent of the deficit really is.
In their great desire to pretend that they were going to reach a surplus, they decided that they would steal the money out of people's bank accounts, and we have heard such examples that have been given by colleagues who have already spoken. We have heard of the example where a Queensland pensioner emerged from heart surgery to find that the bank had emptied his account and given it to the federal government, as the bank was required to do by law. We have heard of other people who have been entering into transactions knowing that they had money in the bank and yet when they went to complete their transactions they found that the money had been taken away and then they have had to go through the rigmarole of filling out forms and trying to trace their own money to get it back—and for the penalties they might incur in the interim would they ever been recompensed? I think not.
If we go to the explanatory memorandum, the EM, of this amending bill, the Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013, and if we go to the section that says 'Financial impact' we see—and isn't this typical of the government:
The financial impact from the Bill is likely to be low but is difficult to quantify due to insufficient data being available.
So isn't that typical of the sort of legislation we see coming into this House on a continuing basis! The fact of the matter is that this government never does its homework properly. Whatever it touches turns to dross and the net result is that we have a country which is not being governed, and the sooner we can go to an election and let the people have their say the better.
Let us go back to what that initial legislation did—and we opposed that legislation. I am talking about, of course, the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012, which has since been enacted. What it did was to say that the time periods for accounts to be treated as unclaimed would be shortened, for bank accounts from seven years to three years and for life insurance moneys previously treated as unclaimed, from seven years to three years. Superannuation accounts with balances of less than $2,000 and accounts of unidentifiable members that had been inactive for 12 months were required to be transferred to the Commissioner of Taxation. It was reducing from five years to 12 months—12 months!—the period of inactivity before which the superannuation accounts of unidentifiable members were transferred to the Australian tax office. Also, unclaimed property of corporations was to be taken directly and placed in the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund, thereby impacting the underlying cash position of the Commonwealth upon receipt by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, as opposed to the companies and unclaimed moneys special account.
Coalition members, those on this side of the House, attempted to amend that bill and sought to delay the implementation of the schedules which related to bank accounts and first home saver accounts for a full year so it would not commence until 31 December 2013, which would be after the election and would allow the people to be able to vote on that issue as one of the items that went before the coming election. That would have been a reasonable thing to do, to allow people to have a say on whether or not the government should be stealing the money. We also sought to delay schedule 4 of that bill, relating to superannuation accounts, for a full year to align with the deadline of the autoconsolidations necessary under the previously announced SuperStream reforms which were to commence from 1 January 2014.
There was the Senate economics committee report where the coalition brought in a dissenting report as to whether or not this legislation should be passed before the coming election. The government, however, brought in its own amendments. They sought to amend the commencement date of the schedules in order to provide for more time for authorised deposit-taking institutions, first homeowner savings account providers, life insurers and superannuation funds to implement the changes with no financial impact as a result of the change in commencement. There are a number of other alterations they made to their own legislation. It is not an uncommon practice for this government to have to amend its own legislation simply because it has not done sufficient work in the first place to make it acceptable.
I think it is important to understand just how heinous and draconian the legislation is as it affects individuals. This piece of legislation before us right now says that it will exclude reactivated accounts—that is, accounts that have been assessed unclaimed but are transacted prior to being transferred to the Commonwealth—from being transferred to the Commonwealth and to allow the Commonwealth to return the moneys collected. Under the initial legislation there was no power for the government to return money. So they could thieve it, but they could not return it.
Where the reactivation of the account has taken place after the so-called date from which it was meant to be transferred many of the banks in fact have themselves transferred their own money to the Commonwealth and left their customers' money in their bank accounts, because they thought that morally that was the correct thing to do. Whether or not subsequently the Commonwealth is going to be liable for paying interest on that money remains a question to be determined. Hence, the explanatory memorandum to this bill says they really cannot quantify what the effect of this bill will be. As I said, this is typical of the way this government organises itself.
But let us look at that moral question. An authorised deposit-taking institution has decided that it will use its own money to remit money to the Commonwealth so as not to commit an offence under the legislation as passed and so their own customers will not have their money stolen by the Commonwealth and so that when they went to utilise their money they would not find it was simply not there. The government has given way and brought in this bill to enable two things to occur: that where the account has been reactivated, they are not obliged to in fact transfer the money; and that where the ADIs have in fact sent the money they can actually repay it.
What an extraordinary tale of woe it is in dealing with individuals' property. But, again, why should we be surprised? Because the Labor government, as a collectivist government, always believes that it can spend individuals' money more wisely than the individuals can themselves. That is why it is a high-taxing party. It believes that, if it takes people's money compulsorily by way of taxation, it will spend that more wisely than the individual if it is left in their own hands. That is a big demarcation between Labor and Liberal principles. We believe that an individual will always spend their own money more wisely than a government which says it is spending it on their behalf and for better causes.
This bill—this whole raft of legislation—is quite in line with that philosophy that says that the more money we can take from individuals and spend according to what we believe in, then that is a better outcome for Australia. We reject that proposition and say that money that is left in the control of individual Australians—with the ability to use their own judgement, their own innovation and their own ability—will always be money which is spent more wisely than a government that pretends to spend it on your behalf.
In a way this legislation is iconic in the way that it highlights the difference between the two approaches to government. This Labor government spends recklessly to the extent that we now have a gross debt of $300 billion and we have an annual interest bill of $12 a year. That is $300 billion and $12 billion a year in interest repayments. Yet, at the time they took office from us, we left them with no debt, we had a surplus and we had money in the bank. And you had an increase in revenue of between $70 billion and $80 billion, but your expenditure has been $120 billion. This has meant, quite frankly, that at every turn you have overspent the amount of money that is coming in by recklessly choosing to base it on projections for incoming revenue—projections which have been so out of kilter with reality that we now have this huge accumulated deficit, which is the gift of the Labor Party to the Australian people and the generations that are going to have to repay it!
This is an appalling package of legislation and this bill actually tries to remedy some of the damage you have already done. As I said, why are we surprised that we would support this bill when we rejected the original legislation? I put to you, Deputy Speaker Lyons, that we are seeing a very clear differentiation between the two parties and one which the electorate will certainly consider when we go to the election. (Time expired)
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (21:21): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013 tonight, because the government not that long ago actually tried to shut this debate down. I and other members will now have the opportunity to speak after this debate adjourns tonight for the adjournment debate. We will come back again tomorrow and the other members of the coalition who wish to speak on this bill, of which there are still a number, will have that opportunity.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill, because, as I said, the government were defeated 70-68 on the floor of this House tonight when they were trying to shut down the further exposure of their failings in this very important bill in relation to unclaimed money. This bill seeks to clean up the mess of yet another government mistake. There was also a matter that was determined by this House earlier tonight. The Manager of Government Business was seeking to shut down a debate to try to ram through another important bill that at some stage will be considered by this House. That matter related to the government's overstretched 457 changes, which will have very significant implications. They have been subject to no consultation and there is no regulatory impact statement.
I am disappointed that the government were seeking to cut short the debate on this matter this evening. They were trying to usurp process and ram that other matter through this House tonight before a very important thing could be done to observe procedure—and that is the tabling of the Selection Committee report that deals with the referral of bills to committees. It is no secret—and I have said this publicly—that the coalition have sought to have the government's migration act changes to introduce the union red tape for 457s referred to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment. Whether that has been done is a matter that I am sure this House would like to know from the Selection Committee before it were to commence debate. If it is indeed being referred to that committee, then that debate should not and cannot proceed in this place.
I am sure that the member for McMahon would be interested in this because he is a member of that committee. I am sure he would welcome the opportunity. He and I may have had many disagreements on some matters, but one thing I will give the member for McMahon credit for is our bipartisanship on the importance of skilled migration. I am sure he would be interested in seeing how the fairly effective routine housekeeping reforms that were stewarded through the skilled migration advisory council, which could be done by regulation, were translated into this jumped up, sexed up claim that the now minister for immigration has been seeking to enforce on the debate. I am pleased that the government has been thwarted tonight in that fairly grubby attempt by the Manager of Government Business and that this House has asserted its authority on the government in voting them down on the floor of this House.
This matter before the House tonight is yet another example of cleaning up the government's mess. I am reminded of the former—and our greatest ever—Treasurer, the former member for Higgins, Peter Costello, who will always be remembered for his great achievements in that portfolio. No other people, except those on this side of this House, are ever willing to pay tribute to the greatest Treasurer we have ever had. No-one can do a better job than the current Treasurer, by his own appalling performance, to highlight the difference between the performance of the best Treasurer this country has ever had and the performance of the current Treasurer. I said in my maiden speech in this place almost six years ago that the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, was the greatest we have ever had—and that position is under no present threat. That remains as true today as it was when I said it almost six years ago.
There will be the opportunity for the member for North Sydney, if we are indeed elected and the Australian people bestow that great honour and responsibility on those on this side of the House, to show that he is up to the task. Many of us on this side of the House, if we are given that opportunity, will have big shoes to fill. In my case, the member for Berowra, the father of the House, has very big shoes to fill when it comes to immigration—if that is indeed what the Leader of the Opposition were to bestow on me. But the former member for Higgins, the greatest Treasurer, left big shoes to fill.
What we have here in this bill is an example of a government that has spent all of your money and has now got its hand down the back of the couch trying to find whatever loose change it can to make the payments. They fumbled in their first attempt to shore up their surplus, which never appeared. The surplus of this government is as elusive as Captain Emad himself as he skipped out of the country and out of the clutches of this government as easily as he sailed in on a boat—one of the more than 725 that have come to this country under this government's failed policies. What started out with the master and commander of border failures under this government and the former Prime Minister is only eclipsed by the current Prime Minister.
This bill seeks to take from the Australian people money which is theirs. It used to be said that, if you had a bad government, put your money under the bed. That used to be a joke. It is now true to the extent that, under this government's changes, they can reach into your account and rip it out, even if—given their folly on their original introduction of these measures—the account from which it is taken subsequently has a transaction. That is what happens with this government's 'ready, fire, aim' approach. We see it everywhere: we have seen it on pink batts, we have seen it on boats, we have seen it on budgets, we have seen it on the carbon tax—we have seen it on everything. Ready, fire and the aim comes later, because that is how this government operates. Tonight we saw that again from the Manager of Government Business. He swaggered in here seeking to throw his weight around this parliament and he was voted down. We voted him down in this, the people's house, the House of Representatives.
The show on that side is falling apart. The show on the other side is a sideshow; it is a soap opera where the script just keeps getting worse. The Manager of Government Business came in here and tried to jump the shark tonight and he fell in the tank—that is what happened to the Manager of Government Business and the government in this chamber tonight. I think losing the confidence on that bill in the House tonight sums up the chaos that is occurring in the government ranks at this most important time.
As we come to this place in these last few weeks of sittings, I know the Australian people will be itching and looking forward to the opportunity to have their say. This parliament had its say tonight. It had its say against a government that tried to enforce its grubby will on this parliament and they were rejected as they indeed should be. This is a government that also deserve to be rejected by the Australian people because they just cannot get anything right, and this bill proves that they are incompetent in their implementation once again.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (21:30): Order! It being 9:30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Small Business
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (21:30): The exciting news is that the Socceroos are off to Brazil. They had a 1-0 win tonight against Iraq, and, rightly, the team will be recognised as national heroes. Our nation will get behind that team and support them. They will take on the world with our best wishes and our support.
What will not be celebrated tonight, but should be celebrated every day, are our national heroes: the small business men and women of this country. They apply themselves. They take risks. They create rewards and opportunities for themselves, their communities and those who depend upon them for their livelihoods, but they will not get the accolades that will be showered on the Socceroos. In fact, the opposite so often applies. Many small businesses that are competing for markets here against overseas competitors need to be world-class every day. The small business manufacturers need to be world-class every day. They have a World Cup contest not just in Brazil but around the globe every day to compete for markets and to try to run profitable enterprises in this country, which amongst them employ almost half the private sector workforce in this nation and provide about one quarter of the gross domestic product. They deserve our support and encouragement.
As I have travelled across this country for four years now, advocating strongly and consistently for better policy to support those courageous men and women, I think the bell is starting to toll for this Labor government that has failed to take any interest in their wellbeing, success, viability and contribution to our national economy and our communities. You need not look too far. The clarion call from Peter Anderson of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in his National Press Club address last week should have been ringing in the ears of Labor members. Those on the coalition side understand the grief and pain and the sense of a lack of support and a lack of opportunity that have been the product of this Labor government.
On this side of the House, we have been campaigning to put the 'business' back into 'small business' for years, up against a government that seems only to be interested in the businesses at the big end of town or in union business. That is all we have seen—not creating an environment of support and not creating a sense of hope, reward and opportunity that are so desperately needed.
Mr Anderson characterised this climate, he said:
I'm talking about the actions of government and how your interests usually end up on the losing side when hard choices are made.
Instead of enterprise being rewarded, it's taxed.
Instead of allowing success to grow, it's redistributed.
Instead of thanks for employing, you're demonised as an exploiter and now a bully.
Instead of giving you time to succeed, you're loaded night after night with government red tape and compliance burdens.
This is the message that I have been sharing and hearing amongst the small business community. This is the message that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and a number of small business organisations have encapsulated in their 'Small Business: Too Big to Ignore' campaign—a sentiment that we on this side have been advocating for years.
But what do we see from this government? We understand that they had no new ideas at the 2010 election and simply went to that election without any new policies and without any new contribution to support the enterprise of small business men and women and family enterprises in this country. Will we see the same again? In the intervening period, the only policy initiatives that the government have come forward with have been diluted and poorly executed carbon copies of coalition policies. They cannot think of any of their own; they have had to pinch the coalition's small business policy agenda.
As Mr Anderson and the small business community has made clear, and as is outlined in so many of the examples calling for policy action, the coalition already have policy commitments in so many of these crucial areas. We want to see a turnaround in the halving of small business formation that has occurred under Labor. We want to have it recognised that 243,000 fewer Australians are employed by small businesses in this country than when Labor was elected. We want it understood that there are now 3,000 fewer employing small businesses now than when Labor was elected. This needs to turn around. If you think about what the over-the-horizon economy looks like for this nation—when this government that we have under Labor continues to wallow in the good fortune of the mining boom and people wonder about the diverse, resilient economy we really need for the future—small business needs to be front and centre in that vision and ambition.
That will be the case if the coalition can form government after the next election. I have been there for four years. I have seen six ministers now, very few of them with any idea at all. But consistent amongst them is one shared point: they do not have a feel for, a commitment to or a belief in small business. The coalition do, and I hope we have the opportunity— (Time expired)
Refugees
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh—Second Deputy Speaker) (21:35): I too would like to congratulate our wonderful Socceroos, who have made it through to the next World Cup in Brazil and congratulate Josh Kennedy for scoring in the second half. What a game it was! What a great result for the Australian Socceroos, which will lift our nation to the highest accolades of the sport at the World Cup in Brazil in 2014. I look forward to following the World Cup as I have followed many World Cups in my lifetime since my early days as a child watching soccer—or football as it is called today—when it was not such a popular sport.
But tonight I am here to speak about a very important issue. Yesterday, I had the great pleasure and privilege—together with colleagues from the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Greens, as well as the Independents—to stand with Brad Chilcott, Director of Welcome to Australia, and talk about the impossible plight of refugees around the world. We stood together to acknowledge that we need to rise above the fears and the prejudices that exist and to rise above party politics, the intolerance and the ignorance, and inject some humanity and humility into the debate over how best to manage the refugee issue here in Australia and the issue of migration to Australia.
We stood together because we believe that what defines us here as a nation is not the colour of our skin or our religion, or where we were born or how we made our journey here to Australia. What matters are our uniquely Australian values of equality, mateship and a fair go for everyone. That is the Australia I grew up in, and I am sure that is the Australia that you grew up in, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We stood together yesterday to do the press conference because we believe that no matter how you arrive it is our responsibility as members of parliament, as government and as members of the opposition to help people to belong, to prosper and to contribute to Australia, and because we recognise that the incredibly complex issue of refugee migration is dealt no justice—absolutely no justice—by the simplistic one-line slogans that we have been hearing.
I grew up as a child of migrant parents. When I asked my parents why they came to Australia from the other end of the world—why they left their community, their belongings and everything they had ever known to come to a place on the other side of the world—they gave a simple but a very heartfelt answer. They told me that they left for Australia because they wanted to be able to dream a better life for their children. They could not imagine anything worse than their children growing up without any hope.
This is what makes Australia the best country in the world. We are all united because we can dream. We are united because we all hope for a better life for our children. And we are united because not only do we hope and dream but we are so often blessed with realising those hopes and dreams. But if we demonise those who are so vulnerable and defenceless that they have no other option than to risk their lives on a journey to Australia; if we resort to those three- and four-word slogans that we have been hearing; if we call people 'illegal' immigrants because they find themselves in a situation that we can never imagine finding ourselves in; and if we seek to divide people, to degrade people and to dehumanise people then we threaten everything that makes Australia such a great, welcoming and tolerant society as we have been for many, many years. Australia has given so many hopes and dreams to so many people here, like my parents.
That is why this weekend, on Saturday, together with other members of parliament here, we will be joining people from all walks of life from across Adelaide and South Australia at the South Australian parliament at 1 pm at Welcome to Australia's Walk Together. The event centres on the idea that Australians are welcoming, generous and compassionate people who should extend their hand to all people, no matter how they came here. This is an idea that many in the community, including myself, share. The message of Welcome to Australia is simple: if we are all people, we are all equal. (Time expired)
Papua New Guinea
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (21:40): I rise today to speak of Australia's relationship with our nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, and the principles and the story that can shape our future interactions. Australia is indeed a proud nation, with so much to celebrate: our freedom, our democracy, our diversity, our generosity, our respect for one another and, of course, our diverse and magnificent land. The people of Macquarie embody these values so well, and I am proud to represent this community.
