The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
White Ribbon Day
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (10:01): I rise today to address an issue which is one of the most serious and distressing that our community faces. That is violence against women and, particularly, domestic violence. As members of the House would appreciate, 25 November is White Ribbon Day, observed as the United Nations' International Day of the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
A recent campaign by White Ribbon Australia labels domestic violence as our 'nation's most shameful secret'. The statistics, quite frankly, back this up, when you consider that one in three women in our country will experience violence in their lifetime and one in five women will experience sexual violence. A local police officer asked me recently whether I realised that each week at least one woman dies from violence at home. I have to say that I did not know that. According to police, domestic violence exceeds street crime as the fastest growing form of assault. As a matter of fact, Detective Superintendent James Johnson of the Green Valley Local Area Command advised me that, in his command, in excess of 50 per cent of local police work is related to domestic violence. The reason the scourge of domestic violence has become a central focus is that, unfortunately, 64 per cent of violence against women occurs at home. For most of us, home is a place where we feel safe; it is our private refuge from the world. Sadly, for many women and children home is a place of fear, pain and loathing.
It is important to note that underreporting is still an issue in this country. It is currently estimated that 64 per cent of physical assaults against women are not reported. Even more staggeringly, more than 80 per cent of sexual assaults against women go unreported. Underreporting is particularly prevalent within multicultural communities, where victims often lack confidence to turn to authorities and attitudes towards domestic violence may differ depending on the areas people have emigrated from.
The National survey on community attitudes to violence against women 2009 found some truly worrying facts regarding attitudes to violence against women from selected culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Of respondents from these backgrounds, 45 per cent expressed the belief that domestic violence was excusable if the perpetrator got 'so angry that they temporarily lost control'. To compare that with the broader community, 18 per cent agreed with this view. Nearly 60 per cent of respondents from culturally diverse backgrounds also stated that domestic violence was excusable if the perpetrator 'truly regretted what they did'. That would be a truly alarming attitude for any of us.
We need to make it clear that, no matter where you come from, domestic violence is a crime. We need to not only look after the victims of domestic violence; we need to make it very clear to the perpetrators of domestic violence that it is a crime and it is a crime that will be punished. Although no section of the community is immune to domestic violence and violence against women, women from Indigenous communities, from newly arrived ethnic backgrounds and from low socioeconomic communities are at greater risk. My community is the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia, so this has some specific interest for me. My community is also rated lowly on the socioeconomic ranking.
There is another issue that needs to be addressed. We need to improve the relationship and trust between victims and, particularly, law enforcement agencies. As a community we need to make sure we make the stand that violence against women is simply intolerable. The local police in my electorate have seen an increase of between five and 10 per cent in the reporting rates of domestic violence over a 12-month period. That does not necessarily mean there is increased domestic violence; it just means that the message is getting through and women are becoming more confident about notifying authorities of domestic violence.
Domestic violence is one of the most serious issues affecting our community. It causes serious health problems. And I now know that one woman a week dies as a consequence of domestic violence. Also, it is one of the leading causes of homelessness for women. To add to the social costs—how domestic violence impacts on victims—violence against women cost our economy an estimated $14.7 billion in the past year. Unaddressed, this cost to the community will skyrocket.
We need common definitions of what constitutes domestic violence in this country and a common strategy for tackling the issue. We need to make it easier for our law enforcement agencies, as well as social and government agencies, to assist the victims. One of our main motives in tackling domestic violence and violence against women should be in addressing the cyclical nature of this crime. I ask members of the House to appreciate the fact that the evidence suggests that 50 per cent of girls growing up in abusive households end up being abused by their husbands. What is even more staggering is that 60 per cent of young boys growing up in a similar sort of household are likely to become abusers themselves. This is not an area where we can afford to put our heads in the sand and say, 'This is a matter to be dealt with by the authorities.' This is a matter that must be dealt with by us and the community.
The International violence against women survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that a history of victimization—whether the victim is a child or an adult—is a strong predictor of future victimization. Members, this destructive cycle must stop. I am proud to say that my local community is standing up and is certainly trying to make a change when it comes to the issue of domestic violence. On Friday, together with Detective Superintendent Jim Johnson, I will be addressing a forum on violence against women organised by the Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre. Liverpool MRC, led by Jimmy Mtashar, has done much over the years to address domestic violence, particularly in newly-arrived ethnic communities.
Also on Friday, I will be opening the White Ribbon function at the Cabramatta Community Centre—organised, once again, by the Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre. I thank in advance Dr Simon Emsley from the migrant resource centre who has taken on a proactive leadership role in my community in raising and tackling the issue of domestic violence.
On 6 December, which marks Stop Domestic Violence Day, I will join the local Aboriginal women's group 'Sistas for Sistas', the Liverpool Women's Resource Centre and Green Valley Local Area Command at the Know Us Respect Us event. These are people coming together to say, 'Enough is enough; we must make a stand. This is not an issue for the police and the welfare agencies; this is an issue for us.' Being in this chamber means we are community leaders; we must all make sure that we commit ourselves to making a genuine stand against violence against women and children.
I congratulate all the people involved in this and I encourage everyone to increase their activity. As community leaders in the parliament we can be proud of many things, but one thing we cannot be proud of is the level of domestic violence occurring in our communities. This is a cancer in our communities—one which can be stopped if we have the will to do it. I encourage members to observe White Ribbon Day on 25 November. Please make a stand in your communities.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 25 November 2013 is White Ribbon Day, a day dedicated to raising public awareness of as well as eliminating violence against women across the nation;
(b) one in three Australian women over the age of 15 will experience physical violence while one in five will experience sexual violence at some point in their life, with 64 per cent of the incidents occurring at home;
(c) one Australian woman dies every week as a result of domestic violence;
(d) 64 per cent of women who experience physical assault and 81.1 per cent of women who experience sexual assault do not report these incidents to police; and
(e) domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness in Australia and carries high social and economic costs to the economy—an estimated $14.7 billion annually which is expected to surpass $16 billion by 2022 if significant measures are not taken to challenge the attitudes and behaviours that allow violence to continue; and
(2) calls on all Australian men to take the following oath: I swear never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (10:11): Madam Speaker Bishop, as this is my first address in this new, 44th Parliament of Australia, in the greatest nation in the world, I would like to congratulate you on your election to such high office. I have been intimately associated with you in and out of this House. In fact, we have had an in-and-out relationship. You have been going in and I have been going out on a number of occasions. I congratulate you and wish you all the best in your position as Speaker of this House and in the role that you will play.
I commend the member for Fowler for his motion today. I know that the member for Fowler has been consistently an advocate on behalf of women, especially with regard to violence against women. What I am about to say has been said too many times by too many others in this place and in other places: to hit a woman is unacceptable; to hit a woman is cowardly; to hit a women degrades the men of this nation.
I continue to be disgusted. We must find a way forward—not just for women who suffer through domestic violence but for their children. We must do it for people in schools, for people in businesses and for relatives and friends—all of us. We are all diminished in this face of this. We are all made less by not being able to make it stop.
I have experienced a situation in my own business where this issue was hidden from the employer. I did not know that the woman on staff was not clumsy; there was an issue. When, like me, you come from a household where there is no domestic violence you have no idea that it occurs. You take that ignorance into the workplace and expect that domestic violence would never happen to your staff, that it would not happen in families. It does. The honourable member for Gippsland knows, like I do, that the reports from our collective electorates have been unacceptable to him and me. We are taking action, and I will come to that in a minute.
Violence against women is a cancer that gnaws at society and that seemingly and inexplicably is getting worse by the day. White Ribbon Day on 25 November is a day dedicated to raising awareness as well as eliminating violence against women across this nation. But, in a sense, every day should be White Ribbon Day. There needs to be a cultural shift in our attitude. This has been my desire—that across Gippsland and the seat of McMillan there will be a cultural shift that starts at kindergarten, through to junior football and cricket and soccer, where the men of this nation say to the junior men of this nation that this practice is unacceptable. It has to be not just a shift to a new government program with more money being spent on the issue when there is no change happening and we end up back in this place talking once again about the figures.
Whether it is in Eden-Monaro, coming down close to Gippsland, or anywhere else, this is not a rural issue—it is a country-city issue; it is a male issue. One of the best ads I ever saw was with the guys sitting in the bar and the other fellow comes in and says he straightened out the wife so he can stay with his mates, and they all just disown him. It is not just enough to disown him—there has to be a cultural shift. The tribe has to decide in each community, in each small town, in each group what is culturally acceptable, and domestic violence towards women is absolutely unacceptable. This has to be trained into the hearts and minds of our communities. Then we can grab hold of a cultural shift, determined that the people of this nation will say that this is a nation that has completely changed its attitude towards violence against women. The nation will change—Gippsland will change, South Gippsland will change, West Gippsland will change.
I am making this a local issue because it is happening in my area and it is happening in the member for Gippsland's area. It is on our patch. We see the results of it. Quite often the people who come to our members' offices do not tell us they are victims of domestic violence—they have just been evicted or are without a house and need some help; they are having trouble with their children and they need some help. Through my life I have had the great opportunity to deal with some amazing people who have raised funds themselves and have purchased houses and run organisations where women in fear could run to safety. If it is not in your family, you have no idea. If you are a truck driver on the road and it is not in your family, you have no idea. If you are a farmer in a family that has never experienced domestic violence, you have no idea. But those who are affected live in fear, live in pain, and give responses to their friends and colleagues and families that are unusual. Ask why do people respond like this, why do these children respond in such a manner?
I know there are new members of this House who will make magnificent contributions on women's issues and particularly domestic violence. I know the desire of the member for Fowler and the member for Gippsland and the member for Eden-Monaro, because we are connected—we have a desire to lead the way in this cultural shift so that members of this House look to Gippsland and say that we actually did something about it. We have white ribbons on today—we have to wear all sorts of things into this House and I wonder whether the world notices. I have signed a pledge that I will do all I can, make every endeavour, to have a cultural shift in Gippsland, in McMillan and in Eden-Monaro on violence against women so that there might be a deep maroon glow across the area that signifies that there has been a cultural shift—a cultural shift in the Latrobe Valley—and no longer will Ken Lay, the Chief Commissioner of Police in Victoria, bring us figures that show us that we have some of the worst areas. I want to come back and report to you, Speaker Bishop, that we have one of the best areas—and I will call you Madam Speaker from this time on! We are having a White Ribbon leaders breakfast. I went to some local people and they said that yes they would like to make a change. It is just a breakfast, but who is coming? Community leaders are coming, and we are beginning the cultural shift that will change a nation.
The SPEAKER: Is the member for McMillan formally seconding the motion?
Mr BROADBENT: I formally second the motion.
Debate interrupted.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (10:22): I present the Selection Committee report of the determination made pursuant for a resolution of the House on 14 November 2013 relating to private members' business on Monday, 18 November 2013. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of private Members' business.
1. Pursuant to a resolution of the House of 14 November 2013, the Speaker, Chief Government Whip and Chief Opposition Whip met on 14 November 2013 to determine the order of precedence and times to be allocated for consideration of private Members' business on Monday, 18 November 2013, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.00 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Mr Hayes: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 25 November 2013 is White Ribbon Day, a day dedicated to raising public awareness of as well as eliminating violence against women across the nation;
(b) one in three Australian women over the age of 15 will experience physical violence while one in five will experience sexual violence at some point in their life, with 64 per cent of the incidents occurring at home;
(c) one Australian woman dies every week as a result of domestic violence;
(d) 64 per cent of women who experience physical assault and 81.1 per cent of women who experience sexual assault do not report these incidents to police; and
(e) domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness in Australia and carries high social and economic costs to the economy—an estimated $14.7 billion annually which is expected to surpass $16 billion by 2022 if significant measures are not taken to challenge the attitudes and behaviours that allow violence to continue; and
(2) calls on all Australian men to take the following oath: I swear never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. (Notice given 12November 2013.)
Time allotted—60 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Hayes — 10 minutes.
Next 3 Members speaking—10 minutes each.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10 + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Mr Ruddock: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that in East Timor between December 1941 and January 1943, 700 Australian troops engaged some 20,000 Japanese troops through guerrilla warfare, and:
(a) this severely hampered the Japanese war effort by preventing its troops from being deployed elsewhere; and
(b) in this endeavour, Australian troops were assisted by the East Timorese people;
(2) recognises that while Australian troops were in East Timor between December 1941 and January 1943, and after they had left, some 40,000 East Timorese are estimated to have died as a result of protecting Australian soldiers; and
(3) commends and thanks the people of Timor-Leste for the sacrifices they made in supporting Australia during World War II. (Notice given 13November 2013.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Ruddock — 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Mr Husic: To move:
That this House:
(1) extends its sympathies to the people of the Philippines who have been affected by the devastating super-typhoon Haiyan;
(2) acknowledges the anxiety and concern this terrible event has caused for the Filipino-Australian community, that is worried about the safety and well-being of family and friends in the Philippines;
(3) in particular, has regard for the:
(a) officially estimated 2,500 casualties reported to have been caused by the super-typhoon;
(b) growing concern about the possible widespread outbreak of disease along with the lack of food, clean water and medical supplies; and
(c) displacement of 800,000 people as a result of a complete destruction of homes, schools, hospitals, roads and infrastructure; and
(4) welcomes the Australian Government's provision of $10 million in assistance to the Philippines, and urges the Australian Government to maintain close dialogue with the Philippines Government to ensure that further meaningful support may be extended in a timely way, where required. (Notice given 13November 2013.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.
Mr Husic—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Mr Christensen: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the television series Doctor Who will celebrate its 50th anniversary on the 23 November 2013;
(b) that the 50th anniversary of the first screening of Doctor Who in Australia will take place on the 12 January 2015;
(c) the many connections between Doctor Who and Australia including (but not limited to):
(i) the very first Doctor Who story, 'An Unearthly Child', written by Australian scriptwriter Anthony Coburn;
(ii) the score for the signature Doctor Who theme tune, written by Australian composer Ron Grainer;
(iii) the incidental music in the series throughout most of the 1960s and 1970s, written by Australian composer Dudley Simpson;
(iv) Australian actress Janet Fielding, playing an Australian character Tegan Jovanka in the series (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Peter Davison);
(v) actress Katy Manning, playing the character Jo Grant in the series (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Jon Pertwee), and becoming an Australian citizen in 2004;
(vi) Australian horse racing icon Gai Waterhouse, playing the character of Presta in the Doctor Who episode 'The Invasion of Time' (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Tom Baker); and
(vii) Australian pop star Kylie Minogue, playing the character Astrid (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by David Tennant) in the 2007 Christmas Special 'Voyage of the Damned'; and
(d) the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been the main broadcaster for Doctor Who in Australia; and
(2) request that:
(a) in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first screening of Doctor Who in Australia, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) consider filming the 2015 series of the television show in Australia; and
(b) the ABC, Screen Australia and the various State-based film funding bodies consider offering finance to entice the BBC to film the 2015 series of Doctor Who in Australia. (Notice given 13November 2013.)
Time allotted—50 minutes .
Mr Christensen — 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Ms Hall: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the:
(a) Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has released a draft ruling which will impact residents of moveable homes in low-cost living estates;
(b) moveable home industry is the primary provider of affordable accommodation for over 100,000 Australians, the majority of whom are pensioners;
(c) ATO ruling would see residents in moveable home parks who own their own dwelling on a rented site being subject to paying 10 per cent Goods and Services Tax (GST); and
(d) added cost of GST will cause financial hardship to many residents in these estates; and
(2) calls on the Government to ensure these residents do not have to pay GST on their site rental. (Notice given 12November 2013; amended 14November 2013.)
Time allotted—50 minutes .
Ms Hall — 10 minutes.
Next member speaking — 10 minutes
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Mrs Prentice: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that Australia Post is responsible for and has sole discretion over introducing, retiring or changing post codes;
(2) recognises that:
(a) residents in more than 50 localities from Amberley, Benarkin to Karana Downs and Vernor share the post code 4306, suburbs which in some instances are more than 130 kilometres apart;
(b) these localities fall within the four divisions of Ryan, Maranoa, Wright and Blair;
(c) the shared post code is having a detrimental impact on mail delivery services, postal delivery costs and insurance premiums for people living in these areas; and
(d) communities within the 4306 post code have previously petitioned the Government on this issue and to date have had their request rejected; and
(3) calls on the Government to request that Australia Post allocate unique postcodes to localities which currently share a postcode with a geographically separate locality. (Notice given 14November 2013.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.
Mrs Prentice—10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
White Ribbon Day
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (10:22): I wish to associate myself strongly with the powerful words of the members for Fowler and McMillan, with which I am in complete agreement. I am one of the Male Parliamentarians for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I have taken the white ribbon pledge not to commit, not to condone and not to stay silent about violence against women. I pay tribute to the work in previous parliaments of, in particular, Rob Oakeshott, the former member for Lyne, and Mal Washer, the former Liberal member for Moore. They were not from my side of politics but they were great parliamentarians whom I learnt quite a bit from, both on this issue and on others.
One of the things that we are committed to do is to raise awareness of the issue of violence. Men who wear a white ribbon demonstrate their opposition to violence against women and their commitment to equality between women and men. Men of all ages, from all workplaces, of all political affiliations and of all racial, ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds, sexual orientation and physical ability are needed to help establish community leadership to stop violence against women.
Every year White Ribbon runs an awareness campaign about the issue of violence against women and the role men play in preventing this violence. November 25 marks both International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and White Ribbon Day—the first day of the White Ribbon campaign. The origins of 25 November as the international day go back to 1960, when the three Mirabal sisters from the Dominican Republic were killed for their political activism. The sisters, known as the 'Unforgettable Butterflies', became a symbol of the crisis of violence against women in Latin America. 25 November was the date chosen to commemorate their lives and promote global recognition of gender violence.
Violence against women is indeed an incredibly serious problem. I understand that one Australian woman is killed every week by a current or former partner, that one in three women over the age of 15 report physical or sexual violence at some time in their lives, that one in four young people have witnessed violence against their mother or stepmother, that two-thirds of women who experience domestic or family violence are in paid work and that domestic and family violence is the major cause of homelessness for Australian women and their children.
After the murder last year of Jill Meagher, who was an ABC employee and constituent of mine, 30,000 residents walked down Sydney Road. For the 30,000 of us who walked down Sydney Road, Brunswick, on 30 September, as part of a march in honour of Jill Meagher, it was undoubtedly the last thing we wanted to be doing that day; but we did it all the same. We did it because we needed to state clearly and unequivocally that this is not us, that Jill Meagher's violent and senseless death is not what we are as a community of people, as men. We did it because we needed to say that violence against women is never acceptable, not under any circumstances. We affirmed that Jill Meagher and her life mattered and that she and her life were important and meaningful to us. We did it because sometimes grief, sorrow and anger are better shared than borne alone.
After that, I held a joint Community Safety Forum in November 2012 in Brunswick, with state MP Jane Garrett, to hear residents' views about a range of community safety issues and to emphasise again that violence against women is never acceptable, not under any circumstances. Following this forum, I gave careful consideration both to this case and to numerous other cases involving parole violations and inadequate sentences served for rape. This year I wrote to the Victorian Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert Clark MP. I have requested that the Victorian government institute a review of parole and sentencing which provides an appropriate opportunity for community comment, which looks again at the role of parole and concurrent sentences and which considers the introduction of minimum sentences for crimes involving violence.
I requested that consideration be given to the following proposals. The first is that parole be abolished for crimes occasioning actual violence and for repeat offenders. I am well aware that parole is considered to be an important tool of prison management and I am aware of fears that prisoners would behave badly in prison if given no incentive to behave well. My response is that this is not a sufficient reason to allow prisoners to serve manifestly inadequate sentences. There is an alternative option, which is to prosecute prisoners for offences committed in prison, such as assault, and to have those sentences added to their original sentence. Misconduct should be appropriately dealt with. If a prisoner will not behave inside prison, is there any reason to believe they will behave outside it? Prisoners who are genuinely remorseful will behave in prison.
The second is putting a limit on concurrent sentences. I find it extraordinary that Jill Meagher's killer, Adrian Bayley, could have previously served just eight years for five rapes—a little more than 1½ years per rape. At what point was it considered safe that Mr Bayley be returned to society? The lesson of concurrent sentencing for multiple crimes is that, if you commit one crime, you might as well commit a few. Is this the message we really want to send to offenders? Why should offenders be able to commit further offences with impunity? The maximum sentence for a single rape is 25 years. How can it be that five rapes led to a period in prison of just eight years?
The third is introducing minimum sentences for crimes occasioning violence. I understand that the Sentencing Advisory Council data indicates that non-parole periods for rape are falling. A decade ago men convicted of rape would get a non-parole period of about 5½ years jail, but as of last year this has fallen to about 4¼ years. It was also reported that the most common prison sentence in Victoria was four years, with a non-parole period of two years. In my view, such a sentence is manifestly inadequate. Having spoken to thousands of constituents and fellow Victorians about these sorts of issues in over 30 years of public life, I believe this sentencing is quite out of touch with community expectations.
Males, too, are often the victims of violence. While boys and men are the large majority of perpetrators of violence, boys and men often are also the victims. Males are bashed up, bullied and sexually assaulted. Boys and men are most at risk of violence from other boys and men. Ending violence to girls and women and ending violence to boys and men are part of the same struggle—to create a world based on equality, justice and nonviolence.
A core part of Australian citizenship is respect for Australian law and the Australian legal system. And a core part of the Australian legal system is that domestic violence or family violence is never acceptable. Domestic violence can take the form of using religious teachings or cultural tradition as an excuse for violence. In Australia religious teachings and cultural traditions are not more important than the right of all of us to be free of violence or the fear of it, nor are they more important than Australian law. As I have pointed out at citizenship ceremonies, the citizenship oath requires citizens to swear their allegiance to Australia, 'whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey'. This does not mean people uphold the laws that they agree with, or which do not conflict with their religious convictions or cultural traditions. It means they uphold all Australian laws. It does not mean people uphold the rights and liberties of those Australian citizens they agree with, and incite violence against those they do not. It means that Australian citizens uphold the rights and liberties of all Australians.
Unfortunately, surveys suggest that our laws against domestic violence are often broken. Over 50 per cent of Australian women report experiencing at least one incident of physical violence or sexual violence by a man during their lifetime. I am confident that the House will agree with me that this is unacceptable and has to change. Being a good Australian man or woman means building safe and healthy relationships—partnerships, involving joint decision making and shared responsibilities. It means economic equality, emotional honesty and respect. It means supporting your partner's goals and valuing their opinions and ensuring a family environment imbued with reassurance, love and security. I congratulate the White Ribbon campaign on the mighty work it is doing to bring about these incredibly important, positive, and powerful outcomes. This weekend I will be speaking at a dinner event organised in Melbourne by Dr Berhan Ahmed aimed at countering violence within newly-arrived African communities. I congratulate him on the great work that he is doing. I also wish to congratulate the member for Fowler on his initiative in moving this motion.
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
Speaker's Panel
The SPEAKER (10:32): Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for McMillan, Moore and Pearce to be members of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
White Ribbon Day
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (10:32): I rise in the House to talk about the importance of 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the White Ribbon campaign. Please indulge me as I share a personal story. I have come to know a domestic violence sufferer through my role as Member for Bennelong. On the outside, she presents like many other women—intelligent, warm smile, and very personable. And yet, as I have learnt, she lives a double life. Hidden behind closed doors is the abuse she suffers at the hands of her husband. She is constantly put down in front of her children; she is told she is stupid and useless. He has fits of rage when anything can happen from locking her in a cupboard for a day to physical violence. She wants to work but he calls her offensive names and says she only wants to work in order to meet other men. She offers to work in his business but is told she is too stupid. So she stays home looking after their children, and he accuses her of being lazy and good for nothing. He often refers to his position as breadwinner and asks, 'Do you like the bed you sleep in? What have you ever contributed?' She has suffered 17 year of this emotional abuse and, in her words, 'It's been a long slow journey to hell'. She says his manipulation and abuse have slowly got worse and worse, and the episodes of rage have got closer together, which is mainly because, in her own words, she has 'given him all the power' and she has 'become more and more subservient and obliging to the abuse'. It is to save herself from the explosion that will come should she actually stand up for herself.
These kinds of actions can never be justified. Men such as this are called covert aggressors; they have an impaired conscience; they lack internal brakes to know right from wrong and see life as a game of winning. Reality for these women seems impossible; they are on edge all the time, knowing the slightest thing could set the man off. When you read the brave testimonials on the White Ribbon website from women who have lived this nightmare, you can see the same pattern repeating: women hanging in there as long as possible for the sake of their children. Often they have tried to leave but the men have forced them to stay, blaming them for everything, telling them what terrible mothers they are, especially if they were to break up the family. Often these women have been at home raising children for many years, and the men play on that, telling them they will never get a job and they have no skills. They remind the women that they have earned all the money and it is all theirs. Women in this situation feel hopeless. They will never get a lease on a rental property, as they have no income and their prospects for work are challenging because they have been out of work for many years, raising children. So they stay put and put up with the abuse, and their self-esteem gets lower and lower.
In most of the stories I read, the women have hung on for way longer than they should have, for fear of the men's behaviour afterwards and for the children's sake. But you have to wonder what is worse for children: a home where there is violence and the role modelling that says it is okay to treat women badly or a divorced home that is violence free? I personally think if we are to try to break the cycle of abuse, we need to teach the next generation that violence against women is not okay, and young girls need to know that they do not have to put up with it—not at all. I would hate to think young, impressionable girls are watching their mothers getting abused and thinking that this is normal. We are left to ask: what more could be done on a national level? What responsibility do we take for this? How can government help? We cannot be in every home; we do not want to be a nanny state, but why do so many women feel they have nowhere to turn? White Ribbon Day helps these women to raise awareness of the agencies out there to support them.
I believe that there is work to be done through the high schools and sporting clubs in promoting the 'no violence' message. One in four young people have witnessed violence against their mother or step-mother. Exposure to domestic violence is a form of child abuse that cannot be ignored, with high personality, behavioural and psychological problems amongst these children.
I am proud to be a White Ribbon ambassador and am pleased that I am in good company in my electorate of Bennelong. The member for Epping and NSW Attorney General, Greg Smith, member for Ryde and NSW state Minister for Citizenship, Communities and Aboriginal Affairs, Victor Dominello, and I have worked with Marist Brothers College in Eastwood promoting a no-violence message and have sold White Ribbon merchandise at the train station with the help of their year 12 students.
I join Ryde Council each year for a White Ribbon breakfast and walk on 25 November to raise awareness for this important cause. The White Ribbon campaign is one of the world's largest movements to raise awareness and funds for the prevention of violence perpetrated against women. As a male-led movement it engages and empowers men and boys to be leaders in a change of attitudes and behaviours. This work aims to raise funds to resource and support White Ribbon ambassadors in their activities. I am proud to be a White Ribbon ambassador, and have taken the White Ribbon oath—and urge all men to do likewise.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, one in three women in Australia report having experienced violence since the age of 15. That is over 2.5 million women. Of this, nearly 1.5 million—or one in five—women have experienced a form of sexual violence. A woman is killed almost every week in Australia by a male partner or ex-partner, often post-separation. Intimate partner violence, including physical, emotional and sexual violence, is the leading contributor to death, disability and ill-health in women aged 15-44. One in four young people have witnessed violence against their mother or step-mother. Exposure to domestic violence is a form of child abuse that cannot be ignored, with high personality, behavioural and psychological problems among these children.
Research has shown that young men who have experienced violence are more likely to become perpetrators of violence in their own relationships. As a male-led movement, the White Ribbon organisation was formed to encourage men to speak out about violence against women. Silence when we know violence is occurring makes us an accessory to that violence. Challenging attitudes will help other men to take the steps necessary to break this cycle of violence. This is essential to promote a cultural change, to show that masculinity and machismo is directly linked with respect for women, not associated with violence and domination. And so I repeat the White ribbon pledge: I swear never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. This is my oath.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (10:41): Deputy Speaker Scott, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election. I also congratulate the member for Fowler for putting this very important issue on the Notice Paper. It is an issue that I raised in my first contribution in this place and I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a little bit more about family violence. In doing so, I swear never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women.
Family violence is a gender crime and the business of all of us, but it is especially men's business. I am mindful that in the last year, 2012-2013, of the 2,110 family violence incidents reported to police in the city of Whittlesea, within the electorate of Scullin, 100% of the alleged offenders were men. Ninety-five per cent of the victims were women—that is an important statistic and one that I am mindful of—but 100 per cent of the alleged offenders were men.
White Ribbon recognises this pattern of offending in family violence but also that most men are not violent. It enables, through awareness-raising, male leadership in preventing family violence—men taking responsibility for changing attitudes and behaviours. I am struck by the fact that violence is the leading cause of preventable illness and premature death in Victorian women aged 15 to 45. We have heard many statistics in this debate and there will be more, but this is about more than statistics. The costs to society are huge.
I ask myself: what does this mean for victims of family violence, their experiences? I think about the circumstances of the victims and how their experiences shape their lives and deny them agency and most certainly deny them equality. Within the communities that I represent in this place, the rates of family violence are unacceptably high. They are the highest in Victoria Police's Division 5. They are also increasing rapidly. In the last recorded year, there was a 35 per cent increase. I am particularly troubled by this, because it goes against the 20 per cent increase across the rest of Victoria. I ask myself: what is happening in the communities I represent and, more particularly, what is to be done?
I said before that there were 2,110 family-violence incidents reported to police, including a homicide. Of these events, 743 children were present. I am struck by the fact that recidivism appears to be very high. We have heard much about breaking the cycle. That is an important part of White Ribbon's cause. The police reports are consistent with data that are held by regional specialist family violence services, including the Berry Street Northern Family and Domestic Violence Service. I am struck by the fact that, again, there are significantly more referrals from Whittlesea than from the other local government areas across the northern region. There has been a strong council and community response to this, I am pleased to say. There is recognition that this family-violence epidemic is an urgent public health issue. The strategy that the Whittlesea council has endorsed, building a respectful community, preventing violence against women, a strategy for the northern metropolitan region of Melbourne, is an important step forward and an important enabler of further attitudinal and cultural change.
Working groups have been established also to address the underlying causes, including gender inequity, and to develop advocacy actions, as well as to improve the quality of service provision. Great work has been done in recognising the particular challenges facing our culturally and linguistically diverse communities needing to recognise and deal with both the personal and systemic barriers in supporting communities and breaking the cycle.
I am struck also that growth areas appear to face particular challenges in relation to family violence. I wonder what can be done about the impact of geographical isolation and I note that there has been increasing recognition of economic abuse, which appears to be a big factor in more remote areas of my electorate and other outer suburban electorates.
I know that this is a difficult and challenging issue for all members, and it is something that touches upon all of our communities. I am very pleased to make some brief contributions to this debate as an opportunity to show bipartisan leadership across this chamber in recognising a critical concern. I look forward to supporting the White Ribbon breakfast tomorrow morning, I look forward to supporting White Ribbon Day on 25 November and, indeed, the cause of reducing family violence every day. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (10:46): In commending the previous speakers I also acknowledge the mover of this motion, the member for Fowler, who has been an outstanding advocate for the cause of preventing violence against women, and the seconder, my neighbour and friend, the member for McMillan, Russell Broadbent.
This is an important motion. I note that we debated a very similar motion last year, and I would be quite happy to debate this motion every year for as long as it takes until through action here in this place we can do something to reduce the scourge of violence against women. We must keep working together across the party divide to achieve change and to achieve a community response of zero tolerance when it comes to family violence and violence against women.
The member for McMillan talked about the need for a cultural shift in community attitudes, and particularly men's attitudes to family violence. As is often the case, I found myself in furious agreement with my good friend the member for McMillan. We do need to achieve a cultural shift. We need to recognise that this is not a women's problem, it is not a problem for the police and it is not a problem for community health workers; it is a problem for our nation. In taking the White Ribbon Day oath never to commit, to excuse or to remain silent about violence against women we are making a stand for our wives, for our girlfriends, for our daughters, for our mothers, for our aunties and for our female work colleagues.
I am very proud to represent the seat of Gippsland, but I am not proud of our figures in relation to family violence—and the member for McMillan touched on this. Latrobe City is the highest ranked local government area in terms of call-outs for family violence per 100,000 people in Victoria. East Gippsland, also in my electorate, is seventh in Victoria in terms of call-outs per 100,000 people. Overwhelmingly these family violence instances that police are being called to feature women and children as the victims, and overwhelmingly the offenders are someone they know.
The most common location for physical assaults and sexual assaults for women is in their own homes. Women have more to fear in their own kitchen, in their own lounge room or in their own bedroom than they do in the roughest pub or the worst nightclub in Melbourne, Sydney or our regional cities. We should be ashamed of these figures. Domestic violence, as the member for McMillan correctly referred to—and I think the member for Fowler described it as well—is a cancer on our community. But I am pleased to say that we have so many members in this place and so many members in our own communities—the right-minded people in our communities—who are actually trying to do something about it.
Two weeks ago I attended a White Ribbon Day event in my electorate, headed by the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, Ken Lay, where Ken, who has been an outstanding advocate on behalf of women in our community, made the point that he had decided to have domestic violence as one of the key issues he would address as the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police—a real leader in our community.