Australia's connections with our nearest neighbours, our friends in the Pacific, run deeply through the social, political and emotional veins of our nation. From the now-significant number of Australians born in the Pacific or of Pacific Islander extraction to Australia's long-standing involvement in regional development, our connection to the Pacific is strong, and will continue to strengthen. As these connections grow, it is especially important that we remain mindful of our responsibilities, particularly to those closest to us—our nearest neighbours. In September we will celebrate the 38th anniversary of Papua New Guinea's establishment as an independent nation, following periods as an Australian post-war colony and under the rule of various foreign states since 1884.
PNG is a young state, still growing in its economic and social contexts, but still home to a rich and diverse cultural tapestry which is tremendously complex, ancient and steeped in tradition. PNG's story is also partially my own story. Twenty-five years ago, I was fortunate to marry my husband, Jim, who was originally born in Papua New Guinea, and now, of course, calls Australia home. We have two beautiful children, Joshua and Hannah. My husband has significant responsibilities as leader of his family, and I have seen firsthand the challenges faced by many Papua New Guineans, and particularly by my extended family.
Limited or no access for girls to education is common, as is the preventable spread of easily treatable disease. We are fortunate to have been able to assist our family and to provide support to girls who would not otherwise have access to education, and to have been able to fund medical assistance for family members. In other instances, however, the lack of access to critical resources and support have had tragic consequences. I have lost nieces and nephews to childbirth complications and malaria, each death being entirely preventable.
In a formal context PNG is a young state, growing in an economically and socially developing context. The cultures that form the rich tapestry that is Papua New Guinea are, however, tremendously complex, ancient and, as I have already mentioned, steeped in tradition. Over 850 different cultural groups and languages exist, and more than 80 per cent of PNG's population live in territorial lands, often isolated from other communities and urban centres. The complex nature of this cultural system and practical hindrances necessarily render it tremendously difficult to implement development on a wide scale.
Success is heavily dependent upon very close adaptation to regional and local context and—and I believe this is a most critical point—the active cooperation and collaboration of members of each local community. So on this upcoming anniversary of Papua New Guinea's independence, whilst also celebrating with my own family, I have dwelt upon the anniversaries yet to come. I hope that when each of these passes we will reflect on how many more children have been saved from preventable diseases that year than the last; how many more girls have learnt to read and write; and, critically, whether we have done everything we can to assist. Australia is a nation that has significant resources, whether it be in industry, in business, in skills, in our resources and connections to the rest of the globe. It is our privilege to be able to assist other nations. It is my great hope that we will continue to do so and to grow in our partnership, working alongside and with our partners to improve the lives of all Papua New Guineans.
Ingham Institute Clinical Skills and Simulation Centre
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Government Whip) (21:45): Last week, together with the Minister for Health, I attended the opening of the Ingham Institute Clinical Skills and Simulation Centre at Liverpool Hospital. This is a new, state-of-the-art facility providing real-life training to Australia's current and future medical professionals. It has been made possible thanks to the federal government's $9.4 million investment through the Health and Hospitals Fund. The centre has some of the most cutting-edge equipment and technology, including New South Wales's first purpose-built, fully integrated operating theatre to help doctors in training, medical students and nurses to train in performing some of the most important medical procedures. The operating theatre contains anaesthetic and scrub bays, giving medical trainees exposure to what it is like to work in a surgical environment.
The centre uses a high-fidelity human patient simulator called SimMan, which is so technically advanced it allows students to have their clinical and decision-making skills tested in what could be considered a lifelike environment. SimMan can breathe, talk and perform various other human functions, allowing for real-life emergency scenarios to be created. This allows for very efficient training for situations such as cardiac arrest and car accidents involving major trauma.
In addition to training on SimMan, future doctors and nurses are able to practise on SimMum and her 'baby', SimNewB. With SimMum and baby, the centre can create an interactive birthing simulator, teaching nurses, midwives and other students how to deal with different obstetric scenarios, including complicated deliveries. The Sim baby also has the ability to breathe and cry, allowing for training in critical neonatal problems, including resuscitation of a newborn and providing treatment and care for prematurely born babies. SimMan, SimMum and SimNewB allow students to learn and to be tested on their knowledge in an environment that is very lifelike. Traditionally, students would have had to practise on each other or they were simply expected to replicate what they saw another doctor do. I can only imagine how concerning it would be to learn that you might be the first patient for a doctor to perform an important procedure on. The simulated environment not only assists in learning how to perform certain procedures, it also assists the medical team in learning how to communicate with each other while operating.
The Ingham Institute Clinical Skills and Simulation Centre is among a number of great achievements and contributions made by the Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research. This is a charitable organisation that facilitates cutting-edge medical research benefiting the south-west of Sydney and the broader community. It fosters a collaborative partnership between the south-western Sydney local health district and two Sydney universities—namely, the University of Western Sydney and the University of New South Wales. It is one of the most advanced medical research facilities in Australia, and quite possibly in the world, and all that has been made possible thanks to the federal government's $49 million investment in the Ingham institute. This cutting edge medical research facility is now a base for more than 200 top research staff who work in various hospitals across western Sydney. Many have decided to make Western Sydney their home and have certainly added much to our economy.
I have met on many occasions the institute's chairman, Mr Terry Goldacre, and the institute directors, as well as the Director of Research, Professor Michael Barton OAM, and the institute's Chief Operating Officer, Associate Professor Greg Kaplan. They all contribute to making the Ingham institute one of the most sophisticated medical facilities conducting core research into cancer, injury, population health, brain science and mental health, cardiovascular disease, infectious and inflammatory diseases, and early years. I congratulate the institute on the opening of the Clinical Skills and Simulation Centre. I am assured it will provide the best training not only for our current medical professionals but for all those training to become leaders in the medical field in the future. (Time expired)
Broadband
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (21:50): I would like to speak tonight about Labor's cruel broadband hoax on the people of Brisbane. In a speech to parliament on 28 May, the member for Griffith made a number of false claims about the coalition's broadband policy. These included his claim that the previous Howard government had 16 separate plans on broadband and did not one jot of work in all of metropolitan Brisbane. This reflects the member for Griffith's mentality. In his Monthly essay in February 2009, he wrote about returning governments to the centre of the economy. The idea that no-one in Brisbane has access to better broadband in 2007 than they did in 1996 is fanciful. In fact, in my electorate we have access to ADSL2 services and a hybrid fibre-coaxial network that offers speeds of up to 100 megabits per second, the highest speed currently offered on the NBN, and for comparable prices. And, unlike the NBN, no HFC network operator is seriously proposing to triple wholesale revenue from each customer over the next decade.
Labor has decided to pay Telstra billions of dollars to shut down their HFC networks, and Optus $800 million to shut down its HFC network. The member for Griffith knows that in 2007 he had a policy to provide government subsidies to upgrade broadband where the market clearly failed. Now he has inserted the government at the centre of the broadband market and has exposed taxpayers to billions of dollars in liabilities that are unlikely ever to be paid off. Every other country in the world encourages infrastructure based competition. Only in Australia are we paying billions of dollars to drive out competition.
The member for Griffith also talked about a 10 per cent rollout in his electorate. He said that this is 10 per cent more than would have been delivered under the coalition's so-called broadband plan. This is just plain wrong. The coalition will deliver faster broadband sooner than Labor to everyone in Brisbane. We are committed to ensuring that all Australians have access to minimum speeds of 25 megabytes per second by 2016 and minimum speeds of 50 megabytes per second by 2019. These are minimum speeds. People will actually be accessing speeds much faster than that. This is in addition to allowing the private market to compete.
The member for Griffith then went on to say that if you happen to live in suburbs like Coorparoo, full of high-rise developments, there is the bizarre policy of wanting 75 per cent of all of the occupants of the high-rise to reach an agreement through body corporate before connection occurs. This is an absolutely bizarre claim and utterly false. In fact what the member for Griffith is talking about is literally the opposite of the truth. The coalition has advocated the exact same solution for high-rise buildings, known as multi-unit dwellings, that the NBN Co. themselves have advocated, but which is illegal, because this incompetent government thinks they know best—that is, hook the fibre into the main distributor frame or the MDF in the basement rather than take the fibre through every riser in the building, drill a hole into every resident's wall and then hook up three connection devices in the resident's property. There is very little difference in the performance, if any at all, and the savings in time and cost are enormous. There are many, many inner-city apartment dwellings within the CBD in the electorate of Brisbane that would benefit greatly from this.
The member for Griffith should stop misleading parliament and consider which solution most body corporates would be most receptive to. Of course no-one is happy with Labor's solution and this is reflected in the NBN's own performance in hooking up high-rise buildings. As of 7 December—
Government members interjecting—
Ms GAMBARO: The facts speak for themselves—and the members opposite might interject—but by 7 December 2012, more than one-third or 35 per cent of residential MDUs passed by the NBN either had an active service or were able to order an active service. The member for Griffith then said:
It is also important for the schools in my electorate ... All these will now be connected to the National Broadband Network, but under 'fraudband' there will be no possibility of connection whatsoever. Consider what will happen with our local hospitals—for example, the Mater Hospital and the PA Hospital?
This is an absolute and blatant untruth. Not only does the coalition policy specifically state that we will connect fibre to all schools and hospitals but the vast majority are already connected. Hospitals in my electorate like St Andrew's, Brisbane Private and Brisbane— (Time expired)
Automotive Industry
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (21:55): The announcement by Ford that it will cease manufacturing operations in 2016 has understandably raised questions about the future of GMH operations in Australia and in particular in South Australia. Auto manufacturing is important to Australia, directly employing around 50,000 people and about 200,000 indirectly. The sector exports over $3 billion worth of components and vehicles every year. Importantly, car makers underpin much of Australia's manufacturing capability and investments in research and development.
Whilst the global financial crisis brought things to a head, the reality is that Australian car makers have been under pressure for years. Today Australians can choose from over 60 models and choose according to what design best suits their personal needs. Choices are not made on price alone. Australian car makers simply cannot produce every desirable design and model, and so their market share has understandably been declining. Nor is the high Australian dollar the sole cause of current difficulties. The greatest pressure on car makers comes from the financial assistance or protectionist policies of governments in other countries with whom Australia competes. Many of those governments provide much higher levels of assistance than that provided by the Australian government. Some have even made direct investments in their car makers whilst others adopt protectionist policies such as tariffs or similar barriers to car imports.
In recent times there has been discussion about a temporary increase of Australian tariffs to offset the impact of the higher Australian dollar. The proposition is not without merit as it is well known that some governments also manipulate the value of their currencies in order to create a competitive trade advantage. I also note that replacing tariffs with government financial assistance, as we have done in Australia, simply transfers the assistance from those who buy imported vehicles and pay a penalty for doing so to the whole community.
So what does the future hold for the Elizabeth Holden plant? The loss of Ford does not help because it makes it tougher for component suppliers to remain viable. Conversely, Ford's closure could result in an increase in Holden sales to Australians who will remain loyal to an Australian product, so there is good reason for optimism. In a letter sent to me recently, Holden's chief financial officer, George Kapitelli outlines Holden's financial position. He said:
Holden has a world class balance sheet. We have ZERO debt, strong cash reserves and a very healthy pension fund.
Holden's strong balance sheet allows us to continue to invest in Australia for the future and this great position is best demonstrated by our significant capital and R&D spend. Our capital spend in plant and equipment was increased by $65 million in 2012, to over $100 million, in the lead up to the launch of the new model VF Commodore.
Last year Holden remained one of Australia's largest R&D spenders, with over $197 million invested in new product development. Holden has spent over $1 billion in the last 5 years on R&D alone because we know future success is directly linked to Research and Development.
Holden has a long term manufacturing plan in Australia for the future, which is very much supported by our R&D and capital spend.
The new model VF Commodore … will win hearts and minds. It is the most technologically advanced car ever created in Australia.
This highlights the world class capabilities that our domestic auto manufacturing industry can bring to Australia and the world—
It is clear from Mr Kapitelli's letter that Holden see a future in Australia and have been making considerable financial investments in their operations here. The federal government's $215 million assistance package to GMH is a responsible offer to a company with a sound financial footing, a plan for its future in Australia and co-investment commitment of $1 billion.
But in a blow to their future, as reported on the front page of The Advertiser on 13 June 2013, the coalition, if elected on 14 September, would cut $500 million in automotive assistance over the next two years and put at risk a further $1.5 billion after 2015.
Shamefully, neither the federal coalition nor the South Australian state Liberals will commit to any further assistance to Holden, thereby turning their backs on the jobs of thousands of South Australians. In so doing, the coalition have shown how little they care about South Australia and the thousands of South Australian families whose future depends on Holden.
Tony Abbott's message to South Australians is very clear. South Australia will not be important to him nor to the coalition in the coming election and the automanufacturing industry in Australia will be left to wither and die.
Gillard Government
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (22:00): It is with concern that I rise to speak tonight on the alarming number of mistruths and misrepresentations that the Gillard government's Territory-endorsed Labor Party candidate is spreading around the electorate of Solomon, in Darwin and Palmerston. The recent scare campaign by the Labor Party on GST revenue disappearing from the Territory is absolutely false and is making them look foolish to the people of Solomon. Territorians know that Chief Minister Adam Giles and I will stand up for the Territory and that the Chief Minister is in no discussions with any state premier to change the GST distribution model. Absolutely nothing can happen to the GST until all states and territories agree. I will repeat that: nothing at all can happen unless all states and territories agree. The truth is that our GST revenue is most under threat from the incompetent management of the Australian economy by the Gillard Labor government.
Let us turn to Gonski. Labor mistruths are even being spread by Labor ministers themselves when they visit my great city. The Gonski funding model is now being spun as the National Plan for School Improvement. Why? Because David Gonski requested Labor remove his name from the proposed funding model, as it was not reflective of his recommendations in the Gonski review. The Labor candidate for Solomon was out spruiking the Gonski model to the students and parents of Stuart Park Primary School, when in fact Stuart Park Primary School will not be advantaged if the Northern Territory signs up to the current Labor plan. In fact, Stuart Park is one of the 22 out of the 54 schools in my electorate that will not be advantaged if the Northern Territory signs up to Labor's Gonski plan. This is not a Gonski; it is a 'Conski.' And that is why the Northern Territory has not signed up to this model.
The NBN is another area where the Gillard Labor government spins mistruths to the people of Darwin and Palmerston. The coalition's plan is to complete the NBN as quickly and as cost effectively as possible, using a mix of technologies that will provide high speed at reasonable costs. Unfortunately, the Labor Party want to mislead my electorate and are out spruiking the fact that the NBN has finally been connected in the Darwin CBD, which is not where it is needed. It is most needed in the suburbs of Darwin and Palmerston, but it has been linked up to the CBD, which already has the highest connection speeds. The Gillard Labor government and its candidate are going around telling fibs about the real cost of the coalition's plan. The truth is that, under the coalition's plan, it will not cost the average homeowner $5,000 to connect to the NBN. These are just more mistruths being put out there by the Labor government.
More recently, the coalition and the community has questioned the safety of the NBN works in our urban areas. The highest priority for NBN Co. and the government must be the safety of the workers constructing the NBN and the communities where work is well underway. The Gillard Labor government should have prepared the community for this and should have been upfront about the dangers that that may present to the NBN workers and the community. In Darwin last week we saw asbestos being dug out of pits, but the community was not made aware of that.
Let us turn to the Palmerston Hospital. As I have said many times in this place the Country Liberals have always maintained that a hospital in Palmerston must be built to deal with growth in the community. But it does not stop the Labor Party from spruiking the mistruths that the Country Liberals have abandoned the idea of the Palmerston Hospital and are having people sign a false petition. The coalition has never said that the $70 million, allocated to the Territory government to invest in a long-term plan for health care, would be taken away. The claims of the Gillard Labor government and their candidates to the contrary are absolutely fabricated.
Labor's scaremongering tactics fool no-one and the people of Darwin and Palmerston are much smarter than the Labor Party give them credit for. Regardless of how hard the Labor people in the Territory try to distance themselves from the Rudd-Gillard Labor government, they just cannot. They are Australian Labor Party through and through!
Learn Earn Legend! Work Exposure in Government
Socceroos
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (22:05): Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting Chloe Adler, from Ingham in North Queensland, who is one of the many students taking part in the Learn Earn Legend! Work Exposure in Government. Chloe, a year 12 student, attends Ingham State High School and she has plans after graduation to continue on with a traineeship as a pharmacy assistant in one of the local pharmacies. From this placement at Parliament House, Chloe was hoping to achieve more knowledge about Parliament House and what goes on. She was hoping to see what everyone completes on a daily basis and to view question time as well.
During her placement at the Parliament House this week, Chloe had the chance to sit in on a committee meeting and enjoy the nature of question time, like you do, Speaker. She also enjoyed a captivating tour with David Field, from my office, that commenced at my office here in Parliament House and continued through the other parts of this place, as well as gaining an overall knowledge of what my everyday routine consists of. I will be looking forward to a report on that!
The whole purpose of the LEL WEX program is to reach out to Indigenous senior high school students from across Australia, mainly from remote and rural areas, and to offer them an experience of what it is like working in Parliament House and to show them the forever changing field of government. The main part of this strategy is to close the gap between young Indigenous Australian people, who now have the opportunity to do what they would like to and to try out a career that will set them up for their future and make a change for the better.