This Friday I am attending another breakfast in my electorate, which is going to have the former member for Wills, Phil Cleary, as a guest speaker. Phil Cleary was a member here more than 20 years ago and has been a champion of the cause of prevention of violence against women not only in this place but also in his community life. Some people may think it strange that a member of the National Party will be sharing a stage with an Independent. We probably have nothing in common politically, but I am happy to share a stage with anyone who is passionate about this cause and I hope Mr Cleary feels the same way. We share a passion about this issue and we are determined to achieve change—change to our culture, change in our communities—because we can do better. We can do better; in fact, we must do better. The challenge is there for all of us not only in this place but in the broader community.
The figures I referred to earlier are extraordinary in the sense that we do not seem to have made a great deal of progress over the past 10, 20 or 30 years. I will acknowledge that the extra reporting of domestic violence perhaps inflates some of the figures, but as the member for Fowler correctly referred to, there is still underreporting of family violence and sexual assault. But when we know that one in three Australian women over the age of 15 will experience physical violence and that one in five will experience sexual violence at some point in their lives, with 64 per cent of those incidents occurring in their homes, we know we have an issue that we must do more to address.
I do commend the member for Fowler for bringing this motion to the attention of the House again this year. I look forward to working with him and working with my colleagues on this side of the House as well, not only to support programs that government has put in place but also to drive that cultural change and drive that shift in attitudes which are so desperately required. I commend the member, and I commend the motion to the House.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:51): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I commend you on your elevation to high office.
White Ribbon Day is 25 November 2013, and as a White Ribbon ambassador I believe that first and foremost I must be a man who embodies the values, ethics and morals expressed in this campaign in my everyday life at home, at work and in my community.
I am a husband, and a father of two daughters. It is my fervent wish that my daughters live in a world without domestic violence. But when the current statistics show that one in three Australian women over the age of 15 will experience physical violence and one in five will experience sexual violence at some stage in their life, I know my wish is far from being realised.
Violence affects women in every group in our society and for those in disadvantaged circumstances it is even more prevalent. In the last parliament I was Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and we heard disturbing evidence that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised by partner abuse than non-Indigenous women. I commend the work and the strong campaign commenced in Central Australia by Indigenous men who wish to address this problem.
I commend the work locally in my electorate of the Ipswich Women's Centre Against Domestic Violence, led ably by Gabrielle Borggaard. I know how committed these women are to addressing the scourge of domestic violence from a feminist perspective. They do marvellous work in Ipswich and the Somerset region. One of the programs they run is the Love Bites program, run by Philippa Cook. The Love Bites program, funded by the former federal Labor government, operates in high schools in Ipswich and the Somerset and Lockyer Valley regions. It is designed to raise awareness of how people can fall into potential domestic violence situations. The program is very successful because it is targeted to young men and young women and designed to prevent them from forming damaging relationships as adults.
Every year the Ipswich Women's Centre Against Domestic Violence runs a march through the Ipswich CBD. During that time, 'Ipswich says no to violence' T-shirts are many. Last year I marched with about 250 people, along with Ipswich city councillors Andrew Antoniolli and Charlie Pisasale and members of the Ipswich community, including members of the Ipswich Jets rugby league team. Last week I held my 20th mobile office since the last federal election and my second at the Ipswich Handmade Expo. The goods on display and for sale at the expo are created by women for women. I commend the organisers for providing a stall for me in my capacity as a White Ribbon ambassador to help raise awareness of this issue.
Domestic violence can take many courses. The former federal Labor government understood this and in our 2013-14 budget we reaffirmed our commitment to equality, with a focus on increasing women's workforce participation and their economic security and addressing violence against women and their children. We provided $5.2 million over five years to fund the Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and their Children. The National Centre of Excellence to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children was designed to serve as a research hub to support the development of policy, professional practice and programs to reduce violence. We also created the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. The $86 million plan included the 1800RESPECT hotline, the website for domestic violence victims and the award-winning The Line social media campaign concerning respectful relationships. We also introduced AVERT Family Violence, a multidisciplinary training package for professionals working in the Family Law Act area. We introduced changes to incorporate for the first time the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and we made contemporary the Family Law Act and contemporised the definition of 'family violence'.
What many people do not understand is that violence takes many forms: financial domination, stalking, friendship denial, spiritual abuse, damage to property, reproductive control, and familial isolation. Many of these things happen and people do not recognise they are violence. But, more than anything, violence in the home is a blokes' issue. We have to make sure that blokes do not turn a blind eye. It is a blokes' issue because men have the power to make changes, as leaders and decision makers in their homes and in their workplaces. As men, we need to speak out on this issue and send a message. We need to lead our lives in such a way that we make it clear that violence against women is unacceptable, and that message needs to go to young boys as well. I commend the member for Fowler for his motion. I am proud to stand with him to do everything I can, both locally and nationally, on this issue to protect women and children in our community.
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (10:56): As a White Ribbon ambassador from Tasmania I am pleased to speak on the member for Fowler's motion ahead of White Ribbon Day and I commend him for moving the motion. I hope that the bipartisan nature of the debate we have heard this morning translates into that broader cultural change in our society that is required to address this problem. As former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has observed:
Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And, it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development and peace.
There are many labels, as we have heard this morning, attached to violence against women, but, irrespective of the label, it is simply unacceptable. We have heard the quite horrifying statistics this morning. We have seen in the aftermath of Jill Meagher's senseless death a community outcry to stop this and to reclaim the safety of our streets.
I know all members of this House would agree that even one act of violence against a woman is one too many. Yet domestic violence in Australia is, sadly, common and widespread. Many of these cases go unreported due to the private nature of the relationships within which the violence occurs. This makes it impossible to measure the true extent of the problem. But we do know, for example, that a woman is more likely to be killed in her home by her male partner than anywhere else or by anyone else. While most men do not commit violence against women and know that physical or sexual violence is wrong, it is a fact that when violence occurs, as the member for Scullin pointed out, it is mostly current or previous male partners that are the perpetrators. Sadly, this violence does not discriminate in terms of the age of the woman. The male dominated nature of the problem imposes, I believe, a special obligation on men to do more in response, and wearing the white ribbon is one of those things. It is a symbol of the wearer's pledge that they will not excuse violence against women and will share in a collective commitment to stop violence by men against women.
I am pleased to say that we are making inroads into raising awareness about this important issue. On 27 September I visited Launceston Church Grammar School at their Mowbray campus and spoke to a large group of senior students about the White Ribbon movement, about its particular importance for groups of young men. There was some fundraising associated with this event, and the boys chose to donate these funds to the Launceston women's shelter. I congratulate them on their thoughtfulness and initiative. I was impressed by the large number of students who chose to make a mass pledge, which, as we have heard this morning, has three important dimensions: never to commit violence against women; never to excuse violence against women; and never to remain silent about violence against women. I congratulate the headmaster, Stephen Norris, for addressing this issue with a group of young people who will help to lead further progress on this issue into the future. They will help to accentuate the role men should play in loving, fair, consensual and respectful relationships with women. They will affirm our readiness to speak out against violent acts that diminish equality and justice in our society. In doing so, they will help promote greater closeness and connection as well as ensuring that the girls and women they love will live safer, freer lives.
We often talk about responses to policy problems and we try to frame them into whether it should be a top-down or a bottom-up response. On this occasion it requires both. It requires that bottom level, grassroots cultural change and it also requires influences in our society to step up and to speak out and ahead of White Ribbon Day there is a lot we can do and I encourage people to visit the White Ribbon website at www.whiteribbon.org.au/ to generate some ideas. The resources on this site contains some wonderful and useful material for those who need help, particularly contact numbers. It also contains advice and strategies for how we can help someone experiencing violence.
In the electorate of Bass there will also be community events. The fireman will be back in the Launceston Mall bringing the White Ribbon message to every male that walks past. We will have a White Ribbon display at my office in St John Street and I encourage other shopfronts to do the same. Again, I commend the member for Fowler and the other speakers for giving this issue some well-deserved attention and I encourage our communities around the country, particularly men, to add their voice to this important cause. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will made an order of the day for the next sitting.
East Timor
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (11:01) I move the motion relating to East Timorese support of Australian troops:
That this House:
(1) notes that in East Timor between December 1941 and January 1943, 700 Australian troops engaged
some 20,000 Japanese troops through guerrilla warfare, and:
(a) this severely hampered the Japanese war effort by preventing its troops from being deployed
elsewhere; and
(b) in this endeavour, Australian troops were assisted by the East Timorese people;
(2) recognises that while Australian troops were in East Timor between December 1941 and
January 1943, and after they had left, some 40,000 East Timorese are estimated to have died as a
result of protecting Australian soldiers; and
(3) commends and thanks the people of Timor-Leste for the sacrifices they made in supporting Australia in World War II.
I simply say in relation to this resolution that its terms are self-explanatory. It notes that in East Timor, between December 1941 and January 1943, 700 Australian troops engaged some 20,000 Japanese troops through guerilla warfare and that this really hampered the Japanese war effort by preventing its troops from being deployed elsewhere. In this endeavour Australian troops were assisted by the East Timorese people and it recognises that Australian troops were in East Timor between December 1941 and January 1943 and that after they left some 40,000 East Timorese were estimated to have died as a result of protecting Australian soldiers, and it commends and thanks the people of East Timor, or Timor-Leste, for the sacrifices they made in supporting Australians during World War II. I move this motion so that we do properly recognise those efforts by these Timorese people.
From late 1941, as the war in the Pacific began, until 1942 Australian independent companies the 2/2nd, the 2/40th, and Z commando units were sent to East Timor, then a neutral Portuguese colony. In the months following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, most of the geostrategically critical regions of the Pacific and a number of states fell to the Japanese. Amongst them were Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies and Burma. As the Japanese forces moved towards Dili, Australian troops found themselves in extraordinarily difficult territory surrounded by an enemy.
The 700 men who formed the Australian force withdrew into East Timorese mountainside forests joined by local men and boys who offered very considerable assistance to them. During the following months these young people, known as the Creados, and other local people guided the Australian forces through the hills, passed on information about Japanese movements and helped carry their gear. The assistance and bravery of them, and the Timorese people generally, ensured the survival of our troops.
From July 1942 Japanese forces implemented a series of campaigns designed to break the bond between the East Timorese and the Australian contingents. Unfortunately, as Japanese commanders recognised the vital role of local assistance in the continued resilience of the Australians, the Japanese strategy necessarily—from their point of view—targeted the East Timorese.
Community emissaries were brought in from Dutch West Timor to encourage dissent amongst local people. They advocated the abandonment of support for the Australians and the Portuguese colonial administration, which had nominally continued albeit reduced and circumscribed in form. To the extent that this was successful, and by late 1942, the Portuguese administration had evaporated; yet, critically, the support for the Australians had not. With the benefit of this assistance the Australian forces were able to engage the Japanese in intensive guerilla warfare, using critical intelligence and information provided by the East Timorese. Their efforts significantly hindered the advance of some 20,000 Japanese troops through the area, absorbing critical resources and manpower and thereby preventing the troops from being deployed elsewhere in the Pacific, including the developing theatre in Papua New Guinea.
Several extremely brave East Timorese people also gathered and related critical intelligence back to Australia at considerable risk to themselves—their lives and those of their families. Patricio da Luz, a local morse code operator, took charge of the Dili wireless station, passing highly sensitive Japanese strategic plans to Australian aerial intelligence services operating under the guise of Qantas civilian operations. Some of the information gathered and passed back to Australian operations was of vital importance and da Luz conveyed information intended for senior Japanese commanders. This included intelligence that the Japanese aerial forces were moving towards Darwin in 1942. It is very important that we recognise in this place and as a broader Australian community the enormous impact of the East Timorese sacrifice—because it was surely that.
Few of the Creados survived the period following their connection with the Australian forces. One described to ABC's Compass program in 2010 the day the Australian troops farewelled their East Timorese comrades on a beach and the swift descent of Japanese forces. He recalled:
From the beach I set off towards the mountains. From there I heard the gunshots. The criados, they were all shot. They were all killed.
Both during the period when Australian forces operated in East Timor and after the troops were withdrawn in early 1943, the East Timorese people were subject to severe retribution by the Japanese forces. Between 1941 and 1943, 40,000 East Timorese are believed to have died as a result of their efforts in protecting our Australian troops. We cannot adequately quantify this loyalty, nor forget the debt Australia owes to the Timorese people.
Political events in 1999 reinvigorated the close connections between Australia and the East Timorese people, but we need to remember how far and deep these ties bind us. Although the relationships forged between the local guides in Papua New Guinea, affectionately known as the fuzzy wuzzy angels, and Australian troops form part of our collective memory of the war in the Pacific, very few are aware of the equal heroism and loyalty shown by the East Timorese to Australian troops. That is the reason I propose this resolution and hope that it will receive the support of this chamber: still fewer people in the broader Australian community understand the significance of these friendships and assistance within the wider Pacific theatre.
As we approach the centenary of the Anzac landings, I hope that our appreciation of the nature of sacrifices made during times of conflict will be understood in relation not only to the Anzac landings but, more broadly, the way in which Australians have served and the way in which they have been supported. As a nation we must collectively reflect not only upon the sacrifices made by Australians but those made by others, often noncombatants, who had given much in order to protect and assist Australians. So, in this place today, I move that we recognise the sacrifices and loyalty of the East Timorese people and give thanks for the friendship extended to Australian troops stationed in East Timor during the Second World War.
May I thank particularly the group of Australians who have adopted East Timor and who support them through these efforts. They came before the former foreign affairs, defence and trade committee to brief us on the efforts of Australians in East Timor at that time and that briefing had a significant impact on me. I had only recently been in East Timor; I had seen something of the countryside and gained a broader appreciation of the circumstances in which the East Timorese live. It made me very much more appreciative of their efforts, which these Australians wanted to bring before the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee. It was in that context that I drafted and proposed this resolution, I promised that one day this chamber would be able to acknowledge that effort. It is a great privilege to be able to propose the motion and to bring it back here in the first private members' debate we have had in the new parliament. I am sure these Australians who are very supportive of the East Timorese will be pleased that the parliament has had this opportunity not only to debate it but also, hopefully, when the resolution is passed, to recognise it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (11:11): Is the motion seconded?
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports—Parliamentary Secretary for the Arts) (11:11): I second the motion and commend the member for Berowra for bringing this to the attention of the House. Like the member for Berowra, I have visited Timor-Leste on two occasions since that new nation achieved independence from Indonesia in 2002. On both occasions I have been struck by the deep bonds of friendship between our countries—bonds of friendship that endure despite a diplomatic relationship that is largely a story of sacrifice by the Timorese and, to some extent, exploitation by Australia. The motion before the House today is a telling example of what I am talking about.
In the lead-up to World War II the Japanese were in search of oil to fuel their army and power their navy. When they turned southward the Japanese were obviously after the rich oilfields of the Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia. Allied forces were aware of this Japanese plan to turn the Pacific into a 'Japanese lake' but were taken by surprise when Japan bombed the US naval headquarters at Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941. The Japanese attacked the Philippines and extended their attack further southward. Just over a week later, in an attempt to curtail the Japanese invasion, Dutch, Australian and British troops occupied neutral Portuguese Timor, adjacent to Dutch Timor.
It is often overlooked that Portugal had remained neutral in the war raging in Europe. For the average Timorese, the horror of Pearl Harbour, even the Japanese attack southward, let the alone the horrors of the battles in Europe, would probably have barely registered. Yet the landing of the Allied forces in neutral Portuguese Timor brought the war directly into the lives of the Timorese, with devastating consequences.
Just two months later on 19 February 1942, at about 10 am, Japanese aircraft attacked Darwin, killing 243 people. That same day, just before midnight, 1,500 Japanese troops landed in Portuguese Timor. An Australian force, together with a few Dutch servicemen and even fewer Portuguese servicemen, was present. The Dutch and the Australians were known as Sparrow Force. They inflicted some damage on the Japanese invaders before withdrawing to the mountains where they were later joined by Portuguese and Timorese partisans. For the next year, the 700 or so commando soldiers who had escaped to the rugged hills waged a guerilla war against the Japanese imperial army. While they were small in number, they succeeded in tying up the resources of the tens of thousands of Japanese troops who would otherwise, as the member for Berowra said, have been deployed against Australians fighting in Papua New Guinea.
In Paul Cleary's detailed account, The men who came out of the ground, the preface about the Australian commando's taking part in the Australian equivalent of Winston Churchill's SOE says they required:
… ingenuity, imagination and mateship on a mammoth scale. Ingenuity, like rebuilding a radio from spare parts so that the force could contact Australia and tell the army chiefs they were indeed still fighting. Imagination, like mobilizing hundreds of local villagers to move supplies out of the enemy's reach without having the means to communicate with or compensate the willing East Timorese workers. It demanded mateship not just among the Australians, but with the local people.
It was in these guerilla battles that the Australian troops formed a close and respectful relationship with the locals who undertook crucial assistance roles, including vital intelligence. Cleary said the Timorese volunteers:
… became the eyes and ears of the soldiers, and by hauling supplies and equipment as well they made the 2/2 Company a vastly mobile and effective guerilla force … Timorese villagers gave the Australians food and shelter and whatever else they needed, and they refused to inform on them.
If you have visited East Timor, as I am sure you have, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know that it is not the most abundant of countries, so for the villagers to share with Australian servicemen was indeed a sacrifice. Without the aid of the Timorese the commando force would have been quickly overrun. Despite their skills they relied on the local knowledge and incredible bravery of their Timorese helpers.
What is most critical in guerilla warfare is the provision of local intelligence, but it is also the most dangerous activity in support of a commando force. The Japanese army made the Timorese pay an immense price. As punishment for their assistance, the Japanese brutalized the locals and executed those found to have assisted the Australians. I wish to recognise that between 40,000 and 60,000 Timorese died at the hands of the Japanese because of their loyalty to the Australian commandos and because of the general brutality of the Japanese army at the time.
In his address at the opening of the Dare Memorial Museum and Fatunaba Memorial Primary School, Prime Minister His Excellency Mr Xanana Gusmao spoke of the bonds forged between East Timor and Australia. As we all know, it was the support of the Timorese people to the Australian soldiers that allowed them to survive during the war. Many Timorese volunteered to help the soldiers and, at great risk, they carried packs and ammunition, cooked for the troops and fought alongside them. It was this great display of solidarity and humanity that represents the strong foundation for the shared history between our two countries. President Gusmao stated:
It has resulted in bonds of friendship and honour that have left an enduring legacy.
The Australian soldiers that fought in Timor during the War have continued to return to our homeland to maintain the friendship with our people, and to support our communities.
… … …
This connection, forged in war, has also helped the cause of Timor-Leste.
The former soldiers have worked to remind Australians of the support they received from the Timorese in the War, and in doing so have fostered goodwill between us that will last for generations to come.
I do not think it is unfair to say that perhaps the most effective advocates of Australian intervention in Timor when it was under Indonesian control were these Australian ex-servicemen.
Eventually, as I said previously, the commandos there during the Second World War from 1942 were withdrawn but their Timorese helpers were left behind to face the Japanese alone. Many of the departing Australians described it as like leaving their families, with many Australians, as the President noted, returning to see their Timorese brothers in arms after the end of the war.
I want to conclude with some remarks about the third point of this motion, which states that this House:
… commends and thanks the people of Timor-Leste for the sacrifices they made in supporting Australia during World War II.
It is one thing to thank the Timorese in a motion in this House—parliamentary motions are cheap—but Australia needs to keep paying its debt to the Timorese in actions and deeds. I am afraid to say that sometimes our actions have not matched our rhetoric. We turned a blind eye to the invasion of East Timor. With the then opposition foreign spokesman, Mr Laurie Brereton, I was very pleased to be involved in some change in Australian policy on Timor. I think that change was correct. Australia under Major General Cosgrove performed a very honourable role in Timor when we did seek to intervene. We redeemed ourselves to some extent when we championed the case at the UN to do something to about the violence that erupted in Dili and the districts following the historic vote for independence in August 1999.
I take this opportunity to honour the outstanding contribution of Major General Peter Cosgrove, who led the International Force for East Timor in 1999. Through the international force's efforts against pro-Indonesian militias, peace and order were restored and thousands of lives were saved. Major General Cosgrove described to me many times when young Australian servicemen were faced with aggressive and antagonistic opponents who were aligned to Indonesia. One click of their automatic weapons could have resulted in a major confrontation between Australia and Indonesia, but the good sense of the average Australian soldier at the grassroots prevented that.
I hope that Australia's ongoing relationship with Timor-Leste will be marked by a series of actions and deeds that are serious about repaying this World War II debt to the people of Timor. I conclude by highlighting the words of Prime Minister Gusmao and honour:
… our deep and indelible bonds, that were forged between Australians and the Timorese during the 2nd World War. Let us continue to honour their bravery and their sacrifice, through building on our shared values and our collective history.
I commend this motion. I hope that Ambassador Guterres from Timor-Leste will convey it to the Timorese parliament as a further example of Australia's close relationship with his country.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (11:22): This motion is built upon the harsh reality of war and on the extraordinary courage and sacrifice of the people of Timor-Leste who provided remarkable support to Australian troops during World War II. Three months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese occupation of South-East Asia reached its southern limit with the invasion of Timor on 20 February 1942. As early as February 1941 Australia had agreed with Dutch and British officials that Allied troops, under Australia's command, would reinforce Timor should Japan enter the war.
In December 1941 Australian and Dutch troops under the name Sparrow Force landed in Koepang, in Dutch-controlled West Timor, while another 400 Australian commandos occupied Dili, in neutral Portuguese-controlled East Timor, to secure the Allied flank against the likely Japanese advance through South-East Asia. Those troops included a remarkable Australian John Carrick—later Sir John Carrick and a senator for New South Wales—who was captured and became a prisoner of war in Changi. He was a great mentor and boss, a good friend to the member for Berowra and to me, and to many others in this parliament.
The Allied troops did not expect the massive Japanese onslaught that followed. Koepang, the centre of Dutch rule, was the focus of the Japanese attack. Surrounded and short of ammunition, Australian troops held out for four days but were forced to surrender on 23 February. A Japanese force had also been sent against Dili, where it faced only limited resistance, but, importantly, forestalled the planned arrival of Portuguese troops. A further 250 Australian servicemen had been sent to the Portuguese part of the island before the Japanese attack. They did not directly oppose the invasion but acted as a guerilla force. Timor's rugged terrain offered ideal conditions for guerilla warfare, but the early success of these operations was made possible by the support of the Timorese people.
The East Timorese were very supportive of the commandos and were of great assistance to the Australian forces, but at a great cost to themselves. The Creados, as they were known, carried the Australians' equipment and provided much needed food and shelter; they alerted the Australians to the presence of enemy troops; they helped them to gather supplies dropped by the Australian Air Force, the US Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy; and in some cases they assisted in the fighting. By coming to the aid of the Australian troops, the East Timorese Creados exposed themselves and their villages to the daily risk of retaliation from the Japanese. In the face of torture, death and the destruction of their way of life, you could have forgiven the East Timorese for choosing to stand by and leave the Australians to look after themselves, but thankfully they did not.
When the Australians were evacuated in 1943, some estimate that between 40,000 and 50,000 Timorese were killed by the Japanese military in reprisal for their support of the Australians. In addition, a further 30,000 died because they were caught between combatants or had their villages bombed or attacked. The loss of about 70,000 people out of a population of 500,000 was a terribly high sacrifice to make by the East Timorese. So just as Australians hold dear the 'fuzzy wuzzy angels' for their support of Australian soldiers in Papua New Guinea, it is fitting and proper that we in this place formally acknowledge the people of Timor-Leste for their support and sacrifice. I join the member for Berowra in thanking the people of Timor-Leste for the sacrifices they made in supporting Australia during World War II. I also thank Canberra Friends of Dili, who brought this issue to the attention of our parliamentary committee.
Recently I was honoured to represent the Australian government, along with Senator Claire Moore and Janelle Saffin, as official observers of the presidential election and the then general election process in East Timor. At that time the Australian ambassador in East Timor, Miles Armitage, kindly shared his Sunday and took us to the memorial for Sparrow Force in the hills above Dili—a truly moving experience. And the member for Bass recently recounted to me that the headquarters for the Defence Cooperation Program in Dili is named 'Sparrow Force House' in recognition of what went before.
Today we honour those in Timor-Leste who went before: a brave people who stood by Australian troops when their help was sorely needed. To those brave men and women, I salute you. To the developing nation of Timor-Leste, I thank you for your friendship. Forged in the heat of battle and the tyranny of war, our bonds are those of nations whose people have fought and died together as one. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:27): I do have pleasure in joining with previous speakers in respect of this matter, and I particularly support the initiative of the member for Berowra, with whom I have travelled to Timor on a delegation visit. At the outset, I mention that the member for Perth, who unfortunately has not made her first speech in this House, would have liked to have spoken on this resolution because of a deep connection with the 2/2nd Commando Squadron in Perth, which essentially was a major ingredient of that force.
I think the debt Australia owes Timor and its people is perhaps even greater than we think. Rodney Lewis, a person known to both myself and the member for Berowra, has put forward the proposition that perhaps—I am not necessarily agreeing with this totally—the Japanese might not have intervened in Timor but for Australia's earlier movement in December 1941. He put forward this argument: if we look at the experience of Macau in the Second World War, as Portugal was neutral there was no move by the Japanese to seize Macau because of that neutrality. If you go back to the actual invasion by the Japanese and when the Australians intervened earlier, Portuguese dictator Salazar described the Australian action as an 'invasion'. The attitude of Portuguese authorities was quite complex. The governor originally cooperated with the Japanese and regarded himself, in the earlier period, as a prisoner of the Australians. It was only later that Australia handed arms to the Portuguese residents of Timor and that, in a later stage, they were interned by the Japanese. So if we look at the contribution of the Timorese people, and Australia's debt, it is perhaps even more enormous than earlier speakers may have suggested.
It might be very clear-cut to us in Australia, but in much of Asia the issue of Japanese imperialism was more complex. In some countries the Japanese were able to personify themselves as anti-colonialist—that is, a force that would get rid of the British, Dutch, Portuguese et cetera colonialists. As well as that, obviously a racist element comes into this—that is, they were an Asian nation. So it is all the more incredible that the Timorese people did cooperate with Australian forces.
I have heard estimates that there were 40, 50 or 60 casualties a day. There are also estimates that the total number of Timorese who lost their lives might have actually gone up to 70,000. They provided very important information as well as food, accommodation and transport with ponies et cetera. All of this was decisive. It is interesting to note that, while Australia stood on the sidelines and condoned—to put it mildly—the Indonesian occupation of the country for decades, the estimate is that one-third of the Timorese lost their lives during the Indonesian occupation, whether by deprivation and starvation or by direct murder. So that debt is indeed extreme.
It is noted that members of the Australian forces suffered from malaria, and some of those who were captured died in prisons. Reference was made to former Senator Carrick, but I remind this House that a former minister, Tom Uren, was also captured there and spent the same rather unattractive period in Changi. In the history of resistance to the Australian policy over the occupation of Timor, many, many former Australian servicemen played a crucial role in changing Australian public opinion around these matters because of the debt that they felt. These people had very different views of Australian politics. I recall one of them who was very active in the Democratic Labour Party, Mr Kenneally, who was remorseless in driving home this particular issue. We are talking about a situation where significant numbers of Japanese forces were tied down. Estimates are of four to five battalions and that they lost at least 2,000 soldiers in Timor. This was of such importance to Australia that Damien Parer was transported to Timor to make the film Men of Timor.
Today, as I say, I very much associate myself with the motion of the member for Berowra. When the member for Melbourne Ports commented about the situation in Timor, I thought it was a bit of an understatement when he said that it is not the most abundant of countries. I was shocked by the level of malnutrition and the condition of people I saw in Timor. We went to one project there where Japanese, Spanish and Australians were producing a very inhospitable gruel which only just keeps people alive in Timor. Australia has got a massive debt there. It should be respected. Something should be done in a very concrete way to make sure this is remembered.
Debate adjourned.
Typhoon Haiyan
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (11:32): I seek leave to amend my private member's motion relating to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, to reflect the fact that the Australian government, commendably, has increased its aid from $10 million to $30 million.
Leave granted.
Mr HUSIC: I move the motion as amended:
That this House:
(1) extends its sympathies to the people of the Philippines who have been affected by the devastating super-typhoon Haiyan;
(2) acknowledges the anxiety and concern this terrible event has caused for the Filipino-Australian community, that is worried about the safety and well-being of family and friends in the Philippines;
(3) in particular, has regard for the:
(a) officially estimated 2,500 casualties reported to have been caused by the super-typhoon;
(b) growing concern about the possible widespread outbreak of disease along with the lack of food, clean water and medical supplies; and
(c) displacement of 800,000 people as a result of a complete destruction of homes, schools, hospitals, roads and infrastructure; and
(4) welcomes the Australian Government’s provision of $30 million in assistance to the Philippines, and urges the Australian Government to maintain close dialogue with the Philippines Government to ensure that further meaningful support may be extended in a timely way, where required.
Just over a week ago, Supertyphoon Haiyan—one of the worst storms in recorded human history— swept over our good friends in the Philippines. In numerical terms the sheer strength of this category 5 catastrophic storm, with gusts of just under 400 kilometres an hour, is beyond belief and compare—its impact more so, as it cut across nine regions, 44 provinces, over 536 municipalities and 55 cities, an area home to 50 million Filipinos, just over half of the country's 92 million citizens. Coron, Tacloban, Ormoc, Palo, Kinan and Cebu—all major population centres that lay directly in the path of Haiyan—were gravely affected by it. A combination of 310-kilometre-an-hour winds and surging seas, with waves over 10 metres in height, levelled cities and turned scrub into barren land.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates over 11 million Filipinos were directly affected. Between 2,500 and 5,000 Filipinos have lost their lives. Around 13,000 are injured. Nearly one million people have been displaced. These are staggering numbers and numbing pictures. One of the more difficult sights over the weekend was that of emergency personnel from Tacloban forced to bury their friends. Unidentified bodies lay atop each other in long, deep ditches. The only solace ahead of this undignified departure was provided by priests who read the last rites to these poor victims.
While Haiyan has quickly come and gone, people are now racing against the clock to save lives, because victims who miraculously survived this onslaught are now literally dying from thirst. The hungry are becoming the sick. In weakened states, survivors are unable to resist the disease that comes from exposed wounds, contaminated water and airborne infection, all worsened by humid conditions. The focus now is on providing clean water and food, combined with vital medical help.
Long term, there is a need to rebuild the 250,000 ruined homes, along with the roads, telecommunications and utilities that serviced them. UN agencies have called for help to bring forward over $300 million in assistance, and many countries have stepped up: the US pledging $20 million, the UK $16 million, Japan and the United Arab Emirates $10 million. I am proud to say Australia has made $30 million of assistance available. I congratulate the Australian government for this assistance and restate the Leader of the Opposition's commitment to stand with the government and signal that both sides of politics are joined to help our friends during this tragedy. Through Australia's assistance, we will be able to meet serious nutrition, child health and protection needs. Critical Australian know-how—doctors, nurses, paramedics, other medical specialists and ADF logistic support staff—will make a difference. Globally, non-government organisations such as the Red Cross and Red Crescent, UNICEF and Save the Children are tending to the needs of Filipinos while collecting further assistance from countries across the planet.
Overseas, there have been some incredibly generous donations from the corporate sector, notably from the IKEA Foundation, which has donated 2 million euros to UNICEF, almost double the contribution made by some governments. Back home, companies such as BHP Billiton, ANZ, QBE Insurance, Optus and Telstra should all be congratulated for extending roughly $1 million in support and assistance. However, Australia's corporate citizens can do much, much more. I urge our other major corporations, particularly those with business links in the region, to quickly make a contribution to a regional neighbour in great need.
If you grew up in Blacktown, you grew up knowing a Filipino. Around 10 per cent of the electorate I represent are Filipino-Australians, who have become great residents and warm neighbours across the suburbs of Rooty Hill, Plumpton, Oakhurst through to Minchinbury. While the Filipinos are normally recognised for their humour, it is the other attributes they are known for that will help them most right now: their capacity for hard work, loyalty, love of family and a deep faith that fuels their strength.
Many Filipinos that I have spoken with are deeply concerned about the welfare of their kababayans—countrymen and women. They have moved quickly to lend a hand. Filipino Australian small businesses and community organisations are coordinating support and supplies. On Saturday I visited a Rooty Hill small business run by Jas and Gil De Leon. They have turned their cafe into a collection point for canned food and bottled water, all to be shipped next week. Filipino media such as Ang Kalatas, Ausinformer, Bayanihan News, the Philippine Community Heraldandthe Philippines Sentinel are providing desperately needed updates for the community. SBS Filipino Radio ran a telethon last week to help raise funds for charity and a range of other fundraising events are being organised. The member for McMahon, who was quick to second this motion, and I will be involved in coordinating an event for 1 December to raise funds.
Finally, this is a chance for Australian parliamentarians to send our best wishes to our friends in the Philippines, and, most importantly, send them the word mabuhay—'long live'.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (11:38): I rise today to support the motion by the honourable member for Chifley and I thank him very much for his motion. I would also like to add, as I rise to speak to this motion, that this House extends its sympathies to the people of the Philippines who have been affected by Typhoon Haiyan.
President of the Philippines Benigno Aquino has declared a 'State of National Calamity' and the United Nations Relief Coordinator has declared a level 3 emergency, the highest possible level for a natural disaster. There has been extensive and widespread damage. Eight-hundred thousand people have been affected by Supertyphoon Haiyan and tragically thousands of lives have been lost.
One cannot imagine the absolute devastation felt by those who could not escape Haiyan's path of destruction—homes were lost, livelihoods destroyed and so many people today are grieving for the loss of their loved ones. My thoughts and the thoughts of the House are with them all. My thoughts are also with those Australians who have lost family members and loved ones and to those who are terribly concerned about family and friends and who are waiting on information about their welfare. I also want to pass on my support to the many Filipinos who live in the electorate of Brisbane.
Communication in many areas of the Philippines is difficult. The Australian government is working hard to reach out to Australians in those areas affected via email, phone and social media. Flights are available out of Tacloban and Guivan airports and to date 400 people have been evacuated from affected regions. The government is also working with consular partners to facilitate the departure of Australians. Australians have been able to depart affected areas on US aircraft. The Australian government is providing consular assistance to the families of an 86-year-old Australian woman and a 49-year-old Australian man who died during the typhoon. Because communication is so difficult in areas affected by the typhoon it is difficult to ascertain just how many Australians have been affected. Sadly we can expect further cases of grave concern.
The government is also working very hard to support the Philippines to meet critical needs, including food, clean water, health care and logistics support, with the $30-million package. Australian officials were amongst the first international personnel to arrive in the Tacloban area, including an Australian medical assistance team, officials from our embassy in Manila, DFAT rapid response team members and consular staff.
Current support for the relief effort includes: an AUSMAT field hospital, which commenced operations on the 16 November; HMAS Tobruk, which departs Townsville today; two RAAF C130J aircraft; and an Australian Federal Police disaster victim management team. Aid is being targeted to meet the needs of those in the worst affected areas by our most experienced and trusted partners.
I want to also use today's motion to thank the NGOs that are on the ground, including the United Nations, Australian non-government organisations and the Red Cross. At the moment they are assessing the situation and providing essential food and water in these areas. As the member for Chifley said earlier, it is a difficult operation and one that requires incredible support in so many areas.
The Prime Minister has written to President Aquino to pass on his thoughts and prayers to the Filipino government and to offer further disaster support if needed. The Australian government will continue to respond to the immediate requests of the Philippines government to ensure that Australian resources are being used to meet their most urgent priorities.
Again I would like to express my sincerest sympathies to those who have been affected by this national calamity. I will continue to hold those affected in my thoughts and prayers in the coming weeks and months as the people of the Philippines mourn the loss of loved ones and attempt to rebuild homes, hospitals, housing and schools. Australia stands ready to help the government of the Philippines in the months and years ahead. I would also like to thank all those who have provided support.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (11:36): I second the member for Chifley's very important motion and his amendment. These days, with the world being subject to so many tragedies and calamities, it is easy to think, to assume, that we are somehow inured and desensitised to the devastation that we see regularly on our television sets—that somehow Australians and people around the world are used to these tragedies. Tragically, of course, we are used to them. But Typhoon Yolanda, as it is known in the Philippines, and Typhoon Haiyan, as it is known here, has impacted I think on Australian citizens and on the world by the sheer devastation it has wrought to a wonderful people who are in need of economic development, not in need of the sort of devastation they have seen in recent weeks.
We know that the death toll is almost 4,000 and rising, with 1,500 people remaining missing. It is predicted that that death toll will rise further in coming weeks. More than 12,000 people have been injured, more than half a million people made homeless and almost one million displaced in other ways. Fifty-five cities have been affected, and more than 50 million people have been affected in some way in the area that was hit by these winds of 314 kilometres an hour, and the chaos and destruction that they wrought.
The Filipino community, tragically, is subject to these events all too often. Four out of 10 Filipinos live in storm-prone cities with populations in excess of 100,000 people. For an island nation with the world's 12th-largest population, this is very concerning indeed. The Philippines is the third-most vulnerable country in the world to national disasters. When earthquakes, volcanoes or severe typhoons occur, the poor are the worst affected. One in three people still live below the global poverty line. The typhoon caused considerable damage to the public water system, which will take a long time to fix, resulting in minimal availability of public water in the city of Tacloban and the surrounding suburbs.
The impact on food production has been very real as well. The United Nations World Food Program released an emergency operation document requesting $88 million to support an estimated 2.5 million typhoon affected people who are likely to require food assistance in the next six months. So this is a tragedy of the first order which has affected so many in the Philippines. Australia's Filipino community has responded as you would expect them to.
In my own community of McMahon, money was raised. On the weekend I was speaking to leaders of the Filipino community, who were on assembling hampers and rescue and support materials that they were having sent to the Philippines. The Australian Filipino community has been very directly affected indeed. Under the leadership in my community of Father Nards Mercene, the Filipino pastor in the local Catholic Church, the community is responding, of course, as you would expect them to.
As the member for Chifley flagged, he and I, and the member for Greenway and other honourable members, are coordinating a fundraising effort which will occur on 1 December. We are inviting prominent Filipino Australians to come and help raise those funds with us. It will be a day that will be bittersweet. We hope to have fun—there will be community and fun activities for children, like face-painting and all sorts of things—but of course it will be a day of tragedy as well. It is appropriate that we raise as much money as we possibly can. I am confident that the entire community, not just the Filipino Australian community, will be turning out on that day to help us raise the necessary money. We will provide more details to the community as the event is being organised, but it will occur on 1 December and it will be a very important day for the Western Sydney community to come together to raise funds for this crisis.
The Filipino community, as the member for Chifley indicated, calls deeply on the two fundamental elements of its community and society: faith and family. Faith and family are so important to the Filipino Australian community. I know that they have called on their faith and their families even more than they normally do over recent weeks. As they do so, it is important that they know that the thoughts of every single member of this House, and the thoughts of the Australian community more generally, are with them as they deal with this tragedy which has beset their beautiful island nation.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (11:48): It is a privilege to contribute to this debate today and recognise Australia's strong connections to the nation of the Philippines, which is an extraordinarily resilient and wonderful country of 98 million. It is a near northern neighbour of ours, yet many of our links could be far further cultivated than they have been over the last 10 years.
The tragedy and the devastation that was wrought with the supertyphoon is something that is only witnessed maybe once a decade, if that. I understand that these were the strongest winds to hit land ever recorded. And, by virtue of a large population, the damage was enormous to the agricultural central parts of the Philippines. My message is simple: Australia as a developed economy plays a large and significant role in helping after natural disasters. We offered significant help to Fukushima after the tsunami and it will be no different for the Philippines. My message today, having worked in East Timor and assisted in Afghanistan post conflict, is that these are highly complex and fast-moving environments and the issue of coordination of relief efforts comes to the fore between 10 and 30 days after an incident like this.
I want to make the initial observation that this typhoon struck in the early hours of the morning; very few people were expecting it; it was almost impossible for authorities to convince many people to evacuate from low-lying areas. Some were proposing using gunfire to warn people of the impending damage. Over half a million people are affected, according to the latest estimates: 3,637 people killed, 12,500 people injured and 1,800 still missing. These are calamitous numbers, almost impossible for us to conceive.
As Carlos Romulo, the former Filipino statesman, said: 'Brotherhood is the very price and condition of man's survival', and this will be tested by this great people in the coming days and weeks. No doubt, as everyone would be aware, the emergency response—providing water, food and sanitation—is essential. I want to make a brief point about health service delivery, which is that even those most vital antidiarrheal kits, the ability to filter and clean water, is prevented by a lack of infrastructure, security, transport and fuel. We have outlying barangays, as they are called in the Philippines, which are yet to be adequately visited and are relying on airdrops from the aircraft carrier USS George Washington and on water purification by a UK destroyer.
There are now, I think, at least 11 field hospitals on the ground, including Norway's and Israel's. But the complexity of this is emphasised by probably the first international relief effort, B-Fast a Belgian group, arriving just two days after the disaster but unable to get their operations working until five days later. It is a combination of actually landing on the ground and actually having the precursors to get things moving that is a great challenge. But I am obviously relieved that surgical work by MSF and Red Cross started on the weekend; even that, 10 days after the disaster, is quite a feat in and of itself.
As Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the 14th president of the Philippines, said:
The power of one, if fearless and focused, is formidable, but the power of many working together is better.
This was a fearless and formidable natural event, but I am confident the people of the Philippines will pull together. This will not be an effort over days, weeks or even months. The scars will be there for years, but these people can survive and can rebuild. On behalf of the nation, I wish them all the best at this difficult time.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (11:52): I rise today in support of the motion moved by the member for Chifley, and I commend him for bringing it to the attention of the House. In this place, he and I are privileged to represent the city of Blacktown, a city of over 300,000 people, nearly 10 per cent of whom have Filipino ancestry. In our respective electorates and beyond, the Filipino community is coming together to assist their brothers and sisters in the Philippines through many fundraising efforts, and I commend the work of everyone involved in that.
In the immediate aftermath of Super typhoon Haiyan, we have seen the tragic images of human suffering and devastation. As Tim Costello writes in today's Age:
Typhoon Haiyan was more than a typhoon. In Tacloban, it was also a tsunami. Collecting so much water as it hurtled towards land, Haiyan formed an eight metre wall of water, smashing the city flat, drowning people even as they sheltered in their homes.
Philippine authorities and international aid agencies face a mounting humanitarian crisis, with the number of people displaced by the catastrophe estimated now at four million, up from 900,000 late last week.
As remarked by aid workers in the country, along with the elderly, young children are the most vulnerable at the present time. On our TVs over the past few days we have seen many images of parents with children. The sense of helplessness and human devastation is almost unbearable to watch. An assessment by the charity Save the Children suggests that some 3.9 million children are in the area devastated by the storm, and that is across a huge geographic area. They urgently need basic supplies, and reaching them is proving to be more difficult than experts had initially assessed. I particularly want to bring to the attention of the House not only the magnitude of this disaster but the very disturbing issues that have been raised by the potential for profiteering by traffickers on the orphaned children of this terrible typhoon. I want to quote a section from agency Agenzia Fides, who have written the following article:
They are already called 'orphans of Yolanda' … There are thousands of children who have become orphans after the storm that struck the province of Leyte. And they are most vulnerable victims, as they find themselves alone, wandering through the rubble, looking for someone to take care of them.
These children are the main victims of jackals who seize them for child abuse or human trafficking. It is a horrible prospect, but it is extremely realistic in the case of natural disasters. 'These children are in need of immediate attention, to be saved from the clutches of traffickers and paedophiles.' This is the complaint launched by Fr. Shay Cullen, a missionary from San Colombano, who has been living in the Philippines since 1969, known for his social and pastoral commitment, especially for child victims of sexual exploitation. The missionary explains the phenomenon to Fides: 'Under the pretext of saving or taking care of children, kidnappers traffickers kidnap them and sell them to paedophiles. Or they earn large sums of money by providing the children for illegal adoptions. Even worse, they introduce them into the world of prostitution, making them slaves of sexual exploitation.
So it is not enough that these defenceless victims lose their whole families and everything they own but they can potentially be condemned to a life of permanent misery.
In response to the disaster, Australia has provided a medical assistance team of professionals who have been working on the ground saving lives. I congratulate this government and urge them to continue this great work and also to implement a more long-term plan for the Philippines, which will continue to suffer not just in the coming months but in the coming years. They will need a long-term rebuilding plan for social services as well as for infrastructure. I will be making formal representations to the foreign minister regarding this. This is an issue that has been directly raised with me by Filipino Australians in my electorate over the last couple of days, particularly highlighting the concerns for the many orphans who have become victims of this tragedy.
Last week I had the opportunity to meet with the Philippines Ambassador to Australia, Ambassador Anota, who was visibly and understandably upset by what is happening in her homeland. She asked for all our thoughts and prayers during this time, as did Consul-General Anne Jalando-on Louis—one of the hardest working diplomats in Australia and someone with whom both the member for Chifley and the member for McMahon have a close working relationship. We know that she will be doing her best to assist her country in its time of need.
In closing, I join with some 25,000 Filipino residents of the Blacktown government area and the wider community to grieve for those who have been affected that this tragic situation. And I urge anyone watching this or reading the transcript to donate to the cause through a variety of organisations, including World Vision, Oxfam or UNICEF. I want to stress the importance of Australia needing to play a long-term role in rebuilding in our region. In conclusion, I offer my deepest sympathy and prayers to all the victims, all the families and all their compatriots of the Filipino community in Australia.
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (11:57): In the past week we have seen horrific images coming out of the Philippines. Australians have been shocked by what they have seen and yet in a very small way they understand a little of what the people of the Philippines are going through. In my electorate of Hinkler earlier this year, homes and businesses were destroyed by the remainder of tropical cyclone Oswald. Roads were washed away leaving behind only trenches full of raw sewage. There were no services, no pipes, no cables, no poles and no wires. People stacked their filthy possessions on the kerb. Very little was salvageable.
Events like Supertyphoon Haiyan remind us just how lucky we were in Hinkler. All but a few families were reunited quickly. Some residents may have been frustrated by the time taken to restore services, but the rescue and initial recovery effort was swift in comparison to the devastating situation in the Philippines. In Hinkler, people had immediate access to shelter, medical supplies and clean drinking water. The generosity of our fellow Australians helped us through. I am proud to live in a country that so willingly helps others in their time of need.
So far, the federal government has committed $30 million to address nutrition and child health and to provide logistics support. This support is commensurate with what other nations have provided. The funds will go towards the United Nations appeal, the international and Australian Red Cross as well as Australian and local NGOs. With the help of the Australian Defence Force, we have deployed a medical team, AFP disaster management specialists and DFAT humanitarian consular experts. With the rescue and retrieval efforts still underway, we stand ready to provide further assistance when it is needed. The statistics continue to rapidly change, with often conflicting reports. The UN puts the number of fatalities at about 4,500 but the Philippines government says the number is closer to 3,600. Just this morning, news reports indicated a further 50 bodies had been found overnight in one town alone. The Philippines government estimates 12,500 people have been injured and 1,200 remain missing. Almost 73,000 families are being assisted at 1,500 evacuation centres.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (12:00): I move:
That, in respect of the proceedings on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:
(1) the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together;
(2) at the conclusion of the second reading debate or at 12 noon, Thursday, 21 November 2013, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate, then without delay, (a) one question being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by non-Government Members, and (b) one question being put on the second readings of the bills together;
(3) if the second readings of the bills have been agreed to, messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for any of the bills being announced together;
(4) the consideration in detail stages, if required, on all the bills being taken together for a period not exceeding 60 minutes at which time any Government amendments that have been circulated in respect of any of the bills shall be treated as if they have been moved together with (a) one question being put on all the Government amendments, (b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by non-Government Members, and (c) any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;
(5) at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the remaining stages of all the bills together; and
(6) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
The reason I move this motion is obviously that the government wishes to deal with the carbon tax legislation this week. On Thursday at noon the first second reading vote will be called on for a ballot and then there will be consideration in detail, and all stages will be finished by the end of this week.
I assume that the opposition will in this debate continue to run the arguments about why the carbon tax should not be repealed, which will surprise many members of the public who voted for a change of government on 7 September because the election was a referendum on the carbon tax.
The motion that I move today is a very straightforward debate management motion, as we call them. This allows the House to have full knowledge of the process by which they will be able to debate this legislation but with the sure understanding that it will be completed at a particular time.
I would be very surprised if the Labor Party opposed this debate management motion. I say that because the list of speakers that the Labor Party have put forward for the carbon tax legislation is hardly exhaustive—in fact most members of the Labor caucus have not listed themselves for debate on the carbon tax repeal bills. You would have thought if Labor had planned to make this their cause celebre for the next three years that every member of the Labor caucus would loyally list themselves for debate on the carbon tax repeal bills.
It seems rather passing strange that not that many members of the Labor Party caucus have put their names to this speaking list. I guess of course the reason for that would be that very few of them want to be associated with a political party and a debate that denies the will of the people.
On September 7 it was a very clear election result: this side of the House won 90 seats. I do not really need to remind the parliament, because we won so many seats that we spill over onto the opposition side of the House. Some of my colleagues are very generously sitting on the other side of the House because there are so many more members of the coalition than Labor. That would suggest that Labor lost the election. Labor won 55 seats and there are five crossbenchers.
Labor achieved their worst election result since 1903—their worst primary result. They had their worst Senate result since the Senate was increased to 12 senators per state in 1984. So the message that I would be picking up is that probably they lost the election, and the referendum of the election was on the carbon tax. Nobody could deny who were part of those great debates that the coalition made it abundantly clear to the Australian public over a four-year period that we would not support a carbon tax and, once the collapse of the Copenhagen talks was apparent, the whole atmosphere about emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes and dealing with climate change.
The coalition went to the election with a policy of direct action—a policy that was supported by the Australian public. Why do the Australian public support direct action? They support it because they know that, even if you do not believe in climate change being induced by humans, the changes that we would make through the direct action plan are good for the environment anyway. Nobody would deny that we need to use better technology in producing the goods and services that run our economy. Nobody would deny that it is better to plant more trees and no-one would deny that it is more important to have better farming practices than less important.
As a result, the Australian public thought to themselves at the election: 'We know with the coalition we going to get a direct action policy and that will improve the environment whether you believe in climate change being human induced or not. With the Labor Party, they have a carbon tax which they fibbed about in the 2013 election.' And, quite rightly, the opposition made it one of our signature tunes throughout the last parliament that we would abolish it.
So, today we turn up to the House. We have a debate management motion to debate the carbon tax this week and to end that debate on Thursday, which will have given many days of debate in this parliament on whether the carbon tax should be repealed. Honestly, does anyone in the Labor Party need to pore through the documentation to determine whether they are in favour of or against a carbon tax? Surely these debates have been around every parameter of the parliament and the Australian public for four years.
Everyone knows their position. The Liberal Party and the National Party are in favour of abolishing the carbon tax because we want to reduce electricity prices and we do not want the cost of living to be needlessly more expensive than it already is. Therefore, if we abandon the carbon tax and reduce electricity prices, this will flow through the entire economy and help reduce cost-of-living pressures. That is what the Australian public voted for on 7 September and that is what the coalition government will deliver by passing the carbon tax repeal bills this week.
It will not surprise me if the Leader of the Opposition jumps to his feet and opposes this debate management motion and reaffirms his commitment—
Ms Macklin: It's a gag.
Mr PYNE: You would know—to keeping the carbon tax in place, keeping prices high, keeping electricity prices high. As a politician I might grant myself the indulgence momentarily to say that, if the Labor Party want to fight the next election on the carbon tax again, they should go right ahead. I do not think the Australian public in three years time will be thanking the Labor Party for having another debate, another election campaign, about the carbon tax, which they rejected quite empirically in the election on 7 September and have rejected in every published poll for many, many years. As those opposite have said on many occasions, the carbon tax has destroyed many leaders of both political parties, whether it was an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax.
This debate management motion will allow a full debate in the House of Representatives on the issue of the repeal of the carbon tax. I look forward to that debate and I look forward to hearing the Leader of the Opposition, if he wishes to jump up and speak against this debate management motion, reconfirming how out of touch Labor have become from their working-class roots, their working-class base. They want to keep prices high for working families, I suppose to please the commentariat in the press gallery, the commentariat amongst the inner city electorates—not like the member for Port Adelaide's electorate. He must be scratching his head about why his party want to keep the cost of living going up when there are so many difficulties in his electorate of Port Adelaide. But I suppose Labor want to stick closely to the inner urban voters, the academics and the commentariat who think this is a do-or-die issue for Labor, whereas Australian families, Australian businesses, trade-exposed industries, farmers and rural and regional Australians all know that if we are going to improve our economy, grow our economy, provide jobs, protect our industries from overseas competition, we have to do so by abolishing the carbon tax. You stick to the inner city elites if you wish too. You stick with them and if you do that you will stay in opposition for a very long time.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the manager of government business.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (00:00): Thank you very much—
The SPEAKER: Of opposition business.
Mr BURKE: I prefer the first, but that will do.
The SPEAKER: I decline to give it to you.
Mr BURKE: Who would have thought that after four years of hearing those opposite constantly suspend standing orders so they could talk about carbon pricing they would now bring a motion to this House to suspend standing orders, to shut down debate about pricing carbon, to shut down debate about there being a limit on pollution. That is exactly what the resolution in front of us does. It is not there to manage debate, as the Leader of the House kept referring to—as a debate management motion. It is here to shut down debate. It is here to prevent debate and to gag debate, to make sure that the long list of people who have put their names forward wanting to speak on this debate are denied the chance to do so.
There was an interesting claim from the Leader of the House. He said that there are not many names on the list as to how many people want to speak on this. He did not read the final thing that the whips put on there which says, 'More names are available and will be added.' That is the normal practice of the whips. The fact is that what the Leader of the House is saying is that after an entire election campaign where they claimed and their members claimed that they wanted to come into this House and talk about this issue they are going to deny that opportunity, and deny the members on this side the opportunity to even contribute to the debate. Where is the urgency in this? The Prime Minister himself went to business and said he did not believe these bills were about to be carried. The Prime Minister would have an impact. Yet the manager of government business, the Leader of the House, flatly refuses to allow members of this House to even be able to put their views on the record. This is not an ordinary way of managing debate in any way, shape or form.
Go through the sorts of ideas that the Leader of the House has put forward—and we respect that he is new to the job—and he has put forward that all non-government amendments will be voted on as one. So if we have a circumstance where there are members of the crossbench who put forward amendments to the same clause that are different to the amendments put forward by the opposition, we will vote on those amendments as one block. We actually have a situation where the government have put forward a resolution where contradictory amendments get voted on together. It is absolutely procedurally impossible for that to be implemented.
We have a motion from the person who is meant to lead debate in this House which, if followed through, will create a possibility within this House that we get contradictory amendments to the same bill at the exact same moment. We have had situations previously where debate has been sought to be managed and where it has sought to be managed in the ordinary event it happens which is after there has been a long and protracted debate, not as we have today where it is being gagged after only one person has spoken. We have only had one speech on these bills.
We have a circumstance at the moment where the other place is not even meeting yet we have this strange cry for urgency from the Leader of the House. He is wanting to do one thing and one thing only—that is, shut the debate down. But he is doing so in a way that procedurally makes a farce of the entire debate here. How can we have a circumstance where the House is dealing with a resolution which, if carried, says contradictory amendments will be dealt with in the same vote? How do you do that? How do you have a circumstance where the same clause gets amended in two different ways simultaneously? How does the House actually deal with that? I went through Practice and there is no precedent for this because, unsurprisingly, no-one has ever attempted something as absurd as what the Leader of the House has just brought forward. No-one has ever tried to have contradictory amendments dealt with in the same breath. Yet that is how we are meant to deal with this—with crazy urgency on something that the Prime Minister has said is not going to be dealt with until mid next year.
There is one reason that the Leader of the House would want to shut down debate and that is the embarrassment of carrying forward an argument that no economists agree with, that no scientists agree with—and I would love to see what was in the Minister for the Environment's incoming government brief—and that they know no sensible advice can say has merit as an argument. And when you are dealt with a circumstance where everywhere you look the policy does not have merit, what is the one option open to you? Shutting down the debate altogether. Shut down the debate, shut down the argument and shut down the opportunity for members of this parliament, including members on each side, who ran this argument and ran it hard during the election campaign, even to put their views on the table.
The Leader of the House has already wasted no time in moving the gag, in preventing members from speaking and in preventing—
Mr Pyne: It's a debate management motion!
Mr BURKE: He says again 'debate management motion'. I wish he could say it with a straight face because the Leader of the House knows exactly what an affront to democratic debate this is! He knows exactly what it means when you put the House in a circumstance where contradictions are meant to be voted on together. He knows exactly what it means when people who spoke about it and told their contituencies that they would have something to say on this issue are going to be denied that exact opportunity here in the parliament.
Mr Pyne: They've got all week!
Mr BURKE: He says they have all week—how much time has he set aside today for debate on this issue? How much time in the Notice Paper is set aside for debate on this issue? Are there even two hours set aside for debate on this issue today? I think you will find it falls short of even that. And when he says, 'We've got all week,' what that means is that if the next two days are anything like the paucity of time we have set aside today we will see the vast majority of members of parliament not being allowed to put their case on these bills—the vast majority of members of parliament not being allowed to have their voice even heard within the parliament.
Now, they have a big majority. They have a lot of members on that side of the House, and the Leader of the House kept referring to it. But there is a reason why they do not want to hear any of them speak. You wonder how many Jaymes Diazes are lurking over there who they want to make sure cannot be heard! You wonder how many members over there will give a first speech and then will be hidden under a rock—the invisibility cloak of the Minister for Immigration gets shared around on members of that side of the House.
The SPEAKER: Order! I would remind the Manager of Opposition Business that he is going perilously close to reflecting on members.
Mr BURKE: The motion that we have in front of us is a motion that will deny people from even having their case heard, and I do not know what reasons the Leader of the House could have not to want members on his side of the House to be heard.
Certainly, members on this side of House want the chance to be able to hold this government to account, want the chance to be able to put our side of the case and want the chance to be able to argue what all the expert advice packs in and what I have very little doubt the incoming government brief that the Minister for the Environment wants to hide—what that might have been able to reflect on. The culture of secrecy which is pervading and which has reached the floor of this parliament is there for one very simple reason, because if you are confident of your arguments you do not need to shut debate down. If you are confident of your arguments you do not need to gag everyone at every chance you get. If you are confident of your arguments then you do not find a circumstance where you get the Leader of the House walking in with a resolution like this. And if you are confident of your arguments and you are running an orderly government you do not end up with a resolution that at its heart has the chaotic concept that contradictory amendments would be voted on together.
In the history of this parliament no-one has ever previously floated that contradictory amendments would be voted on at the same moment. This is the first time we have seen it, but it is not the first time we have seen that Leader of the House try to shut down the debate. This parliament should resist—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr BURKE: You would move that I no longer be heard, probably! This resolution should be rejected, and members of parliament certainly, if there is any meaning to democracy in this chamber, should at the very least be given the opportunity to put their views.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:23]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
BILLS
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013
Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (12:30): I rise today to speak on the government's Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the True-up Shortfall (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the Excise Tariff (Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013. This parliament's response to how we handle climate change will either help or hinder the future of this country. It will define whether the 44th Parliament of Australia is either willing to look forward or backwards. We will define in this parliament with how we vote on this legislation the generation of parliamentarians to our children and our grandchildren.
The scientists know that carbon pollution is changing our weather and that it is harming our environment. The Australian public know. They know it when they experience more and more extreme weather events. Economists know that carbon pollution will hurt our economy, and the public and the Labor Party know it is the responsibility of the parliament to reduce the amount of carbon pollution that is being emitted and going into our environment. This is why Labor will always support laws which tackle the issues of the future and which will reduce carbon pollution. This is why we cannot today, or on any day forward, support Tony Abbott's laws, which would leave Australia with no effective means of cutting carbon pollution.
Greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity are having an adverse effect on our environment and on the economy. If we refuse to tackle the problems, if we put our heads in the sand, if we say that we will put off to the future how we deal with environmental economic issues, then we mark ourselves down for future history to judge what we did at this time in this place when we had another course of action.
The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has confirmed that the world is warming due in part to the burning of fossil fuels. Across the globe from 2001 to 2010, this was the warmest decade on record—and I repeat: 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record. And indeed, every decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the one before.
Labor is concerned that our farmers and primary producers would experience a decline in irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin. Labor is concerned that it will see a decline in our wheat production. Labor is concerned that we will see a decline in our table wine-grape production. Our world is approaching a population of seven billion people. The threats from a changing climate intensify, not diminish, our need to act. Labor understands that there are businesses with foresight already ahead of the climate change curve, moving ahead to capture the technologies of the future, to capture the business opportunities of the future. My position and that of Labor is perfectly clear: we will take action to reduce the amount of carbon pollution being emitted into our environment.
But those opposite, led by Tony Abbott, do not believe in climate change and its adverse impact upon the environment. Labor will always make its decisions on policies in this parliament based on the best available science. That is the Labor way. Yet those opposite, led by Tony Abbott, despite the best available science, are prepared to tear down everything which has been accomplished in tackling climate change up to this day.
We on this side of the House are like millions of Australians. We know that Australians expect their members of parliament not to sit idly by and see that the future is too hard to deal with, to say that Australia cannot compete with the rest of the world and that Australia cannot reform and change and grasp the opportunities of the future. That is not the Labor way.
What I simply cannot understand is why those opposite cannot understand the future. No-one seriously—or at least no-one serious—believes that we do not have an issue with increasing levels of carbon pollution. Today in the legislation we are seeing being debated, Tony Abbott is lining up with the militia of climate change denialists and he is taking the coalition government with him. The Prime Minister is ensuring his place in history and the place of everyone on that side of the parliament and it will put them on the wrong side of history. The Prime Minister is saying to Australians, 'People of Australia, carbon pollution in our atmosphere is just a political problem and it is one therefore that Australians do not need to act on.' If the Prime Minister were a doctor and the patient were sick, all I could imagine is that he would say to that patient, 'Don't change anything.' It is really hard to change. It may involve making decisions about the future which are in your long-term interest but which today you might find difficult. That is not the Labor way. In parliament the people who put us here expect us not to do everything for them, not to be in every household, not to regulate every aspect of their lives, but they do expect their leaders, regardless of whether they are coalition or Labor, to at least try and explain to Australians how to navigate a path to the future.
These 11 bits of legislation are not a map to the future; they are an exercise in the rear vision mirror looking back and doing nothing. The Treasury in its blue book prepared prior to the 2010 election said:
A market based mechanism can achieve the necessary abatement at a cost per tonne of emissions far lower than any other alternative direct-action policies.
Say what you like about the carbon tax—and many have—this government is not just repealing the carbon tax; this legislation kills any possibility of limiting carbon pollution pouring into our atmosphere. There are 11 carbon tax repeal bills before the parliament today.
The government's bills on climate change represent the unilateral disarmament of the nation's defences against climate change. In leaving nothing behind—no other sound or sensible replacement policy—the Abbott government has run up the white flag on climate change. It has surrendered its responsibility to the nation. It declares in this legislation that this government finds the future too hard; that this government cannot navigate a path to the future; that this government will tell everyone that they can stay as they are—that there is no need to change. It declares that it will always be blue sky and that, regardless of the science—regardless of the innate knowledge of Australians—the best option is to do nothing.
The fundamental problem with the government's approach is that there is no limit on how much carbon pollution will be allowed in Australia. Put simply, this government is saying there will be no cap on emissions. What that means is that this government has no idea about how to control carbon emissions and that any amount is acceptable. Surely it is a proper role for government to lead and set standards about how much carbon pollution should be allowed. That is a legitimate function of government; it is the leadership that people expect. Tony Abbott's view—and the view of his denialist cohort—is that there should be no cap and no standard set on carbon emissions into the future.
Even if genuine reductions can be purchased by polluters there is nothing in the Prime Minister's plan to stop emissions increasing elsewhere in the economy. This leads to the other flaw in the legislation. Not only do they have no cap, but they will make mum and dad taxpayers in Australia pay their hard-earned taxes to large polluters. That is the only idea they have. This is the climate change policy from central casting, if you are a closet climate change sceptic. There is everything you could want in the coalition policies if you do not believe climate change is real. There is no cap on emissions; there is money to be paid to people who emit carbon; and, when we look at this policy, the Prime Minister will not even try to make companies with large carbon emissions accountable.
Leaders across the rest of the world are willing to act. They are acting in different ways but they accept the science. Real leaders take real action. On Friday, British Prime Minister David Cameron—who had a busy weekend—said:
I am not a scientist but it's always seemed to me that one of the strongest arguments about climate change is that even if you are 90 per cent certain, or 80 per cent certain, or 70 per cent certain - if I said to you that there was a 60 per cent chance your house might burn down, you would take out some insurance.
Real leaders are not denialists. Real leaders have the courage to tell people things they do not always want to hear. Real leaders have the courage to say to people: 'We will take you on a path to the future and this involves accepting real facts.' Real leaders choose to prepare their nations for the future rather than leave it to others in the future to do what the current generation would not do.
This is why the Abbott government's response to climate change is a defining issue for our parliament and our nation. It represents their well-known coalition disregard for science. It demonstrates their willingness to put short-term politics ahead of long-term national interests. It is symbolic of their willingness to raise the drawbridge to Australia and say: 'The rest of the world is a confronting and difficult place, and we will simply try to reassure Australians that if we ignore the rest of the world then the rest of the world will simply go away.' They will risk the economic and environmental wellbeing of your children and mine with their refusal to act on the science.