Because of the importance of education and our aims of the Closing the Gap campaign between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in the areas of education, employment and health, this program is a key action that provides a real understanding to our Indigenous students of where a wide-ranging education can take them—in this case, possibly a position in the Public Service.
A number of the students who are in Canberra this week have never stayed in the city before and they have never had the opportunity to visit Parliament House either. So for these students, this is a great experience for them not only to enjoy coming to Canberra and appreciating great architectural buildings but also to get to know other young Indigenous people. That is truly a moment to treasure.
During this week the students have been able to see some of the sights and places that Canberra itself has to show, including the Australian Institute of Sport, Ainslie Football Club, the Australian War Memorial and also the National Zoo and Aquarium, and they have got to meet with some inspirational people with a passion for what they do. Chloe said that one of the highlights of her time here in Canberra was visiting the AIS and having a go at all the different sports they have in the building. She also liked the tour around the whole area, in which she and all the other students were shown the training pools, weight rooms and much more. She had never visited New South Wales before and said it was an exciting experience. The spokespeople and participants will share their experiences and journeys from when they were young to where they are now, and their stories will most likely have points that many of the students will relate to. That is an important part for young people these days. These stories have behind them the meaning that dreams can be achieved. Additionally, it is a hope of the program that students will have a series of unforgettable experiences that they can share with their communities when they arrive home. Hopefully, as Chloe says, we can see our program expand with great confidence.
An extra characteristic of the program is that young students have the opportunity that no ordinary person can have: to gain work experience in a federal government agency. That being said, each of the students were matched with a department or agency which appeared to suit their interests and capabilities that were indicated in their application forms. Chloe will be spending her placement in the Department of Health and Ageing. We are eager to see the program continue and develop, reaching Indigenous students from across the country and promoting their career visions. Hopefully, we will come across some of the students later on, joining us in the public sector to finally increase our Indigenous political representation.
I thank Chloe for writing that terrific speech as well.
In closing and on another matter, I congratulate the Socceroos, who qualified tonight and got their tickets for Brazil in the 82nd—
Mr Laming interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: And the Brumbies, yes, but I am particularly pleased to see in the 82nd minute Josh Kennedy score a goal in front of 81,000 fans. The Socceroos will be able to go on to Brazil next year. It is terrific to see them do so well. They have had people doubt whether or not they would be able to proceed, and they certainly put the doubters to shame tonight. It is a great thing to see football progress in this country. We have seen the A-League blossom, and now our national side will go on and do great things in Brazil.
Carbon Pricing
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (22:10): I would like to reiterate the words of the member for Chifley and give my congratulations to the Socceroos for their qualification for Brazil. As a soccer player—I recently pulled the boots back on for another season—it is very heartening to see them succeed in that endeavour. As the member for Bowman has rightly pointed out, I also give my congratulations to the Brumbies for a terrific result tonight. It is a similar result to 2001, when the Lions last played in Canberra, so it is a terrific result there.
Seeing those games played at night-time is a wonderful chance to reflect on the fact that we as a society today cannot function without electricity. We could not power our homes, our businesses, our schools, our hospitals or, as tonight has demonstrated, our sporting fields. Unfortunately, over the past few years we have seen under this government that electricity prices have gone up some 94 per cent around the country. Gas prices have gone up another 62 per cent since the start of 2008. Families, pensioners, retirees, small businesses and sporting clubs have all seen their electricity and gas bills rise in part because of the carbon tax. They will see another rise of five per cent from 1 July.
Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—
Mr VAN MANEN: I always appreciate the contribution of the member for Wills to any debate in this House.
In some households bedtime is at 5 pm because pensioners and underprivileged families cannot afford to pay to keep the lights on and in a cold winter heating is just not an option.
I am deeply concerned that some families in Forde are just one pay away from homelessness. This has been confirmed through a recent discussion with the Salvation Army in Beenleigh. I am concerned that the next increase of five per cent, which will take effect from 1 July, will affect everything along the supply chain from the manufacturer to the transport to the grocery store and put household budgets under increasing pressure and disarray.
I am also concerned that this increase will further rub salt into the wounds of our small business community, which has struggled for the last 12 months with the increased costs of doing business thanks to the carbon tax with no compensation. For example, there is Aarons Linen Service, a commercial dry cleaner at Meadowbrook in my electorate. I have seen the impact of the carbon tax on their electricity and gas prices. Their electricity costs have increased by some 22 per cent from $8,000 per month to nearly $11,500 per month. Their gas prices have increased some 10½ per cent from $45,000 to $58,000, which means they are paying an additional $8,700 a month—no thanks to the carbon tax. At this rate it would equate to being worse off by over $100,000 a year. Add to that another five per cent from 1 July and Aarons Linen will now have to find an additional $5,000 on top of that with no compensation.
This carbon tax will keep going up and up at a time when global carbon prices are falling. Electricity bills have been going up and up. A not-for-profit local homeless shelter, Sheltered by Grace, has come forward in a recent newspaper article saying their electricity bill has doubled in under four years. Since Labor came to power, we have seen the cost of living go up and up, and they have done absolutely nothing to ease the cost pressures faced by Australian small businesses, which employ more than 45 per cent of the national workforce. In addition, the carbon tax is hurting family budgets, putting jobs at risk and damaging the economy. The carbon tax is a bad tax based on a lie, and only the coalition will abolish the carbon tax. The choice in this election year is clear: a coalition government that will abolish the carbon tax, ease the cost-of-living pressures and create more jobs, or another three years of chaotic Labor, who have legislated even more increases in the carbon tax. (Time expired)
Parramatta Electorate: Health Services
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (22:15): I rise to congratulate my Medicare Local for its great work in improving access to good-quality primary health care in my community. Medicare Locals are new. They were established by the Gillard government in 2011. There are 61 of them around Australia, each working to improve the health of the community by improving access to primary health care. The term 'primary care' is one that is used in the medical profession but is still largely unknown in the broader community. It essentially means the first access to medical care—usually a GP, but it includes health promotion, illness prevention, treatment and care of the sick, community development and advocacy, and rehabilitation. Medicare Locals, at the local level, focus on things like immunisation, access to bulk-bill GPs, 24-hour access to medical help, early intervention, e-health records and the kind of personal health management that one gets with a good relationship with a GP: having regular check-ups; monitoring weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels; getting advice; changing habits early; keeping health records; doing the regular screens for types of cancer; keeping an eye on things that run in the family; identifying things that might need attention; and referring a patient when necessary. It is all part of the process of a person's self-management of their health.
Medicare Locals are locally based for very good reasons, because when it comes to primary care the needs of communities differ. Some communities have more young children; others have older people; others have high incidences of skin cancer, obesity or cardiovascular disease. Each area is different. In mine we have heart attacks some 10 years earlier than the rest of Sydney, and we have higher than average obesity rates in four out of the five local council areas and high incidences of diabetes. Medicare Locals employ more than 3,000 front-line health workers to deliver services in communities across the nation, and from 1 July 2013 the Australian government will be providing an average of 60 per cent more funding to Medicare Locals for expanded GP after-hours services. My Medicare Local, because of the high obesity levels in the area, is helping people in the area to reduce their waistlines and improve their diet through a program called SHAPE. It is already making e-health records a reality for my community.
Another great example in my electorate is the funding of the Priority Medical Centre in Harris Park. It is a large bulk-billing practice offering many services, including a range of male and female GPs that speak a range of languages; a practice nurse; and allied health services including physiotherapy, a chiropractor, a psychologist, a dietician, a podiatrist, an exercise physiologist, a diabetes educator, a psychiatrist, a gynaecologist, cosmetic surgery and a general surgeon. The Priority Medical Centre is a training practice and has between three and five registrars at any one time. It is open for long hours and has a broad range of skills. It is already a great practice, well due for expansion under the primary care infrastructure grant of $500,000 which has allowed it to renovate the house next door and attach it to the practice. It will be a great addition to Harris Park.
More than anything, Medicare Locals are about a fundamental change in the dialogue about health. For a long time under the previous Howard government, we had a government that did not support primary care in any real way, and the proof of that was the decline in bulk-billing rates. The Howard government, with Tony Abbott as health minister, did not believe that a federal government had a role in preventative health, and we can see that attitude continue with the current coalition under the leadership of Tony Abbott, with their complete lack of support for the Preventive Health Agency. Now, of course, we see their lack of support for Medicare Locals.
Parramatta is benefiting from the front-line health services that the Medicare Local is delivering, but its future is far from certain should the coalition come to power. The coalition have said that they would cut Medicare Locals, ripping $1.2 billion from primary care in Australia and sacking some 3,000 people. The fact is that seven out of 10 of the 3,000 local employees of Medicare Locals provide front-line health services. They are doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, outreach workers, Aboriginal health workers and care coordinators, and they form an important part of keeping communities focused on their health and ensuring good access to all-important primary care. The difference here is quite clear. On this side of the House we built Medicare; the other side tore it down. We put it back again. The other side saw a dramatic decline in primary care during their term in the Howard years, and we have been building it back again. This is the only side in this House that cares about primary— (Time expired)
Aston Electorate: Boronia Heights Primary School
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (22:20): I rise in support of the redevelopment of the Boronia Heights Primary School. Boronia Heights is a terrific school in the corner of my electorate, in the foothills of the Dandenongs. It caters for just under 500 students, from prep to year 6, and is ably led by Principal Mark Flack. The school was established in 1967 and quickly outgrew its capacity. An additional eight classrooms were built in 1970, and another four were added in 1974. These classrooms were considered temporary at the time, but they are actually still on the school site, as are the original classrooms.
This is a fantastic school. It gets good results. The parents love it, as do the kids. But it is in need of a significant renovation and upgrade. In fact, in 2011 the school topped the list of schools in Victoria requiring maintenance. The former Labor state government had 11 long years and did not invest any significant resources into the school to upgrade its facilities, nor was there any major election commitment from the Labor government at the last state election before it was ousted to fix it in this current term. I should say nor was there from the state opposition at the time. Of course, the great tragedy was the missed opportunity from the federal BER funding where the federal government allocated $16 billion towards school capital infrastructure but, because of the way it administered those funds, we only got about $8 billion worth of value. We all know now that school halls were built on schools which were being closed down. Other halls were built on schools which already had a hall and there was all sorts of duplication, waste and mismanagement. Boronia Heights got its share of the BER funding, but it could have built twice as much had the school had the money and been able to manage the money itself just as it was able to manage the Investing in Our Schools funding which the Howard government provided in 2005-06.
I have met with Christine Ruff, the school council president, as well as a number of the other school council members and parents. I am aware that 500 letters from concerned parents have been written in support of the school buildings being redeveloped. I have also written to Martin Dixon, the state education minister, and spoken with Ed O'Donohue, the upper house state government representative for the area. I know they are sympathetic to the issue.
The state Liberal government has made significant investments into other schools in the area. I believe it is now time for Boronia Heights to also receive such an investment and an upgrade. I would like to see some of the federal funds given for schools directed towards this project. It has been 45 years since this school's inception. The buildings have served it well but it is time for renewal and to put the school on a new trajectory. I congratulate Christine Ruff and the council for the work they are doing in bringing this issue to our attention and I strongly support their efforts.
McMahon Electorate: Australia Post
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (22:24): Tonight I rise to express my very strong support for the campaign for our new post office at Pemulwuy in my electorate. Pemulwuy is a fairly new neighbourhood that has been developed over the last few years. It is a very good development and a very lovely suburb. Around 3,000 people have made Pemulwuy their home. There is a very good shopping centre.
I have worked very closely with the people of Pemulwuy on what has been a very big issue—the lack of internet access in Pemulwuy. You would think most developments in this day and age would have internet access automatically but broadband was not provided when Pemulwuy was first developed. We worked very closely with Telstra, and I want to pay tribute to Telstra and to their senior officers, Joe Komadina and others, who worked very closely with me and my office to ensure that broadband came to Pemulwuy. I am very pleased indeed that Pemulwuy is on the rollout program for the National Broadband Network and that work has started.
Having said that, the next biggest issue for the people of Pemulwuy is a post office at Pemulwuy shopping centre. When the Pemulwuy shopping centre was first developed we did lobby Australia Post, and I again want to acknowledge and thank Australia Post for their assistance. We got a post box placed at Pemulwuy shopping centre. That was a good development.
The people of Pemulwuy are currently served by the Greystanes Post Office, which is a very good post office. It is run very well. It has, as I recall, been awarded as the best post office of New South Wales in previous years. The people of Pemulwuy do deserve a proper postal presence in the shopping centre. I have been talking to Australia Post about this for some years and they have, quite rightly, said to me that we need to wait for the population of Pemulwuy to grow to justify a post office. I have accepted that. I have continued to work with them. But I think the time has now come for a post office at Pemulwuy. I have raised this directly with Australia Post—and I have no complaints about Australia Post's response and their willingness to listen to me on this matter, but I would like to see a post office at Pemulwuy sooner rather than later.
It does not need to be a huge post office. The people of Pemulwuy would not want that, but they do look for some sort of presence so that they can conduct activities—more than a post box. We already have a post box. If you are listening, you would know that because I said we have got one. What we need is a post office in Pemulwuy shopping centre. I am sure that there is a way that this can be done in conjunction with one of the existing shops, which is one of the things we have discussed with the shop owners and with the community. I think this would be very well justified.
I would not ask for this if I did not think that Australia Post could justify the presence at Pemulwuy. As I said, this is a new development and a very good development. It is a development in which many people from around our area have chosen to make their home. But after the development of broadband and the NBN, the campaign for a new post office at Pemulwuy is next on the list. I will be very pleased if we are able to deliver this to the people of Pemulwuy and the people of the broader community who shop at Pemulwuy—some people from Greystanes, Smithfield and Wetherill Park go to Pemulwuy to shop because it is a very good shopping centre.
I have dealt considerably on this matter with John Kropman of the residents association and with Ainsley Bock and other shopkeepers at Pemulwuy shops. This is something that will have very broad community support and the support of the shopping centre itself. It is not just about providing more reason to go to Pemulwuy shops, because it is a very good shopping centre in and of itself and very busy; it is about providing that service to the people of Pemulwuy which I think would be eminently justifiable. I will continue to work with Australia Post towards this and continue to lobby for it. I am very pleased to be able in the House tonight to lobby for the development of a post office at Pemulwuy.
Aston Electorate: Australia Post
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (22:28): Just following Mr Bowen's comments there, I would also like to say that we need an additional post office in Wellington Village in Rowville in my electorate. This is just a few kilometres away from the Stud Park Post Office, but that post office is now almost at capacity and there is an enormous growth corridor out the Rowville direction down Wellington Road. I have been working with the Wellington Village owners and some of the traders there, as well as speaking to many residents in my electorate, all of whom would like to see additional postal services there. We have had many meetings with Australia Post senior officials. They are examining the matter. They are getting some positive indications but we are not there quite yet. I commend to the parliament that this would be a good initiative and would be very much valued by the residents of Aston.
House adjourned at 22:3 0
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Sidebottom to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to research and development in relation to primary industries, and for related purposes.
Mr S. P. Jones to move:
That this House notes that:
(1) Australia has an abundance of natural gas reserves, with gas production projected to quadruple from 2095 petajoules in 2010 to over 8,000 petajoules in 2034-35;
(2) the export of natural gas is booming, projected to triple from 20 million tonnes in 2010-11 to over 63 million tonnes by 2017;
(3) at the same time Australia's primary energy consumption of gas is expected to increase from 22 per cent in 2008-09 to 35 per cent in 2034-35, which is consistent with Government policy to shift households and businesses to more efficient and less carbon intensive energy sources;
(4) in Australia, manufacturing, mining and electricity generation are the largest consumers of gas, consuming 84 per cent;
(5) driven by near-term infrastructure and supply constraints, Australia is facing a price squeeze on gas at the same time as many large contracts for gas supply expire from 2014;
(6) Australian manufacturing and domestic suppliers are therefore heavily exposed to rising prices and access to contracts for supply of gas at competitive pricing;
(7) in North America, governments have adopted the strategy of giving priority to domestic supply at affordable prices over other uses as a means of reinvigorating their manufacturing sector, which has led to the establishment of new businesses in the United States and the creation of over 500,000 new manufacturing jobs; and
(8) steps must be taken to ensure that affordable and reliable gas is available for manufacturing and households and that the Government must bring forward policy to achieve this.
Mr Katter to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) with the high Australian dollar, local food producers cannot compete with their foreign counterparts who can import at a cost of up to 60 per cent less, at the expense of Australian jobs and industry;
(b) SPC Ardmona:
(i) has lost a significant domestic market share of packaged fruit due to produce imported for the supermarket giants' 'inexpensive supermarket brand' private labels, which represents a 33 per cent decrease for local market share and a 58 per cent growth for imported supermarket brand market share, of packaged fruit;
(ii) is Goulburn Valley's biggest private employer and Australia's last fruit processor and if it collapses, more farmers will be forced to let fruit rot on the ground; and
(iii) has 870 full-time equivalent staff;
(iv) supports 2,700 jobs in the Goulburn Valley region, injects $63 million into the local economy through salaries and wages and provides apprenticeships for young people in the region; and
(v) utilises products from more than 200 contract growers and has bought 150,000 tonnes of fruit and vegetables worth $32 million from contract growers; and
(c) calls on the Government to endorse temporary emergency safeguards (permitted under World Trade Organization rules) to food producers, including SPC Ardmona.
Mr Katter to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the regulation of renewable fuel content in motor vehicle spirits, and for related purposes.