That the government will conveniently ignore inconvenient truths is no surprise. What a marvellous scientific set of achievements this government has assembled in a brief two months: no minister for science for the first time since 1931; no climate change commission; no Climate Change Authority; and a quarter of the staff of the CSIRO are to get it in the neck.
This government and this Prime Minister have never seen an expert that they are not willing to censor, cut or contradict. In the Prime Minister's own words, indeed, if he cannot contradict, censor or cut them, he will just eject them. He has said that climate change is absolute crap. No serious government, and no serious leader, says these things. No serious leader rebuts serious economists and tells them they are all wrong. The government's direct action policy is a vagrant policy with no visible means of support and no support from economists.
Prime Minister, this is not enough for Australia. You cannot plant your way out of this problem with trees. There is not enough land in Australia—not enough trees, not enough arborists and not enough water to water all these trees—to plant your way out of climate change. In dismantling climate change action in Australia this government, and this legislation, undermines our future.
Their direct action policy—what a sham. Why should every Australian household pay $1,200 a year merely because the coalition is too lazy to accept the science in front of them? This mob opposite can always tell you what they will cut. They are good at cutting. But they can never tell you what to create with a vision of Australia. That is the difference between Labor and the government. They would ignore climate change and take no action.
The member for Port Adelaide will be moving our amendments to these bills. We will ensure that the defences against climate change remain in place, in order to not weaken our efforts. Our amendments will replace the carbon tax with a role for government that says, 'We have to put in place a legal cap on carbon pollution and then let business—the mighty engine-room of the Australian economy—work it out.' We trust the private sector to work out how to handle climate change. This mob opposite just want to use taxpayer money to deny the science. We will vote with the government to repeal the price on carbon but only if those opposite can convince us they will genuinely fight climate change, and there is nothing in this legislation to make us see any evidence of any fight against climate change.
Climate change is real. We will stand together with the Australian nation. We will not defer to future generations problems we could deal with now. Labor, when it is faced with the hard choice of making a decision or not making a decision—of tackling pollution or not tackling pollution—will stand up and be counted. Under Labor, wind power trebled. Under Labor, one million houses installed solar power. Under Labor, 24,000 jobs and hundreds of new small businesses were created.
I am proud that we are sticking to our guns. I am proud we are sticking to our principles and holding the government to account. We will not be, and will never be, a rubber stamp for this government. We will honour our commitment to the national interest. We will honour our international obligations. We can look our children in the face and say, 'When we had the chance to do something, we did.' The government's policy is toxic. The government's legislation is toxic. Labor will never vote for toxic laws undermining the future of this country.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (12:45): Much is said about the trustworthiness of politicians and the political system. These carbon tax repeal bills could not be a more obvious example of a political party or a political leader delivering on a political commitment. These bills to repeal the carbon tax deliver on a rock-solid commitment from the coalition, an unwavering commitment for the life of the last parliament. Every Australian knew exactly what the coalition's intentions were in this area prior to the election, prior to the time they voted overwhelmingly to entrust the nation's future to the coalition. To not do exactly what we promised would be to defy the will of the electorate. To understand the importance of delivering this commitment it is worth remembering that the broken commitments by the previous government, by the Labor-Greens alliance, were at the heart of Australia's rejection of their incompetent government.
Firstly, the nation listened to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd when he told us that climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our time. When the going got tough and when the rest of the world balked at action at Copenhagen Mr Rudd abandoned his commitment and within a short time lost his job to the former member for Lalor, Julia Gillard. This clear reversal of policy was never properly explained to the electorate. Voters were not consulted, were not asked for an opinion and were never given compelling reasons for the abandonment of that policy. Ms Gillard took the Labor Party to the 2010 election promising there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led. Within weeks of her appointment as Prime Minister that commitment was abandoned and the Labor Party joined with the Greens to establish the world's biggest carbon tax, a tax costing our economy $9 billion a year.
Once again this was a clear reversal of policy not properly justified to the electorate. Once again we were not asked, not consulted and never given compelling reasons for the abandonment of the policy. Yet again a Labor Prime Minister lost their job at the hands of the party insiders. Within weeks of the return of the member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, to the prime ministership, the Labor Party yet again changed policy on this central issue and were suddenly no longer in favour of the world's biggest carbon tax but instead again in favour of an ETS—but this time one linked to Europe's much troubled scheme. Once again an explanation of this abrupt about-face of policy was poor. No wonder people's trust has been shattered.
The election was resoundingly won by the coalition, which had an unambiguous message in this area—no carbon tax. The people were given a clear choice and responded by entrusting the governance of the nation to the coalition. It is incumbent upon each and every one of us—Liberal, Labor, Greens, Nationals and Independents—to do whatever we can to enact their wishes, and that means in this case supporting these bills.
Let me turn to the reasons why the coalition have opposed this tax from the first moment. Australia is struggling to remain internationally competitive. Every day we hear new stories of the loss of manufacturing jobs across the nation. ABS data shows that there was a net decline of more than 143,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector between 2008 and April 2013, or a decline of 13 per cent. For instance, Goodman Fielder recently announced they were pulling out of Ballarat—34 jobs—Toyota dropped 350 jobs in April and another 100 in October, Electrolux are shedding 500 jobs, Sandvik are dropping 25 jobs and South Pacific 500 jobs. In South Australia, Peacock Furniture put off 50 people earlier this year, Scott's Transport 30 jobs and Holden another 500 jobs this year.
I have never claimed that the carbon tax alone is responsible for all of the job losses in the manufacturing industry; however, Australia has prospered by making the most of its competitive advantages, and one of our competitive advantages has been relatively cheap energy. The carbon tax that has been imposed on our economy has acted as a reverse tariff, favouring our fiercest competitors. In fact, electricity prices in Australia are up to double those in comparable energy abundant economies and electricity prices have been responsible for 60 per cent of the increased costs in the manufacturing industry since 2008.
The coalition support the previous government's near-term aim—that is, to reduce emissions by five per cent by 2020. What we have opposed is the method, and it is worthwhile comparing the Labor Party's tax with the efforts and methods of our competitors. I was just drawn to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. Stating that this side of the parliament does not believe in climate change ignores the fact that we are committed to exactly the same target as the Labor Party. We are just divided over the manner in which we will get to that target.
I turn again to our competitors. None of the world's top five emitters—China, the US, India, Russia or Japan—has an abatement scheme in place that is enforceable. Plentiful new supplies of oil and gas worldwide will make the task of many renewables more difficult. Often repeated claims by the Labor Party and others that the rest of the world is taking significant steps to price CO2 emissions do not bear scrutiny. Intentions and announcements are one thing; actions are another. The last period of government under the Labor-Greens alliance only underlines this point. For instance, the opposition are fond of telling us that China is introducing an ETS. In fact, the Chinese scheme covers just one per cent of its economy. With China being responsible for 25 per cent of the world's emissions, it has an average price on CO2 emissions of just 4c per tonne. The US are responsible for 18 per cent of world emissions and their various schemes cover less than six per cent of their economy and have the effect of producing an average price across the economy on carbon of 77c a tonne. The much vaunted scheme in Europe, which covers just 40 per cent of the economy, averages about $3 a tonne for total emissions.
It is also worth noting that in the last few days Japan has announced that its aim of cutting emissions by 25 per cent from 1990 levels has been abandoned in favour of a goal of 3.8 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020. It comes back to that point where I said rhetoric is one thing, action is another. This is not to say we do not need to reduce our own emissions, and in fact both sides of politics agree on the target of five per cent; however, it does highlight the futility of trying to get too far in front of the pack. The tax that the Labor Party imposed on Australia, in comparison, covers 60 per cent of our economy, the current headline rate of tax is $24.15 a tonne and the average price for CO2 emission across our whole economy—and bear in mind that the US's was 77c—is more than $14 a tonne. We are completely out of step with our trading partners and this is very damaging to Australia. So in this debate we should have far less of the cherry picking of other nations' selective programs and pretending that they are something they are not, namely economy-wide carbon taxes with few if any exemptions. What we see from other countries that are truly serious about reducing CO2 emissions are policies designed to deliver reductions without sinking their own economies.
When the original bills that these bills are repealing were first debated in parliament I raised that one of the biggest dangers to Australia was the issue of carbon leakage, and the lived experience in the manufacturing industry is that those fears were well grounded. Applying a tax to our producers presents a relative advantage to our overseas competitors and works to shift industry out of Australia to lower cost points of production. In fact our relatively clean industries can end up in countries that do not tax their CO2 emissions, quite possibly with operators to which the relative energy efficiency or CO2 output of their industry may be at the very bottom of the list of their priorities. The result can be worse for Australia and definitely worse for the environment.
Locally, in my electorate the abolition of the carbon tax will be met with a loud cheer. In Whyalla, where OneSteel operates one of the last remaining steel plants in Australia, slashing the tax will deliver savings of around $40 million a year to the company. For a division of the company that has seen huge losses and write-downs in the last few years, it will provide significant help and will help ensure its long-term future in the city. Even though there has been a great expansion in the mining industry in Whyalla, the steelworks, with around 1,700 workers, are still by far the biggest employer in the city.
In Port Pirie, where the Nyrstar smelter needs an investment of $350 million to ensure its future, the removal of $6 million a year in tax will provide a great incentive for the company to support that investment. The smelter employs more than 700 people and, if a four-to-one multiplier effect is used, that in effect makes it responsible for almost half the jobs in Port Pirie. It is just not conceivable that we could lose this plant from Australia. It is also worth noting that the $6 million paid each year in carbon tax would service almost half the loan for the transformation project.
BHP at Roxby Downs consumes almost one-third of the state's electricity and is by far the biggest consumer of diesel; it is currently wearing the full brunt of the tax. Since the decision by BHP to suspend the expansion at the mine, more than 1,000 jobs have been lost from that community. Obviously the carbon tax is not the only reason for BHP's decision, but the problems increase as one impost is piled on top of the last. The chief issue here is how this project, this expansion at Roxby Downs, an expansion the whole state was pinning its future on, is disadvantaged compared to other investment options that BHP has around the world. That discrepancy, that self-inflicted reverse tariff, occurs when we implement a tax regime, in this case a carbon tax, that is significantly different to our major trading competitors.
The Grey electorate covers more than 900,000 square kilometres; it is about 10 per cent bigger than New South Wales. As expressed by others before me: we suffer from the tyranny of distance. Unless the carbon tax is abolished, from July next year heavy transport will begin to pay the tax at a rate of 6.85c per litre. Every country town in Australia will face higher costs on everything. Particularly affected will be farmers earning export dollars for Australia but with no ability to pass that increased cost along, because Australian farmers compete against farmers in other parts of the world who are not paying the same impost.
A penalty of living in the country is that we pay freight on everything to and from our regions. So once again the most important spokes of the economy are to wear the brunt, including the exporting sector, which cannot pass on the cost of the increased taxes on electricity, on gas or on transport. The carbon tax trading system was the flavour of the month just a few years ago as the best means of reducing emissions, but the failure of a string of climate change conferences, starting with Copenhagen, has resulted in nations across the globe abandoning their original commitments in this area. Increasingly they are in favour of a more direct approach such as the coalition is proposing and embodied in such schemes as the Renewable Energy Target. Such schemes will need ongoing management and adjustment from time to time, and that is why the government is committed to the previously scheduled review of the RET.
There have been a number of critics about the efficiency of the direct action proposal; however, it should be remembered assistance will only be made available on a competitive tender basis and there will not be a direct cost or comparative disincentive placed upon Australian industries. However, we can only get on with the job when the will of the Australian people is accepted, not only here in the House of Representatives but in another place as well. Australia will be watching and it expects the parliament to get on with the job, and I support that view.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (12:58): I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills—bills that are dressed up by the Prime Minister as bills to terminate the so-called carbon tax. Were they just that then the opposition would be in a position to support them, but they do so much more than simply terminate the carbon tax. For that reason, the opposition cannot and will not support the bills without them being substantially amended.
This is just a taste of what these bills would do beyond simply terminating the carbon tax: they will also remove the legislated cap on carbon pollution, an essential discipline in ensuring that we meet our 2020 target to reduce Australia's emissions. The bills abolish the entire framework for an emissions trading scheme, a scheme which caps and then reduces our carbon pollution while letting business—not the minister or his bureaucrats here in Canberra but business—work out the cheapest and the most effective way to operate within that limit. The bills also abolish the Climate Change Authority, a statutory body charged with providing strong and independent advice to government about matters, including the Renewable Energy Target as well as caps and targets for carbon pollution or carbon emissions. The authority is chaired by former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser, with a board made up of highly esteemed business leaders, economists and scientists, including Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Chubb.
Of course, in this respect the Abbott government has form. Two emerging themes with this new government are, firstly, secrecy—perhaps exemplified in the immigration portfolio—and, secondly, the shutting down of any strong, independent voices. The Rudd government's first action in the climate change area was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. This minister's debut was to abolish the Climate Commission, a body established to provide the community with digestible information about climate change. As members know if they have been watching this debate, there has been an extraordinary community response to this blatant act of political censorship. The community have responded by opening their wallets and sending money to allow the commission to continue their work, as the new Climate Council, a non-government organisation encouraging informed debate about climate change in our community.
But the Climate Commission was just the first casualty. These bills would also shut down the independent voice of the Climate Change Authority on the critically important question of targets, extending yet further the emerging theme of this government: to ensure that all advice—advice to the parliament and advice to the Australian community—is managed and controlled by the Prime Minister's office. Well, Labor will stand up for strong, independent advice. We will oppose the bill that abolishes the Climate Change Authority outright.
Last but not least, these bills carve into the Household Assistance Package by abolishing tax cuts legislated for households in future years, a blatant breach of the Prime Minister's promise to retain the package in its entirety.
These bills are the culmination of one of the most hysterical and at times downright mendacious campaigns in modern Australian history. It was a campaign driven by two forces. The first was what my friend the member for Grayndler used to call the longest dummy spit in Australian political history—the Prime Minister, as he is now, never accepting the fact that he did not end up with the keys to the Lodge in 2010 and resolving simply to tear the place up. The second was the triumph of the hard Right in the Liberal Party, when the Nick Minchin forces threw their numbers behind the member for Warringah to defenestrate the member for Wentworth, on the condition that the member for Warringah cross over to climate scepticism, indeed that he renege on the policy that his mentor, John Howard, had taken to the preceding election to introduce an emissions trading scheme.
Having thrown John Howard's policy overboard and reneged on the commitment that he made to the electors as a candidate in the 2007 election, the now Prime Minister released a policy on climate change laughably called direct action. Even a cursory glance at this policy will reveal that what little action there is in the policy is anything but direct. Admittedly it is a catchy title, but 'direct action' would usually conjure up thoughts of regulation of emission standards in power stations or motor vehicles. This policy does nothing of the sort. It is little more than a dressed-up slush fund with a fancy name.
After the now Prime Minister dropped Liberal Party support for a market based emissions trading scheme, the member for Wentworth wrote, with refreshing frankness, in Fairfax:
Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing. After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all.
That goes straight to the heart of the difference between Labor and the coalition in this policy area. Labor accepts the advice of climate scientists that human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, is causing the earth to get warmer. Since the defenestration of the member for Wentworth, a consistent tactic from the new Prime Minister has been to suggest to the Australian community that scientists are divided about climate change. In July 2009 the now Prime Minister said:
I am … hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change.
In October 2009 he famously described the science as 'absolute crap'. In March 2010 he said: 'I don't believe that the science is settled.' In March 2011 he suggested:
… whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven.
This approach is not the new Prime Minister's approach alone. It is common among Australia's climate change sceptic media, as it is in other nations where this debate continues to flare. Only in the last fortnight we read of the last coalition Prime Minister telling a British audience that he preferred to rely on his gut instinct rather than scientific advice in this area.
To suggest that climate scientists have not yet reached a settled view about global warming is simply misleading. Earlier this year, NASA—that notorious hotbed of alarmist left-wing propaganda!—confirmed that 97 per cent of climate scientists who are actively publishing in this area agree that human activity is causing global warming. In September, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the Fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was released. This report was completed by hundreds of the world's leading climate scientists, with 209 lead authors and more than 600 contributing authors. The fifth report strengthened the consensus around human-caused climate change. Now the world's climate scientists are 95 per cent certain that a process of global warming has been underway for some decades and that its major causes are human activities, in particular the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use.
Since pre-industrial times, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere has increased by 40 per cent, with around 500 billion additional tonnes of the gas pumped into the atmosphere over that same period. Scientists tell us that this is the highest atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in at least 800,000 years.
The latest IPCC report confirms that average global surface temperatures have increased by almost 0.9 degrees Celsius since 1880. Ocean surface temperatures have also warmed, which causes the water to expand, contributing to sea level rise. The World Meteorological Organisation advises that sea levels are now rising about twice as fast as they did on average across the 20th century. The IPCC report confirmed acceleration in the overall loss of polar ice, which is also contributing to sea level rise, with accelerating loss of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets, the loss of about four per cent of the Arctic sea ice per decade, and accelerating loss of glacial ice.
The report also confirms an increasing acidification of our oceans as they absorb more of the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As we know, more acidic oceans pose dangers for a range of marine ecosystems, including coral reefs like the Great Barrier Reef. The report reaffirms the need to limit overall global warming to two degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages. That has been agreed by all major nations, including China and the United States, as the benchmark for international negotiations leading into 2015—negotiations to which, I note, the government has not even bothered to send a parliamentary secretary.
The report also confirms that the number of unusually hot days is increasing, as is the frequency of heatwaves in a number of regions, including Australia. You do not need to read the IPCC report to understand that our climate is changing. Many communities in the Murray-Darling Basin area are still recovering from the worst drought in living memory. Other parts of Australia remain in drought today. Last summer was Australia's hottest on record. The 12 months to October this year were the hottest 12 months on record—remarkable outside of an El Nino phase.
The latest State of the climate report from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology restates the scientific advice that the number of hot days in Australia will increase, as well as advising that droughts and intense cyclones will become more common.
During the recent bushfires in and around the Blue Mountains the government got itself involved in an unseemly slanging match over a connection between bushfires and a changing climate. The minister confessed to using Wikipedia as a primary research tool; the Prime Minister accused the UN official of the 'talking through her hat'; and former Prime Minister Howard chimed in with a very helpful observation that there were extensive bushfires in Victoria in the 1850s!
It seems pretty obvious to me that no-one can credibly draw a direct causal connection between a single weather event and climate change. As the minister's extensive Wikipedia research revealed, there have indeed been fires in Australia for a very long time and the direct cause is usually the action of an idiot lighting the fire, with factors like hazard reduction, urban planning and the like also influencing the fire's extent. But weather conditions do influence the level of risk and you do not need to go to Wikipedia to find advice that global warming is increasing the underlying risk of events like a bushfire occurring. The minister could have gone to his own department's website to find that advice, or to the CSIRO's and Bureau of Meteorology's latest State of the climate report; or to the Climate Commission's advice; or, indeed, to the Country Fire Authority in the minister's own state of Victoria. The fact is that the government simply overreacted and mishandled a complex and very sensitive matter. The Prime Minister again encouraged the impression that he wilfully turns a blind eye to the best available scientific advice in this area.
In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama dealt with this debate in his own country and said:
Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods—all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science—and act before it’s too late.
There is now a point of agreement between Australia's two major parties that the carbon tax should be terminated as soon as practicable, but there is a profound disagreement about what replaces it as the centrepiece of Australia's action on climate change. These are not easy questions to answer. As the OECD Secretary-General said a few weeks ago:
It would be hard to imagine a more complex risk management issue than that posed by climate change.
The different paths before us are on the one hand an emissions trading scheme and on the other the Liberal Party's so-called direct action policy. The opposition will move amendments to these bills to ensure that the carbon tax is replaced by an emissions trading scheme—an ETS. The ETS model has been recognised around the world as the cheapest and the most effective way to drive down carbon pollution. It is the most effective way because its centrepiece is a legislated cap on carbon pollution. The annual cap provides the discipline to ensure that Australia reaches its target of reducing carbon pollution by 2020 and beyond. It is the cheapest way to achieve that objective because it creates a genuine market. The ability to train pollution permits means that business works out the cheapest way to operate within the national pollution cap.
One of the more recent of a long list of falsehoods argued by the Liberal and National parties is that an ETS and a carbon tax are the same thing. Those arguing this case are either deliberately trying to mislead the community or they simply do not understand the basic economics of the two models. A carbon tax seeks to change behaviour by imposing a price signal without any other legal discipline on the behaviour—in this case, carbon pollution. An ETS, on the other hand, changes behaviour through the discipline of a legislated cap on pollution and then lets business work out how to operate in the cheapest way. The effective price on a tonne of carbon pollution under an ETS, as has been shown by Treasury, would be only one-quarter of the carbon tax.
The ETS is by far and away the most common model around the world employed to reduce carbon pollution. Some nations do this at a national level while others trade at a city or state level. Some of Australia's oldest trading partners have a national ETS in place: the United Kingdom and France, for example; as well as Germany, the world's third-largest exporter, poised to move into second place this year. In North America, a number of US and Canadian states also have an ETS, including California, the ninth-largest economy in the world in its own right.
In our own region, China this year started seven pilot ETS schemes in regions covering more than 200 million people, with the aim of having a national trading scheme in place at the end of this decade. As the head of the Australian Industry Group, Innes Willox, said in June, these pilots show that 'even nominal Communists recognise that cutting emissions at least cost requires the power of market mechanisms'.
Following this move by China, our two nations agreed to set up a joint carbon trading experts group to reflect our shared commitment to serious action on climate change. As part of their campaign of fear and hysteria, the Liberal and National parties have regularly pontificated that the world's two biggest polluters will not take any serious action to reduce their carbon pollution, so neither should Australia. The minister has talked about the inexorable rise in China's coal consumption—up to seven billion tonnes per annum perhaps. But China is putting in place a cap on coal consumption in the energy sector of around four billion tonnes, as well as consideration of a broader national emissions cap in 2015. While President Obama continues to struggle to see an emissions trading scheme pass the Congress, initiated by John McCain, the US has in place a target to reduce carbon pollution by 17 per cent by 2020, compared to our target of a five per cent reduction. To achieve that, the President is deploying direct regulations of power plants in the transport sector emissions. South Korea, Australia's third-largest export market, begins an emissions trading scheme the year after next.
Although former Prime Minister Howard last week—or last fortnight—tried to shrug it off as an exercise in political opportunism, it must be remembered that the Liberal Party took an ETS policy to the 2007 election. Back in 2008, the now Minister for the Environment, gushed that 'perhaps the most important domestic policy was the decision of the Howard government that Australia will implement a national carbon-trading scheme'. The member for Sturt, with his typical understatement was equally enthusiastic when he said in 2009: 'Let's not forget: it was the Liberal Party that first proposed an emissions trading scheme when we were in government. The idea that somehow the Liberal Party is opposed to an emissions trading scheme is quite frankly ludicrous.'
Those opposite might have done an about-face for political reasons, but the ETS is still recognised as the cheapest and the most effective way to tackle climate change. The OECD said precisely that only last week—that hotbed of left-wing environmental fanatics, the OECD—
Mr Van Manen: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 66(a), may I ask a question of the minister?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member prepared to take the question?
Mr BUTLER: I am flattered by the interest but I am happy to keep going without the member's interjections. Two weeks ago a survey of Australian business and academic economists showed that 86 per cent favoured an ETS. In August, a survey by AECOM of Australian business showed an overwhelming preference for an emissions trading scheme and only seven per cent support for the Liberal Party's policy. If these bills pass unamended, an ETS in Australia disappears. The Prime Minister truly gets his way in throwing the baby out with the bathwater: no legislated cap on carbon pollution; no market mechanism with business to tap into; and all Australia is left with is the so-called direct action policy.
As the member for Wentworth foresaw, this policy is nothing more than an environmental fig leaf to cover up the fact that this is a party that has no commitment to taking real action to mitigate climate change. It is a policy that was devised at a time when climate scepticism had swept through the Liberal Party like a virus; while the world is moving on, Australia is at risk of being stuck with it.
The first point to make about the Liberal policy is that it is unique, and not in a good sense. No-one else has a policy like this on climate change. It is true that a nation like the United States is directly regulating the electricity and transport sectors' emissions, but President Obama is only doing that, he says, because the US Congress will not pass an emissions trading scheme. And that sort of direct action is a far cry from the carbon slush fund that lies at the centre of this government's plans.
The most fundamental failing of the Liberal policy is that it does not include a legal limit, or cap, on carbon pollution; it relegates our international commitments on pollution reduction to a mere aspiration. Indeed, during the election campaign, Tony Abbott confirmed that if his funding is not adequate to reach the target—as most experts expect will be the case—then the target is dispensable. The other major failing of the Direct Action Plan is its reliance on highly contested ideas to reduce carbon pollution—in particular, soil carbon technology, which the minister describes as their 'major plank'. The policy presumes that soil carbon can deliver up to 85 million tonnes of reduction per year at just $10 per tonne. Since its release, a University of Western Australia study found the cost to be more like $80 per tonne, and Mr Hunt's own department estimates the technology can only deliver one-twentieth of the claimed reductions.
Experts, including CSIRO, have similarly rejected the assumptions made around reforestation. More recently, the minister has presented his Emissions Reduction Fund as the centrepiece of their climate change policy. He describes this as a reverse auction, where government will pay bidders for the lowest-cost abatement idea presented. The level of detail about the Emissions Reduction Fund is laughable. This carbon slush fund will end up paying polluters for highly speculative ideas that might never actually deliver. The minister compares the ERF to water-purchasing arrangements, yet ignores the fact that very precise, existing water entitlements are offered up under that program, with delivery happening then and there. Under the ERF, it might be years before the bidder can actually demonstrate delivery, and at what cost. Also, it remains unclear whether the ERF will pay polluters for changes they were intending to make anyway, such as the question of additionality, as well as whether pollution reduction will need to be permanent, measurable and internationally recognised.
In recent times, a number of independent reports have found that the levels of production in carbon pollution required of the Liberal policy will cost several billion dollars more than suggested by the coalition. Given that the Liberal policy involves the government handing billions of taxpayer dollars over to polluters, the overall cost will rise in line with the cost that polluters claim to reduce each tonne of carbon pollution. Treasury estimated a cost of $80 per tonne by 2020 under their policy. With a reduction target that year of around 150 million tonnes, the total cost to the taxpayer in that year will be $12 million or $1,200 for each of Australia's 10 million households on average. This huge cost was increased by the coalition's refusal to let Australian business purchase units from overseas—a point that has been made time and time again very forcefully by the Australian Industry Group.
For these reasons and more, it is little surprise that in more than three years the coalition has been completely unable to present a single credible climate scientist or economist who will support the policy. Equally, the minister has been unable to point to a single country which is adopting this approach. Other nations are generally introducing ETS schemes or using direct regulation to impose emission standards on sectors like power generation and transport. Indeed, during the 2013 campaign, the minister verballed two Nobel laureates as supporters of the Liberal policy who, when followed up for comment by the media, both indicated they had never heard of the policy let alone read it and had never spoken to Mr Hunt about it.
Anyone who has seriously examined the so-called direct action policy has found that it will cost households more and it will be much less effective at cutting carbon pollution. At the same time, the Prime Minister is confronted by the inevitable collision between the hysteria of his campaign over the past three years and the realities now of being in government. It is now completely clear that his overblown promises about relief on power prices will likely come to nought. The takeaway message from the energy sector, the grocery sector and big business over the past few weeks has been to not hold your breath for any prices to come down if these bills pass.
Three years on, it is crystal clear that the Liberal policy will not work. Equally it is clear that Labor is willing to cooperate in terminating the carbon tax. The obvious way forward for Australian business and Australia's households is for the Prime Minister to swallow his pride and for the parliament to work together on an emissions trading scheme.
The final points I would like to address concern the government's winding back of Australia's commitment to renewable energy contained in these bills. The growth of renewable energy in Australia has been an out and out success story. During our term in government, wind energy trebled, jobs in the sector more than doubled to more than 24,000, and the number of households with PV solar panels skyrocketed from a few thousand when John Howard left government to more than one million today. In 2012-13, renewables increased their share of the national electricity market by 25 per cent in just one year. While the Liberal and National parties have paid lip service to our renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020, they are now crab-walking away from it. The Prime Minister's recent remarks on the Alan Jones show revealed that he is now open to lobbying from old style business to wind back wind and solar energy development. These bills abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a body making loads on commercial terms to help new, ambitious renewable projects get a foothold—projects like the Macarthur wind farm, the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere. The bills also without any prior notice, strip ARENA, the renewable energy agency, of almost half a billion dollars in funding. This is an agency that used to enjoy bipartisan support and which provides critical start-up funding to emerging renewable technologies like the largest PV solar farm in the Southern Hemisphere that was announced earlier this year.
In conclusion, I confirm that the opposition will be moving amendments in due course to the principal bill, which, while supporting the termination of the carbon tax on 30 June next year, will replace it with an emissions trading scheme. I also confirm that the opposition, even if those amendments were carried, will not support the abolition of the Climate Change Authority or the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, nor will we support legislation to abolish tax cuts promised as part of the household assistance package or cuts to the ARENA budget.
Finally, I move as a second reading amendment the following proposition:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the Bill a second reading
1. because it would be ill advised to continue without consideration of the broader policy issues set out in paragraph 2, related to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills; and
2. because of:
(a) the impact of the abolition of the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation on ongoing transparency and investment in climate change;
(b) Government plans for emissions reduction and further development of renewable energy; and
(c) the international position of Australia in relation to climate change."
The SPEAKER: The original question was that these bills be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Port Adelaide has moved as an amendment to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view of substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in this form: that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (13:28): Today marks a significant debate for the future of Australia. Not only is this a bill which enables a newly elected government to act to keep its election promise but it is also a debate in which a debilitating piece of legislation, which is affecting every single Australian, starts the journey to be repealed. There are times when I am sure members of the Australian public look at some of the activities that happen in this chamber and in this building and wonder if politicians really understand the impact of the decisions that have been made and how they impact on workers and the families of Australia. We have listened to the Australian public and we know first hand the impact of Labor's carbon tax and what it is doing to every individual Australian. The newly elected Prime Minister of Australia came into this chamber and kept his election promise to the Australian people that the first piece of legislation to be presented in this new parliament would be the repeal of the carbon tax.
We have just heard the shadow minister use his time repeating the standard arguments in favour of climate change, and I presume it made him feel good. But he did not make any effort to explain how Labor's tax was going to stop climate change. Nor did he explain how an emissions trading scheme will lower the temperature, how traders sitting in capital city buildings selling one another bits of paper is going to lower the sea level.
Labor never attempted when they were in government or now in opposition to explain how their new taxes and the buying and selling of pieces of paper was actually going to change the climate. The fact that they did not even attempt to try and explain this mystery to the Australian people is part of the reason why they are sitting on the other side of the chamber at the present time.
The reality is the new government recognised that the carbon tax as long as it was in place would continue to take its toll tomorrow, next year and into the future unless we acted promptly to stop it. It has and will continue to be a blow to families, businesses and our national competitiveness.
During the election campaign, I travelled across the country meeting with locals, particularly in regional areas, and I spoke with farmers, transport operators, small business, stock agents and many others concerned about their businesses and their families. They had basic concerns about the future of their towns and their cities. Over and over again, I heard these same sentiments being repeated. The cost of doing business in Australia is increasing and it is making it so hard for businesses to survive. Nowhere is this statement more true than in our regional and rural towns and cities—towns and cities that are heavily dependent on roads and transport to receive goods and services.
The Nationals are committed to ensuring that these regional and rural towns and cities are vibrant and exciting places that many Australians will want to live and work in; however, for this to happen, these towns and cities need access to reasonable cost transport options and for many it means having a reliable and competitive trucking industry. Without access to a good trucking industry, many of our regional towns and cities will simply struggle to exist. The cost of living will increase significantly, and I fear that many of our regional and rural centres will simply not be able to withstand another cost hike on their business. Yet the Labor Party seems to be perfectly comfortable with allowing this to happen. In fact by introducing the carbon tax, the Labor Party has condemned many rural and regional areas.
Businesses across the country are just shaking their heads in gut-wrenching frustration over the carbon tax that hits them now and will bite them again and again, and especially if the fuel tax which Labor had planned for the trucking industry from the middle of next year were to in fact to become a reality. Labor intended that from 1 July 2014 , the carbon tax would hit the road transport industry—an industry that transports over 277 million tonnes of food and live animals each year, an industry that literally ensures that we have food on our tables and clothes on our backs. The previous government had announced that fuel used by the truck industry would be subject to the carbon tax from mid-2014.
The legislation had not actually been introduced, but Labor intended that the new parliament would today not be debating the abolition of the carbon tax but its further extension to the transport sector. Labor was committed to extending the carbon tax to further parts of the economy and of course it was committed to a formula that was going to increase the level of the carbon tax every year. This new tax on the trucking industry alone was going to add half a billion dollars to its costs every year—half a billion dollars impost on people living outside the capital cities and those who depend on transport to move their product to market here or, for that matter, to other parts of the world.
Labor had this assumption that business would simply respond to the carbon tax by reducing their energy use or switching to renewables. It assumed that businesses could do this or, alternatively, they would pass their higher costs onto consumers and that in turn would alter consumers' behaviour; however, experience has shown that neither of the assumptions fit the commercial reality of the trucking industry or, for that matter, other businesses.
In tough economic times, as we have been enduring over recent years, there was no capacity to raise prices. The higher dollar has made imports so much cheaper in this country, and so it was cheaper for Australian consumers to import something from overseas than to in fact absorb these extra costs imposed by the carbon tax, a tax that none of the major exporters to this country have to pay.
The aviation industry was faced with this firsthand. Australian airlines found they could not pass on the extra cost to travellers; in fact it simply hit their bottom line. If indeed they had been successful in passing on the costs to Australian travellers, that would have been devastating to our tourism industry and would have resulted in even greater losses to our tourism sector than has happened in the past.
It is hard to think of anything about this carbon tax that was good for the country. There was never any evidence that it was going to make any difference whatsoever to emissions in Australia. Indeed the statistics up to the end of 2013 show that Australia's emissions were 557 million tonnes—exactly the same level as they were in the previous year. So in spite of all of the impositions that the government had imposed on Australian industry, emissions did not fall. Indeed, Labor's strategy, it seemed, to make its carbon tax work was dependent upon making Australian industry uncompetitive so that Australian factories would close. Of course, when a factory closes there are less emissions in Australia. What Labor did not seem to realise was that it would make no difference to global emissions; indeed, they probably got worse because we imported products from countries that did not have a tax like this and did not care about the environmental impacts of climate change or emissions. Other countries were just intent on producing products for the lowest possible price. That is what they did and therefore Australian industries became uncompetitive. If there are reductions in CO2 emissions in Australia as a result of Labor's carbon tax, it will be because there are fewer jobs because there are fewer industries here. We are doing fewer useful things. We are not competitive as an exporter. That is simply bad, bad news for people who are dependent on these factories and these industries for their jobs and to support their cost of living.
The cuts in emissions that Labor was attempting to achieve through its carbon tax were at the expense of a strong and vibrant national economy. No country can afford that. No country can afford to stand alone and impose costs on its industries that others do not bear. Abolishing the carbon tax will make a difference to Australian industry. It will reduce the costs, not just the cost of their electricity, although that will be important; it will reduce some of their other costs such as the cost of refrigerants, which has had an enormous impact on industries like horticulture and dairying and on abattoirs. These additional costs make such a difference. It was imposed in other places as well, as we heard in question time last week—a million dollar impost on the Mackay city dump, and there are scores of other dumps across the country that have to pay this special carbon tax on their operations. Australian consumers and the Australian people were being assaulted by this tax from every direction.
When the shadow minister was speaking previously, he actually lauded the direct action being taken by other governments, but he does not seem to want to embrace it for Australia. If the United States is prepared to take direct action in relation to some of its emissions, that is to be applauded. But if Australia proposes to take an implemented direct action plan as an approach to climate change, somehow or other that is to be condemned. The Labor Party is going back to its old emissions trading scheme, its old ideas about trying to deal with these sorts of issues. That was unacceptable then. Labor abandoned it because they knew they could not persuade the Australian people that it would deliver results for them and have any significant impact on emissions. The previous government's own modelling showed that under the carbon tax our emissions would increase from 560 million tonnes to 637,000,000 tonnes by 2020. Not only was the carbon tax not going to reduce emissions; emissions were going to actually increase.
The heart of our direct action plan is to take specific actions which will make a difference. The fund that the Prime Minister described in some detail when he introduced the legislation is about delivering the lowest possible cost emissions reduction. Abolishing the carbon tax will result in the average cost of living for all Australian households being around $550 lower than it would have been under a Labor government. The Nationals, who really began the fight against the emissions trading scheme, believe that we were right then and that we are right now. The coalition are moving to get rid of the carbon tax and that will provide real opportunities for Australia. We want to encourage, not inhibit, the growth of business in Australia. We want people to have the confidence to invest in this country. Now, with the carbon tax regime, they choose to go to other places. Whatever you call the slug on businesses and households, whether you call it a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, the cost to people, businesses and communities will be the same. The cost will be counted in jobs, closed factories and uncompetitive industries.
This government was elected with a mandate to scrap the carbon tax and reduce costs for businesses and households, to boost jobs in manufacturing and to restore Australia's competitiveness. What clearer message could be sent to the Australian Labor Party and members in this chamber than the message they received at the last election? The Australian people stood up and said no to a carbon tax. They said no to a carbon tax whether you called it an emissions trading scheme or something else. They said no to the increased living costs through higher electricity bills and fuel costs. But they said yes to a government that wants to introduce a direct action plan and a government that will keep its promises. Remember, Labor promised that they would not introduce a carbon tax but they did. The Australian people voted on the carbon tax and now it is time for the Australian parliament to respect their wishes and to vote to get rid of this insidious tax. It would be very foolish for an opposition to continue to not listen to the words of the Australian people— (Time expired)
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:43): 'You cannot have a climate change policy without supporting this ETS at this time.' It is a marker of how far we have gone in this debate that when I quote Tony Abbott's words from 27 November 2009 the other side interjects. Many Australians believe in the science of climate change and believe in the benefits of a market based mechanism. Yesterday in Canberra, I spoke at one of the major climate change rallies that saw 60,000 people turn out across Australia. From Wagga Wagga to Launceston to Broome to Alice Springs to Cairns and to Frankston, Australians turned out to show their commitment to strong action on climate change. Among the other speakers were Dave Livingstone, the ACT secretary of the United Firefighters Union, Millie Telford of the AYCC, Josh Creaser from 350.org, Maria Tiimon Chi-Fang, a representative from low-lying Pacific island neighbours for whom climate change is an existential threat. And there was a representative of the Greens Party there as well.
Australians believe in the science and they want a government that will act on climate change, a government that will listen to the scientists, listen to the economists and take action.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Fraser has leave to continue his remarks.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Pride of Australia Awards
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:45): I rise today to congratulate a very deserved Australian, Natalie Cook, who won the Pride of Australia medal in the national Pride of Australia awards on the weekend. She, along with her husband, Neil, has won this award in the category of Courage. She has shown immense courage after some tragic circumstances in 2008 when her son unfortunately was king hit and died at a party, ending his life way too soon. But she used this experience, while quite devastating, to harness what she believed and to try to make sure that this did not happen to anyone else.
Along with her husband, she set up the Sammy D Foundation, which aimed to ensure that young people can go out and have a good time and come home safely. They go around South Australia providing educational opportunities for schools, telling young people to party wisely and giving them some information. They were at Schoolies Week and they will be there once again passing important information to the local community. They have been provided with many grants across government, however it is disappointing that the current federal government has withdrawn a grant from them. It will really hamper the work that they do. (Time expired)
Electorate of Swan: Twins
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:46): On Friday 25 October an extraordinary event took place in my electorate of Swan when Australia's oldest living identical twins, Flora Maude Barrett of Victoria Park and Winifred Joyce Hopes of Lathlain, turned 100. To give the House some idea of the rarity of this event, there are fewer than 20 cases around the world of identical twins living older than 100. After some exhaustive inquiries with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Parliamentary Library and the Office of the Governor-General, I can advise the House that there has been only one other case previously of identical twins turning 100 in Australia, when Jean and Doris Clarke turned 100 in a nursing home at Taigum in the electorate of Lilley, in 2010. Sadly, both ladies passed away within a day of each other. The oldest living twins in the world are Edith Ritchie and Evelyn Middleton, of the UK, at 104 years and four days. The record for the oldest twins of all time is held by Kin Narita and Gin Kanie of Japan, who reached 107 years and 175 days in 2000.
I was pleased to be able to join the family for celebrations in the morning at Flora's house in Victoria Park. It should be noted that both ladies live independently at their respective homes in Victoria Park and Lathlain. When asked what advice they would give others hoping to live as long, they replied: 'Don't drink, don't smoke and don't go out with bad men.' I hope the House will join me in wishing Flora and Winifred all the very best and I hope they have many more healthy years ahead of them. With the health they are in, maybe they can go for the all-time record.
Throsby Electorate: Billy Cart Derby
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:48): It has been 25 years since the last billy cart thundered down Wentworth Street, Port Kembla, in my electorate in a once-annual billy cart derby. The iconic event was relaunched last year thanks to the energy and organisational ability of Red Point Artists. The return of the derby was an overwhelming success and I was pleased to see the Red Point gang set the event again this year. Despite the wet weather last Saturday the 2013 billy cart derby attracted nearly 14,000 spectators lining Wentworth Street to watch over 100 competitors—some from as far as Victoria—whip down the track in their handmade contraptions.
There were entries from all ages and occupations, ranging from father-and-son teams with their wooden wagons to the community carts from Lions Clubs and the local SES—a cart I have ridden in myself—right up to the high-speed pods and luges entered by the more daredevil competitors. There was just as much entertainment off the track too with many Port Kembla businesses opening their doors alongside local art exhibitors, street performers, multicultural food vendors and even a motorbike parade.
I pay special thanks to all the community at Red Point, including Wynne Gibson and Dulcie Dal Molin, who volunteered their time and money and worked around the clock for weeks to organise this fantastic event. It has well and truly helped put Port Kembla back on the map.
Ryan Electorate: Community Service Awards
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:50): I was delighted to once again present the Ryan Community Service Awards as a way of recognising and celebrating the tireless work of individuals and groups in the community. Narelle Bird is an active member of Hilder Road State School's P&C. Narelle currently chairs the fundraising subcommittee where she enthusiastically initiates fundraising activities including a cross-country cafe and a school spellathon. Alistair Camm is another committed volunteer of Hilder Road State School and has been President of the school's P&C since 2010. During his time in the position he has effectively steered the committee through a period of rapid growth and four changes of principals. Also at Hilder Road State School is parent and community volunteer Jason Raftopoulos. For several years Jason has devoted his time, expertise and resources in establishing a quality sound system to enhance the school's concerts.
Over at Payne Road State School, Jenny Tucker has shown an outstanding level of commitment to the school's P&C with many hours of work put in to projects to ensure they are always successful and improve the children's experience at the school. Jenny has taken on leadership of a number of major projects in the school, including work on the new tuckshop, improving the environment club area and road access to the hall. Jenny was also named Queensland Tuckshop Volunteer of the year in 2012. Thank you to all the recipients.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: Community Art
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:51): The South Maroubra Village Green Art Show is a wonderful community art event in Kingsford Smith. It showcases the talent and promotes local artists in painting and photography. It was held on 8-10 November this year and is in its 15th year. It is the brainchild of Marylyn Jeffries, who is a wonderful community artist in our area. The event is coordinated by Richard and Philip Walsh, great community supporters who are the proprietors of Walsh's Village Centre Pharmacy in South Maroubra.
This year over 700 works were submitted, with 600 paintings and 100 photographs. In total, there were 450 entrants in the events, including 100 kids. This year's winners included: Jillian Jensen, with her painting A Little Night Music. The five- to eight-year age group was won by Hayden Floyd, with his painting Lake Illawarra. The nine- to 12-year age group was won by Zane Hetherington, with his painting Tree Frog and the 13- to 16-year age group was won by William Tan, with his painting called The Farm.
Entertainment was provided. The event also raises much-needed funds for local charities. This year $1,560 was raised for Alzheimer's research at the Ageing Research Centre in Randwick.
Thank you to all the volunteers, in particular to Richard and Phillip Walsh, for their wonderful support of community art.
World Prematurity Day
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (13:52): Yesterday, 17 November, we marked World Prematurity Day. Every year around the world 15 million babies are born too soon and, sadly, one million of these babies do not make it.
I am glad to be able to wear this badge and to show my support for families who have been affected by premature birth. Preterm or premature birth is the second-leading cause of newborn death. However, there is very little awareness of this issue.
I would also like to show my support for the international campaign Light it up Purple. As we drove into Canberra last night I was proud to see the iconic Questacon building lit up in purple. Questacon was in good company with the likes of the Empire State Building and others around the world.
The National Premmie Foundation is an Australian charity. I would like to mention a young lady from my electorate, Bess Gairns, who lives in Mungindi, in north-west New South Wales. She is the proud mother of young Eddison, who was born prematurely. He is now a healthy young man with a great interest in John Deere tractors and is clearly going to follow in his father's footsteps and be a cotton farmer. Bess has done some great work with the National Premmie Foundation and I commend her efforts in promoting awareness of the 25,000 deaths every year in Australia from premature birth. There are obvious difficulties in having a premature born child when you live in regional Australia. Bess and her partner, Andrew, certainly know that.
This is a very serious issue and I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this matter to the House today.
Shop Small
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:54): This month, November, is Shop Small month, a month that encourages us all to find small local businesses and to support them in whatever way we can. It is something I do a great deal but, last weekend, I was particularly pleased to attend an expo of young fashion designers in Parramatta called the Multi-Ethnicity Hair and Beauty Expo. It featured the work of some of our newer Australians, who draw on their own culture to design in the Australian context. I was lucky enough to buy the jacket I am wearing. I do not usually ask people to pay attention to my clothes, but they can today! It was made by a young woman, Wanika. I will not tell you her brand name, but it will probably be on my Facebook page later. She runs a fledgling company. She has been in business for about a year. I have seen a range of her work, which attracts particularly the young. It is a little funky for me, as I am well into my 50s. But they are fine pieces of work. She is, along with a whole stack of other young women, making great strides in establishing real identities for themselves in my electorate of Parramatta and around the country.
I would encourage all members of parliament to do their bit for Shop Small and to find fledgling businesses in their own electorate and to give them all the support they can.
F1 in Schools
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (13:55): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and recognise the achievements of several Australian schools, including Brighton Secondary School, in the F1 in Schools challenge. It is the world's largest science, technology, engineering and mathematics competition. It involves over nine million students from 17,000 schools in 31 nations. Students as young as 10 are designing, testing and making miniature Formula One cars, capable of doing 80 kilometres an hour.
Students learn leadership; team building; project management; business planning; public speaking; marketing; collaboration; and writing and presentation skills.
There were 38 teams in the final racing in Austin, Texas, including three Australian teams. In 2012 the Brighton Secondary School team Cold Fusion won: World Champions, Best Engineered Car, Fastest Car and Knockout Champions. It was also winner of the Ashes Race between Australia and England.
In the Austin Texas round, the Brighton Secondary School team, a collaboration team with Donabate Community College, in Ireland, came sixth outright and won Best Team Portfolio and Best Team Collaboration.
Students from Engadine High School, in Sydney, came fifth outright. First outright in World Champions were students from Phoenix P12 Community College in Ballarat and Pine Rivers State High School in Queensland.
Brighton Secondary School is well known for its excellence in music and volleyball. Making the finals two years in a row shows its excellence in science, mathematics and engineering.
Nyanda State High School
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:57): I rise on behalf of my constituents to raise an issue concerning the closure of Nyanda State High School. I was saddened to hear, on 17 September, that the Minister for Education, Training and Employment in Queensland, John-Paul Langbroek, was going to close down Nyanda State High School, a school which is nearly 60 years old—a school that spawned Billy Thorpe and Lobby Lloyde and many other great people. It is a school with a greater enrolment number than Everton Park High School on the north side, which is being kept open. When I heard about the decision to close Nyanda State High School I immediately wrote to the state education minister, as per section 32 of the Judicial Review Act 1991, seeking within 30 days a statement of reasons so that I could go to the community and explain why their viable high school, in a high-growth area, was being closed.
Obviously, under the Judicial Review Act a minister has 30 days to respond. The Hon. John-Paul Langbroek did not respond in 30 days. I waited another 30 days. There was still no response. Now we are beyond 60 days, where I am asking the education minister in this chamber to speak to his state counterpart, John-Paul Langbroek, and ask him to provide a statement of reasons as per the Judicial Review Act, as to why he closed this perfectly viable high school in a high-growth area. I think it is just so the asset can be sold off. That is shameful.
Surf-Lifesaving
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (13:58): Across Australia surf-lifesaving clubs have started their seasons. In Gippsland we started last weekend with our junior program called Nippers. I would like to congratulate all the young surf-lifesavers right across Australia for getting involved in this outstanding program. It is one of the great community organisations in our nation.
The Nippers movement provides young people with a real path towards leadership roles in their communities, not just within their surf clubs. It also provides them with an opportunity to learn first aid, teamwork, valuable life skills and how to overcome challenges.
I wish all the Australian Nippers and their families every success this season. I note for the benefit of the House that many members of parliament are actually members of their surf-lifesaving clubs, including the Prime Minister at Queenscliff. There is a Parliamentary Friends of Surf Lifesaving, which the member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Corangamite are very keen to support and reconstitute in this the 44th Parliament. So I would urge all members who are interested in supporting the Surf-Lifesaving clubs to get behind the parliamentary friends group. It has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past and it is good to see the member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Corangamite taking up the cudgels again on behalf of Surf-Lifesavers right across our nation.
The SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Investment will be absent from question time this week. The Treasurer will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Investment. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on behalf of the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Automotive Industry
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Car workers Gary and Anthony are sitting in the gallery today. Like 250,000 other automotive workers, they want to see a strong industry. I also refer to the Prime Minister's pre-election commitment to cut half a billion dollars from the car industry. Prime Minister, is the government still going to cut half a billion dollars from our industry, and how many workers will lose their jobs as a result of your decisions?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. On day 1 of the new government we saved the car industry from Labor's $1.8 billion fringe benefits tax hit. That is what we did. Today in this parliament we are seeking to save the car industry from the carbon tax, which has added up to $400 to the cost of a domestically produced new car. Apart from that, we will implement the policies that we took to the election, and the policies that we took to the election are designed to ensure that, amongst other things, the car industry has the best possible chance of surviving into the future.
Carbon Pricing
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House what impact the scrapping of the carbon tax will have on electricity prices, particularly for the families and businesses in my electorate of Cowan?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:02): I thank the member for Cowan for his question. I regret to inform the House that under the former government power prices just about doubled. They literally doubled over the life of the former government. The carbon tax was not the only factor in the doubling of prices but it certainly made a bad situation very much worse. The whole point of the carbon tax was to put up the price of power because power is responsible for the bulk of Australians' emissions. The whole point of abolishing the carbon tax is to reduce Australians' power bills. That is the whole point of abolishing the carbon tax, to reduce Australians' power bills by on average $200 a year per household. This is a very important benefit that we wish to give to the households of Australia. Abolishing the carbon tax will reduce power bills by $200 a year as part of the $550 a year cost savings that it will give to the households of Australia. Let us be absolutely crystal clear: remove the carbon tax and power prices will fall. As the chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said just the other day, what went up will clearly come down when you take away the carbon tax. He said: 'Prices went up by nine per cent. When you take it away, you reverse that. It's really quite straightforward.' That is what Rod Sims said. Members opposite introduced the carbon tax without a mandate. Now they are actively obstructing the mandate that the new government most clearly has. Members opposite should learn to take the electorate seriously.
Human Rights: Torture
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's comments deploring torture at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka where he then added: 'We accept that sometimes in difficult circumstances difficult things happen.' Prime Minister, what are the difficult things and what are the difficult circumstances?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:04): I thank the member opposite for her question. I simply reiterate that the Australian government deplores the use of torture—always has and always will.
Carbon Pricing: Sugar Industry
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (14:05): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer the minister to the report of Queensland cane growers that shows the carbon tax will cost the sugar industry in Queensland $20 million over three years, putting thousands of jobs at risk. How will the government reduce costs and save jobs by abolishing the carbon tax?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:05): I would like to thank Mr Pitt, who has won the seat of Hinkler after the very distinguished career of Mr Paul Neville. The problem we have is that over the other side of the chamber we have a very interesting group of people. Over the other side of the chamber we have government-change deniers—a government-change denier there and a government-change denier there. Some of them are not denying there is a change of government, some of them have got queries about a change of government, but generally they are government-change deniers. On a more sombre note, what we have in Queensland is the fact that we have thousands of people whose jobs are at risk because they are denying the change of government.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Those on my left will cease interjecting.
Mr JOYCE: They are denying the mandate of the people. We have people in Queensland who are going to lose millions of dollars in the sugar industry because they deny the change of government
By reason of their denying the change of government, we have a situation where less money is getting back through the farm gate to the people of Hinkler, to the people of Dawson, to the people in the sugar industry. It is not just the sugar industry which is suffering this; it is also the cattle industry, it is the sheep industry and it is the grain industry. Remember, after these government-change deniers, the carbon tax, which was the essence of their government, will come into transport. Therefore, on everything we do, there will be a little legacy of these government-change deniers, unless they decide to accept the truth that the government has changed.
Child Care
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (14:07): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. Can the minister rule out childcare changes to the family assistance act prior to the Productivity Commission review being completed? And can she specifically rule out making any changes to limit the flexibility of family day care that is currently provided under sections 205 to 207 of the act?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:08): It is interesting to receive a question from the opposition minister who presided over a 44 per cent increase in the cost of child care during her time in government and simply sat on her hands and, at one stage, said that it was only going up by 57c a week. The opposition minister has asked me about family day care and long day care prior to the Productivity Commission review. We are launching—the Prime Minister and I actually launched the draft terms of reference about a year ago—an inquiry into child care in order to make it more affordable, flexible and accessible for families. The one message I have always heard and we have always heard on this side concerns the lack of affordability and flexibility.
The opposition minister is talking about changes to family day care and changes to other forms of care, but everything that comes under the purview of child care will be considered by the Productivity Commission—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
Ms LEY: opposition minister—everything. We are having a wide-ranging inquiry. Nothing is on or off the table, and nor should it be.
Ms Kate Ellis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question is about making changes prior to receiving the Productivity Commission's report.
The SPEAKER: It is not sufficient to restate the question. You must say what is the point of order required.
Ms Kate Ellis: Relevance.
The SPEAKER: Then say so.
Ms Kate Ellis: It is relevance. The question is about prior to receiving the report.
Ms LEY: I have no plans to make any changes prior to the Productivity Commission review. The Productivity Commission reports in October 2014. So what the shadow minister is asking me is what I am going to do before a review even starts, before it is even completed, before it even comes to the parliament, before we even consider any legislative changes. The question does not make any sense.
National Security
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:10): My question is to the Prime Minister. There were media reports emerging this morning that Australia has tapped the personal phone of the Indonesian President. Prime Minister, is this true? Is Australia still doing it? And do you support it?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:10): I do thank the member for his question. I am aware of media reports alleging Australian intelligence gathering. I wish to make a number of points in response. First of all, all governments gather information and all governments know that every other government gathers information. I should add for the member's benefit that the Australian government never comments on specific intelligence matters. This has been the long tradition of governments of both political persuasions and I do not intend to change that today. I should also say that the Australian government uses all the resources at its disposal, including information, to help our friends and our allies, not to harm them.
My first duty is to protect Australia and to advance our national interests, and I will never, ever depart from that. Consistent with that duty, I will never say or do anything that might damage the strong relationship and the close cooperation that we have with Indonesia, which is, all in all, our most important relationship—a relationship that I am determined to foster, a relationship that I am determined will grow stronger in the months and years ahead.
Mining
Mr IRONS (Swan) (14:12): My question is to the Treasurer. What would be the effect on debt, deficit and growth from the abolition of the mining tax? How will it build a stronger economy, particularly for the families and businesses in my electorate of Swan?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:12): I thank the member for Swan for his question. More than 4,000 of his constituents work in the mining industry, and that is hugely important to his electorate. A vast number of others would be working in associated industries for the mining industry. Mining is hugely important for Australia. It represents more than 10 per cent of our economy and more than 55 per cent of all merchandise exports from Australia.
When the Labor Party introduced the mining tax all those years ago—the original mining tax, because there were five versions in fewer than five years—it was meant to raise nearly $50 billion. So far, we think it might have raised $400 million. But I am being generous; the numbers have not come in. So far, it has been an absolute disaster on every front. The problem was that Labor spent all the money they had never collected. They spent all that money, handing it out here, handing it out there. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition was one of the great heroes of the mining tax, which he described as:
This is big economic reform which will share the benefits of the mining boom with all Australians on all incomes.
That is a bit like the fishes and the loaves. Here is this $400 million tax. It is going to go to everyone. Everyone is going to win out of it. But to be fair—I do not want to be unfair to the Leader of the Opposition—it was the member for Lilley who came up with the mining tax. He was right when he said:
If we don't have revenue from the tax, then we can't make the investments.
That was Wayne Swan, ABC Radio, Perth, 2011. Absolutely right. If there is no money from the tax, then you cannot keep spending against it. But Labor did. Labor committed $16.7 billion of expenditure against the tax that hardly raises any money—hardly raises any money. That is irresponsible, and it is irresponsible for the Labor Party to oppose us now. I want to quote the member for Lilley again, because he is very quotable. He said in this place—and you have to get a load of the beginning of it—in 2008:
We have built a $22 billion surplus to fight inflation, put downward pressure on interest rates. The opposition through their irresponsible actions up in the Senate are trying to punch a huge hole in that surplus.
I say to the member for Lilley: speak to the front bench here and explain to them that if they really do care about the budget and if they really do care about reducing the huge legacy of debt that they have left the Australian people, then they will immediately support the repeal of the flawed mining tax.
Child Care
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (14:15): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. Given that the minister said yesterday that every dollar in the childcare system is up for review and, yes, the rebate is on the table, will the minister guarantee that no family will be worse off or have their childcare assistance cut as a result of this review?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:16): It is an interesting point of view for the opposition minister to put: that as a result of a review families might be worse off. What a review does, let me remind the House, is to go out and in this case it is broad-ranging—it seeks everybody's opinion. In our case, we are actually asking parents what they want the system to do for them, not telling them. What that review does is bring information to government that then makes informed policy decisions and choices. How can a review possibly make a difference to payments? I noted the slightly hysterical words of the opposition minister during her doorstop yesterday, and I would like to reiterate that the Productivity Commission will consider how the childcare system can be made more flexible, more affordable and accessible. There is nobody better to look at it than the PC, and in fact it has been welcomed from all sides. Our friends from United Voice have put out a media release today saying how pleased they are that the Productivity Commission is doing this work, Shadow Minister. It is the first public examination of the childcare system for 20 years. When you consider, Madam Speaker, the appalling record of the opposition when in government—with 44 per cent hikes in child care, parents unable to afford to have their children looked after and educated while they went to work. We have, Shadow Minister, no plans to index the childcare rebate. We have no plans to index the childcare rebate.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (14:18): My question is to the Minister for Immigration. Will the minister outline the latest steps the government has taken with regard to working with the government of Sri Lanka to deny people smugglers the opportunity to market their product to potential illegal immigrants coming to Australia?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:18): I thank the member for Macarthur for his question. As a member representing Western Sydney, he will be pleased to be able to be reporting back to his constituents that since Operation Sovereign Borders began, there has been a 75 per cent decline in illegal arrivals by boat to Australia. I know that will be of keen interest to the people who elected a Liberal-National government to achieve those sorts of results.
Sri Lanka is a critical partner in our efforts to ensure that we put paid to the people-smuggling trade. They have been a consistent supporter, not only for this government, but of previous governments. The support that went back in return for the Sri Lankan government from previous governments has, frankly, not measured up to the opportunity that was there to realise the full potential. Working with the Prime Minister and others, I was pleased to recommend that two Bay class vessels that are a part of the border protection fleet—Customs vessels—should be gifted to the Sri Lankan government, and the Prime Minister was in Sri Lanka on the weekend to make that announcement. That announcement of gifting actual patrol boats to be actively engaged in patrols to stop people coming to Australia illegally by boat is the sort of cooperation and assistance that I know the Sri Lankan government was seeking.
I was there in January with the now Minister for Foreign Affairs and the now Minister for Justice, who will recall also that long-range patrol assets were critical in their area of weakness that needed to be filled to ensure that they would have that capability. We are pleased to provide it. I am also pleased to report that the practice of screen-in, screen-out for Sri Lankan arrivals has achieved new levels of results under this government. Under the previous government, one in six were screened out this year—one in six. There has been one vessel with Sri Lankans on board that has turned up under this government. It had 79 passengers, and all 79 have been returned to Sri Lanka.
I was also asked about what other measures are being taken in this area. We are also fulfilling our promise to ensure that the 33,000 people who turned up on the previous government's watch and who came for a permanent visa will not get one. Those opposite wanted to ensure—and still want to ensure, it would seem—that they get what the people smugglers sought to give them and that they paid for, because they are frustrating the Senate and deferring motions regarding our re-introduction of temporary protection visas. It is not bad enough that the opposition wants to run a campaign for the people smugglers' right to know, now they want us to fulfil the promise by ensuring that they got the permanent protection visas that that government wanted to give them previously, and this government never will.
Child Care
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (14:21): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. Minister, in light of your previous answer, do you promise that your government will not means test the childcare rebate?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:21): I refer to my previous answer that we have no plans to means test the childcare rebate. But I would like to take this opportunity, since the shadow minister has decided to ask me another question along the same lines as her previous two, to remind people of Labor's fabulous written-in-gold promise, in child care—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: in fairness, the minister just conceded that she is about to not be directly relevant to the question.
The SPEAKER: I call the Assistant Minister for Education. Before I ask her to speak, I do acknowledge that the two last questions from the member for Adelaide were very similar but I allowed them to stand and I do understand the frustration of the assistant minister; however, I would ask her to return to the subject of the question.
Ms LEY: Of 260 new centres, 38 were built—page 2 of a press release, buried behind a whole lot of guff. Too embarrassed to talk about the reality.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! We will have quiet, thank you. I call the Assistant Minister for Education and ask her to return to the substance of the question.
Ms LEY: I repeat my previous statement: the government has no plans to means test the childcare rebate.
Education
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (14:23): My question is to the Minster for Education. I refer the minister to comments made by the principal of Ocean Road Primary School, a newly independent public school, Mr Dean Finlay. The principal suggests that already there is an improvement in teacher quality, curriculum and principal autonomy, all leading to improvement in student outcomes. What plans does the government have to extend local decision making in schools?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education and Leader of the House) (14:24): I thank the honourable member for Canning for his question about independent public schools. I can tell him that Mr Finlay, the principal of the Ocean Road Primary School, is right. He is correct. Independent public schools are transformational schools in Western Australia. They are making an enormous difference to student outcomes, to the communities in which they are being developed, and the Western Australian government should be congratulated for the excellent work they are doing in creating transformational, independent public schools.
Mr Finlay is not alone; he is in very good company, when it comes to support for more school autonomy. The OECD, in their PISA report, said: 'PISA show a clear relationship between learning outcomes and the relative autonomy of schools.' The UK schools white paper, in 2010, said: 'Across the world, the case for the benefits of school autonomy has been established beyond doubt,' and the report of choice for the opposition, the Gonski report—even in the Gonski report, which the Labor Party likes to quote—says studies have shown that school leaders who are able to make decisions, including decisions about hiring staff and over the school budget, do well in terms of student achievement.
Because of that, we are going to extend independent public schools across Australia, working with the states and territories in cooperation. We are going to put $70 million aside in a fund to encourage more independent public schools, because we think it does have a major transformational effect in student outcomes and in local communities. Many members of the Labor Party have supported this policy over the years. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said: 'Today in Western Australia, as a result of our resources and reforms, more than 30 state schools are now called independent public schools.' In fact, the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd said: 'We go to the importance of greater autonomy for school principals so that there is much greater power to hire and fire and to use the resources available to the school with discretion by the principal as they see fit.'
And the shadow Treasurer—who is hanging his head, of course, because he knows what is coming—in his book In Hearts & Minds: A Blueprint for Modern Labor said: 'Western Australia with the support of a federal Labor government has taken more tentative steps towards more independence for public schools.' But his view is not shared by the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition said: 'Tony Abbott and Christopher Pyne want to follow Premier Colin Barnett's lead in Western Australia by privatising our public schools. It is eerily similar to Angelo Gavrielatos, head of the Teachers Federation, who said: 'We are part of a privatisation agenda.' Once more, the Leader of the Opposition is showing he is the cat's paw of the union movement—in this case, the Teachers Federation.
Mr Shorten: Prime Minister, the member for Farrer has just repeatedly refused—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. The minister has not completed his answer.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the procedure for question time is that the Leader of the Opposition has to indicate to whom his question is to be asked, not just stand up and shout a minister's name and start giving a speech.
The SPEAKER: I take your point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will direct his question to whom—
Child Care
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:27): My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The member for Farrer has repeatedly refused to inoculate the childcare rebate and payments from the Productivity Commission recommendations, in her last two questions. On the other hand, before the election, the coalition was saying—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will put that piece of paper down that he is holding up.
Mr SHORTEN: there was no chance of touching the childcare rebate.
The SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Mr SHORTEN: Can we stop the weasel words, Prime Minister, for our parents' sakes and their childcare payments?
The SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Leader of the House, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition it would be nice if you were courteous and used the courtesies of the House, and when I say to you that time has expired, it has expired. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I simply point out that—I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would like to rewind that entire incident but he has not actually asked a question of anybody on this side of the House; therefore I am wondering whether—we have an answer prepared, or would you like to move to the next questioner? I am not sure what the question is, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The point is that the Leader of the Opposition did make a statement, which could be interpreted as a question. I will put it to the Prime Minister to answer, should he wish.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:29): I am very happy to be standing here to support the Assistant Minister for Education who has answered, very well, these questions. To speak in support of the Assistant Minister for Education, this government is determined to do whatever we reasonably can to improve our childcare system.