Mr Katter to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) in Europe it is mandatory to have 'black box' technology in all trucks;
(b) the 'black box' technology is removed from trucks made in Europe before they are shipped to Australia;
(c) in Europe 15 per cent of the trucks run off the road through driver fatigue, compared with 50 per cent in Australia under the 'old-fashioned logbook system';
(d) in Europe, 'black box' technology has reduced accidents by over 30 per cent; and
(e) 'black box' technology minimises human tragedy and business impacts of fatal road accidents; and
(2) calls on the Government to introduce legislation to ensure that 'black box' technology is fitted to all trucks in Australia, excluding livestock haulage.
Ms Owens to move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 makes it unlawful to publish material which offends or insults a person or group because 'of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the person, or of some or all of the people in the group';
(b) that freedom of religion runs deep in our culture and is featured in our Constitution and in international human rights jurisprudence, and that it includes the right to have or not have a religion, and to manifest religious belief individually or with others, in public or in private and to do so without fear of reprisal, abuse or discrimination; and
(c) reports from the Australian Islamic community of a rise in religious vilification and discrimination, particularly in respect of women and girls who wear religiously significant garments such as the hijab;
(2) acknowledges calls by the Australian Islamic community to strengthen human rights and anti‑discrimination laws to include religious vilification and discrimination;
(3) notes that the Attorney‑General, as part of the review of the exposure draft of the Human Rights and Anti‑Discrimination Bill 2012, has asked his department to thoroughly assess submissions made to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, including many which recommend that the Government takes a step forward in protecting the community from religious vilification and discrimination; and
(4) urges the Parliament to:
(a) uphold protections against racial vilification that are already in place under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975; and
(b) ensure that protections and safeguards are in place to protect religious freedom in Australia.
Mr Perrett to move:
That this House condemns the comments made by Senator Cory Bernardi regarding bestiality and the damaging effects that will flow on to the members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex community because of his thoughtless, ill-considered and ill-informed understanding in this area.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 12:16.
COMMITTEES
National Broadband Network Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (12:16): I want to draw honourable members' attention to the dissenting report by the coalition members and senators which sets out some very disturbing facts about the disastrous state of this project. The debate over the NBN, of course, has been contentious, but the rollout has been proceeding for long enough now for there to be some objective facts on the ground and, indeed, in the ground.
The first point that the coalition have made is that the fibre rollout is well behind schedule. The original NBN Co. corporate plan published at the end of 2010 forecast that fibre would be available and connected to 950,000 brownfield and 319,000 greenfield premises by June 2013. As at the end of May the fibre network had passed 71,000 brownfield and 32,000 greenfield premises. That is a catastrophic shortfall. It is not just a question of falling short of the 2010 forecasts. By brownfield, of course, honourable members understand I am talking about the already built-up areas as opposed to new developments. I mentioned that the first forecast was 950,000 to be passed by end June 2013. In August last year their new corporate plan slashed that down to 286,000, then in March 2013, just a few months ago, that target was again reduced to between 155,000 and 175,000, and as of mid-May the fibre network had passed only 71,000 brownfield premises. This is one shortfall after another.
There have been cascading forecasts, the target is dropping down, and it says something about the management of this business and their capacity to forecast. They set a new target in August last year, they then had to dramatically reduce it in March this year, and now it appears they are going to fall short of a target that was set 90 days prior to the target date. There are no forecasts in the corporate plan that one can take seriously.
This slowness of the rollout is a very significant issue. Honourable members will understand that one of the arguments in favour of the National Broadband Network has always been that having everyone in Australia connected to very fast broadband will deliver economy-wide benefits, big spillover effects, externalities. We do not doubt that those benefits are there to have ubiquitous connection to very fast broadband. The big question is: what is the incremental benefit, if any, between having people connected to very fast broadband at the speeds it can be achieved under the approach we favour—in most built-up areas, fibre-to-the-node—and having fibre-to-the-premises? The one thing that is clear—and there is no argument in any of the literature or in experience—is that having everyone connected to very fast broadband, even at speeds much slower than the peak speeds available on fibre, is a real benefit. The problem that we face, therefore, with the NBN's slow rollout is that we are not getting the benefits of ubiquitous connectivity any time soon, and perhaps we might not be getting them for 20 years or so. At the current rate of progress the completion of this network will take many decades.
In our re-examination of the NBN's financial model, in our alternative policy, we assumed that it would take another four years to complete. That is a very optimistic assumption. At the moment the NBN is passing less than a quarter of the number of premises it should be passing, even according to its revised corporate plan. For a project that is passing around 350 premises a day, as it is at the moment, to seriously imagine that in 18 months or so it is going to be passing well over 6,000 a day is just incredible.
The reality is that this project is going to be long delayed. That means that the benefits of universal or ubiquitous connectivity will also be long delayed. It is cold comfort to say to somebody—and there are at least two million premises in Australia in this category that have, effectively, no broadband at all since they do not have broadband at a speed that would enable them to watch a YouTube video—'Don't worry, you are going to get the Rolls Royce option, the fibre-to-the-premises option, in 10 years or 20 years time.' That may well be beyond the lifetimes of some of the occupants of these premises, and it is certainly beyond the time their children will be at school.
The issue really boils down to a fundamental one of management. There is an argument about technology, but even if you accept Labor's argument about technology the fact is that the project is just not getting there. One of the problems that we are seeing is that the civil contractors who have been employed—Silcar, Transfield, Syntheo and Visionstream—have not been delivering the premises that they have been contracted to deliver. It is common knowledge in the industry that they are all losing a huge amount of money. The word on the street, as it were, is that these contractors will need to have contract prices increased by something in the order of 30 per cent of the current contracted rates if they are able to make any money or any margin at all.
That being the case, what does that tell us about the reliability of the NBN Co.'s cost forecasts? It has a corporate plan that its management tells us is based on the current contracted costs, yet we know that the contractors are going backwards financially. This has had some pretty dramatic results: the Silcar CEO Peter Lamell left the company in May; the Service Stream managing director, Graeme Sumner, left the company in April; and the Syntheo joint venture appears to be about to be dissolved.
The failure to have satisfactory commercial relationships with the civil contractors is a profound failure of the NBN Co., because it does not have a huge civil workforce of its own and is not proposing to have a huge workforce of its own, although it has sought to take over the management of the construction in the Northern Territory. But it needs to have a satisfactory relationship with its civil contractors and it needs to have contracts with them that enable them to pay their subbies a fair price and make a margin for themselves. If they cannot do that, it simply will not continue. We have set them out in some detail in this dissenting report.
I spoke earlier about the asbestos issue. I will not go over all of that ground again. But the coalition are very concerned that the Commonwealth will be liable for asbestos risk, notwithstanding that it is in Telstra pits that are being remediated by contractors working for Telstra. As you know, the Work Health and Safety Act imposes on NBN Co. a duty to workers, including workers employed by—for example—Telstra or contractors to Telstra if their work is influenced or directed by NBN Co. It is very arguable, it seems to us, that NBN Co. is in that position of influence and therefore could have liability for this asbestos risk.
We are particularly concerned that the issue of asbestos has been well-known for a long time and this does not reflect well on either Telstra or NBN Co. There has clearly been a failure of supervision on the part of both companies. I simply note and draw the attention of honourable members to the comments that we have made there.
I want to now turn to the question of the fixed wireless rollout, which has not had enough public debate or discussion because the fibre-to-the-premise rollout is so much bigger. Fixed wireless is the technology solution for about four per cent of the country. Under the plan, 93 per cent gets fibre-to-the-premise, four per cent gets fixed wireless and three per cent gets satellite. I might say that under the approach that we would sake many of those premises or households in the fixed wireless footprint at present will get wire line, fixed line, very fast broadband. They are in towns that have less than 1,000 premises, which will not get fibre-to-the-premise under Labor's approach but which will be eminently suitable for a vectored VDSL fibre-to-the-node solution of the kind that we are proposing. There are many smaller communities in rural and regional Australia that will get much faster and much more convenient broadband services under our approach than they will under Labor's approach.
Looking at the way the NBN Co. is tracking at the moment, it has been reported that even on their best case scenario their fixed wireless network will cover only 31,291 premises by the end of June, which is only 45 per cent of the 70,000 target. The explanations for this shortfall given by the NBN Co. management frankly beggar belief. Their explanation is—and this has been given by the minister as well—that there has been an unanticipated level of tall trees in rural and regional Australia. I will quote the evidence from the NBN chief technology officer, Gary McLaren, in estimates of 30 May in which he talked about these trees. He said:
We have always expected there will be some areas, mainly due to vegetation—trees and the like—that will cause those installations to not be able to pass through that qualification step …We are seeing those being slightly higher than we would have originally expected.
Being ambushed—bushwhacked—by the presence of tall trees in regional Australia is a fairly pathetic excuse. But it does underline the poor planning and the poor management of this project.
Finally, I want to touch on the very, very troubling issues about management. We have at the moment a new chairman, Siobhan McKenna. She has been on the NBN board from the outset but she became chairman on 21 March, replacing Harrison Young. She has said publicly that she is taking a much tougher approach to management. She has said that she does not want Senator Conroy, the minister, being able to communicate directly with NBN Co. Chief Executive Mike Quigley, although Senator Conroy seems to have said that he will not play along with that.
More troublingly, it is being widely reported—and has not been anywhere denied—that Siobhan McKenna has, on behalf of the board, sought the dismissal of the Chief Executive, Mr Quigley, and that she has no confidence in him. If this were a publicly listed company, belonging to a bunch of superannuation funds and private investors, and there was published in the newspaper a report saying that the chairman had no confidence in the chief executive and wanted the chief executive sacked, that matter would have to be resolved within hours. And, yet, we have at the moment with this company, the biggest infrastructure project in our history, a situation where the management is tearing itself to pieces, the board is opposed to the chief executive—it sounds like the Labor Party caucus, frankly—and there is no denial, clarification or confirmation. When Mr Quigley was sought to be questioned about this in estimates, as we have set out in this dissenting report, Senator Conroy prevented him from answering any questions. This project, sadly, is in utter chaos. This dissenting report, which I commend to honourable members, sets out in some detail the sorry tale of mismanagement that the NBN project is today. (Time expired)
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (12:31): It is a great pleasure of mine to be able to speak to this report—the fifth and final report of the joint committee. It is a project that has had a great degree of oversight in the rollout and in the management of the project itself. In fact, I have from time to time been concerned that we have overlaid too much oversight. I am certainly one for, obviously, the parliamentary ability to probe and test the way in which government business enterprises like this operate. But, when you consider all of the ways in which this project has people looking at it, you would not have a similar level of investigation imposed on an organisation external to government.
Having said that, NBN Co. has always sought—from my impression, and I am sure it would be the impression of others, particularly on the government side—to cooperate with questions and to be available to answer inquiries from members of parliament. Be it in estimates, the joint committee or the public hearings, they have tried to do the right thing, to talk about a project that is going to transform this nation. There is no doubt that this will economically transform the way that we operate, and it will put us at an advantage compared to other countries that have not been able to do this to the same breadth and the same level of detail that has been undertaken in this project.
It is an investment of just over $30 billion in a technology that is already, through the internet—if you take on board the Deloitte study—contributing about $50 billion in economic value to this country currently, and will contribute $70 billion into the future. It has already been indicated that that investment will have a return of seven per cent, but, to be honest, I see that the actual return itself will come when you look at the way that it will change the manner in which the economy operates, the way in which firms operate, the way in which communities connect and interrelate, the way that education is delivered in this country, and the way that health care is delivered in this country. On top of these things, the fact that there are applications and there are ways in which technology that is not currently known will do the same thing, is something to note.
I had the opportunity recently to speak to a venture tech firm, BlueChilli, that operate out of Sydney. They bring together capital and people who want to transform the way in which things are done at the moment through their own ideas, their own innovative energy, and completely alter the way in which people operate and conduct their business. These types of firms, from what I have seen—and this firm is based in the Sydney CBD—are doing remarkable things in terms of changing the way the business operates. And they certainly always encourage the innovators within their organisations to continue to think differently about what can be done, what we do now and how we can do it differently, and how we can add value to the economy. These are the types of firms that get unleashed when they have access to a technology that has been using, as a platform, what we are doing through the National Broadband Network.
Through this process we have tackled a massive capacity constraint. It is well known that the former government was told by bodies such as the Reserve Bank that capacity constraints would limit the ability of the economy to grow and that failing to do so would hurt the economy into the longer term. Those opposite tried, as has been reflected upon here, 19 times to address the fact that people could not get access to broadband. I represent people who had previously been stuck in a dial-up world—or a broadband wasteland, as I have described it—and faced very little chance that they would actually get access to modern telecommunications infrastructure. As a result of what we have been doing, we have been able, through a combination of the work being done by Telstra and the rollout being done by NBN Co., to free these people from being stuck with dial-up, which in this day and age is the technological equivalent of a dinosaur. We have freed suburbs such as Woodcroft and Doonside from that.
Last week my colleague the member for Greenway and I were proud to turn the NBN on in Blacktown with the minister for communications, Stephen Conroy. This has already seen 1,300 homes having access to the NBN at the outset. What has also been great is that RSPs like Telstra and Optus are out there now actively seeking customers and getting a tremendous response from customers who are wanting to sign up. In actual fact, if you look at the fifth report itself—and this is important—on page 19 it indicates that the revenue that NBN is receiving as a result of the RSPs going out and connecting customers and having this then flow back to NBN Co was $5.3 million and has risen by nearly $2 million since June of last year. So, in a short space of time it is already increasing the amount of money that it is generating as a result of customers coming onboard. And, as has been anecdotally indicated to me, once the customers get onboard with the NBN their usage changes. They use more and they want to be able to—and are certainly happy to—change their plans, because they are getting value for money per gigabyte that they are using as a household. And households like small businesses—for example, accounting firms that operate from home and design firms that operate from home—are now able to access a network. The more these home based businesses operate and the more people can change the way in which they work through telework, the more we will see other benefits. For example, in Western Sydney we are plagued very much by this issue of congestion in terms of traffic and the like. Being able to have economic development in local areas rather than having people feel that they have to travel long distances to conduct work will have huge economic benefit.
I mentioned earlier that there are other countries that have tried to do what we are doing. If you look at the US in particular, Verizon, through its fibre optic service, had gone to five states but has slowed down in its delivery because it does not have a dedicated investment program, unlike what is happening here. And Google is now rolling out fibre in Kansas and Utah and is expecting that these networks will operate profitably. Others are catching up and recognise that the use of this fibre instead of copper—fibre that delivers light at 300,000 kilometres per second and delivers a signal that has much more capacity and benefit and ability than anything that can be delivered on fibre—is a serious way in which to construct a future network.
That is why, when the opposition were in government, they had committees looking at this, and the member for Sturt even indicated in reports that he authored that, hands down, fibre is the best form of technology to deliver a modern broadband network. Certainly that has been evident, and there is very little to suggest otherwise. There is a suggestion that there will be a better form of technology—for example, a reliance on vectoring. Yes, vectoring does have its benefits, but most people will tell you that it is nowhere near as good as having fibre to the premises. Those opposite have had to come up with a policy for the sake of a policy but, having spent the best part of this parliamentary term determined to kill off this project, they have been unable to, due to two things. Firstly, they have an idea that nothing is wrong with the current broadband network in this country—and that does not stack up. Secondly, they have realised that businesses and the community expect a modern, robust form of infrastructure that will ensure that the country can progress in the years ahead and not stumble along in the way that they had been overseeing it when they were in office.
The opposition are continually focussed on the claim—and we continue to get this; we heard it from the member for Wentworth, and others, not necessarily those currently in the chamber, will probably bleat on today in reference to it—that NBN Co has failed to meet its forecast. In fact, the member for Wentworth today used the term 'catastrophic failure'.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: He is using a word that denotes something extremely harmful either in a physical or financial sense. Financial ruin would occur as a result of the failure, in their words, to meet the targets. It is an absurd claim. They well know that the 2011-13 corporate plan was produced well before any definitive agreements had been signed up, before one of the biggest corporate agreements was signed with Telstra and before the Optus deal was even finalised, to ensure the handover of their network and their agreement in terms of the way in which NBN Co rolls out the network. They know that no-one in this country could have predicted that the ACCC would have brought down a points-of-interconnect decision that would see the points of interconnection increase by a multitude, from 14 to 121. Those opposite had never predicted it. It suits their political argument to say that it does not meet the target, while neglecting to mention the things that have happened in between. Any company will have to, from time to time, confront roadblocks and work out how they structure their corporate plans accordingly. Those opposite are unable to have the decency to tell the Australian public why these figures had changed.
There is no doubt that this project, as it picks up speed, will roll out further and further, and will not necessarily be held up by the type of scare campaigns that have been put by those opposite. We had the member for Wentworth, for example, picking up on this issue of asbestos. No-one doubts for one moment that the issue is one that is critical and needs to be managed properly. Asbestos has sat in the Telstra system for decades, and then the member for Wentworth says in an offhand remark that this has been known for some time by NBN and Telstra. Yes, it has been known by Telstra. I would be interested to go back to the initial prospectus that was put out as it was being privatised to see whether or not it was denoted as a risk. What did those opposite do, when they were in government for 13 years, about the issue of asbestos? In any due diligence process you would know that it is an issue and you would have to deal with it. I would be interested to know now what the opposition, in government, did to mitigate risk.
The fact of the matter is that there are very smart people in Telstra, who, while they will not be able to pinpoint right now where these things are on a network map, will be able to determine this, based on likely roll-out. They will be able to deal with it where the roll-outs occur, at any point in time, and they do. For example, in Kiama, where Silcar was used on the project, they had trained up all their staff and ensured that all the equipment was present and did not have one problem with the issue of asbestos. Asbestos is being used as a Trojan Horse by those opposite. I am not having them now confect a concern about asbestos when I, like many other people, heard the dismissive words expressed by the Leader of the Opposition to Bernie Banton. It was one of the most disgraceful episodes I have witnessed and it is beneath the Leader of the Opposition. If he has found a concern about asbestos I welcome it, but he should remember that his previous words haunt him in this regard.
The other thing I want to mention is workforce planning. There has been a great deal of reference made in the report to workforce planning and subcontractor planning. It has been one issue that I have been particularly interested in from the get-go. Before my life here as a member of parliament, it was something that I represented as the national president of a union that covers workers in this area. We have enormous talent that exists out there that we need to employ and deploy on this project. One of the concerns that I have is that Telstra should be used more and more in the rollout of this project, because they do have people within Telstra, in the lines and in the field workforce, who can be used.
One of the regrets I have is that NBN Co. has been stuck in a model that has been used and employed for many years in the sector, which is a contract-subcontract model. I doubt very much those opposite will move away from it. My issue with it is that NBN Co. does not have an internal workforce, and that internal workforce could easily be supplied by Telstra. You will not necessarily need an asset manager into the future with fibre. Fibre obviously costs a lot to deploy but costs very little to maintain into the future. There are people within Telstra and we should be forming a relationship with Telstra so they can be used more and more on the rollout of this project. This will ensure that the skills that are there within the sector can be employed to their best possible ability. It will also ensure that Telstra can aid NBN Co. in what is critical for them: network mapping, being able to determine the structure of the network and having robust systems into the future. I welcome this committee and all the work that it has done. It has done a great job for this parliament. In particular I note the contribution of the chairperson. (Time expired)
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (12:46): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this rather concerning report. I noted that the member for Chifley said that the project confronted a few roadblocks, or a roadblock. I think the real concern here is that we are not confronting a roadblock, we are confronting a train wreck. We are confronting a train wreck because we have got a project that has not met a single target that has been set. That is of concern. They have had the opportunity to set the targets. They have not met one. By now we are supposed to be passing some 1.3 million houses. So how many houses or premises are we going to pass? We are not going to pass 1.3, we are not going to pass a million, we are not going to pass 500,000 houses. As we sit in wonder, the real question is: are we going to meet the revised, revised, revised target of 190,000 houses passed? Are we going to make it? I would suggest not.
Let us look at connections. Around about now, 511,000 houses were to be connected, in just a couple weeks. How many are we going to connect? If we are lucky, 20,000 to 25,000. This is a project that needs to connect 6,000 houses a day to meet the targets that it set for itself. This is not a target set by the opposition. This is the target set by NBN Co.—6,000 houses a day. I think you would have to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny to believe they are going to achieve that.
If it were possible for things to become worse, well, they certainly have. NBN Co. is now further behind schedule that it was at the last report. The budget has blown out more than it was as at the last report. The rollout has slowed to a crawl. We have had the problems that have been mentioned by the member for Wentworth. We have the asbestos problem which that master of illusion, Mr Quigley, said was no real problem at all; 'no real problem at all', he said back in the April hearings. 'Don't you worry about that by golly, just a little bit of asbestos, not a problem at all.' Yet somehow he expects us to believe that, despite a range of sites being on hold, we are going to somehow meet the targets that he set for himself. History will show clearly that those targets will be missed. We have an interim satellite solution that is running out of capacity. We have NBN Co. staff rushing for the exits. We have an NBN Co. board that is trying to have the CEO removed from his post.
It is a project in crisis. It is a project that is heading for disaster. If a publicly listed company was in this position it would probably be in a trading halt—although I do not know that anyone would buy shares in NBN Co., given its past history, so a trading halt would probably be a mere technicality. A publicly listed company would be being required to make certain disclosures to the Australian stock exchange to get to the real situation with regard to the company. But, unlike a publicly listed company, NBN Co. is a black box. Every piece of information concerning this project must be prised out. We have this Orwellian regime of misinformation perpetrated by the CEO, Mr Quigley. He makes sure that absolutely no information that is useful is divulged to the parliamentary committee that has responsibility for oversight of this project.
We have tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at stake, and the Australian taxpayer is not being given clear and concise information as to the true status of this project. Every time the committee asked for information about the latest disaster we were told the information was commercial in confidence or that we somehow did not need to know this information. The only risk posed by releasing much of this information to the Joint Committee on the NBN is embarrassment to the government. And it is an embarrassment.
The chair of the committee, Mr Oakeshott, the member for Lyne, seems to be saying that everything is going okay. He said just yesterday that 'the NBN remains on track to deliver a rate of return to the taxpayer of over 7 per cent per annum'. Well, we will see. The member for Lyne is in fact complicit in the regime of deceit and dishonesty that this committee has had to endure. They are actually running a protection racket—
Mr Mitchell: Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is making some very serious inferences at the member for Lyne. I think he has been here long enough to know his standing orders—I think he should withdraw those inferences.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): There is no point of order. There are other mechanisms of the house if the member has a concern.
Mr HARTSUYKER: I know the truth hurts, but I will move on with my contribution. Instead of talking about terms and allowing the light to shine in, the true status of this project remains a mystery. Let's look at the wireless rollout. What is the status of the wireless rollout? You guessed it, Deputy Speaker—behind schedule. We were supposed to have around 70,000 premises covered by the wireless network by 30 June. how much is it going to be? Is it going to be 70,000? Of course not. According to recent media reports, it is going to be 31,000 premises. The government will tell us it is right on target, right on track. We are not even halfway to the target that has been set by NBN Co. for itself—just another example. And they had the audacity to say that they underestimated the number of trees in regional Australia. It was a major technical hitch when they found there were big trees in regional Australia. It is a real concern.
Mr Mitchell: What was your last plan?
Mr HARTSUYKER: They underestimated the number of trees, Member for McEwen. They have entered into a whole range of agreements that have been problematic. When this project was conceived, the iPhone was released. Two years later the iPad was released. This project has not taken into account the huge shift in the amount of people using mobile networks.
One of the other concerns with this is that there has been a neglect of mobile services. There has been a total disregard for the situation with regard to mobile services in regional areas. In fact, Senator Conroy has said we are going to wait until the wireless network is rolled out in 2015 before we address the issue highlighted in the Regional Telecommunications Review—that of poor mobile services. I think the Australian people would be concerned as to whether the wireless rollout will be completed by 2015. We are not even up to half the scheduled rollout rate so far. I think you would have to, once again, believe in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny to believe that this government will bring it in by 2015.
Another interesting factor was in relation to the interim satellite service cap. It was revealed at the last round of the committee hearings that the interim satellite service cap of 48,000 customers would be reached by 2014, and the government has no intention of increasing the cap. So some people in remote Australia and in many areas of regional Australia will be left with no internet service for more than two years, until the long-term satellite solution is brought online. People who rely on the satellite internet will have no other option. The interim satellite solution is the only link for a range of customers.
The government said that it would be too expensive to increase the cap beyond 48,000. The minister said that it would cost $86 million to increase the cap by 7,000 customers from 48,000 to 55,000. I have to say that every person I have consulted in the satellite industry has said that those numbers are rubbish. It is widely accepted that there is sufficient capacity in the market to increase the cap to around 75,000 customers—an additional 27,000. The published cost for the interim satellite service is $300 million for 48,000 customers and, when you do the maths, that works out to be around $6,250 per customer. But, based on the minister's figures, to add 7,000 to the cap was going to cost an additional $12,285 a customer. How does that work? If you have been able to set up your overheads and all the costs of setting up the interim satellite solution at a total cost of $6,250 per customer, why does it cost you around double that to purchase additional capacity when it is available in the market? That is a mystery that remains unsolved.
If the cap is not increased the teams of installers currently working on the interim satellite solution will be disbanded and there will be a whole installation system and labour force that will need to be rebuilt from the ground up, which will mean it will take even longer for the NBN to roll out its long-term satellite solution. In reality the government has simply abandoned regional Australia by its failure to address this very important shortfall in the project with the need to continue the interim satellite solution past the cap. This is the government's track record, or NBN Co.'s track record, of being late with regard to everything.
This is a project that is of concern to taxpayers. It is a project that has not passed the test of accountability. It is a project that revolves around concealment and deceit rather than true transparency. I believe that, if the coalition were elected on 14 September, it will be the first opportunity to view the true status of this project and the true situation with regard to progress and costs, which have been concealed from the parliament to this point in time. So, I certainly raise very real concerns about the future of the project and I raise very real concerns about the accountability to this parliament.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (12:57): I am very pleased to speak in support of the fifth report of the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network. We come into this place to talk about the biggest infrastructure project in Australia's history and to have those opposite come forward and rubbish it, I think, says everything about their debate on the NBN that has gone on in this 43rd Parliament. Much to the coalition's despair, and unfortunately for them, the NBN keeps getting more and more popular as a policy.
I am disappointed because, for the last speech that the member for Wentworth is going to make in the 43rd Parliament on the NBN, I really wanted him to give a blow-by-blow account of the 'fraudband' launch. How awkward was it? It was awks to the max! The Leader of the Opposition was moving into the shadows and saying, 'Come into the dark, Malcolm. Come to the dark side.' I thought he was going to start speaking like Darth Vader. It was absolutely embarrassing to watch, but amusing at the same time. I was hoping that the member for Wentworth was going to talk about that, but alas, no. Their comments are despite the fact that people like Vint Cerf, the father of the internet, has given his blessing to this project on many, many occasions. This is despite the fact that we had the CeBIT conference in Australia only a couple of weeks ago where, again, we were lauded as a government for our forward-thinking policy on this matter. As well, the ITU holds up Australia as an example of best practice in national broadband rollout.
One of the biggest complaints I still get from people is not that the NBN is happening but is, 'When am I going to get it?' People have waited for so long in backwaters of not only regional Australia but outer metropolitan cities as well. I was disappointed he has left the chamber, because the member for Cowper talked about the government abandoning regional Australia. He is the bloke who sold out on regional Australia. I will give you some facts and I will give you some evidence to support that in just a moment.
Just to go back a bit, firstly, I feel sorry for the member for Cowper having to come in here and push the member for Wentworth's lines on this matter. But let's not forget that when Telstra was fully privatised, when those opposite were in government, the Nats were absolutely sold down the river. They took all the elements that should have been about regional accessibility and affordability, moved them into a separate piece of legislation and told everyone that that would be okay. The member for Chifley mentioned it but I will talk a bit more about the sell-off process that not only led to issues with the Telstra pits that we see today but also made Australia, and confirmed Australia's position as, an absolute broadband backwater—behind countries like Estonia and many countries of Eastern Europe.
I will not have the member for Cowper coming in here and saying these things. He talked about mobile and fixed. I feel like I have been giving this same lecture, the same lessons, to some people opposite over and over again. The inability to understand the difference between mobile, wireless and fixed wireless is simply beyond me. It is a debate that was settled many, many years ago—that mobile and fixed are complementary, not substitutable, and that fixed wireless services require a backbone. In this case you look to the best backbone that you can build to maximise capacity, and that is a fibre backbone. It is no wonder that mobile operators are enthusiastically embracing the NBN for the opportunity to fibre up their base stations.
The member for Cowper talked about the lack of mobile access. In the early 2000s we had an attempt to introduce USO contestability in Australia. We had a pilot project for the Pacific Highway, running through the member for Cowper's own electorate, for which bidding was done, and which resulted in absolutely no measurable improvement. So the only thing that was done on this matter by those opposite when they were in government on this matter was an absolute, abject failure.
I will take up a few issues to do with regional Australia, which is one of the things I really want to talk about in relation to this particular report. There is the issue of a universal wholesale price under Labor's NBN versus there being no equivalent under the broadband plan of those opposite. I will quote from the Hansard of the public hearing on Friday 19 April. I specifically asked the question of Ms Teresa Corbin of ACCAN:
I presume you are also aware that the government has imposed a universal wholesale price for the NBN and, in light of your comments about affordability, how important is it not to discriminate against people who live in outer metropolitan areas and regional areas?
She answered:
This is very important to our members.
I went on to ask:
What feedback do you get already from consumers living in regional areas in particular about things like the digital divide?
She went on to explain how it is very important for people living in regional Australia to have the same opportunities for affordability and accessibility as those living in the city. Yet again, I am disappointed he did not stick around. I ask: what did the member for Cowper do to improve broadband in his electorate when he was part of a government? How many failed plans did we have from those opposite that produced no measurable improvements in broadband across Australia?
I would like to turn to something the member for Wentworth took some time mentioning—chapter 4 of the dissenting report, and specifically item 4.1. To be quite frank, I find it rather tawdry that those opposite want to come in here and start talking about—it is like a gossip chapter—the new chair of NBN Co. and the CEO of NBN Co., quoting various articles from News Limited, from The Australian and the Australian Financial Review. They have a recommendation in which they cannot even spell Ms McKenna's name properly, but I digress.
It is absolutely ridiculous for the member for Wentworth and those opposite to have spent so much time and energy on a chapter called 'Unstable governance and question over board's confidence in CEO.' Something that I learnt very early on—and I would have thought the member for Wentworth, as someone who is always coming in here talking about all the big deals that he has done with Rupert and friends, would have lectured me on this—is that the people who you are sitting opposite to and doing a deal with may one day very well be the people on your team. You do not want to go off making bizarre accusations and relying on hearsay and gossip. You want to rely on the facts. I find it absolutely ridiculous for the member for Wentworth to choose to spend so much time on this particular issue. He does himself great discredit. It is merely an attempt to again try and smear Mr Quigley. Whatever reasons he has for doing that, they are his own and I will leave him to it.
We again had those opposite come in here and start talking about the rollout targets. But the reality is that at the end of May NBN Co. was on track to beat its revised June rollout targets and to pass between 171,836 homes and 185,808 premises with fibre by the end of June—far exceeding its set target. It must be very disappointing for those opposite to have seen support for Labor's existing policy increase after those opposite released their policy. Prior to the release of 'fraudband', 73 per cent of people surveyed supported Labor's NBN. After 'fraudband' was released, that went up to 78 per cent. That must be striking a very raw nerve.
I have called out MPs before who say one thing in their electorates about how much they support increasing broadband opposite but who do something else when they come to Canberra. I am going to call out a few more. You will like this one, member for Moreton. This is a special one from the member for Moncrieff. On 5 June he sent a letter out to his electorate. I do not know what is the most disturbing thing about this. The opening line reads: 'Access to fast broadband is no longer a want; it is rapidly becoming a need for Gold Coast households and businesses.' It is not already a need? 'It is rapidly becoming a need'? Then there is a typo, but I digress. There are then some claims made. I quote: 'When Labor first announced the NBN in 2007, they said it would cost around $4.7 billion and be completed by 2013. Since then, Labor changed the forecast and said it would cost taxpayers $37 billion. Now we know it's actually going to cost taxpayers around $94 billion.' Where does this come from?
I specifically asked the NBN Co. about this when it appeared before the committee. And remember that these committee proceedings had the same rules as the parliament. I said:
Mr Quigley, I want to go back to your briefing at the start, just to be crystal clear. The NBN costs $37.4 billion. What veracity should then be given to assertions that the NBN cost could in fact be around $90 billion?
Mr Quigley said:
I can only repeat that we are confident of the $37.4 billion figure.
Then I asked:
Do you know how that $90 billion figure was derived?
Mr Quigley said:
No.
How on earth can these people get away with making continuous false claims? I will quote some comments from Delimiter about this particular letter:
… other elements of Ciobo's letter are demonstrably inaccurate, delivered without context, or could be considered highly contestable, in that they do not represent mainstream thinking in the telecommunications industry from the consensus of expert opinion.
There is a lot more that I could say about that one. But in the time available I will instead move on to the member for Calare.
The member for Calare claimed a couple of weeks ago that the coalition's national broadband policy would guarantee speeds of at least 25 gigabytes to all Australians by 2016, with Labor's policy to deliver a mere 100 kilobits. Now, 25 gigabytes is a pretty quick download speed. He also claimed that the coalition has guaranteed at least 25 gigs for everybody by 2016.
It gets better. We have the Leader of the Nationals on Insiders with Barrie Cassidy a couple of weeks ago. This is pretty special; it was quite embarrassing to watch; the guy had no idea. He was asked by Barrie Cassidy:
In your speech to the National Council meeting yesterday—
which I presume was the Nats' meeting—
you raised the NBN … you said under the Coalition every country household will have access to high speed broad band with a minimum speed 25 megabits per second, but how much will it cost householders to have access to that?
Mr Truss could not answer. He said:
Well it will be significantly cheaper than the NBN.
Mr Cassidy asked:
The NBN, under the existing arrangements, the access will be free?
Mr Truss answered:
… there will be still charges for … signing up.
Mr Cassidy said:
Yes but we're talking about connection fees to the house.
Mr Truss said:
Our connection fees will be lower.
He was absolutely incapable of answering the question.
The member for Chifley addressed some very important issues concerning asbestos. I too would be very keen to see what was in the documents when Telstra was fully privatised and what due diligence was done. There was the material risk in that everyone knew that many of those pits were built before World War II and would have asbestos lining in them. I do not remember any of the Liberals or the Nationals getting up in parliament at the time—and I followed the debate very closely—and saying, 'In the future, someone is probably going to open those pits and do some work in them. We'd better cover off this risk.' This has been uncontested: a direct result of the sell-off was the number of permanent staff that were made contractors. What was said in those public offer documents, in the sale documents, about the potential risk of having staff who become contractors rather than being directly employed by Telstra? I would be very interested to know these things.