The childcare system has not been comprehensively reviewed for more than 20 years. We think that the best way—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat for one moment. To the Leader of the Opposition: it is out of order to utilise those pieces of paper in that manner. Kindly desist.
Mr ABBOTT: We think that the best way to consider the childcare system is to give it to the Productivity Commission, which has done such good work when it comes to disabilities, when it comes to aged care and when it comes to paid parental leave. This is the right body to advise us as to how we can best look at our childcare system to try to ensure that it best reflects the 24/7 nature of the modern workplace and the diversity of the modern Australian family.
So that is what we propose to do. I can indicate to the House that we will do a much better job when it comes to child care than the former government did, which promised to end the double drop-off and which promised 260 childcare centres, and broke that promise after just 38 of them had been delivered. But what we will not be doing is breaking our pre-election commitments, and we have no intention to means test.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? Does the Manager of Opposition Business have a point of order to make?
Mr Burke: Not now. It appears the promise has concluded as well.
The SPEAKER: That is out of order.
Mr Burke: Do you want me to withdraw?
The SPEAKER: Just withdraw.
Mr Burke: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Broadband
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Communications. I remind the minister that 19.6 per cent of households in Corangamite do not have access to the internet at home, and that a key impediment to home internet access is affordability. When will Australians learn more about the impact of the former government's NBN on broadband affordability, and how will this be changed by the current government's plan to deliver the NBN?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (14:31): I thank the honourable member for her question, and I note her passion and strong advocacy for ensuring her community has access to very fast broadband. She is quite right: the biggest barrier to broadband is not technology, it is affordability. Australians on the lowest incomes have the lowest rate of internet usage in their households.
Of course, under Labor's NBN plan—and this is their plan, not ours—average revenue per user was going to treble from 2012 to 2021. So they were going to spend tens of billions of dollars on broadband and make it less affordable for Australians, not more affordable.
But of course the truth is that there was a lot about the NBN that the Labor government knew that it did not share with the Australian people. The former minister, the member for Grayndler, was well aware from the NBN Co. itself that it was not going to hit its targets for 30 June 2014. He refused to release the reports and indications that showed it was going to miss that target by 70 per cent. He then—
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker I rise on a point of order. I would ask the minister to table the alleged report he is referring to.
The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. There is no point of order.
Mr TURNBULL: The honourable member would be well aware that it was tabled, actually, in the Australian Financial Review, so it is hardly a secret!
But yet, there is more—there is a great deal more. On the weekend we learnt that the Labor government had been advised by its investment banker, Lazard, that the NBN, on the government's plan, was going to result in a $31 billion loss—a negative net present value. And they did not share that with anyone. The NBN has been the characteristically reckless Labor undertaking from the very start—from the moment it was conceived by Senator Conroy and Kevin Rudd on the back of a beer coaster on a VIP flight.
And that beer coaster should be elevated. It should be an exhibit in Labor's pool room of horrors, it really should.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: No! It should be there with other historic artefacts, such as the fridge at the Lodge on which Prime Minister Gough Whitlam approved the Khemlani loans arrangements, to bypass the loans council. And, of course, the Labor pool room of horrors should not be without the lazy Susan from the Hong Ho Vietnamese restaurant where the Leader of the Opposition plotted the downfall of Kevin Rudd!
Minister for Communications
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Communications. Given the answer that the minister has just given the parliament, will he now release his incoming minister's brief?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (14:35): I am delighted to get that question from the shadow minister! Now we are on the topic of releasing things, I call on the Leader of the Opposition to release—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He is once again indicating that he is about to be not directly relevant. It should not be the situation where we have to—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! We will have some order, thank you! I would ask the Manager of Opposition Business which standing order he is referring to and then make his point.
Mr Burke: The standing order with respect to direct relevance.
The SPEAKER: And?
Mr Burke: And the minister is not being directly relevant to the question. And he has even just flagged to the parliament that he does not intend to be.
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable the Minister for Communications and ask him to be relevant to the question.
Mr TURNBULL: Madam Speaker, I will be very directly relevant, but I am concerned that the shadow minister opposite, who recently compared this place to Hogwarts, now obviously believes he has magical powers of being able to foretell the future. The decisions about incoming minister's briefs are taken not by the minister but by the senior public servants that take them, but I would be prepared—very, very happy—to encourage my secretary to release that incoming minister's brief if the Leader of the Opposition were prepared to consent to release all of the cabinet papers relating to the NBN, because Senator Wong—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order—
Mr TURNBULL: That is very relevant.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business? You have had one point of relevancy.
Mr Burke: The question had—
The SPEAKER: What is it? Another point of order?
Mr Burke: The minister is defying your ruling to be directly relevant.
The SPEAKER: No, he is not. There is no point of order. The Minister for Communications.
Mr TURNBULL: Transparency is the order of the day and I embrace that wholeheartedly. Senator Wong went on television on Sunday and, reacting to the report about this investment advice—
Mr Dreyfus: It's got nothing to do with the question.
Mr TURNBULL: It's got nothing to do with your interests, has it? You can't stand the truth, can you? But here it is—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: Senator Wong said the negative $31 billion figure was 'selective advice'. She did not deny that was given to the government, so we know that was given to the government. The way to put it into context—
The SPEAKER: The minister will return—
Mr TURNBULL: is for all those documents to be released—
The SPEAKER: Minister!
Mr TURNBULL: and you can do it.
An opposition member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There is no shame in having some vociferous exchanges.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, could the minister please table the document he was referring to.
The SPEAKER: Does the minister have a document which is not confidential?
Mr TURNBULL: Madam Speaker, it gets worse and worse: he thinks he is in Hogwarts! He thinks I had a document under—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat! The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: If it is of assistance, the minister was referring to his incoming government brief in his answer and it should be tabled.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: I think we don't need a point of order. There was no point of order. We will return to questions.
Food and Grocery Code of Conduct
Dr STONE (Murray) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. I remind the minister that the draft food and grocery industry code of conduct has been released today. Will the minister outline how the government's work with Coles, Woolworths and the Australian Food and Grocery Council will benefit suppliers in the electorate of Murray?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (14:39): I thank the member for Murray for her question and her abiding interest in this topic. Today is not only the birthday of my friend and colleague the Minister for Health and my friend and colleague the Minister for the Environment, it is actually the birthday of the Food and Grocery Prescribed Industry Code of Conduct. It is a very exciting day for those in the supply chain and I am getting a lot of encouragement about the significance of this day. We have seen for many years concerns about the imbalance in market power where these very large businesses, our major supermarket retailers, have been dealing with much smaller suppliers and small business and how at times the small businesses feel quite vulnerable and quite unable to exercise great commercial leverage because they are so dependent on those supermarkets.
Our encouragement to Coles and Woolworths and the Food and Grocery Council, recognising that they know their industry best, is to do their best work in coming up with a collaborative code, in working cooperatively to address the legitimate concerns that are there. They started that work when the coalition was in opposition and, despite the clear and consistent message from the coalition, the previous Labor government was all over the place. In fact, that work was actually ruined by a politically motivated intervention by the previous government to try and position itself, Labor, as doing something about this area of concern but then actually destroying the very collaboration that was leading to the outcome that we have today. So today I was pleased to receive this document.
This is a voluntary code. Just so people are aware of what a voluntary code is, that means people can volunteer to participate, but once they have chosen to participate it becomes a prescribed code and they are then bound to abide by the provisions of this code. So if Coles and Woolworths, as they have stated today, volunteer to engage—and we encourage all retailers to do that—then if they decide to withdraw everyone will know, everyone will see that action. For people who misunderstand the nature of these codes, I hope that gives them a very clear indication of what is going on.
It mandates grocery supply agreements which—for the member for Murray—will deal with transparency and predictable terms. It will deal with what are fair and reasonable minimal terms. It will put a limit on the kinds of changes that can be made mid-contract. It will talk about what happens with shrinkage and wastage, where some suppliers in the past have been expected to fund shrinkage and wastage in a retail business even though they have no control over that business. It deals with delisting. It deals with payment predictability. It deals with how product quality and standards will be dealt with. It will deal with how own brands are dealt with, so that an idea or an innovation that a supplier might raise with a supermarket is not picked up and run off to the own brand area and perhaps given to another supplier. It has dispute resolution mechanisms. This is a very significant and substantial step forward in an area of market concern. Where Labor failed to act, the coalition has acted. I recognise and welcome Coles, Woolworths and the Australian Food and Grocery Council—a good piece of work. (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. How much money do you currently have allocated for the purposes of boat buybacks in Indonesia?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:43): I can assure the House that this side of the House has deployed and is deploying the full arsenal of measures that we have available to stop the boats. And we are funding those initiatives, as we set out in our policies before the election. And we are deploying those funds to achieve a very simple purpose—that is, to stop the boats. Since Operation Sovereign Borders commenced, the number of illegal boat arrivals to Australia has fallen by 75 per cent. I'll call that value for money.
Road Infrastructure
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (14:44): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Is the minister aware that congestion on Parramatta Road has reduced average traffic speeds to just 21 kilometres per hour and that the M4 is heavily congested for more than 13 hours a day? How is the Australian government's $1.5 billion commitment to the WestConnex project going to improve the living standards of people in my electorate of Macquarie and in Greater Western Sydney?
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:44): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Not Deputy Speaker.
Mr BRIGGS: Madam Speaker, my apology—not a good start, Madam Speaker.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has the call.
Mr BRIGGS: Firstly, can I acknowledge the member for Macquarie particularly on her work in recent weeks with her community in relation to the bushfires which have caused so much damage. Congratulations. No wonder you have been sent back here for the fourth time, member for Macquarie.
Of course you are right, the WestConnex investment will be a game-changing investment in Western Sydney, and to ensure that the Prime Minister is the infrastructure Prime Minister, this is a key measure to ensure our productivity performance increases. This is a project which is long overdue. It does make you wonder why for 20 years the Labor Party in New South Wales did not go ahead. What else they were up to in their time in government?
This project will deal with a range of issues. It will deal with reducing travel times between Parramatta Road and Sydney airport by 40 minutes, which I thought the members of Western Sydney would appreciate. It will halve bus travel times between inner west and the city; it will bypass 52 sets of traffic lights; and it will remove 3,000 trucks a day from Parramatta road by putting them underground. It will lead to neighbourhood revitalisation and it will create some 10,000 jobs during construction, delivering more than $20 billion in economic benefits to New South Wales and to our country. It is of course our premier city and should have premier infrastructure, and it does not at this time. But with the infrastructure Prime Minister in charge, it will have again.
We will ensure that not just in Sydney but also across Australia we will get our country moving. We will not be spending our money, our productive capacity, on pink batt programs and overpriced school halls. We will be focusing on economically productive infrastructure like the East West Link project in Melbourne, the Gateway North in Brisbane, the north-south in Adelaide and like the Perth Gateway and Swan Valley Bypass. We will be delivering projects across our country to lift our productive capacity.
The truth is that we are facing a more difficult fiscal environment because the Labor Party has left a mountain of debt. We have asked the Productivity Commission to look at ways in which we can reduce the cost and the time of these projects and ensure that we get more for less and in quicker time. The Australian people are sick of governments talking about infrastructure; they actually want to see some infrastructure on the ground, particularly the WestConnex projects in Sydney. I congratulate Premier O'Farrell for getting on with the job and we know that with the infrastructure Prime Minister in charge Australia is once again open for business.
Mr Dreyfus: I would ask that the minister table the document from which he read every word.
The SPEAKER: Does the assistant minister have anything that he wishes to table that is not confidential?
Mr BRIGGS: No, they were confidential.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I refer you to page 606 of House of Representatives Practice and the ruling of Speaker Snedden, which said that it had been the practice of the Speaker in the past to first ask the minister whether he was reading from a document and if the answer happened to be yes, whether he was reading from a confidential document. I have been reluctant to raise this with you, Madam Speaker, but this is not the first time it has occurred and I think that these precedents are important and should be followed in this place.
The SPEAKER: I thank member for Hunter for his eloquent contribution to the debate. Was the assistant minister reading from a document and is he prepared to table it?
Mr BRIGGS: No, I was referring to notes.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, further to your ruling—
The SPEAKER: I made no ruling.
Mr ALBANESE: the minister said he was reading from notes. He did not say they were confidential, and therefore he should table them. My point of order is that he should table the document. He has not said that it is confidential, therefore he should table it.
The SPEAKER: I made no ruling. There is no point of order. My understanding, if you check with Hansard, is that he stated it was confidential, but if he wishes to do so a second time that would be in order.
Mr BRIGGS: You have to keep up. I did the first time!
Asylum Seekers
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Given the minister's failure to answer my previous question about the allocation of money available for buying back Indonesian boats, why then did the minister confirm in Friday's Australian newspaper that all the money for the boat buybacks had been reallocated? Why is the minister prepared to talk to the newspapers but not to the parliament?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:50): I have already fully answered that question and I refer the shadow minister to my earlier answer.
Employment
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (14:50): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Employment. Is the minister aware that the unemployment rate in Tasmania is the highest in the nation? How will the government support unemployed job seekers and employers in my electorate of Bass and in Tasmania more broadly?
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister for Employment) (14:50): I thank the member for Bass for his question. Yes, I am aware that the unemployment rate in Tasmania is the highest in the country and I would say to Her Majesty's opposition that this is a national tragedy. It is not only that the unemployment rate is the highest in the country but that the participation rate is also the lowest. You might think this is a joke, but I do not think that the people of Tasmania believe unemployment is a joke, I am assured of that. I think that it comes as no surprise that the unemployment rate is so high because the great state of Tasmania has been subject to the twin evils of a Labor-Green alliance at a federal level and a Labor-Green alliance at a state level. It is no wonder that the Tasmanian economy was stagnating under that regime.
But the coalition does have a plan. We have a plan to create a million jobs over five years and two million jobs over 10 years. Our plan starts with scrapping the job-destroying carbon tax and scrapping the job-destroying mining tax. And if the members of Her Majesty's opposition were serious about creating jobs they would get on side with the government—they would get on side with the government and support the repeal of those two job-destroying taxes.
Specifically in relation to the issue of employment in Tasmania: we have a jobs plan for Tasmania to assist businesses to employ people—a plan to provide $3,250 to assist Tasmanian businesses to employ unemployed Tasmanians and unemployed eligible job seekers.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Grayndler.
Mr HARTSUYKER: This is an important initiative. We have also got, as part of our election commitments, a job commitment bonus to encourage young people into employment. We have got a relocation assistance plan to assist job seekers to move to where the jobs are and we have got a program which we will be putting in place to encourage employers to employ older Australians.
I know that, unlike the members opposite, the member for Bass is concerned about the unemployment level in Tasmania. The member for Bass is concerned about the future of his state. The coalition has a plan for jobs. It is about time the opposition got out of the way.
Asylum Seekers
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister, given the minister for immigration's less than clear answers to the last two questions. Put simply, Prime Minister: has the government abandoned the boat buyback policy or is it still live? Is it part of your arsenal or have you dumped it?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, given the interest in the niceties of this place and the previous questions and answers. It has become part of the habit of the opposition to refer to members as 'you' or 'your'. It is quite clear they should be referring to the minister, or to the Prime Minister, or to the member by their seat. It has happened all afternoon and the Manager of Opposition Business should ensure that is properly done. I would ask him to either rephrase the question or perhaps, in future, try and get it right.
The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the Opposition. There is some relevance to the point made.
Mr SHORTEN: My question is to the Prime Minister, to be perfectly clear: to the Prime Minister. The minister for immigration, on the last two occasions, has not assisted the parliament on the following matter so I would seek the assistance of the Prime Minister.
Is the boat buyback policy of the government still alive or have you abandoned ship? Have you got a budget for it? Is the government going to spend the money? Is the boat buyback policy alive or dead?
The SPEAKER: You are now engaging in argument. Before I call the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition was engaging in argument, which is not acceptable in questions; so if the Prime Minister could ignore the latter part of the question I will give him the call, but I will first give it to the Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: Just very quickly, Madam Speaker, not only was it a question full of argument but also—
The SPEAKER: I just made that point.
Mr Pyne: Yes, you did. But he made exactly the same mistake that I drew attention to in my earlier point of order and described the Prime Minister as 'you' again. Now, he really needs to try and get this right.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the House, but it was in the part of the question that I asked be not paid attention to.
Ms Owens: You can't use the word 'he' in this place—be careful!
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Parramatta will desist.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:55): I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and I am very pleased to say to him that the government stands by all its policies. We stand by all our policies and the reason why we stand by all our policies is, while they have not finally worked, they certainly are working. Illegal arrivals by boat are down by more than 75 per cent in the first two months of this government as opposed to the last two months of the former government and, frankly, members opposite are just a little bit embarrassed about the sorry state to which they reduced our country's border protection.
Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Justice. As the minister would be aware, the issue of outlaw motorcycle gangs is of great concern to my electorate of La Trobe, as it is in Victoria generally. How is the government working with the states and territories to use Commonwealth powers to help put these groups out of business and to make my constituents safer?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice) (14:56): I thank the member for La Trobe for that question. As a former police officer, we know that he understands the threat that criminal gangs pose to our lifestyle here in Australia. I also acknowledge that the member for La Trobe is the author of the policies that I now have the privilege of implementing to tackle gangs across the country, and that he authored them prior to the 2010 election.
We know that bikie gangs are the public face of organised crime in Australia. They are involved in all aspects of criminal activity including gun-running, the illicit drugs trade, prostitution, extortion, money-laundering and the corruption of public officials. These gangs have national and often international dimensions and that is why they demand a national response. That is why the coalition is implementing our policy of a national antigang squad. I have had the privilege of rolling out the Queensland strike team with my colleague the Queensland police minister. I have announced the implementation of the Victorian strike team with the Victorian Premier and will soon be making further announcements about the strike team in New South Wales. I have also instructed that the Anti-gangs Intelligence Coordination Centre be moved from the Australian Federal Police to the Australian Crime Commission. This will be a one stop shop for intelligence for all police and law enforcement agencies across the country so they can tackle gangs within their own jurisdictions. It will link back to all aspects of Commonwealth law enforcement but also to other government agencies such as Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office, and Customs and Immigration.
Our approach to Commonwealth law enforcement is in stark contrast to what the previous government did. The funding cuts made by Labor to law enforcement—and the shadow communications minister should listen to this, because he was one of the ministers who was responsible for cutting the heart out of Commonwealth law enforcement—were $310 million and 97 officers cut from the Australian Federal Police. One-third of the budget of the Australian Crime Commission and one-third of the officers of that agency were cut by the Labor Party, as well as significant cuts to other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies.
Despite the significant cuts that this shadow minister was responsible for as minister, our federal law enforcement agencies have been doing a very significant job—but they have been doing it with one hand tied behind their back by the cuts that the previous government made to federal law enforcement. I can send a message to Commonwealth law enforcement that the government has changed. Our priorities have changed, and they will now find the new Abbott government sees national law enforcement as a significant priority.
Asylum Seekers
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. How many boats has the government bought and how much money has the government set aside to purchase these boats?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:00): I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the important thing is how many boats this government has prevented from coming to Australia. That is the important thing. Illegal arrivals by boat are down by more than 75 per cent on the results achieved under the former government. I understand that members opposite are ashamed and embarrassed of their record. Frankly, if I were them, I would be ashamed and embarrassed of my record. But our record is better than theirs—it is much better than theirs—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to standing order 104(a).
The SPEAKER: Prime Minister, the Manager of Opposition Business is requiring you to come back to the subject matter and be directly relevant. I ask the Prime Minister to be directly relevant to the question.
Mr ABBOTT: The most directly relevant thing that I can say to members opposite is that the boats are stopping. That is the most directly relevant thing that I can say to the opposition. On that note, after 21 questions I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Parliamentary Budget Office
Presentation
The SPEAKER (15:02): Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2013.
Ordered that the document be made a parliamentary paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:02): Speaker, I wish to give a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: I do.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr ALBANESE: Today in question time the Minister for Communications claimed that as Minister for Communications, Broadband and the Digital Economy in the former government I refused to release NBN Co.'s corporate plan. The facts are these. The NBN Co. corporate plans are the only government business enterprise corporate plans that have ever been released. The 2011 to 2014 and the 2012 to 2015 plans were released after cabinet consideration and approval. The final corporate plan, 2013 to 2016, was not received by me, let alone approved by cabinet, before the election and therefore could not be released.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education and Leader of the House) (15:03): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (15:04): Having spoken about that future, I must also thank those who have made my return to parliament possible. Key to my re-election is my greatest and most loyal supporter, my partner Lara Swift. With an intuitive sense of what needed to be done and the ability to get it done, she led my office brilliantly. I give a great vote of thanks to her as both my partner and my office manager.
I thank my mother, Connaught, who came from Sydney, as she does for all campaigns and worked long days leading up to the election, and my youngest daughter, Rebecca, for her tolerance and assistance in the campaign. She never makes me feel guilty for the time I have to spend on my duties. I also thank my oldest daughter, Emily, and her friend Hannah Spendlove for their work on election day. Emily, although just 15, is showing a great interest in campaigning and may be a booth captain in the future. Emily and Hannah put in some big days leading up to the election, and I thank them greatly. I am very proud of both my daughters.
I also thank my office team: Bill Coghlan, Nick Dixon, Dame Krcoski and Lien Nguyen. Bill Coghlan has been with me for almost six years. Lien Nguyen, who helps me brilliantly with the Vietnamese community issues and a range of broader constituent matters, has done around five years with me. Also I thank Nick and Dame, more recent staff members, who helped greatly. I also thank my campaign chair, the Hon. Chris Ellison, and campaign treasurer, Richard Basham, for being there to make the campaign simpler and effective.
I also thank the members of the Cowan division of the Liberal Party for their help leading up to and on election day. A special thanks goes to those hundreds of supporters who had my signs in their front yard or on their fence. The issues were almost entirely that signs were being stolen or graffitied. I am pleased that on only one occasion did my opponents cause damage to property, but I am thankful the damage was not permanent.
I also thank the several hundred booth volunteers, captains and scrutineers, who put in long hours, much of it in the rain and storms on election day. There were many first-timers in all capacities. I thank them for their courage and efforts on the day.
When I think of those who did strongly support me I am eternally grateful. I have never had to pay international students and put them in red shirts, like my opponent has had to do in the previous two elections. I also would never countenance having toddlers handing out flyers, such as GetUp! did at the North Woodvale polling booth. Our opponents should remember that aggressive and loud browbeating of the voters is actually counterproductive. I am very proud of the integrity of my recruitment and the character and conduct of my volunteers. Once again I thank my volunteers for their efforts and exemplary conduct. I also note the efforts of Kieran Douglas and Bec McInnes, who are ever reliable and solid young volunteers. I can always depend on them.
I would like to turn now to the factors that caused the change of government in the 7 September election. I believe that the people of Cowan voted for me because they know I am dedicated to their best interests, and that they voted for the Abbott coalition government because we will restore hope, reward and opportunity to this nation. Those on the other side like to talk about disunity as the reason for their being voted out of government. At various times they talk about issues between former prime ministers, leaks and backgrounding as if their internal problems were the only causes of their demise. Yes, we know that former Prime Minister Rudd was difficult to work with and together with concerning polls, was why the Labor Party got rid of him in 2010. Those such as the now Leader of the Opposition helped dispatch Prime Minister Rudd in 2010. In the face of depressing polls, he dispatched the next Prime Minister some weeks before the last election. He therefore played Brutus to two Caesars. Would that the soap opera of the Labor Party could have the quality of a Shakespearean play; while it has had both tragedy and comedy, it is really more soap opera than art.
While the director of federal Labor and those opposite may feel that it is convenient to attribute their demise solely to internal fighting, the reality is that, while people have grown weary of the betrayal and intrigue of Labor, the betrayal was not just internal; it was also a betrayal of the Australian people. Of course foremost among the betrayal of taxpayers was the carbon tax, before the 2010 election, that was guaranteed not to be. But let us also remember every budget bottom line announced by the former government was always worse than what was originally announced. There were promises and announcements and even flyers about surpluses, but none of it was true. It is little wonder that the Australian people deplore both the internal machinations of the former government and the absence of its credibility. For years now the voters of Cowan have approached me on the streets, in shopping centres, and on sporting grounds and have even said to me at their front doors that they wanted change—not only because of internal Labor divisions but also because of its repeated and comprehensive policy failures.
Of those issues, dealing with the illegal arrivals by boats was very big. I know that it is customary for the noisy, strident and left-wing minority to allege that anyone who talks about those arriving by boats is a racist or a bigot—which is, of course, not true. Those who speak against the boats do not talk about race or colour, but in an attempt to marginalise opposing views the left make allegations so that they can bully and intimidate opposing views. Sanctimony and dogma are the tools of the minority; the majority of Australians oppose the boats because, when the facts are revealed, those who come by boats are not the most deserving of a future in Australia, not when they have the money to bypass the system. The vast majority of Australians acknowledge that we have a responsibility to take in refugees and they merely want those who are in most need and those who can fit in well so that they have the best chance of success.
The silent majority are not anti-refugees, and there is no fear or hatred such as the noisy strident minority view suggests. It is not racism, but it is a legitimate concern about the lack of integrity in our immigration system orchestrated by the abject failure of those opposite. It is about a weakness in the system established by the former government where there was doubt about exactly who was being accepted here. People did not like the special deals or the lack of action against those who abused the facilities provided by the Australian taxpayers. The lack of gratitude demonstrated by lawlessness was found to be particularly irksome by so many of my constituents.
On a related point, all would be aware of recent commentary in the media about persons holding Australian citizenship going to train for war and fighting as a mercenary or volunteer in Syria. Several years ago I spoke in parliament with reference to those who had been granted Australian citizenship as refugees only to travel to places like Yemen to undertake terrorist training. Those people represent a great threat to the security of this country. Similarly, we should view anyone who travels to Syria to take up arms with great suspicion. When people raise their right hand and make the oath or affirmation of citizenship it does actually mean something. When they pledge their loyalty to Australia and its people and that they will uphold and obey our laws, their pledge to this nation is broken when they take up arms and attribute that to some religious authority. I therefore encourage the immigration minister to examine the options of the withdrawal of citizenship for those who break their pledge to Australia. I appreciate the difficulties in ascertaining the facts, but those who already hold the citizenship of another nation and who break faith with this country through crime should be held accountable, and the withdrawal of citizenship should be an option. I supported this option before I was elected and I support it now.
Anyone who reads my speeches will know of the consistent themes that I pursue. I believe very strongly in this country and its achievements and I believe that the success of this country is entirely due to its commitment to Western democracy based on Judaeo-Christian principles. It is my view that there is no better nation in the world than Australia and there is no stronger and more positive or effective system of government than our democracy. If we believe anything else then we are failing in our duty to those who live here now and those who will follow us, because we will not leave them with the nation we ourselves were given. This is a reality that we must embrace.
Each night and day we should listen to the news and take notice of the economic, governmental, social and cultural failures that afflict so many nations around the world. We should not be afraid of looking at those nations and drawing from their experiences validation for what Australians and English-speaking Western culture have created here in just over 200 years. Unfortunately, the situation we face is that some Australians are not happy unless they can find something in our history that we can cringe about or express regret about.
It seems that in our attempt to express respect for the minority cultures of those who have migrated here we struggle to express confidence in the majority culture, because this is seen somehow as some conflict. We should be unwilling to write ourselves off so quickly when those who have migrated here are examples of a ringing endorsement of what we have achieved. That is the answer to why so many people from non-English-speaking or non-Christian countries have come here or wanted to come here. Very simply, it is because where they came from was not as good. If it was, then they would not have come; it is a fundamental truth. If New Zealand had the opportunities Australia had, then so many Kiwis would not be here. If England or Ireland had the weather, the opportunities or the lifestyle of Australia, then the English or Irish would not have come. It is simple. If there had not been wars in Europe—World War II and wars in the Balkans—or the hardships of post-war Europe, then so many would not have come from south-east Europe.
If there was a functioning democracy in the Middle East, apart from Israel, or an economy of any strength that benefited the majority of people in the Middle East then there would be stability and so many would not be wanting to leave. Similarly, in Africa there are very few democracies that actually serve the people and the nations are generally defined by corruption, instability, conflicts, crime, low levels of development and often sectarian violence. It is not rocket science why people want to come here. They come because this nation represents the good governance, strong democracy and strong economy that provide opportunities to succeed. Success has come not because of luck but because Australians have worked with the opportunities they have found and have not been held back by the political, economic, religious and cultural failures of other nations.
A friend originally from Africa said to me recently, 'We wanted to bring the good things to Australia with us and leave the bad behind.' This is of course the positive attitude that identifies the truth that I speak of. My friend knows that rule of law, strong democracy and strong economy and of course opportunity to succeed that does not rely on your religion, your family, the colour of your skin or your gender are the factors that speak to immigrants. The words are that you and your children can be safe, can get an education and can get jobs.
In 2011, I had the opportunity to visit the nation often called the 'cradle of democracy', Greece. I was in a high school and spoke to a class in the same way I do to students in my electorate. Among the many things I said was, at one point: 'One day one of you could be Prime Minister.' For the first time at any school, a teacher later said to me, 'That can never happen in Greece, because prime ministers always come from the same families.' That experience made it clear to me that, while we should respect other nations, we should never show deference for no reason. The concept of democracy may have originated in Greece, but we have passed them by and we should be proud of what we have here.
When I attend citizenship ceremonies I am always proud of this country. I remind myself of the fact that every person that comes here is an endorsement of what makes this country the land of opportunity. If the countries of these immigrants were better they would not have come here.
So much is said about a multicultural society. When I look at minority cultures and their value, I see cuisine, music and colourful dress but also, above all, a good attitude to hard work and the value of education, along with other aspects that are embraced and relished by the wider community. These things add to the mix. Yet when I think on what my African friend said about leaving the bad things behind, then I see that there are some parts of minority cultures that we should reject as being unacceptable. Corruption and nepotism, elites based on families, religion or other hierarchical arrangements in the homeland should be rejected. The different treatment of the genders in clothing, education or opportunities et cetera should also be rejected. These are not modern concepts or the marks of a modern or successful society, and we should not be afraid to call them retrograde cultural characteristics. These of course are some of the reasons that contributed to the substandard situation in the old countries that people wanted to leave. We should also be prepared to reject the claim that religion justifies these failed cultural elements.
Above all, we should focus on making sure that those who come to Australia legitimately have the opportunities they seek. As I said, their opportunities are held back if they want to live under the same retrograde circumstances or cultural themes that held their old country back. That is why it is our duty not to accept or tolerate these low-standard cultural characteristics, because, if we do, then we tolerate people living in a parallel society. A parallel society is where we tolerate the problems which denied men and women the opportunities to achieve in their old country. Leading into this is the need to insist that immigrants speak English. No interpreters should be provided beyond the first year of a person living in Australia, as English language classes are provided at a cost to the taxpayers and they are enough to achieve proficiency. We should also be on guard against any further culture of entitlement, a sense that society owes anyone a living for doing nothing or that procreating is something that society should have pay for to such a degree that it is seen by some as an alternative to paid work. It is not a cliche that if you do not pay for it you do not value it. We must also reject any differences in the rights, responsibilities and standing of the genders.
This country has a history of success that was built on hard work in a harsh climate, a success that was not built by people standing around waiting for the dole or freebies provided by those that do work and pay their taxes. The success of Australia was achieved because Australians, of whatever background, saw that their future depended on what decisions they made and the amount of effort they put into their education and work. It is true for anyone that, if something goes wrong in our lives, it is wrong to look firstly for someone else to blame or to try to judge society, when the first step must be to look in a mirror and ask ourselves what part we played ourselves in the situation.
Our duty is to pass on the best country that we can to those that follow us, and a failure to do so is a failure in that duty. We must acknowledge that there are other countries that have failed or been dragged down by negative cultural traits. So much have they been damaged that people want to leave and seek a better life. We should provide that better life by rejecting those substandard themes. If we tolerate people bringing the failures of their homelands to Australia, they will end up being no better off and, by accepting failed cultural traits, we will also drag down the success that previous generations of Australians have achieved for us.
Once again I would like to thank all those who assisted me in my re-election for this my third term: my office team, Lara, my mother, my daughters, my campaign team and my volunteers. While I alone do the doorknocking, there is more to winning than just that. Each of us needs a lot of help and I will always be grateful to those who did come and lend a hand.
I would just like to finish by saying that my view of my position, my role, as the member for Cowan is clear. I am here for one purpose only and that is to help my constituents and to make their lives better. It is not about me; it is always and will always be about them. They have stories to tell. They have challenges to overcome. There are complexities in their lives that I do not have in my life. Yet when I speak to them I better understand how this country is made up. Problems and challenges are part of it and also success and achievements—bravery, courage, yes, but also weakness and frailty. In every suburb in Cowan there are different stories—things that need to be spoken about and things that need to be fixed. That is why I am here, and I will remain forever committed to the people of Cowan and to this great nation, the best country in the world, Australia.