I will end by saying that this continues to be a very popular policy with the Australian people. I know it is popular in my electorate. Firms have moved to my area just to take up the benefit of the NBN, including the Good Egg Studio at Riverstone. The member for Wentworth came to Blacktown and admitted that Blacktown would become a city divided: people who have access to the NBN and those who do not. That is not what we want from the National Broadband Network.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (13:12): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the fifth report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Broadband Network. When you look at this report, the thing that is most striking is the contrast between a view of the world as some would wish it to be—including, I note particularly, the chair of the committee, the member for Lyne—and the view of reality. There is quite a disparity between the two. The member for Lyne is an unashamed true believer in the marvels of the National Broadband Network in the present form in which it is being implemented by the Labor government, which he helped bring to power. In his chair's foreword, he said about the National Broadband Network:
It will make a big difference in many lives. It will strengthen our economy. It will promote our cultural identity in a flattening global culture … it will create opportunity and deliver equity for all Australians.
He repeats the claim that it will 'promote Australian culture to the world', 'show respect to sectors like education as our second biggest export market'. The powers of the NBN appear to be almost limitless in the faith of the member for Lyne. He says it will 'play to our strengths by unlocking entrepreneurship as a nation'. He says:
What an opportunity to promote Australia and expand our export economy by getting this build right.
The chair of this committee, the member for Lyne, is a true believer in the capacity of the National Broadband Network to do all of these things.
But I have to say, when I hear these overblown claims about what the NBN will do, my response is: no it won't. At the very highest, you could put the argument as follows. You could argue that the NBN is a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve these marvellous outcomes—to promote Australia's cultural identity to the world, to unleash entrepreneurship. But to claim that building the NBN will 'deliver equity for all Australians' or will 'unlock entrepreneurship as a nation' is, I would suggest, an example of the kind of dangerously woolly thinking that is causing us to splash away so much money without being careful in our analysis of what we are getting for the money. It may be possible to argue—and it is a contentious proposition—that if you build and deliver an effective national broadband network it will encourage economic activity, it will encourage entrepreneurship. But there is that distinction that was hammered home in first-year philosophy: it may be a necessary but it is certainly not a sufficient condition. It is not enough to argue, as we repeatedly hear from the member for Lyne and other advocates for the NBN in its present form, that the mere construction of this network will lead 1,000 flowers to bloom. That is not true. There is much more that needs to happen. It may be that the NBN will assist in a range of outcomes, but it will not do it by itself. And to suggest, as the rhetoric in the chair's forward suggests, that it is sufficient to achieve these objectives, is misleading and is an indicator of the kind of fuzzy and woolly thinking that sadly has bedevilled far too much political commentary about NBN Co.
So, if the first objection that I have to the particular philosophy that is articulated in those introductory comments is to say that, even if you believe all of these claims, at best the NBN can be a condition towards achieving the outcomes and much more needs to happen, then the second—and even more substantial—objection I have is this: before any of these wonderful claimed outcomes can be expected, you need to get the thing built, and you need to get it done quickly, cost-effectively and efficiently. And if there is one thing that is clear, as we look at the state of progress with the National Broadband Network, when you turn your eye away from the lofty claims about the marvels that this network is going to deliver, and get on to the more prosaic level of what is actually happening now—how much money has been spent, what we are getting for it, whether the rollout is on time and whether the network been well designed—the answer to all those things is: this is a mess.
So the coalition makes no apologies for turning our eyes away from the wafting vision of the sunlit uplands, which the member for Lyne has once again been all too eager to lay before us. We make no apology for turning away and looking at the detail—and the detail is a very, very troubling picture. The proper role of this committee—on behalf of the Parliament of Australia and in turn on behalf of taxpayers who are compulsorily investors in this badly designed and ill conceived project—is to ask: how is it going? How much money is being spent? What is happening with the rollout? What confidence can we have that the project as presently conceived is going to be completed? All of that must necessarily and logically come before turning our minds to the marvels that the credulous member for Lyne appears to believe are just over the horizon.
I am a very strong believer in broadband. I am a very strong believer in the economic and social benefits of broadband. I have worked in the telecommunications sector, both in government and in the private sector, for many, many years. In fact, I am so interested in broadband that I wrote a book about it—and what a festival of pointy headedness that was, if I may say! But I would make the point that it is simply not good enough to have these wafting generalities in the report that we have before us. We need to get into the detail on behalf of the parliament and on behalf of the Australian people to ask the detailed question, how is the rollout going? And when we turn to that question, the answer is unambiguous. The rollout is going very, very badly. Let us start by looking at some of the numbers. By 30 June 2013, according to NBN Co.'s first corporate plan released in December 2010, this network was supposed to pass 1.3 million premises. In fact, on the most recent numbers, as at May this year—so there is only a month to go—it had passed around 103,000 premises. We also see that the estimates of usage of the network are well behind what is forecast and we also see, extremely troublingly, that the build of the fixed wireless network is running into difficulty and is behind schedule and at the same time we see that NBN Co. continues to burn through cash and spend lavishly on headcount.
Let me make this particular comment, coming as I do from a background in the telecommunications sector for many years. It is an open and notorious joke within the telecommunications sector that people are leaving existing telcos, particularly Telstra and Optus, and have been doing so for several years to go to roles at NBN Co. where they are paid very substantially in excess of what they were previously paid by their previous private sector employer. There is no question that NBN Co. is spending in a profligate fashion and is spending on staff and on other things in a way that no private sector telco would do.
At the same time, the rollout is scandalously behind schedule and the performance which has been delivered is absolutely hopeless if you compare it to any benchmarks of what has been done. I cite, for example, the rollout within one year of the 3G network, the Next G network, under Sol Trujillo at Telstra. I have been critical of Sol Trujillo on many occasions, but Telstra's delivery of the Next G network within a very short period of time was an impressive engineering achievement. Or you could look at the rate at which both Telstra and Optus rolled out their HFC networks, their hybrid fibre-coaxial networks, across many cities of Australia during the mid-90s. If you look at the rate at which those networks were rolled out and you compare it to what has been achieved by NBN Co., it is chalk and cheese. Or you could look across the Tasman and you could have a look at what is being done in New Zealand. By December 2012, the Kiwis, with their fibre rollout, had passed 134,000 homes. Bear in mind that at that time NBN Co. in Australia had passed 72,400. The two rollouts began at roughly the same time. Australia is a country five times as large. If we had matched the performance of New Zealand, we would have been at several hundred thousand by December last year.
Wherever you go, if you look at the private sector and its history of rollouts, both fixed and mobile in Australia, and if you look across the Tasman at an analogous rollout of a fibre broadband network, you see that NBN Co. is doing a very poor job against those benchmarks. Indeed, if you are looking for tangible evidence that the rollout is well behind where it was expected to be, you could look at the fact that funding in the budget in 2014 was reduced by $3.5 billion compared to what had originally been proposed as recently as the October Midyear Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Why is that? It was not a conscious cost reduction strategy or fiscal discipline by the Treasurer, because that is not the kind of Treasurer that we have. It is because the rollout is running well behind time. Those budget cuts are a consequence of a delay in the rollout.
So when we look at the very basis, the very centre of what this committee should be focused on, on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, in having oversight of this rollout and determining whether taxpayers' money is being spent well, whether the project is being managed efficiently and cost effectively, there is no conclusion which can be reached other than that there are very serious red flashing lights here. This rollout is in a mess and it is in a mess, unsurprisingly, because we have a government which is absolutely atrocious at implementation. We have seen that with school halls, we have seen that with the home insulation program and we are seeing it as well with the National Broadband Network. I mentioned the fact that the fixed wireless rollout is a long way behind schedule. According to the Australian Financial Review, even in the best case scenario by the end of June the wireless network will cover just 31,291 premises, which is only 45 per cent of the target of 70,000 that the fixed wireless network was supposed to reach.
I come now to a question I have touched on already and will deal with in a bit more detail: the question of the NBN's management of human resources. There is no more important task in running a company than in managing your human resources efficiently. That means getting the right people in to do the job. It means paying them what you need to attract them, but no more—I have already talked about the extent to which NBN Co. has paid well in excess of market levels. It also means maintaining a capable team in place rather than churning through executives, senior management and directors on a regular basis. Unfortunately, from NBN Co. we have seen a very substantial amount of churn amongst senior management and indeed amongst directors.
We are also seeing a very rapidly growing head count for NBN Co. As at the end of February there were 2,477 employees. That is an increase of nearly 50 per cent on staff numbers in June 2012. So this company is continuing to grow without restraint. It is continuing to add people even though the rollout, the core job it is there to do, is running very badly behind plan. This is a very significant contributor to the overall cost of this project, a cost that taxpayers are funding. It is another indicator of the way in which basic financial disciplines that you would see in a similar private sector investment project have been troublingly absent.
On the question of churn of employees, since October 2009 some 14 senior executives and 55 executive level employees have left the company. There does appear to be significant evidence of unusually high levels of churn amongst the senior management team and amongst directors.
I will close by referring to one other point that is touched on in this report, which is the meandering discussion about whether more private equity should be sought for NBN Co. This is something of an interest of the chair. It is a ridiculous interest that makes no sense, because the legislation says that you cannot have private sector equity until the build is finished, and five years later. The chair voted for that legislation, so he should know that.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013
Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (13:28): These bills seek to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to implement a range of new fees in relation to registered and prospective Commonwealth registered celebrants under the Marriage Celebrants Program. Previously, Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants were not required to pay a fee to be authorised under the Marriage Celebrants Program.
The bills also makes some minor amendments that relate to the administration of that program. The bills seek to implement an annual celebrant registration fee to existing Commonwealth registered celebrants and also registration fees for prospective celebrants who are seeking registration. The bills will also allow for the imposition of an application processing fee for those seeking an exemption from any of the abovementioned fees.
Amendments in relation to the administration of the program seek to allow an Australian passport to be used as evidence to determine the date and place of birth of marrying parties. The requirement for the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants to conduct performance reviews on all marriage celebrants every five years will be removed.
According to the Attorney-General's Department there are currently 10,500 Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants administered by the program in Australia, with an additional 500 being registered each year. Civil ceremonies now account for 71 per cent of all marriage ceremonies conducted in Australia—a substantial increase from two per cent when the program was first established in the early 1970s.
I believe it is worth noting that the industry has considerable concerns about these bills as they are proposed by the government. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is inquiring into these bills, received 113 submissions—largely from marriage celebrants themselves—and it is fair to say that marriage celebrants are not in favour of most of the recommendations within this bill, particularly the additional impost of fees.
The government contends that it is necessary to implement the new fees to recover the costs of administering the large number of celebrants under the program. The other amendments relating to the administration of the program are considered to be noncontroversial.
On 21 March 2013, the Senate jointly referred both of these bills for inquiry and report. However, the Senate report is not due until 5.00 pm today. The coalition is very keen to see what recommendations the Senate committee might make in relation to these bills. Of course, depending on what the committee recommends, we reserve our right to have a look at amending this bill in the Senate, although we do not oppose its passage through the House today.
Sitting suspended from 13:31 to 13 : 35
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:35): I rise to speak on the Marriage Celebrant Administration Charge Bill 2013 and the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013. These bills seeks to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to implement a range of new fees in relation to registered and prospective Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants under the marriage celebrants program, which is managed through the Attorney-General's Department. The bills will also allow for the imposition of an application registration fee for those seeking an exemption from any of the above mentioned fees.
There are also amendments in relation to the administration of the program that seek to allow an Australian passport to be used as evidence to determine the date and place of birth of marrying parties. Furthermore, the requirement for the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants to conduct performance reviews on all marriage celebrants every five years will be removed.
Currently, there are three categories of people under the Marriage Act who are authorised to solemnise marriages in Australia. The first category includes ministers of a religion of a recognised denomination under section 26 of the act. These minister are nominated by their denomination—for example, by the Catholic or Anglican churches—and are registered and regulated by state and territory registrars of births, deaths and marriages. In total, there are approximately 24,500 people in this category.
The second category includes officers in states and territories authorised to perform marriages as a part of their functions in registering marriages, of which there are approximately 730 in Australia. Again, they are regulated by state or territory registrars of births, deaths and marriages. The third category, which this bill addresses, are Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants registered by the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants in the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department. This includes approximately 10,500 people who are civil celebrants or who are ministers of a religion whose denomination is not proclaimed under section 26 of the act.
Currently, Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants are not required to pay a fee to be authorised under the marriage celebrants program. Under these changes, the fee will be set at a maximum of $600 in 2013-14, with an application processing fee of $30 for those seeking an exemption from the annual celebrant registration charge, the registration application fee or the annual ongoing professional development obligations.
The impetus to commence charging registration and administration fees is recognition of the changing nature of marriage ceremonies and therefore which category of marriage celebrant solemnises marriages. When the program was established in the early 1970s, approximately two per cent of marriage ceremonies were civil ceremonies. Today, that figure stands at approximately 71 per cent for all marriage ceremonies. Significant attempts at reforms have been made since 2001 to, according to the Attorney-General's Department, improve the transparency of the appointment process and improve the overall quality of the services provided to the public. Ultimately, from 2003 to 2012, the number of Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants grew from 3,632 at the end of 2003 to 10,467 at the end of 2012.
The government announced in 2011 that it would introduce cost recovery for this program and would implement this from 1 July 2013. I find it curious that the government has waited this long to introduce the bill and that we are debating it today, considering that, although the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is due to report on this bill today, 18 June, at this specific point in time the report has not been released. One of my constituents has reiterated to me her concerns about the imposition of a fee on marriage celebrants. Broadly speaking, it is important to consider the nature of the work that marriage celebrants do and the effort that goes into conducting it. As my constituent has noted, celebrants have a lot of expenses to get work. They need to advertise to the general community via the Yellow Pages, websites, social media, bridal magazines and other publications. Some attend wedding expos and other promotional events. There is a lot of expense in advertising each year, as well as insurance, peak body subscription fees to keep up to date and travel and publishing expenses. There is a fairly expensive course to become a celebrant, and then, often, some years waiting to be registered. Therefore, it is extremely important to consider that a celebrant needs to perform quite a lot of weddings each year just to break even.
Given these upfront costs, the feedback that I have been receiving is in favour of the department implementing a fee per wedding. I understand that civil celebrants see the costs in terms of keeping up with new legislation and professional development as reasonable, but civil celebrants feel it is a step too far to then impose further fees on someone who may not be using the services of the department. To quote from my constituents specifically: 'Why would a celebrant doing, for example, 50 weddings a year pay the same annual fee as a celebrant starting out or working part-time doing just a couple of weddings a year?' 'I am happy to pay to attend an annual all-day professional development session, so I am already getting that information at my cost.' Civil celebrants are already paying to maintain their professional standards and therefore want to know exactly what they will be paying the federal department for with a proposed new annual fee.
To their credit the government implemented a consultation process in 2011 on those proposed measures. I have noted some of the concerns of one such constituent who was closely involved in these deliberations. The Attorney-General's Department organised a consultation meeting in Brisbane in November 2011 which I understand was well attended by marriage celebrants. Many issues were raised regarding the imposition of an administration fee on those who act as marriage celebrants on a part-time basis. Those people were very much against the idea. Of course, it must be noted that well-established and full-time marriage celebrants would receive an advantage if there is, in fact, a decrease in the supply of marriage celebrants with perhaps hundreds or thousands dropping out of the program. The most recent anecdotal evidence I have heard is that imposing a fee may make it prohibitively expensive to continue to be involved and many may drop out of the marriage celebrant program.
As I mentioned, to be a Commonwealth registered marriage celebrant one must first complete compulsory training courses, specifically a Certificate IV level qualification, which can be quite costly. A registration fee will be yet another cost to becoming a marriage celebrant. It is worthy to note, however, that for many who are working part-time or are considering starting out the imposition of a fee means that their participation in the marriage celebrant program will simply not be feasible. What I want to see and what the Senate committee should address is that the department needs to fully account for the costs involved in administering the program and, therefore, as part of the formal cost-recovery policy, it should be honest and upfront about how the fees will be used to cover those costs.
I do note that the Attorney-General's Department have said in their submission that these fees will enable the department to improve the services delivered to marriage celebrants while also effectively regulating the celebrants. This does beg the question, of course, of whether the department considers the services they currently deliver to be adequate for the program. The department should identify how they will improve services and, indeed, which services they consider need improving. They also need to consider that if Commonwealth marriage celebrants do, in fact, drop out of the program, what affect will this have on the cost of administering the program. If costs are reduced, is it likely that the department will consider reducing the fees and charges? I do not hear of many examples where a government department actually genuinely cuts the fees it charges even if the associated costs are reduced.
There do remain genuine concerns and questions which still need to be addressed. I will therefore wait to see the report of the Senate committee due on 18 June, today, and the recommendations therein.
Sitting suspended from 13:44 to 16:00
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (16:05): I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013. These bills seek to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to implement a range of new fees in relation to registered and prospective Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants under the Marriage Celebrants Program. Previously, Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants were not required to pay a fee to be authorised under the Marriage Celebrants Program.
The bills also make minor amendments relating to the administration of the program and seek to implement an annual celebrant registration fee to the existing Commonwealth registered celebrants and a registration fee for prospective celebrants seeking registration. The bills will also allow for the imposition of an application processing fee for those seeking an exemption from any of the abovementioned fees. The amendments in relation to the administration of the program seek to allow an Australian passport to be used as evidence to determine the date and place of birth of marrying parties. The requirement for the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants to conduct performance reviews on all marriage celebrants every five years will be removed.