Ms KING (Ballarat) (15:20): Firstly, I congratulate all the new members of parliament who have been able to give their maiden speeches and some of the new members who are about to do that later this afternoon.
To the people of Ballarat, I particularly again want to say thank you for re-electing me as your representative and for placing your faith in me once again. It has been a privilege and an honour to serve the community over the past 12 years, and it is with much humility that I continue to represent the people of Ballarat in this House.
To my campaign staff and the countless hundreds of volunteers who fought the campaign for, in essence, three years but certainly over the last 12 months, who turned out in the early morning at train stations, who doorknocked in the hail and rain and sometimes snow, who gave up their time to stand on supermarket stalls and who handed out how-to-vote cards at prepoll centres and on election day, you have my eternal gratitude and my thanks.
It was a very hard fought campaign, but the effort of our Australian Labor Party supporters and volunteers was tremendous and often went well beyond the call. I also want to again thank my fantastic husband, Mark, whose support is always appreciated, and my lovely son, Ryan, for the work that they do for me as well. Ryan is still a little young to understand exactly what is happening in elections, but he was certainly much more aware of his mum's photo around the place this time than he was in the last election, when he was only two.
I joined the Labor Party because I believe firmly in the possibility of politics; not just the possibility of politics but what political office can do to improve the lives of people and the capacity of the country to grow and develop. I believe very firmly that every child should have the opportunity to have a good education—and that starts, literally, from birth; that their parents should have decent work and decent pay and decent conditions under which to work under; that the grandparents should be able to retire with a little more in the pockets; and that we can leave behind a fairer and more prosperous Australia for future generations. It is what I have strived to do representing the great people of Ballarat as their local member.
I am extremely proud of what we have achieved in government. I was honoured to serve first as Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing then as Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Regional Services, Local Communities and Territories, and, more latterly, Minister for Regional Australia, Local Government and Territories. Regional Australia is something I am very, very passionate about.
I am particularly proud of the investments that we have made in my own electorate of Ballarat. There have been investments in education of over $115 million for classrooms, libraries and other facilities across our region. We have been able to see schools that had absolutely limited resources—no libraries, operating out of antiquated, draughty classrooms—being able to have state-of-the-art facilities. Seeing what that has meant and the lift that it has given for those schools and then for the educational outcomes of those students as well as the community use has been something that will leave a long and lasting legacy for this country.
There was funding for university infrastructure, including a science and engineering precinct, the Manufacturing Technology Training Centre at the University of Ballarat, as well as other investments. Investments in health infrastructure included the funding of the Ballarat Regional Integrated Cancer Centre, delivering the nation's first GP superclinic in Ballan, and funding for the Bacchus Marsh and Melton Regional Hospital. Funding in primary care included a new primary care facility for the Ballarat Community Health Centre at Lucas currently being constructed and an upgrade of Ballarat District Nursing and Healthcare—again, almost completed. There was the expansion of the Springs Medical Centre in Daylesford and the upgrading of the Creswick Medical Centre and the Elms Family Medical Centre in Bacchus Marsh—all really important projects in our community.
Our investment in infrastructure has extended to other regional projects, including the Clunes Museum—again, something that is just about to be opened; Doug Lindsay Recreational Reserve in Creswick; the Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka, which is providing a terrific platform for debate about democracy and education in democracy in this country; the funding of the Western Highway, Ballarat to Stawell duplication, and funding for the Anthony's Cutting bypass; and delivering funding for new and improved halls, parks, streetscapes and playgrounds right the way across the electorate.
Yet, unfortunately, what we have seen in just the short time that the government has been in office is that much of this and much of the future economic development and growth and investment in infrastructure in Ballarat appears to be under threat by the new government. Last week marked some 50 days of the Abbott government's cuts to my electorate. From Bacchus Marsh to Creswick, from Trenton to Daylesford, critical projects and funding have been ripped away. These were projects that were budgeted for and announced in many instances prior to the government going into caretaker mode—contract negotiations being undertaken with the proponents literally now stopped in their tracks.
The new government has taken the axe to regional development funds that have poured critical money into infrastructure, including funding for an indoor swimming pool in Bacchus Marsh, a multipurpose centre in Victoria Park in Daylesford, funding to Hepburn Shire Council to improve Springhill Tylden Road, and key upgrades and redevelopment for sporting facilities across the Moorabool shire. These were not billion-dollar projects; they were projects of a small scale that benefited the entire community: a new swimming pool, a new playground and upgrades to a tennis court. They threatened nobody in terms of what the projects were going to do. They were not pork-barrelling; they were projects that were occurring in seats right across the country.
I am particularly disappointed that the funding going to the City of Ballarat for the all-abilities play space has also been cut. Libby's Play Space is an organisation that has been working with government, state and federal, and with local councils desperately trying to make sure we set up all-abilities play spaces across the country that provide examples for how you integrate and have a much more socially inclusive play space within communities. In particular, Libby's play spaces are spaces where you really cannot distinguish between the type of play that is available for children with disabilities and children who do not necessarily have those disabilities.
Libby's Play Space had been working with the City of Ballarat and with the local government area in New England. They had a commitment—in fact, much more than that; detailed designs and work done for the Regional Development Australia Fund round 5 that was going to all local councils—that both of those local councils would in fact be developing Libby's all-abilities play spaces.
That funding has now been cut and there are many devastated parents of children with disabilities in the community of Ballarat who feel absolutely that, after having such a long flight, having done all the work with council, having had the council commit that the money coming from the federal government would go to this play space, they are now absolutely being ignored. I am quite sure that members of the New England community who were expecting that they would have an all-abilities play space will also be in a very similar position. I think it is an incredibly important project and I certainly urge the government to reconsider. It is perfectly entitled to do whatever it wants to do when it comes into government, but I urge the government to really consider, particularly in an area of disabilities and all-abilities play spaces, whatever perhaps these two projects were something that should have been given a little bit more thought.
The other areas of cuts that we have unfortunately started to see impact on my electorate is the schoolkids bonus, which is going to affect about 9,500 families across Ballarat, meaning that families will miss out on $410 a year for each child in primary school and $820 a year for each child in secondary school. All of that money was spent to help families with textbooks, uniforms and school expenses. Again, I have had representations from local constituents—who may or may not have voted for Labor in the last election—who have been pretty shocked to discover that the schoolkids bonus is gone, literally overnight; parents who are on disability support pensions, who find it incredibly difficult to make ends meet. These are people for whom that extra money coming in at the start of the school year really made a difference between whether their family could budget throughout the course of the year or not. So again I urge the government to think very carefully about what it is doing and the impact it is having on families. It has incorrectly linked the scrapping of the schoolkids bonus to the minerals resource rent tax; it was never part of that. I find it extraordinary that the government would seek to try and politicise and hide its own cuts by combining it in that way.
The other issue that I am extremely concerned about is the scrapping of the low-income superannuation contribution, increasing a tax on the retirement investments of some 23,800 of the lowest paid workers in my electorate. We are not a wealthy community by any means; there are very few people who earn substantial amounts of money in my community. So when you do something like scrap the low-income superannuation contribution you are adversely affecting those communities where incomes may not be as high as in some of our major metropolitan capitals; and, certainly, having a significant impact on regional communities like my own.
Not satisfied with their attack on critical infrastructure, parents and low-income workers, the government have also implemented a policy that further entrenches the digital divide between cities and the regions. The Prime Minister and the communications minister have pulled the plug on some 2,400 households and businesses in my electorate—for example, in Golden Point, Mount Pleasant, Canadian and Bakery Hill—preventing them from receiving fibre-to-the-home broadband services. Some 3,500 premises in Daylesford, Hepburn, Hepburn Springs, Musk, Clunes and Trentham, along with 1,200 premises in Ballan and Myrniong will also now no longer receive fibre-to-the-home broadband services. That has been a devastating blow to that community; many small businesses have been established in those communities in anticipation of the National Broadband Network fibre-to-the-home. It is incredibly disappointing to think about what that is going to mean for those communities. These areas are now faced with the prospect of broadband operating on old copper cable or paying potentially up to $5,000 to have fibre connected.
Right across my electorate, thousands of homes and businesses have been cut off by this digital divide. This was infrastructure that was especially important for Australia's regional communities. I am becoming increasingly concerned that one of the things that the government is doing in its attempt to slow down, to cut, to freeze, grants programs right the way across every portfolio area is stall the economy. In fact they are also stalling regional economies. It actually matters to regional economies whether they have $100,000 coming in for a local sporting facility to be upgraded. That keeps builders, carpenters, electricians and other tradespeople employed in regional communities when those projects are being built. Invariably, in regional communities, it is locals who are employed in those projects.
When you scrap, literally overnight, millions of dollars of funding across regional communities, that has an impact. When you are not going to replace any regional funding until 2015—there is a hiatus of a year—those economies will invariably slow as a result of that lack of investment. All of the projects committed to, budgeted for, by Labor would have been starting had we been in office.
I again call on the government to think very carefully about the impact of the decision it has made to cut substantial funding out of regional communities. Many communities like my own are suffering because of what is happening in manufacturing. We need to be growing new jobs. We need to be making sure we continue to keep people employed in manufacturing. I willtalk in a moment a little bit about the componentry in particular and what the government's cuts mean to that in my community. Other jobs are important as well; jobs in the services sector, for example. You cannot get people moving into areas if you do not have good services. You have to keep investments in health. You have to keep investments in education. You have to keep investments in community infrastructure.
Unfortunately we saw that experience in Victoria. When the current Liberal government came to power in Victoria, they literally were frozen for a year; they made no decisions for a year. Victoria has suffered on the jobs front as a result of that. I make a plea to this new government to get on with the job, to actually make investments, and to make sure you make investments in regional Australia. There is a whole list of projects that are there, ready, willing and waiting, that were ready for contracting and that this government really need to get on with.
The Prime Minister has said he will govern for all people, but all we are seeing, in regional Victoria in particular, is the stripping away of funding critical to the economic development of the area. For example, another important project in my community is the $9.1 million of funding for the Ballarat intermodal freight hub, a critical component of the Ballarat West employment zone. This project is now in jeopardy because those opposite are threatening the economic empowerment and growth of the region. The project was announced in the May budget and was very much lobbied for and wanted by the city of Ballarat, the Committee for Ballarat and the local community. It is the linchpin for ensuring jobs growth in that new Ballarat West employment zone. Without it, those jobs will not happen.
What we have also seen from the government is the decision to cut millions and millions of dollars out of assistance for the car industry. There is an internal dispute happening within the Liberal Party about that at the moment. Unfortunately, it appears that the new Minister for Industry is going to have very little influence over what happens in that space.
Many people employed in my electorate are employed in car componentry—brake components, seatbelts, small components—that go into Toyota, Holden and Ford. We are absolutely devastated, and there is huge uncertainty in the manufacturing sector in my community about what the government's intentions are towards the car industry, and, therefore, what will happen in the future to all of those jobs. Significant investment has been made in making sure that that car componentry sector is as productive as possible. There are people who have worked in that industry for 20 or 30 yearsn very proudly increasing their exports, increasing their technology, increasing their skill base—yet they are potentially being left on the scrapheap by this government.
The decisions that the Prime Minister and cabinet are making are critical to the way in which our regional economies are operating and absolutely critical to making sure we have future jobs growth. I again urge them to think very cautiously about the impact that not supporting the car industry will have not just on those immediate direct jobs but on all those downstream jobs—on car componentry jobs and then on all of those services that help agencies and manufacturers in regional communities such as my own. There is a significant amount of those in places like Wendouree and Delacombe. The government has not thought through what those cuts are going to mean on the jobs growth in my region.
Finally, I want to just touch on my portfolio area of health as I head into the conclusion of this contribution. I am very privileged to have been appointed as shadow minister for health as part of the opposition team. I am absolutely determined to keep this government to account to ensure that the improvements and significant reforms through the health and hospitals reform process that were initiated by former Minister Roxon and continued by former Minister Plibersek are not undermined by this government. I am particularly concerned about hospital funding and what will happen in the future under this government to the agreements with states and territories. The initial signs unfortunately are incredibly concerning. The main focus of the minister, when he talks about his policy, is very much on shrinking health, on keeping it off the front pages of the newspaper and on talking about where cuts might be made or where savings might be made rather than talking about the huge possibilities and opportunities that are presented through government investment in health to actually improve the lives of Australians.
The government has given no indication that it will even honour its own election commitments, such as not closing any Medicare Locals, let alone given an indication of how it will fund the projected increase in the cost to the health budget as new treatments are recommended for listing on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, as a new pharmacy agreement is negotiated, or what focus there will be on preventative health. We have seen what the conservatives did in Queensland and there is every indication so far that this government will follow exactly the same script in health.
I am concerned about the Grow Up Smiling dental program, which the government is now calling the child dental scheme, which is due to start on the first of January. It is an incredibly important scheme to reduce the incidence of dental caries amongst young people and to really set young people up for good oral health for their entire lives. I am also concerned about the government's intentions towards those who work in the health system. As a former parliamentary secretary for health, I have great respect for the Department of Health officials and for the regulators I had responsibility for. They play a critical role in protecting the rights of health consumers, making sure our medicines are safe, ensuring that consumers are protected when medical devices fail or food is unsafe developing policies that will reduce the incidence of chronic disease and in responding to national and international health incidents such as a pandemic. So far, the government has only talked about how savings can be made in these areas, not about how important these responsibilities are or how preserving them will be a priority. I will certainly be keeping a very close eye on the government, not only on its cuts to the health services but also on its cuts to our very good public servants in health.
The SPEAKER (15:41): Order! Before I call the honourable member for Hindmarsh, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend him the usual courtesies.
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (15:41): As I deliver my maiden speech to the chamber, I wish to thank the people in the electorate of Hindmarsh for placing their trust in me to represent them. I am committed to representing them with diligence, determination and dedication over the next three years of this parliament and, hopefully, if I live up to the commitments to them, for some time beyond. I am honoured, privileged and proud to represent Hindmarsh, a place that has an exceptionally strong sense of community, a place that comprises and welcomes so many people of many different ethnic backgrounds, a place where small businesses drive much of the local economy, a place where hard working people hope for a better future for their families and a place that I and my family are proud to call home.
With this new government rests the hopes of the people of Hindmarsh. On 7 September they voted for change for themselves and for Australia. I believe we can have a collective vision and focus on long-term strategies. I want to ensure that Hindmarsh and Australia will be even better places for our children and their children. In my new role, I aim to deliver the best results to make their hopes a reality. As the member for Hindmarsh, I will listen to my electorate and represent my constituents to the best of my ability to ensure their full participation in the parliamentary process. I want to acknowledge the work of the previous member for Hindmarsh, Steve Georganas, and before him, Chris Gallus, the last and until now only Liberal member for Hindmarsh. I hope I am able to make a lasting contribution to our local community just as she did.
Hindmarsh is nestled between the city of Adelaide and the sea. With Adelaide Airport at its centre, Hindmarsh is the first place that most visitors to Adelaide experience. Hindmarsh was named after the Rear Admiral Sir John Hindmarsh, a naval officer, who was the first governor of South Australia. It has great natural beauty, kilometres of white, sandy beaches with dunes, and waterways including the River Torrens. Beautiful parks and gardens, quality sporting facilities and items of outstanding heritage cover the electorate. A great number of seniors, service and social organisations make Hindmarsh a far richer and more supportive community. As one example, my young children, Sascha and Joshua, are currently benefiting from the guidance the West Beach Surf Club provides.
Our vibrant multicultural community is an integral part of our society, from the migrants who left war-torn Europe after World War II, particularly Greece and Italy, to those from Asia and more recently from Africa. Migrants provide Hindmarsh with an almost unrivalled richness of cultures and experiences and they will continue to have a significant impact in the community. Having lived and worked in Europe, I value the lessons I have learned from different cultures, values and perspectives. As a 17-year-old, I was lucky enough to live under the guidance of three very special Rotarian host families in Dusseldorf, Germany, the Muller-Stulers, Michaels and Meyersieks, who all taught me so much in such a small space of time. The independence and confidence the host families fostered in me has held me in good stead and helped me to develop into the person I am today.
The people of Hindmarsh have dreams and aspirations that I share to give future generations an even better life than we have. We must leave a legacy for those who come after us to provide them with the opportunity to be rewarded for their hard work and achievements.
Demographically, Hindmarsh is one of the oldest electorates in Australia. As we know, senior Australians continue to play important roles in our community and families. After a lifetime of work and effort, they deserve support and quality service delivery. Consideration of the health and aged care interface and innovative solutions will be required to address the challenges of aged care.
We also have a responsibility to ensure that we meet the needs of the people from whom we have inherited this great country while providing every incentive and opportunity for people to be self-sufficient through as much of their lives as is possible.
Future reforms must continually seek improvements in our tax system to best reflect the constant changes in our economy and social infrastructure needs. We need to create opportunities for those who otherwise would miss out. We need to find better ways to give people reliant on welfare a chance to contribute to our society. As Sir Robert Menzies stated, we need 'to give them a chance in life to make them not leaners but lifters'.
But it is not just the role of government to help the less fortunate in our society. As individuals, we can take our own leads and, while I will be working hard for the people of Hindmarsh, I want to maintain my efforts to help others less fortunate.
For more than 10 years I have raised money for charities and not-for-profits through a number of major events. While recognising there may be a more famous cyclist in our chamber, the most significant event for me was a charity bike ride in South Australia's beautiful Clare Valley which raised close to $100,000.
In life it is important to be part of a cause larger than ourselves. I salute Australia's many volunteers and commend the new wave of Australian philanthropists, including those working with our tertiary institutions to better our society and productive capacity.
It is worth reflecting on the position enunciated by the German philosopher Georg Hegel that 'an individual develops fully by sharing in and drawing on the moral, spiritual and intellectual resources of the society of which they are part of'.
Innovation, knowledge and creativity are the new drivers of economic growth in developed nations around the world. But whatever economic model we pursue, we should seek to combine a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy.
I believe we should explore population policies that focus more on building regional centres. The Abbott government has made clear its intention to deliver on infrastructure, and there is an important role for all members of parliament to ensure the right infrastructure exists, whether that be hospitals, schools or roads. We must take into account our environmental and social capacity but also our potential in the areas of tourism and agribusiness.
I have always held strong beliefs that we should respect the individual rights of others and their freedoms and, in the words of John Stuart Mill, the state only has the right to intervene in the lives of individuals to prevent harm to others.
It is through the work of individuals that opportunity and hope is created for all of our citizens. By building a strong and stable economy, government has an important role to play in providing the necessary support for all Australians.
As former Prime Minister John Howard said in his maiden speech:
… it is only through the creation of community wealth by the efforts of individuals … that it is possible for governments to undertake social welfare and to fund their operations.
Nobody likes being taxed but people will respect a government that spends the people's money responsibly and in an effective manner. In this way government is no different from a household or a business: it must live within its means.
I want to say a few words about small business, an issue so relevant to so many people in Hindmarsh. My mother was a small business owner and my wife is a small business owner. I understand the hard work required, the risk small business owners take and the frustrations they experience, particularly with unnecessary regulation. Red tape is making it difficult for many small businesses. By cutting red tape and letting small business do what it does well, we will create a more vibrant and entrepreneurial economy.
I look forward to working for the 12,000 small businesses in Hindmarsh, their staff and families. I know they welcomed Prime Minister Abbott's statement that Australia is again open for business.
The need to improve our productive capacity is a major challenge for our country. If we fail to heed the lessons of the past and ignore the need to improve our productivity then we will be left behind as our Asian neighbours become even more competitive. We need to foster an environment where innovative sectors can grow and entrepreneurs can flourish. We need to seek and encourage greater business and technological innovations. Through smart regulation and competitive pressures, this can be achieved. But it will only be possible through the coming together of business and industry leaders and policymakers.
Many of our companies are facing challenging times with higher costs, an uncertain economic future and competition from overseas. Less tax and regulation will provide some relief, but I think it is worth asking ourselves as consumers, what can we do?
One thing we can do is promote the best that Australia has to offer. I know from personal experience that South Australian made Rossi Boots or RM Williams boots, which I am wearing today, are superior in quality to those made overseas and, importantly, they are value for money.
I am also certain that the members of this chamber are no different from the rest of Australia in recognising how good Coopers beer really is—made by the largest Australian owned beer company—not to mention our world-renowned Australian made wines. Wines from McLaren Vale, the Clare Valley, the Barossa and the Coonawarra are among the world's best.
While we struggle with the competitive and strategic challenges facing some of our major businesses in South Australia, we should recognise that the likes of Santos, Beach Energy and ASC have strong futures in the energy and defence sectors. Our mining and resource opportunities are significant, and we will benefit from the removal of regressive taxes to help promote more investment.
Indeed, from the smallest to the largest companies in Australia, there are so many businesses that reflect the strength of Australian innovation and creativity. If every Australian purchased more Australian made goods, it would help our companies and provide local jobs and incomes for families.
We have a choice, we have the opportunity and we have the quality goods and services. At the end of the day it is up to us to drive the future as our future is in our hands
As stated earlier, I believe in hope. I am an optimist, believing that no matter someone's start in life we should afford them every opportunity to succeed. That is why education is an area very close to my heart and one in which I want to contribute during my time in the national parliament.
My father is one of those many hardworking and committed teachers. To improve the quality of our students and their learning, things must change. Funding is always important and naturally there are instances when more is required. But it is not all about money. Reforms should be undertaken to ensure more accountability in the quality of teaching. We should introduce more programs to better cater to the needs of gifted pupils and place more emphasis on early childhood development, given how important the first five years are to a child's life. And principals should have the ability to manage their schools the way they need to. I will work tirelessly to support our minister and our education agenda.
Australia is a nation with limitless potential. We have many world-class businesspeople, entrepreneurs, professionals and scientists. In my doorknocking to win the seat of Hindmarsh, I continued to emphasise my drive to give our children the opportunities to work in the new economy of the future, where the internet is a great force of social interaction and commerce in the 21st century, where franchises are popping up in waves around our nation, where we will prosper by the clever use of our knowledge and high-level skills and where our neighbours have more spending power than ever before. Australia must take advantage of the Asian century and the growth of the Asian middle class. Their demand for our food, wine, fibre, energy and resources and education services provides a unique opportunity.
The Abbott government's New Colombo Plan and the 2030 vision for developing Northern Australia set the right path. We must dedicate our collective efforts to maximising this opportunity. We also need to invest in the future security of our country. The many employees in the defence sector in Hindmarsh look forward to the coalition's commitment to increase defence spending to two per cent of GDP. Although the phrase is thrown around a lot, there are truly few 'nation-building projects'. The air warfare destroyers and the next generation of submarines are two such examples where Australian workers, South Australian workers, will be part of something special.
South Australian industry, workers and families, including those in Hindmarsh, stand to benefit greatly from upgrading South Road into an effective north-south transport corridor. Some of the worst stretches of South Road form the border of my electorate, and I welcome the target set by our new Prime Minister and the state Liberal leader, Steven Marshall, to see the job done within a decade.
To arrive in this place I have been well supported by many. As Nelson Mandela said, 'Your tireless and heroic sacrifices have made it possible for me to be here today.' I would like to acknowledge the many people who worked on the Hindmarsh campaign: my campaign team, brilliantly led by Ben with assistance from Jim, Loretta, Peter, Lou, Alex, Darren, Chelsey and Suzette; and the Liberal members, volunteers and the FEC in Hindmarsh, who were expertly led by the president, Jim Burston. I would like to thank Steven Marshall and Ian Smith for their time and counsel. To my federal colleagues, especially my friend Senator Simon Birmingham: your advice, support and guidance was outstanding. Without you, I would not be here today. Others who joined us in the battle for Hindmarsh and who will be alongside me in the years ahead, the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne; the member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs; and Senator Sean Edwards: I thank you. I am grateful to you all.
I thank the Prime Minister and his staff, expertly led by Peta Credlin, for the support they were able to provide during the campaign. I know that every time the Prime Minister came into my electorate there was an infectious enthusiasm that followed him everywhere he went. I look forward to working with the Prime Minister as he becomes Australia's infrastructure Prime Minister.
I would also like to thank the many members of the then shadow ministry for the outstanding support they provided throughout the campaign, including yourself, Madam Speaker. Brian Loughnane and Julian Sheezel from the federal secretariat and Geoff Greene in the South Australian secretariat ran a great campaign. I would like to record my thanks to them and their staff. I want to thank the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, for the opportunity he gave me in politics, and my friends and former colleagues at Piper Alderman Lawyers. They showed me the value of intellectual discipline, loyalty and integrity.
To others in the business and the political world, mainly in Adelaide, but also those supporters and friends in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, I thank you. I want to pay tribute to Mike Semmler, Robert Champion de Crespigny and the late Maurice de Rohan, who was to become Governor of South Australia were it not for his untimely passing. They have been or continue to be leaders in their respective fields of religion, business and international relations, and I learnt a great deal from my time with them.
To those many friends who have assisted me throughout my life and my campaign, I want to acknowledge your positive influence and, most importantly, friendship, especially my school friends, including Jan, Luke, Michael, Ben, Daniel and Brett; university mates including Lance, Peter, Sam, Dave and Bruce, the man who got me through the Paris marathon; Linda and Ryan, who are in the gallery this afternoon; former work colleagues Matt, Dan, Jeremy and Phil, and my cycling and running colleagues Andrew, Jeff and Grant; and, finally, my international mates, John, Justin and Sally, and the late Mark Autherson from my years working in London. A sincere thankyou to you all.
To my parents Philip and Ruth, I would like to thank you for instilling the values of hard work, discipline and community participation, and for providing me with a wonderful start in my life. They worked extremely hard to send my sister and me to a fine school, Immanuel College at Novar Gardens, and then they provided support for me to attend Flinders and Adelaide universities. I am eternally grateful for the sacrifice they made to provide an excellent education.
Unfortunately, my sister Angela and her family could not be here today. But her support from Singapore will not be forgotten and I am sure it will continue. I am proud of what you have achieved, Ang, and am privileged to be your brother.
To some relatively new family members in Trevor and Alison: it has been wonderful to have your support. Two other special family members have been able to be make it here today: my treasured grandmother Margaret Schubert, who turns 90 next year, and my godmother and auntie Helen Miegel. Thank you for your support and guidance. The Miegel family, like ours, enjoyed many fine years in rural Australia.
As a young boy living at Naracoorte in the south-east of South Australia, my family was heavily involved in the local tennis club and it was here where I first saw the value of a good local community. I hold dear many good friends from those early years, two of whom are here: Janelle and Graeme Thompson. Naracoorte is in the electorate of Barker, which also has a new local member, my South Australian federal colleague Tony Pasin, who I trust will be a fine member like those before him, including the former member for Barker, James Porter. James has provided fine counsel to me in recent years.
My greatest thankyou is to my wife, Leanne, for encouraging me when required, for questioning me when needed and for bringing our two wonderful children, Sascha and Joshua, into this world and on the journey. Leanne, you have done so much to help me and I could not have done it without you. Please keep questioning me and testing me, as this is a journey that you and I will be taking together. And let me not forget the words of a former Prime Minister—to try and phone home twice a day!
I have no doubt that the road ahead will, at times, be bumpy. I thank my staff, who have assisted me in these early days and who will be crucial to fulfilling my determination to deliver the best possible representation for the people of Hindmarsh.
As I start the journey as a member of federal parliament, I know it will be important to work with colleagues to deliver change. Hence, I want to acknowledge all new members in the class of 2013. We all come to this great institution with the right motives, no matter how different our approaches may be. I look forward to sharing this journey with all members of the 44th Parliament in making our nation better, so that we can make a positive contribution to the future of all Australians.
I would like to reflect on the words of Robert F Kennedy:
Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope …
I will act to improve the wellbeing of the community and the people of Hindmarsh, to deliver a better society where hopes and aspirations are part of their reality and their future. I am proud to be here, first and foremost, to serve them. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the honourable member for Lalor, Ms Ryan, I remind honourable members that this is her first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (16:01): One of the warm memories I have of the federal election campaign of 1998 was seeing our Labor candidate for Lalor, Julia Gillard, speak humbly and fondly of her predecessor as local member, Barry Jones. On countless occasions that year people said to her, 'You'll have big shoes to fill.' Now I know how she felt.
The electorate of Lalor has been well served by our members of parliament. Our area was proud of Jim Cairns's passion for justice and peace. Our area was proud of Barry Jones's dedication to knowledge and reason. I was so glad to see Barry last month at the launch of Clare Wright's marvellous book, The forgotten rebels of Eureka. He was as generous as ever, and I assured him that the spirit of the oaths taken under the Southern Cross still lives in the seat named for Peter Lalor today.
But we were so proud of Julia Gillard. Every day for 16 years we saw our local member set her alarm clock early and go out and stand up for the things she believed in and the things we believed in. She made a difference at Werribee Primary School; she made a difference in Washington DC and from the first time I met her, when we were working to stop CSR and the Kennett government from turning our city into a toxic dump site, to this day, when she is working to improve education around the world, Julia Gillard has remained one of us—a decent, sincere, hardworking, unpretentious and optimistic person who endured more and achieved more, much of it in this very chamber, than I could ever describe here. She is a mighty Australian, a great Prime Minister and a bonzer local member. I will just try to be worthy of my part in her succession every day in this place.
So with my first words in the House I thank Prime Minister Gillard. And there are some other people I also want to thank today. Thank you to all those who encouraged me to seek preselection for this seat and who worked to ensure that our local members had the opportunity of a ballot—in particular, Paul Howes, my colleague Senator Stephen Conroy and Werribee branch president, Susan Foster.
Thank you, too, to my state colleagues: Tim Pallas, Jill Hennessy, John Eren and, most particularly, Telmo Languiller for their support during the campaign and beyond. To my federal colleagues: thank you for your welcome. It is a privilege to be a part of this passionate, committed team.
Thanks also to everyone who worked with me and for me on all the campaign days. Thanks to Anthony for being there for everyone and to the remarkable Rondah Rietveld, who led a magnificent campaign team. And thank heavens there were too many of you to name, or we would never have got all the work done! Thank you all.
One very special person, who will be annoyed at being singled out, is my great mate, Michelle Fitzgerald. Michelle and I had long been friends when we joined the Labor Party in 1996. Fitzy—thank you for everything, and I mean 'everything'. People who say that the Labor Party has lost touch with our values or lost touch with our community should spend some time with Michelle. That is all I need to say about her, and all I need to say about that.
Thank you to my family, without whom there would be nothing. John, I love you. Michael, Anthony and James, I am so proud of you. My boys now joke that despite the new career not much has changed; I will still get recesses and I will answer the bells! To my mum, my brothers and sisters and the extended family of aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews: thank you for your support, not just during the election campaign but always.
And thank you, above all, to the electors of Lalor, who gave me their precious votes, and to every elector of Lalor who took part in our great democracy on 7 September 2013. You are Lalor people and I will represent you all here in this place.
I stand here today because of four things. I am here because I am a Werribee person; I am here because I am the woman my family made me; I am here because I am a teacher; and I am here because I am Labor. The culture that I love in my community, the values I carry from my childhood and career and the beliefs that I cherish in my party all hold together as one. Ours is a diverse and growing community. Indeed, it bears a resemblance to the home of our namesake. Like Ballarat during the gold rush, Lalor is a place of opportunity, a place where settlers from around the world come to test their fortunes and to make their homes. It is a place where the diaspora comes together to create a unique mixture of culture and language, and where traditions are accepted, created and cherished.
But instead of the sprawl of ramshackle tents and timber buildings of Peter Lalor's Ballarat, ours is a modern, thriving city. When Julia Gillard first stood as candidate, in the 1998 election, 169 votes were cast in Point Cook. At the most recent election over 10,000 voters in Point Cook made their voices heard, and I have no doubt the population will continue to grow.
And yet, despite this growth, Lalor is a place of deep-rooted history. It was the home of the Woiwurung and Wathawurung people before it became a stopover for early settlers travelling between Geelong and Melbourne. Little River was the place my ancestors chose to settle in the 1850s and I am truly proud that it forms part of the electorate I represent today.
Lalor is also a place of breadth. It extends, as the Werribee Football Club song describes, from the playing fields of Melbourne to the sands of Chirnside Park. It is a place that encompasses both new and old, and with this come significant challenges: not just the adversity associated with meeting employment, infrastructure or service needs, but also, and most importantly, the challenge of continually building a connected, inclusive and just community. This challenge is met every day because, despite their differences, the people of Lalor share the same spirit.
We are home to an ethic of service: we know how to help each other. We are home to an ethic of struggle: we know how to fight for what is right. And we love our people and our place. In Lalor we know that fairness and opportunity are something that we have a responsibility to achieve for one another. We know that, even in a great social-democratic nation, society is not always fair. And that means we know that we have to take care of our own. That is the spirit of our Indigenous people. The fight of local Koori people, including my nieces Caity and Alix, to proclaim their history and heritage is testament to their tenacity. I reflect upon this every time I take part in an acknowledgement of country.