According to the Attorney-General's Department there are currently 10,500 Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants administered by the program in Australia and an additional 500 are registered each year. Civil ceremonies now account for 71 per cent of all marriage ceremonies conducted in Australia, a substantial increase from the two per cent when the program was first established, in 1970.
It is worth noting industry concerns about these bills that are being proposed by the government. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee received 113 submissions, largely from marriage celebrants, on their inquiry into the bills. In their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Marriage Celebrants Australia Inc. said:
In our common commitment to professional and high quality marriage celebrants, both civil and independent religious celebrants, we urge consideration be given to the following points.
1. As 70% of the Australian public are now choosing a civil marriage ceremony, they are being made to pay extra to cover the cost of the planned registration fee. The other 30%, using religious celebrants, will not have this fee imposed upon them. This Government has supported anti-discrimination in law, and yet is supporting this blatant discrimination.
That is, discrimination against marriage celebrants. They continue:
2. MCA (Inc) supports a substantial fee to new applicants for registration as marriage celebrants. The Attorney General's Department (Marriage Law and Celebrant Section) has told us repeatedly that the processing of applicants is extremely time consuming.
Why should established celebrants have to pay for this? It is of no advantage to have more appointments made when the current average of seven weddings per year per celebrant, providing an average gross income of $3,500 per year, is already stretching our budgets. Indeed, in some regional areas marriage celebrants probably perform fewer than that. They probably perform an average of about two marriages a year. Quite often when I attend ceremonies many of these marriage celebrants also sometimes take the role of religious celebrants in conducting religious services. So it is absolutely crazy that the government now contends that it is necessary to implement the new fees to cover the cost of administering the large number of celebrants under the program. The other amendments relating to the administration of the program are considered noncontroversial.
On 21 March 2013 the Senate jointly referred the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013 for inquiry and remote. I believe the Senate committee is due to report very soon—I believe it is today. The coalition is very keen to see the recommendations made by this committee and reserves the right to potentially move amendments in the Senate pending the committee's report. On that basis, the coalition does not oppose the passage of these bills through the House.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (16:10): I thank members for their contribution to the debate. I want all those listening to the deliberations or reading the Hansard transcript o note that the coalition is supporting this legislation—despite the words of the member for Brisbane, she will be voting for this legislation. I would like to thank the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for its ongoing work to consider these bills, on which it is scheduled to report later today. The government will, of course, consider any recommendation arising from the committee report.
The bills implement a 2011 budget decision to introduce cost recovery for Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants in Australia. The introduction of cost recovery will allow the Attorney-General's Department to improve the level and range of services to Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants. These changes will provide celebrants with access to support and guidance in carrying out their duties, which will in turn improve services to marrying couples. The amendments will allow the Attorney-General's Department to provide stronger regulatory and information services to existing and aspiring Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants.
Subject to the passage of this legislation, from 1 July 2013 there will be a $600 registration application fee for a prospective celebrant seeking registration, a $240 annual celebrant registration charge imposed on all Commonwealth registered celebrants and a $30 application processing fee for seeking an exemption from the annual celebrant registration charge, the registration application fee or annual ongoing professional development obligations.
The celebrant administration and fees bill makes some minor administrative amendments to enhance the operation of the program. This includes the introduction of an Australian passport as an additional identity document that a celebrant may use to establish a marrying party's place and date of birth. This has received significant report from the celebrant community. I acknowledge there are a range of views on these reforms within the celebrant profession, a point I noted in my own electorate of Blair when I met with local celebrants. A dramatic expansion in the number of celebrants has taken place since 2003. This is the result of the former Howard coalition government relaxing the cap on celebrant numbers and, thereby, putting financial pressure on many excellent celebrants practising today.
The member for Ryan raised the issue of ensuring transparency in the development of cost recovery. The Attorney-General's Department has provided a cost recovery impact statement as part of its submission to the Senate inquiry into the bills. This sets out in detail the costs that are to be recovered and the department's activities in administering the program. In accordance with the longstanding cost recovery principles, the government will review regularly the operation of these fees to demonstrate they are recovering only the cost of administering the Marriage Celebrants Program. I note that the amount set for the fees and charges will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance.
The member for Ryan noted the extensive consultation the government undertook in the lead-up to the introduction of these bills. These consultations have provided useful input into what services and support celebrants wanted from the department. In response to this consultation, the government will strengthen the application process for prospective celebrants as well as developing new ways of engaging with celebrants online and by telephone and undertaking more targeted monitoring of performance. While no-one wants to pay a new fee, celebrants can take heart in the knowledge that this change will bring immediate and longer term benefits to the profession. It is relevant that this is not something that has come about without warning; there has been extensive consultation around the country since the measure was announced in 2011. Ultimately this package of reforms will ensure that marrying couples are legally and validly married through a professional and caring service, as they should rightly expect on their wedding day.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (16:15): I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013. The Therapeutic Goods Administration is the regime responsible for regulating Australia's medicines, medical devices, blood and blood products. Under the act, all products which make a therapeutic claim must be listed on the Register of Therapeutic Goods before they can be suppled in Australia. It is a high bar to get over. It is very important for consumer safety that we do have the TGA and we do have the Register of Therapeutic Goods, though there is one amendment relating to products which seem to inadvertently be covered on the register. The bill also makes a number of minor technical amendments to ensure the consistent regulatory treatment of different types of therapeutic goods. These minor changes would also streamline the operation of a number of provisions under the act. Many of these amendments address anomalies that have arisen from previous amendments made to the act. But there is one amendment I would like to cover in more detail.
The main amendment contained within this bill would give the minister, via legislative instrument, the power to exclude goods from the scope of the regulatory scheme under the TGA. These legislative instruments are required to be tabled in parliament and would be disallowable should the parliament decide that any decision made by the minister is not appropriate. Currently, any product that falls within the regulatory scheme because a therapeutic claim is made may be subject to burdensome regulation under the act, even if no public health risk is likely. This new power would be allowed only in the cases where it is clear that the goods in question have little to do with managing public health and safety, but, due to a therapeutic claim made by the manufacturer, fall within the very broad definition of 'therapeutic goods' within the act. Increasingly, more and more health and wellbeing claims are being made in relation to products where public health considerations are not likely to be an issue. Some examples of these types of products include 'power bands'—holographic wristbands that are claimed to improve balance, strength and flexibility—and mattresses which contain bacteria designed to reduce the effects of dust mites. While these products would be excluded from the TGA regulatory regime, they will still be regulated under consumer protection laws.
In speaking to this amendment, I note the response from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills regarding this change, in that the legislation sets out no requirements that the minister would consider in making a determination to exclude something from the definition of 'therapeutic goods'. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee in their digest stated:
The committee therefore seeks the Minister's advice as to whether consideration has been given as to specifying the purposes for which this power may be exercised or to other ways to confine this power …
The opposition would echo the calls of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and ask the minister to explain whether this—that is, specifying the purposes for which the power may be exercised—has been considered and why it has not been included.
The second major change would provide a specific power to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing to remove goods that are not therapeutic goods from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. There are occasions when products are on the register when they should not be. Either they were a therapeutic good but are no longer a therapeutic good or they never were a therapeutic good. And there is currently no mechanism to remove these products from the Register of Therapeutic Goods. This power can be used only after the product sponsor has been notified, and any decision made by the secretary will be reviewable internally and externally by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The coalition will not be opposing this bill, but I do seek a response from the parliamentary secretary as to the circumstances and purposes for which the power may be exercised in deciding to not have a product listed on the Register of Therapeutic Goods.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (16:20): I would like to thank the member for Boothby for his contribution and also thank my predecessor, the member for Ballarat, in her former capacity as Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing. As the member for Boothby correctly stated, the measures contained in the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013 will streamline and improve the regulatory scheme for therapeutic goods. A number of regulatory requirements currently in the Therapeutic Goods Act are being standardised, replicated or clarified so that, where appropriate, common regulatory rules and processes under the act will apply to all classes of therapeutic goods, including medicines, biologicals and medical devices.
These changes will benefit the sponsors of therapeutic goods by providing greater clarity about their obligations under the act and provide the Therapeutic Goods Administration with improved mechanisms for its monitoring and compliance functions that are so essential to an effective therapeutic goods regulatory scheme. Additionally, the amendments will reinforce the main focus of the act, which is directed at the regulation of those goods for diagnosing, treating or alleviating disease, injuries or disabilities or that are used to replace or modify parts of the anatomy. It is a fact of modern life that health and therapeutic claims are increasingly being made on a range of goods, including food, jewellery and even some forms of household appliances—and, in fact, furniture, such as mattresses, as the member for Boothby correctly pointed out.
Because the definition of therapeutic goods under the act is so wide, goods that were perhaps not in contemplation when the legislation was enacted more than 20 years ago may now inadvertently be caught by the regulatory scheme. By enabling the minister, by disallowable instrument, to exclude these products from the operation of the act we can achieve greater certainty for those who wish to supply such products in Australia. I say to the member for Boothby—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—that I wrote to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in respect of its query in relation to that, and I am very pleased to provide the member for Boothby with a copy of my correspondence to the committee to satisfy the concerns he raised in relation to this issue. I also refer him to the second reading speech of the former Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing in relation to some of the criteria and the basis on which the decision will be made. I would like to reiterate that any products moved from the therapeutic goods regulatory regime would still be subject to consumer protection provisions in the Commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
In summary, the amendments in this bill will create greater regulatory harmonisation between the different classes of therapeutic goods and thus provide a more efficient regulatory scheme that will benefit consumers as well as the therapeutic goods industry.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
COMMITTEES
Health and Ageing Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (16:24): It gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon and comment on the report Bridging the dental gap: report on the inquiry into adult dental services. There is a list of recommendations and information in this report that I do not need to go into. But I would like to comment on some of the things that came out of this report upon the investigation of the committee; in a nutshell, it would probably be the need for cooperation between the federal government and the state governments and private providers to make sure that we have a network of dental services as far across the nation as we can and that we also get the services to where they are needed.
I was very pleased that the committee came to my electorate. Actually, the only hearing that this inquiry held outside Canberra was in Dubbo. What was interesting about our day in Dubbo was that we actually saw some of the issues whereby people are suffering from lack of dental services. We heard great evidence from the Aboriginal Medical Service at Walgett. We heard from the prosthodontist Peter Muller. Peter is very passionate about serving the people of New South Wales. He spoke about the changes since the cessation of the chronic disease scheme and how that has impacted on his clients. He also spoke of his frustration in terms of being able to service those clients as well as he might, and the difficulties that these clients have in funding the treatments. Many of the people he deals with are in a bad way with their general health because of their lack of suitable dentures with which to eat.
The other thing that was of interest to the committee when it came to Dubbo was the work of the Flying Doctor. Their plane, which is affectionately known in the west as the 'tooth fairy', is now delivering dental services right across western New South Wales. It has been a major step forward for the people of the west to have those services delivered, and there is a need for ongoing funding for that service. But probably the highlight of the day was seeing the work Charles Sturt University is doing in its School of Dentistry and Health Services at the Dubbo campus. We were able to see students and dentists working side by side delivering services to members of the community while these students were actually undertaking their training. It is a magnificent facility. It was funded in the last days of the Howard government and constructed in the early days of the Rudd government. Those young dentists are trained in the bush and have a good experience there. They probably have a superior training opportunity because of the ratios of staff to students and the fact that they will probably stay in that area. There is also a private clinic operating from the same facility.
So I do endorse this report. There is a lot of information in there about the relationship between the state and the federal government. This report also touches on the need to elevate the status and responsibility of dental hygienists and raises the possibility of a trial for Medicare provider numbers for hygienists. Certainly I would not like to see, as a stopgap measure, hygienists and dental nurses replacing dentists in country areas. I think that people in the country are entitled to the same level of service as everyone else, but I think that there is an argument to be had for some funding for hygienists to work throughout the school network in a preventative way. There is certainly a lot of scope to improve that.
I thoroughly recommend this report, and I acknowledge the work of the secretariat. This was possibly one of the fastest reports that I think the health and ageing committee has ever undertaken and printed, and hopefully the minister and subsequent ministers in following governments can use this and look at implementing a program that will fill in the gaps and ensure that people right across the country do get the adequate services that they need.
Ms HALL (Shortland) (16:30): by leave, I wish to address the chamber. Thank you to my colleagues. It is great to see that there are four colleagues from the health and ageing committee here in the chamber tonight. I would like to express my thanks to them for the constructive contributions that they made to this report. This is a report that is probably more difficult than a lot of reports that we have dealt with in the health and ageing committee, but we managed to reach a position where we had a unanimous report that we could table in parliament. I think that was a credit to the secretariat, who always do a wonderful job on the health and ageing committee, and to the members, because of the mindset that they had towards delivering a report that is unanimous and is one that we can all get behind and argue from different perspectives in relation to it.
The day in Dubbo when we took evidence was really special. It is very important that members get out into rural and regional areas. I come from a regional area, but it is a regional metropolitan area. In that area, yes, there are challenges in relation to dental. There are real challenges, but they are nowhere near the challenges faced by the people in Dubbo, and they are nowhere near the challenges faced by people who live even further out in rural and remote areas. The needs that they face and their inability to access services when they need them are very great. The committee recognised the fact that in an area like mine there is a shortage of dentists, but with the introduction of the national partnership agreement on dental I have found that there has been a massive reduction in the number of people who are waiting to access dental treatment. But in the member for Parkes' electorate you do not have that same turnaround because he does not have the dentists or the dental professionals to deal with the problems that people experience with their teeth. That remoteness and the rural and regional aspect of it really does impact on a person's ability to utilise services.
In Dubbo, I found it really refreshing to see the approach of all the people who gave evidence to the committee. They had one mindset. You could see that they were a team and you could see that they worked together on issues. We had the Flying Doctor, we had the Aboriginal Medical Service, we had the hygienists and the dental prosthesis and Charles Sturt University—a fantastic facility. What it has delivered to the community is a credit to the Howard government and to the current government. A thing that is really special about it is that you have Charles Sturt University working alongside the Western New South Wales Local Health District. You have dentists who are funded one way, through the university, working on one side, and dentists who are funded through the health system working on the other side of the facility. But they are sharing their expertise. They all go out to those rural and remote areas, and they are prepared to give their support to their communities, so there is a real sense of community. It is not the same level of services that are available in a city, but they certainly have a total commitment to the people that they are servicing. The Royal Flying Doctor Service shared with us their perspective of how they will go out and help people and, once again, gave that other aspect of what it is like to live in a rural and remote area.
The member for Parkes said that, for him, the thing that came across, the thing he got the strongest message about, was the need for state, Commonwealth and private dental services to work together. It is always a problem with the states and the Commonwealth. There is always that tension that exists between the levels of government, and there are always issues around the interface between government and the private sector. I think that is a very important issue, but for me the most important issue is the lack of consistency. In 1996, there was the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. The Howard government did not continue it. Then there was the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, and this government did not continue that. Now there is the national partnership agreement which, as I mentioned, has already made a big dint in the waiting lists in my area.
It is important that people in Australia have certainty that there is going to be a continuation of dental services, that it is not going to constantly change and that, if they are eligible for assistance under a particular scheme, that that eligibility will continue. From my perspective, I felt that the chronic dental health disease program was poorly targeted, but members on the other side of the parliament did not agree with that. Even given that, we were able to work around it and come out with the recommendations that we have here before us today.
It is fair to say—isn't it, Member for Hasluck?—that we all felt that there was a lack of consistency in the way dental services had been delivered over the years. We all acknowledge that the Commonwealth does have a responsibility for it. I feel that our underlying feeling was that we would love to see a health system in which dental care was covered by a similar scheme to Medicare, where, if you had problems in your mouth and you were really ill, you could go and have that treated, without it being treated as a secondary, non-important type of illness. It is oral disease. Anyone who has had an abscess or a really chronic dental problem will know that there is nothing more painful or more debilitating than having a problem in in your mouth. In fact, I had a constituent come to see me who ended up in intensive care in the public hospital system because he had had an abscess on his tooth. That abscess had infected his whole system. That was a massive cost to our health system, because he was fighting for his life for a couple of weeks. It was only through the fantastic medical care that you can get in this country that he was able to get over that illness.
There are a lot of new programs that are starting up. There is the Grow Up Smiling campaign that will be good for young children. When I was younger—and I suspect you will remember, Deputy Speaker, and member for Hasluck, and maybe all of us in this room—there was a Commonwealth dental scheme where the dentists came around to the school and looked at our teeth.
An honourable member: All of those pink tablets.
Ms HALL: Pink tablets. I lived in the country where they did not even give us pink tablets. We did not have fluoride. We did not have any of those scientifically advanced procedures. That program in place, and then it was removed, and we have had various other programs, such as the Teen Dental Health program which I do not think has had the take-up that other programs have had.
Overall, we need to have a continuous approach to dental care. We need to recognise that dental care is important, and we need to recognise how important it is to access dental care. Also, the national partnership agreement is an excellent scheme for people that have health care cards. They are the people that really need to access dental health through the public system. They are the people that are on the dental health waiting list. They are the people that will be assisted by the national partnership agreement. There is an interim agreement in place now, and the full agreement starts in 2014.
There is a group of people that are on incomes just above the health care card level, where it is very hard for them to afford the dental treatment that they need. This is a very complex issue, and it is an issue that, as a nation, I do not think we have dealt with well. I think it is time for governments of all persuasions to recognise that our dental health is important and that our dental health influences our overall health. It will not be the current government that responds to this report. It will be the next government, whatever political persuasion it is, that gets to respond to it. I hope that they take into account very seriously the need for consistency and recognise that dental health is very important.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (16:43): I am reminded of my growing up, which was in the fifties. We did not have reticulated water; I remember we had tank water. Amongst the people in my neighbourhood there were lots of false teeth and teeth that were not too good.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr LYONS: Yes, my front ones are gone, but they were knocked out playing footy. The interesting thing is that we do have, on the whole, much better teeth now than we used to have. I know that our society is better, we are a healthy people, and we actually live longer. Part of the reason is that we have much better teeth as a result of fluoride. I notice that the Queensland government have dropped the requirement to have fluoride in reticulated water, which is to the detriment of the people of Queensland, and I hope they rectify that.
I rise to add my remarks to the report, Bridging the dental gap, of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. In this inquiry the committee considered: demand for dental services across Australia and issues associated with waiting lists; the mix and coverage of dental services supported by state and territory governments, and the Australian Government; availability and affordability of dental services for people with special dental health needs; availability and affordability of dental services for people living in metropolitan, regional, rural and remote locations; the coordination of dental services between the two tiers of government and with privately funded dental services; and workforce issues relevant to the provision of dental services.
Improving dental health will help relieve the pressure on hospitals. I know this from my personal experience through being in the health system in Tasmania for 20-odd years. A number of cases came along that had to get taken into theatre for what were, in fact, dental problems. It does show that we are not on top of this issue. As I said, improving dental health will help relieve the pressure on hospitals and broader health systems, which is why this inquiry is so important. We know that one in five of our lowest income earners have not been to the dentist for over five years, if ever. This is a serious concern. Poor dental health has wide-ranging impacts on speech, sleep and eating.
The committee heard from a number of parties who stated that there are many groups of people in Australia who are struggling to receive adequate dental care. This can lead to a range of poor dental health outcomes which often result in patients requiring more extensive medical treatment. This includes low-income earners, the elderly, people living with a disability, those living in regional and rural areas of Australia, and homeless and Indigenous Australians. Because low-income earners are less likely to receive preventative care they are more likely to have extensive treatment, for example, tooth extraction rather than fillings. The reasons for the increased risk of oral disease in these populations are complex, but are generally associated with poor visiting patterns to dental and oral health services. For some, this may be indicative of poor availability of dental services outside metropolitan centres thus making access difficult. For others, a significant barrier may be the cost of accessing services.
The committee heard evidence that public dental waiting lists also represent a barrier to care, with eligible patients often unable to afford access to local services and unable to access services elsewhere. Treatments through the public health system usually focus on providing emergency treatments rather than preventative or restorative services. Even so, the demand for limited public dental services is such that there are significant waiting lists in all states and territories with the average waiting time of 27 months. For adults who are not eligible for access to public dental services, treatment is only available through the private system.
The Australian government understands the importance of timely access to affordable, high-quality, oral health care for all Australians, and in particular for low-income earners and disadvantaged people. The government knows that many Australians on low incomes miss out on access to dental care, and a number of those missing out are children.
On 29 August 2012, the government announced the landmark $4.1 billion dental reform package. This package will build a fairer dental system. The package includes $2.7 billion for Grow Up Smiling, a children's dental scheme that will start on 1 January 2014; $1.3 billion to states and territories from 1 July 2014 to expand services for adults in the public system; and a $225 million flexible grants program beginning from 2014 to provide dental infrastructure, both capital and workforce, in outer metropolitan, rural and regional areas. The government allocated $5.5 million to Tasmania in 2013-14 to cut the public dental waiting lists, which will make a real difference for Tasmanians and people with dental concerns.
The committee heard that a highly skilled health workforce is critical to the backbone of the health system. Projects such as the construction of a new purpose-built clinical training facility in Launceston with six additional dental chairs is fantastic for Northern Tasmania. Work is currently underway on the $4 million extension to the public dental services in Kelham Street, Launceston, to allow for dental student work placements in our region. This will be a state-of-the-art facility which is vital for Northern Tasmania.
The importance of good dental and oral health to general health and wellbeing is well recognised. There are well established associations between poor dental and oral health and acute or chronic health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. Furthermore, the pain associated with poor dental and oral health, coupled with social anxieties about appearance and the avoidance of certain foods, can impact significantly on the quality of life.
This inquiry has certainly been worth while. I encourage MPs and senators to read the report and the recommendations from this committee. I was particularly impressed by the service provided in the Dubbo area. There was a fantastic service training new doctors and also providing a private clinic, which I think is fantastic. It was my first trip to Dubbo and I was very impressed by the service provided in that area.
In closing, I wish to thank all those who took the time to put in submissions and appear before the committee. I also thank my fellow committee members and, in particular, the secretariat for the valuable work they provided.
Debate adjourned.
Climate Change, Environment and the Arts Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (16:52): It is my pleasure to rise in support of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts report Managing Australia's biodiversity in a changing climate: the way forward Vol. 3. The importance of this report is that it outlines what the future might bring for Australia's biodiversity from continuing climate change. It attempts to put forward to government suggestions of the vital base metrics that we need to ensure that we have. It looks at ways in which we can cooperate with the states and many of the boards and mechanisms that they have. And, like a lot of reports across the parliament, it suggests that we should make sure that this level of government, the Australian government, takes responsibility for the coordination of these things.
I am going to be slightly indulgent in talking about this report because for me it is the end of 20-plus years on a committee of the ilk of the climate change, environment and the arts committee. I was lucky enough to be made a member of the then House of Representatives Environment Committee after the 1987 election. This report I have in my hand—on the use of ionising radiation—was from one of the first inquiries I was involved in. The committee looked at the uses of irradiation, which, in the main, continue to be medical uses such as sterilisation. But back in 1988 it was suggested that it ought to be used on foodstuffs to increase their shelf life. Of course, this was very controversial at the time because of the way in which we viewed the use of anything nuclear. This was a very interesting report because it very much epitomised the work of the committee by bringing parliament to the people and also bringing people closer to the parliament so that they could have interaction. From 1988 up until the 2007 election, I was a member of the committee in all its guises.
The importance of the environment committee is that it is probably the longest running portfolio committee of the House of Representatives. Under different titles, there has always been, from the early seventies, a standing committee on the environment and conservation. This is not totally relevant, but I am happy to say I did not avoid making history, following in my father's footsteps and in the footsteps of my predecessor as the member for Scullin. This was one of his passions. He was very lucky to be on the House environment committee back in those years, and it was something that he thoroughly enjoyed.
When we revised the committee system in the late eighties to create about eight portfolio committees—and everybody got the opportunity to be involved in portfolio committees that were their great interest—I was lucky enough to continue on the environment committee. There have been many, many inquiries, like the current one on the effect on biodiversity of climate change that we are just concluding here, that I think have made a great impact. An early enquiry was into land degradation. Being from Victoria, where Landcare committees were up and running even at that time, it was great to be able to harness the knowledge that we got from observing what had happened with community based Landcare committees in Victoria, and expanding the Landcare movement right throughout Australia.
I think, Deputy Speaker, you would understand the importance and the great work that the many, many community Landcare committees have done, and the way in which that has blossomed into catchment management committees and other guises, which have involved local communities in delivering things that a national government see as important. I am one that is always urging that we have a national outlook, a national policy. But I also understand that that cannot be delivered nationally—that it has to be that we know the mechanisms that are on the ground that will achieve it.
We went from looking at land degradation to looking at coastal management—much the same. It was to be able to sit down with local communities to look at what they thought was the best way to tackle the types of coastal systems that they were dealing with. Again, I think we learnt a lot from our Landcare movement and looking at coastal care organisations. Along the way, we took a holistic approach to the work of the environment committee. I remember, in the coastal management committee, looking at ways in which we could get training and employment opportunities because of the work of the local communities. The local communities are dependent upon their volunteer input but are also a good source for very good experience—especially for young Australians, to learn skills that they can then take into future employment. It is very good to see the member for Hasluck here.
On land degradation and coastal management, one of the things that was absolutely clear was that we had an untapped resource in Indigenous Australians and their approach to these issues, in being able to understand the environment and to use that knowledge of the environment to put in place management systems. That might be one aspect of the work that we highlighted that has been slower in the uptake. But I am really, really pleased that on a lot of issues—for instance, those that surround our approach to tackling climate change, especially in remote communities—we are using the local communities, which in those areas are Indigenous. We have got really great value from those communities because they actually understand what it is to be at one with the environment and to steward that in a very positive way. They understand the differences that are created. If you look through the three volumes of work of the biodiversity inquiry and climate change, that is something that has come through in our investigations throughout that.
To give a hint to the member for Kooyong, I will finally mention one more report. In my time on the environment committee, this was the inquiry that had the most direct impact on the electorate of Scullin, which I have been fortunate enough to represent in this place for such a long time. The Sustainable cities inquiry report was tabled back in August 2005. That was when the committee had returned to being just the Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage—it had previously been the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts—so we had returned to our core business. I emphasise the narrowcast nature of the name of the committee, environment and heritage; we did not have the arts or anything else involved. This inquiry really adopted a holistic approach to the way in which we should develop our cities sustainably. It could have been that a committee on the environment and heritage would simply look at the ecological footprint of cities, but we decided that it should operate in a more holistic manner. That was made easier because, as I said earlier in this contribution, through the parliamentary committee system we were taking the parliament to the people and the people had an easier avenue to approach us. The very first witnesses we heard from on this inquiry were from the Western Sydney Area Health Service. They talked about the health aspects of the way we are developing our cities and the dangers of not tackling social isolation, especially on the urban fringes of our major cities. It was about more than just the problems of the environment and ecology and the danger of not sustainably using resources.
So this was very much a report in which we took into account the environmental and ecological aspects, the economic consequences and the social consequences. We had these three pillars underpinning our examination of the problem—but, by the end of the inquiry, there was a fourth pillar: governance. It was about how we can engage local communities that find themselves within the major cities of Australia in the discussion about what they need to reach their aspirations.
So, whilst all these reports in front of me represent the 20 years of work on the environment committee, I am only illustrating the Sustainable cities inquiry because it had the most direct reference to Scullin, traditionally an outer northern suburbs electorate of Melbourne, sharing the urban fringe with that great electorate of McEwan—oh, the member for McEwan has left the chamber. But we have the great 'Zap', the member for Makin, as the chair of this committee. I have enjoyed his chairmanship. He rates among the many fine chairs that we have had of the environment committee. He is very fortunate that we have as the deputy chair Dr Mal, the member for Moore, who will leave this place at the end of this parliament. He has been a really terrific champion of the environment committee. I think the member for Makin would say that his relationship with the deputy chair is very solid, as I think Dr Washer would say of his relationship with the former member for Throsby. This has been the tradition of our committee.
There is one exception—and I have probably buried the report of that one exception. I see the member for Bennelong here. He is a great Australian sportsman—still, I believe, but he may have been greater early on. At one stage the House environment committee had the environment, recreation, the arts and sport under its auspices. Wasn't that committee lucky that the Auditor-General did a report on a famous sports grants program! I have to say that there is a lesson for all oppositions in what happened when that Auditor-General's report came out. Luckily for the success of the committee system that we created—and I apologise to the member for Kooyong; I have gone longer than I thought I would—we had the opportunity to have Auditor-General's reports referred to the portfolio committees.
I wish that we had never had this one referred to the environment committee, because it become a very interesting report. The opposition thought that they were on a good thing. It had been referred to the House environment committee and we had numerous public hearings where we dragged the auditor in and the officers of whatever department sports was under. Finally, we dragged the minister in, because she was a member of the House. We got to Christmas and everything seemed tranquil and quiet. But politics is all about timing.
We returned in February of the next year and the government had been too good—they had been on good behaviour. There were no other issues around and so the opposition went back to the sports program. This time, they put in FOI requests. They embarrassed the government to allow them to go over to the department and go through the files. There was a very forensic opposition membership of our committee who went through the files.
Then we had the final famous night when we had the minister before us and suddenly she made the fateful statement. The question was, 'How did you assess these in your office?' She replied: 'Oh, well, we've got a whiteboard out the back in the backroom. We did all the work on that.' There was a shadow minister on this committee who is now a senator from Victoria—I will not mention his name. But the point he made, after he had done some quick back-of-the-postage-stamp calculation, was this: 'If all the applications were on this whiteboard, they would be about one square centimetre.' At this stage, we thought, 'That's the end of this.' There was a negative report and a scalp for an opposition that arose out of just bad luck in the management of a program and from the fact that it became something that a committee of this place used the accountability mechanisms open to it to examine.
In conclusion, I proudly endorse the work of the present House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts and endorse this, the third volume report on climate change and biodiversity. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Gambling Reform Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (17:08): As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, I rise to speak on the fifth report, The advertising and promotion of gambling services in sport: Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013. As someone who during the life of this 43rd parliament sat through a number of public committee hearings dealing with the issue of gambling, I must say that I am concerned by the pervasiveness of the gambling industry and the negative impact that gambling is having on the lives of many Australians. As a committee, one of the first issues that we dealt with related to pokies. There are 600,000 Australians currently playing pokies on a weekly basis. That is a large number. Of that number, 90,000 or 15 per cent, are deemed to be problem gamblers. While I firmly believe that the mandatory commitment proposal initially put forward by the government was not the answer, certainly more can be done in the area of counselling and support services for those who have a gambling problem.
As for the member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, the chair of this committee and the person who had a personal signed commitment from the Prime Minister to introduce mandatory commitment, he has every right to feel aggrieved, as the Prime Minister dudded him, breaking her solemn promise because of political expediency.
The issue of gambling advertising in sport is somewhat different to pokies. Not confined to the pubs and the clubs, it has taken over our footy fields and is having a detrimental effect on our young. Sport-loving children today talk about their teams in terms of odds and margins, sometimes motivated more by the law of a bet than their loyalty to the game. In fact, the committee heard, and has reported on page 9, that young people are at risk and are particularly susceptible to gambling advertising. We quoted the 2010 Productivity Commission report, which looked at Canadian research that found that 42 per cent of youth reported that gambling advertisements made them want to try gambling, and that 11 per cent of males and three per cent of females sometimes or often gambled after seeing an advertisement. The Victorian Responsible Gaming Foundation agreed that these levels of gambling advertising had had a negative impact on children, saying that their research shows that children under 11 have difficulty distinguishing differences between advertising and program content. In particular, children under 10 have difficulty understanding the persuasive intent in advertising. Certainly, the use of sports personalities and media personalities to promote gambling means that young children have a difficulty in distinguishing between what is marketing material and what is neutral content. Those details are found in our report and highlight some of the issues that we face.
Today, no football ground or scoreboard, no team jumper or jersey, no television or radio broadcast, is immune from the pervasiveness of gambling advertising in sport. In fact, the line has, in some instances, become blurred between sports betting, advertising and sports commentary itself. Gambling in sport is no longer just about a friendly punt, which we would all, in this place, happily endorse. It has become a multi-million-dollar, and in some cases billion-dollar, industry. Personally, I find it frustrating to turn on the television on a Friday night to watch a game, or when it comes around to Brownlow night to watch the vote, to find myself bombarded with gambling advertising. It detracts from the game, or Brownlow night, as a form of entertainment, let alone the greater harm that it has the potential to cause.
What is more, gambling in sport has the real potential to threaten the integrity of the game itself. My colleague and friend, the member for Bennelong, a great champion tennis player, is in the House with me right now and he would know all too well that international experience has shown that the integrity of sports of all kinds can be threatened by too much gambling, and in Australia we do not want to go down this path.
Therefore, we, as legislators from both sides of the House, have a responsibility to rectify the situation and to do it as soon as possible. The community expects us and, indeed, I have many constituents who have raised this issue—young and old alike. More importantly, we should expect it of ourselves. That is why there is a recommendation in this report that we review the self-regulatory action being taken by the industry, for if they do not make the appropriate changes with regard to gambling advertising in sport, then legislative action should follow. This was the position first taken by the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, which has been followed by the Prime Minister and her government—a bit of catch-up politics. Tony Abbott said: 'We are natural deregulators, not regulators. But when you've got a significant social nuisance, I think it's important for government to at least be prepared to step in. It is just wrong that kids be learning about gambling before they are learning about the game. The game should be about performances, not about whether you might quickly make 10 bucks by guessing who scores the first goal or whether a team gets a particular score by half time.'
Therefore, I strongly welcome the decision by the broadcast networks in Australia to ban live odds during play. But the coalition has sent a clear message. If the industry itself does not act before the September election then the coalition has indicated its readiness to legislate a ban. I see this change as being important, but also a first step. I believe that in time the community will demand of our parliament that we take further steps.
In conclusion, this is an important report which I believe has helped inform the debate, and I take this opportunity to thank the secretariat, including committee secretary Lyn Beverley, principal research officer Natasha Rusjakovski, and administrative officers Ruth Edwards and Lauren Carnevale for their hard work and professionalism during the life of this 43rd Parliament. I also thank the other members of the committee, including the chair, the member for Denison, his deputy, the member for Canberra, and my coalition colleague and friend on the committee the member for Moncrieff. I am sure I speak for many on the committee when I say that having been a member of this committee has provided me with the opportunity to learn much. I see that the issue of gambling in sport as a topic vitally important to our community. Today, as in the future, these topics around gambling and gambling in sport more specifically will require the vigilance of this parliament and subsequent parliaments, and the best judgement of its members.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:17 .