That is the spirit of the people who have family roots in the district going back to the 1840s. They came and they built. I reflect on it every time I go to my electorate office, which is on land once owned by my grandfather and where my uncle and his family built their home. And that is the spirit of the people we welcome to Lalor from all over the world every year. They have made the same journey my ancestors made from Ireland and Scotland, that the Italians, Greeks and others made following World War II. I see it in our Asian, African and South American communities and in people of dozens of other creeds and places of origin—the very same character, the very same beliefs. They arrive ready to be part of our community, like they have been here all their lives.
Madam Speaker, that is the spirit of our area. I am here to represent that spirit because I am a Werribee person. Werribee is under my fingernails and under my feet. And I am here to represent that spirit because I am the woman my family made me. They are in my blood and bone.
I am here because I am a Ryan, granddaughter of Joe, an Irish Catholic farmer who was vehemently anticonscription in the first war and who served his community not in uniform but in government—three times president of our shire. I am here because I am a McNaughton too, granddaughter of Kit, his wife. A century ago next year Kit was nursing in Egypt and on Lemnos and then in France. She served the men of Gallipoli and the men of the Somme. She finished her service as Australia's first plastic surgery nurse and she received the Royal Red Cross First Class. I am here because I am a Farrell, granddaughter of Bill: a Tasmanian, a miner, who enlisted, aged 21, in 1914. He described himself as 'an Anglican, with no prior service but a good rifle shot'. He fought with the 12th Battalion, Third Brigade, and later with the 51st. And I am here because I am a McCarthy. Lillian, my grandmother, was one of 13. She knew about service to family and showered love on us all—and, yes, that Anglican digger had to convert to Catholicism to marry her. That was what diversity looked like in those years.
My father, Gerald, and my mother, Dot, made our home at Werribee Park and later in Werribee. I am here because of them. My father was a dairy, sheep and grain farmer—and if you know farming, you know that means he showed his eight children what work was. My mother became a widow in 1973—and if you know widows you know that means she showed her sons and daughters how to rely on themselves. My mother taught us about inclusion and patience and love. All were welcome in her home and in her heart. Mum raised eight of us: two teachers, two disability advocates, a lawyer, two truck drivers and a publican. She taught us that each of us could and should do whatever it was that fulfilled us. I often joke that there are two genetic strands running through us: one entrepreneurial, the other public service. I think the publican probably did his share of both!
I grew up in that family and I grew up in that community. They taught me service and struggle and to love that place. When you are the seventh child in an eight-child pile-up, you also learn to speak your piece. School for me was St Andrews and then MacKillop College, when it was just a couple of portables in a cabbage patch. For a while I worked as a packer, and for my sins I even worked in sales. But the teaching degree I began at Melbourne State College in 1980 was the great professional moment of my life—before today. Teaching became my passion and my life. I remember my students at Darwin High School, Laverton High School, Galvin Park Secondary College and, most recently, Moonee Ponds Primary School. Tom Carroll, one of those students from Laverton, is with us today. He represents them all.
Year after year those kids would come in thinking in black and white and they would leave seeing the shades of grey. Year after year those kids would come in feeling small and they would leave writing their lives large. Teaching English, I could help them out at the start of their lives as citizens not just as consumers. Looking at them, I knew that there would come a time when they would want to write their story. Teaching them, I knew that in that moment they would not be alone or unable because they would have the language to participate and the skills to make their voices heard. Working in the classroom alongside those young people gave me such an opportunity to make a quality intervention and make a difference in a life. Serving as a principal gave me a whole other insight into the big picture challenges to ensure quality in every classroom, to minimise between-school differences, to change teaching practice, to realise the potential of every child.
It was also then I fully recognised the achievements of another western suburbs Labor MP. Lynne Kosky, then Victorian minister for education, was the first to implement genuine needs based funding for our schools. This seminal shift radically enhanced how we could teach and foster our young people. I was fortunate to see Lynne in the electorate on Saturday at the Point Cook Relay for Life. As always, she was out in front, leading her community to support one another.
It was also as a teacher and principal I experienced the transformative impact of national partnerships funding, another Labor achievement. As a principal in Melbourne's western metropolitan region, I experienced firsthand the changes the funding and research based improvement strategies could achieve. Inspired and guided by regional network leaders and committed local leadership, we implemented strategies that saw our region become the fastest improving region in Victoria over four years. I saw firsthand the positive difference this made to student learning and to family expectations. I saw that when governments get serious, lives change. That opportunity and that insight will be with me every day here, in every issue and debate.
I am also here—and I am only here—because I am Labor and, really, I am Labor because of CSR. The dramatic story of the campaign to save my town from the toxic fate that threatened us in the 1990s is well known in my electorate. And it is literally a dramatic story. With a friend I wrote a play about it called Hole in the Ground. I could be here till Christmas telling you of all the things a lot of us did in those days, but I will not because I respect the conventions of a first speech to avoid partisanship and controversy and, believe me, when I talk about what Premier Kennett and CSR wanted to do to us there is not much that is bipartisan or uncontroversial in what I had to say.
But what I do want to reflect on today is what I learned and what my community learned in that campaign. We learned that we had a voice and that we could make it heard in Spring Street and beyond. We learned to collaborate, to organise and to fight. This was no crude exercise in populism. We did not just win the campaign, we won the argument. We overcame through head not just through heart and, when the business was over, it turned out that this vital development was not so vital after all. It was never built anywhere, and there is a lesson for all leaders in that.
The fight was led in true Lalor fashion by a diverse bunch—a suburban solicitor who cut his teeth fighting for Indigenous land rights in Queensland, Frank Purcell; a farmer, long-serving local councillor and leader in our community, Julian Menegazzo; an academic and a tireless activist for social justice and the environment, Harry van Morst; and me. We were joined by our community in all its shapes and sizes.
I will never forget the amazement and excitement and delight of many of my conservative friends in a place which still had many of the features of an old Australian country town when they found out that the unions were coming. We were 15,000 gathered in protest at the Werribee racecourse on a bitterly cold autumn night when we heard not only that Trades Hall was supporting us but that union women and union men would stand alongside us and join the blockade if it came to that, and they would not leave until the job was done. It was our Eureka moment, when we knew we would persevere, knew we would prevail.
It was also a stark moment of understanding of who was on our side and to whom we could turn for help. We knew from day one that it was no accident that the leaders of a Liberal government and CSR thought this dump should be in our postcode, not in theirs. We rapidly found out it was no accident. It was the unions and the Labor Party, led by John Brumby, we could turn to for support—the same people who will always stand alongside those in need, who protect our kids, with their strong work ethic and eagerness to please, from the vulnerabilities of an unsafe workplace, have fought and won the conditions we take for granted and who with courage and kindness fight for those unheard. So, yes, I come here very proud to speak for Labor.
We have a lot to do in this place—infrastructure, health, disability care. My community needs services and infrastructure and we need them from all levels of government and we need them on time. Our nation needs more too. We need real action on climate change and continued commitment to an inclusive, caring and just society. We need economic growth and job creation. We also need to have what my predecessor described as a 'sophisticated conversation' about the role of gender in this country.
But what must underpin all of this is education, because nothing matters more. It is a tribute to Labor's legacy in education of generations past that someone like me from a family like mine is standing here today. I am here to accept a great responsibility—to hold on to that legacy and to fight for it. But I also come to fight for the future. I carry with me the hopes of those I have worked beside—hardworking, creative, collaborative teachers and principals who are dedicated to the complex work of taking every child on a productive and fulfilling learning journey. I will be fighting for them, for our schools and for students. I will fight to ensure that promises are kept and that the future of our kids, whether they be in Woolwich or Werribee, is not determined by their postcode, and to ensure that education is held up as the great equaliser and liberator it truly is.
I know this as a Werribee person, as the humble daughter of Ryans and Farrells and McNaughtons and McCarthys, as a teacher and principal, as an activist and as a passionate Labor representative. That is the service ahead of me in Canberra. And because the politics of a democracy is a contest of interest and ideas, that is the struggle ahead of me in Canberra too. It is not the way of these speeches or the nature of these occasions to reflect on the political forces we oppose. There will be time for that. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I cannot wait.
The SPEAKER: Order! Before I call on the honourable member for Deakin, Mr Sukkar, I remind honourable members that this is his first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him as has been done for the previous two speakers.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (16:20): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I rise in this chamber for the first time today I want to say how honoured and privileged I am to be here representing the place I was born and raised, the electorate of Deakin. I am deeply conscious that many of the hopes and aspirations of my constituents will ultimately rely on the success of the government I am so proud to be a member of. I would therefore like to place on record my thanks to the people of Deakin for putting their trust in me and also to convey my sincere commitment to faithfully serve their best interests.
As I stand before the parliament, I must firstly acknowledge that I would not be here without the devotion and love my parents. Like many, my family background and upbringing is what shapes and informs my fundamental political values and ultimately my mission in this place. My father was a migrant who came to Australia at the age of 18 in 1966, from Bsharri, a small farming town in the Maronite Christian region of Lebanon. He arrived in Australia with little English but a great deal of drive, intellect and energy. At the age of 22 he established his first business, which has continued with the unfailing support of my mother.
Like all people in small business, my parents worked incredibly hard and, as a family, we experienced the joys and opportunities as well as the hardships of this life. My father often worked seven days a week and I still have vivid memories of waking up in the middle of the night to find my mother doing paperwork under the dim light of her desk lamp. I witnessed how hard my parents worked to provide me and my siblings with all the opportunities they had never received. From these experiences the concepts of individual responsibility, thrift, self-reliance and reward for effort became innately part of my own values.
Not only was my father a migrant to Australia but my mother also had a diverse background: her father a Norwegian migrant and her mother a fifth-generation Australian. This cultural diversity has given me an appreciation of Australia's dual strengths as a nation. On the one hand, I keenly understand that our migrant history has contributed immeasurably to forming the cultural and economic foundations of Australia. On the other hand, our country's countless migrant success stories could never have been achieved without the values and institutions that Australia was blessed to inherit from Britain. The rule of law, parliamentary democracy and our broader Judaeo-Christian values have been the sure foundations upon which our migrant nation has been given the opportunity to succeed.
More than 20 per cent of people in Deakin were born overseas, with their diverse cultures etched on the very foundation of our local community. Like my own family's experiences, vibrant ethnic communities—be they Chinese, Italian, Vietnamese, Indian or Burmese—are flourishing and they enrich the cohesive yet distinctive Deakin community.
I stand in this place as the member for Deakin, and my love of the Deakin electorate is derived from my deep roots and life experiences in the electorate. I was fortunate to grow up in Deakin, attend school in Deakin, get my first job in Deakin and most importantly meet my beautiful wife, Anna, in Deakin. My life is therefore indelibly intertwined in the fabric of Deakin and for that I consider myself blessed to be its ninth member since 1937. Encompassing suburbs as varied as Ringwood, Mitcham, Blackburn, Nunawading, Croydon and Vermont, the Deakin community is a strong one. It is free of pretension and deeply proud of our nation's heritage. It is a community held together by our shared commitment to family, hard work and generosity. Deakin is also an incredibly active community. We have a wide variety and breadth of service organisations, church groups and sporting clubs, each with tireless volunteers who care deeply about improving our way of life.
Importantly, this strength in our local community is not achieved through government mandate, regulation or handouts but from the principles of looking after your neighbour and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. This was fostered by my Liberal Party predecessor, Phil Barresi, who served the people of Deakin for the 11 years of the Howard government. Phil was my local member during those years and his example as an active, energetic and strong local voice is one I will seek to emulate. In doing so, I am committed to being part of an Abbott-led government that by strengthening Australia also strengthens my own community. That is why I will continue working to deliver on our pre-election commitments to build the East-West Link, reduce cost-of-living pressures by repealing the carbon tax, and improve the economy and strengthen job security through the removal of unnecessary taxes and regulations.
I come here not only as a representative of the electors of Deakin but also as a member of the Liberal Party. I chose to join the Liberal Party because it stands for what innately makes sense to me: individual responsibility, reward for effort and a commitment to the values and institutions that have stood the test of time. My motivation for entering public life is clear. I want to help make Australia strong, prosperous and generous. I want us to be strong in our values and freedoms, strong in our family and community life, strong in our sense of nationhood and strong in the institutions that protect and preserve our democracy.
Being the member for Deakin, it is poignant to note that the Liberal Party has always, through many twists and turns, traced its origins back to the namesake of my electorate, Alfred Deakin. Deakin's view of liberalism is still relevant today for to Deakin, as to every other great leader of Australian liberalism, the sovereign idea which inspires our side of politics has always been the same: our belief that the paramount public value is the freedom of the individual.
In a speech in this place in 1912, this is what Deakin said in outlining a vision for Australia:
It means the full calling forth of all the powers, abilities, qualities, and characters of the people of Australia, not their suppression as citizens, not their dressing always in the same garb and being driven along the same road under the same whip.' It means no such subjection. But, given fair conditions … within the means of Australia, each of its citizens living his or her own life, and doing the best for himself or herself …
As the federal member for Deakin I want to ensure that our Australia remains true to these liberal values by keeping our economy strong so that individuals, families and businesses large and small can plan for their future with confidence and do the best for themselves. Our party understands that without a stronger economy our nation's noble aims and aspirations become unattainable.
As an economic liberal my instincts are for open markets, free competition and small government. Thankfully, open markets and free competition are now largely accepted by both sides of politics and have driven Australia's wealth creation of the past three decades. However, as I see it, the greatest challenge the Liberal Party today is battling the ever-increasing size of government. Believers in big government, like the Labor Party and the Greens, think Canberra can and should solve every problem. I do not accept this. More often than not, governments create more problems than they aspire to fix. Government intervention should be limited to what is vital. Big government crowds out a capable private sector, which disproportionately impacts small businesses—businesses run by Australian mums and dads just like my own parents. We need to ensure that no regulation and no compliance burden is imposed on business unless it is absolutely necessary and the policy objective cannot be achieved in any other way. In my view—a view that has been formed by my years practising as a tax lawyer—every piece of legislation should be subject to rigorous impact analysis. We must never forget that the regulations we impose on industry invariably result in the imposition of compliance costs. The big-government, interventionist approach of the Labor Party saw an additional 21,000 new or amended regulations in just six years. Such intrusions into the economy act as a disincentive to innovation and creativity and make it more difficult to attract foreign investment. I hope that my experience in the business sector, including as a lawyer with Ashurst and before that with PricewaterhouseCoopers, will enable businesses that are the very engine room of our nation's growth to become better understood as our parliament makes laws that affect them.
Big government also increases the opportunities for waste. After the last six years of Labor we know all too well how wasteful an unrestrained government can be. Therefore, by limiting the size of government we impose a discipline on future governments, which ensures careful consideration is given to all spending decisions, much like any private business. Imposing such discipline is critical, especially if one accepts that governments can rarely spend your money as wisely as you can.
Another ongoing challenge for modern Liberals is our never ending pursuit to end the culture of dependence. On this topic the father of American conservatism the great William F Buckley, whom I have long admired, once remarked:
There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.
Combating the culture of dependence is not merely an aspirational ambition; it is likely to be the greatest challenge to Australia's ongoing fiscal strength.
Our welfare state commenced when fertility rates were higher, life expectancy was shorter, medical costs were lower and the percentage of the population over 65 was a small proportion of what it is today. This structure is increasingly unsustainable. All successful systems evolve with time and these systems must as well. Therefore, government has a duty to constantly encourage, and indeed insist on, all of its capable citizens to participate fully in our economy.
In an economy with historically low rates of unemployment it should concern all of us that significant industries, such as mining and agriculture, cannot often find sufficient men and women to fill well-paid jobs. While we are right to have a strong and generous social safety net, overdependence on welfare can become demoralising and dehumanising. It can also become a generational problem. It is, therefore, a sense of compassion which informs my ambition to combat an overreliance on government. The collateral benefits to this approach provide not only a public dividend but also a personal dividend that can come only through the dignity of employment.
Another area of great significance for our future will be reforming and simplifying our complex tax system. As a tax lawyer working on the front line against the carbon tax and mining tax, I have seen up close the devastating impact of expansionary and poorly implemented tax policy. I have also seen that in a world of global capital and competitive tax regimes the threat of sovereign risk is highly damaging to our economy.
In contemplating these big issues, my own personal brand of politics combines liberal economic notions with strong conservative foundations. My conservatism has been informed by the two most significant influences on my life—my family and my faith. I have spoken of the influence of my family. While faith is a personal matter, my Catholic faith has been a great source of personal strength. It also lays the foundations for my desire to pursue justice for all those suffering injustice and compassion for those who are less fortunate. My many teachers and mentors from Aquinas College must be thanked for helping shape these values in me, as well as for their dedication to my education. They include Paul Neeson, John Burke, the late Dave Mallia, John Jordan and my old school principal, Tony O'Byrne, who joins us in the gallery today.
As a conservative I also believe that families will always be the most important unit in our society. This basic premise requires governments to constantly consider the impact of all new laws on families. Failing to do so will have a public cost as well as a deeply felt private cost. It must, therefore, be an issue that we keenly consider.
Finally, in my view, our egalitarian principles of fairness and equality are built on Western foundations and traditions. It is, therefore, the duty of conservatives to protect those from the so called 'progressive' elements of our society, who so doggedly seek to undermine them.
I could never have imagined that by the age of 32 I would be standing here today serving in a government that I truly believe offers Australians the hope, reward and opportunity we all deserve. I have this extraordinary privilege because of the trust and hard work of so many people. It was not an individual effort but a team effort. There were literally hundreds of people who worked tirelessly to get me elected.
Firstly, to the members of the Liberal Party and, most importantly, my local members: thank you for your unwavering support. I always felt as though I had a battalion backing me up. I would also like to record my debt of gratitude to Sandra Mercer-Moore, who has believed in me from the beginning. You are a wonderful mentor and friend, and none of this could have been possible without you. Also to Jill Sand and Beverley Hourigan: I am so grateful for your love and encouragement.
To my campaign manager, Richard Dalla-Riva, and the members of my campaign team: I really cannot thank you enough. In particular I want to thank Barrie and Judy Milligan, Clyde Aitken, Beau Dreux, David Kitchen, Mitch Tanner, Gary Walker, Charles Hogarth and Matt Whiffin. We were a brilliant team. Also to my current team—Stephen Jury, Andrea Hoy and Kate Bruce-Rosser: thank you for your dedication during the campaign and for embarking on this new journey with me.
To my patron, Senator Helen Kroger: thank you for your selfless work in support of my election. To my other friends in this House and the other place—Josh Frydenberg, Greg Hunt, Alan Tudge, Senator Michael Ronaldson, Kelly O'Dwyer and Senator Scott Ryan: I appreciate all you have done for me. I also want to place on record my thanks to Sophie Mirabella for her personal support and commitment to our party and its cause. To the party's state director, Damien Mantach, and all of his team, including Andrew Cox and Simon Frost: thank you for your friendship, perseverance and professionalism. Also to my state parliamentary colleagues: thank you. I look forward to working together cooperatively, as we did during the campaign.
Ultimately, I would not be here without the courageous leadership of our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and his vision for a stronger Australia. I want to thank him for his dedication to the Deakin electorate and for his tireless support of my election. I also would not be here today without the inspiring service to our nation of Kevin Andrews. Your example made me believe that conviction in politics still exists, and you continue to provide that example.
To my mother and father: thank you for your love and dedication as parents. In particular, to my father for taking that great step into the unknown when you came to Australia as an 18 year old and to my mother for her endless love and for being the glue that holds us all together. To my brothers and sisters—Sonia, Lisa, John and Paul and their partners, Justin, Steffany and Dan—you really are the best cheer squad and support crew anyone could ask for. That also applies to my wonderful parents-in-law, Phil and Carol, as well as Matt and Tess. Most importantly to my darling wife, Anna: your unwavering confidence in me, your steadfast support and your endless optimism really are a source of continued strength for me. You are my partner in life and love, and I could not imagine embarking on this service to our country without you by my side.
In conclusion, I want to reaffirm what an enormous honour it is to represent the people of Deakin in this parliament. My commitment to each of you is that I shall never forget, nor disregard, the faith you have placed in me, and I will do my best every single day to make Deakin and our country an even better place to live. Thank you.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member for Bendigo, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:39): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
I would like to start today by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay my respects to their elders both past and present. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and pay my respects to the traditional owners of the lands within my electorate, the Dja Dja Wurrung people, and pay my respects to their elders both past and present.
I am the 16th person to be elected to represent the seat of Bendigo, a seat that has existed since Federation. I am also the first woman to be elected to represent the seat, so in this election we made some history. Being elected as a representative to the federal parliament is one of the highest honours that one can receive from their community. I am proud, honoured and excited to represent the people of Bendigo. Like many real locals, I love my part of the world and could not imagine wanting to live anywhere else.
Bendigo is made up of a diverse collection of small villages from Newstead to Newbridge; beautiful towns like Woodend, Castlemaine, Heathcote and Kyneton; and the regional city of Bendigo. It is a vibrant region with a proud history and exciting future. And yet, despite their diversity and unique characters, the villages, towns and city have one thing in common—that is, community. Together as a community we strive to make our region a better place to live and to work; together we encourage our entrepreneurs; together we take care of our most vulnerable; together we can celebrate our achievements and face our difficulties.
Today, I am here to share not just some of my story but also the stories of the people and the communities I seek to represent. Let me start with the story of our local economy: its strength is its diversity. Businesses located in Bendigo and our surrounding communities work hard to become experts and innovators in their fields. Aided by the growth of Bendigo, our finance sector, led by the Bendigo Bank, continues to prosper. There are not too many postcodes around Australia that can boast a bank; the postcode for Bendigo, 3550, is one of them.
The Bendigo electorate is home to a growing number of arts professionals. With the right mix of commercial, public and community investment our cultural industry will continue to grow. My vision is for Bendigo and central Victoria to become a hothouse for the arts and a robust cultural economy.
Our education and health sectors continue to flourish, but also face many challenges. Bendigo aims to become a university city, something that I support and will work to achieve. Our Bendigo campus of the La Trobe University is thriving and quickly becoming a centre of excellence in the health and allied health fields. The only missing jewel in the crown is a school of medicine. A long-term vision for the Bendigo La Trobe campus is one day to have a medical school within its school of rural health—a vision I share.
Across the electorate there is a network of hospitals, GP superclinics, community health organisations and Medicare Locals working hard to keep our communities healthy. However, ageing infrastructure and a highly competitive funding model mean that funding is a growing challenge. I believe that funding for our community health centres and small regional hospitals needs to be reviewed and increased if we are to meet the primary health needs of our region going forward.
Local manufacturing is a good news story that I wish to share with the House. Not afraid of innovation, a number of Bendigo manufacturers, such as the Australian Turntable Company, Industrial Conveying Australia, Keech Castings and Hoffman Engineering, are world leaders in their fields, exporting to countries all over the world. These manufacturers tell me it is not red tape that is holding back the growth of their businesses but the ideologically driven policies of governments that are creating road blocks and hindering their growth.
Take the story of Hoffman Engineering, one of the world's largest manufacturers of gears and gear boxes. They are currently rebuilding wind turbines from Germany in order to improve their energy efficiency. These wind turbines are sent from Germany to Bendigo, rebuilt by Hoffman and then sent back to Germany. Why? Because Hoffman are the best in their field. If Hoffman wanted to supply the Victorian wind energy generation market, it would struggle because the state Liberal-National coalition government has effectively banned the construction of new wind farms in Victoria. The government is creating road blocks and stopping the expansion of industry, preventing job growth in regional Victoria. One can only wonder what the effect of today's discussions and debates in the House will have on the wind and solar energy projects in Central Victoria.
I mentioned earlier that I am the first woman to be elected to represent the seat of Bendigo in the federal parliament. Electing women is not something new to Bendigo folk. Jacinta Allan is the state member for Bendigo East, Maree Edwards is the state member for Bendigo West and Jo Duncan is the state member for Macedon. I am proud to be part of a Labor movement that values the contribution that men and women can make to public life by firstly preselecting progressive candidates and then working really hard to ensure that are elected.
In the first week of this parliament those on the other side suggested that they promote on merit, yet there is only one woman on their front bench and only a handful of their new members are women. Is the coalition suggesting then that there are only a few women with merit to preselect and appoint from within their party and caucus room? I find it hard to believe that this is the case. Perhaps some in this parliament are still wearing gendered lenses. From the parliament to the boardroom to our communities here and overseas, there is still a lot of work to be done to advance the status of women everywhere. I am a member of the Zonta Club of Bendigo whose members are actively working to do exactly this, locally and globally.
Allow me to share the story, with their permission, of our local Aboriginal people, the Dja Dja Wurrung people. Last Friday, in Bendigo's Rosalind Park, the state of Victoria returned the lands to the traditional owners, the Dja Dja Wurrung people. It was a powerful ceremony. As a handful of land was transferred from the Governor's hands to the Dja Dja Wurrung people, new relationship was formed. Finally, our community in Central Victoria had put right a moral wrong.
The Mabo case allowed the federal government led by Paul Keating to put right a moral wrong. At the time Paul Keating said: 'We give the Indigenous people of Australia, at last, the standing they are owed as the original occupants of this continent.' Today, strong leadership is needed in this parliament to facilitate the constitutional recognition of our First Australians. After Mabo, native title and the Apology, it is now time for constitutional recognition. Without strong leadership constitutional change will not happen, but it must. It is the next step on the journey towards reconciliation.
Madam Speaker, I also wish to share the story of the Chewton Monster Meeting. As you know, Chewton is part of the Bendigo electorate and has a place in our democratic history. In 1851 15,000 gold diggers gathered in protest over the gold licence. Diggers met under their new flag: a bundle of sticks tied together as a symbol of their united strength; a pick and a shovel, symbols of their labour; the scales of justice; and a kangaroo and an emu, two animals that cannot take a step backwards; as apt symbols of their new land.
This was the first such public protest in Australia and was the first step towards democracy. That is why I claim democracy started in Bendigo. Every year history enthusiasts and Chewton locals re-enact the Monster Meeting. Last year I played the role of Mr Potts, who said: 'But remember that the union is strength, that though a single twig may be bent or broken a bundle of them tied together yields not nor breaks.' The union is strength. As early as 1851 workers in Bendigo acknowledged that their strength lay within the union.
I also share here the story of John Arthur, who was the third federal member for Bendigo. Prior to entering parliament, John Arthur was a representative of the Agricultural Implement Makers Union in the Harvester dispute before Justice Higgins in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. In 1907 Justice Higgins handed down the Harvester judgement, which provided the basis for setting the minimum wage in Australia until the 1990s. The legal requirement for the basic wage was it 'must be enough to support a wage earner and their family in reasonable and frugal comfort'.
There are some in this chamber and in the Senate who would say that what was good for working Australians in the early 1900s is not good for working Australians today. Some go as far as to say that people should have the option of working for less than the minimum wage if it means getting a job, but these people are wrong. In fact, today's minimum wage is too low and is forcing too many low-paid workers and their families into poverty. Before those on the other side scream, 'Perhaps it's because these people are living beyond their means and are over-extended!, let me share another story'.
Jacki Petts is a full-time cleaner who works hard, cleaning a shopping centre. Jacki does not live in the biggest house nor in the most expensive part of town. She is a modest and humble person who always likes to remind me of where my place is. By the time Jacki has paid her car, her mortgage and her other bills there is very little left on which to live in modest comfort. How fair has our society become if working people cannot afford to pay their bills? It is only reasonable that these hard-working people expect our economy to deliver them a living wage and a secure job that they can count on. But a secure job is fast becoming a dream for many workers.
I acknowledge Marie Angrilli, who is in the gallery today. Marie worked last night, is here today and will return home tonight to work her shift. I thank you Marie for making the effort to be here with me today. Marie's story is one of the best examples I have to highlight the unfairness of insecure work.
Marie and I first met in 2006. Granted, I had to visit her at her home. But catching Marie at home was a challenge. Marie works two part-time jobs to make a full-time job. She is up at 2.30 am to start work at 4 am. She finishes job one at 8 am and returns home. She leaves home for job two at 3 pm and starts work at 4 pm. It is finished by 8 pm and she returns home just after 9 pm, only to be up and doing it all again at 2.30 am. Marie has not had a decent night's sleep in decades. This arrangement is not secure work that she or others can count on. Leadership and action is needed. Governments, industry, workers and their unions need to continue to come together to rebuild secure employment and jobs that we can count on.
I have dedicated most of my working life to standing up for working people and their families, initially by working for the union movement and now as a member of parliament. I am a proud United Voice member.
I come from a working-class family, with working-class values and a healthy respect for hard work. I am the daughter of Labor people. I fondly remember Paul Keating and Labor's 1993 'true believers' victory. That night in my family home was a bit like Christmas. There was joy and champagne.
No matter where we are in the world, in my family phone calls are received on birthdays, at Christmas, at Easter and on election nights. Politics is integral to our lives.
Whilst Labor values were instilled at an early age, for most of my childhood my parents were self-employed. After struggling to pay a mortgage and support a young family, they took a chance and bought a small business. Like many other small business owners, they essentially bought themselves a job. Working long hours was just a fact of life. I spent many Saturdays and summer holidays helping my family, until I got my first job—and the excitement of working for somebody else. This story is not uncommon in the Bendigo electorate, where many small business owners are not small business owners by choice; they have bought themselves a job rather than face unemployment.
Today, the explosion in ABN workers and sole traders is further evidence of this. Cleaners, security guards, call centre workers, even our posties, are often told: 'If you want a job, get an ABN and we'll contract you.' Our low-paid employees of the past are quickly becoming our low-paid contractors of today, with no job security and workcover, superannuation or paid leave entitlements. I believe that it is the role of government to reduce the number of employees who are being forced to become contractors instead of working for a boss.
My family values education. I was the first in my family to enrol at university, followed by my two sisters and my mother. At the age of 43, my mother returned to study, completing her undergraduate degree, then her honours and then her PhD. Today she is an academic at the University of Canberra.
To me, she embodies the Labor passion for education and the fact that education is an opportunity for lifelong learning. Education is the key that opens the door to opportunity. Accessible to all, regardless of income, ethnicity and location, public education has served our nation well. We are a rich nation that can afford to educate all of our people. I give a Gonski and will continue to advocate strongly for our public education system.
In conclusion, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank the many people who have supported and encouraged me along the way. First to the Bendigo electorate office team of Shaun, Jacki, Elly, Fabian and Bill: thank you. Together, as a team, we will serve the people of our electorate well and will work hard to make a difference.
I would also like to take this opportunity to wish my immediate predecessor, Steve Gibbons, and his wife Dianne a long, happy and healthy retirement. I am sure that many hours will be spent restoring his one true love: his cars.
For many years I worked for a great team at United Voice, representing very proud and strong members. To Jess, Ben, Marie, Kath, Gabe, Ange and to the union executive and council members and all my mates: thank you for your friendship, encouragement and support.
To the other unions, the CFMEU, RTBU, NUW, ANMF, ASU, AWU, ETU and the AU, which pitched in and helped along the way: thank you.
To the troublemakers in the gallery: thank you. To all the volunteers, the Labor Party branch members and community members who doorknocked, letterboxed, made phone calls, manned street and market stalls and ensured that I was their plus one at every community event: thank you.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank my family who are here today: my mother Jenny; sisters Debra and Ange; and partner Matt.
In conclusion, my union's name is also my motto: united voice. I say 'united'; you say 'voice.' Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013
Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the Bill a second reading:
(1) because it would be ill advised to continue without consideration of the broader policy issues set out in paragraph 2, related to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills; and
(2) because of:
(a) the impact of the abolition of the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation on ongoing transparency and investment in climate change;
(b) Government plans for emissions reduction and further development of renewable energy; and
(c) the international position of Australia in relation to climate change."
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:58): May I at the outset acknowledge a great first speech by the member for Bendigo and recognise the presence of her mother, Jenny Chesters, in the gallery: a terrific inequality scholar with whom I have had the privilege to work.
My earlier speech on this topic was interrupted at the point when I had quoted the words of the then Leader of the Opposition in support of an emissions trading scheme, followed by jeers from the other side of the House. How things have changed since 2009! It was not just the then Leader of the Opposition who was then in favour of an emissions trading scheme. That is just starting with A.
The member for Dunkley, Bruce Billson, said in this place on 29 October 2009:
It was actually the coalition that instigated work on the emissions trading scheme … in a report that I helped author back in 1998 which talks about regulatory arrangements for trading in greenhouse gas emissions in 1998 … The coalition's commitment to an ETS is demonstrable.
The member for Curtin, Julie Bishop, said:
The Liberal Party has a policy of both protecting the planet and protecting Australia. We support, in principle, an Emissions Trading Scheme.
That was in her electorate newsletter in September 2008.
The member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs, said in this place:
I believe an emissions trading scheme is one of the policy levers that can be used to change the energy mix in Australia.
The member for Moncrieff, Steven Ciobo, said:
We want to work constructively because we recognise that in the future around the world in most developed economies if not all there will be an ETS of some sort.
That was on Sky on 21 July 2009.
The member for Bradfield, Paul Fletcher, said:
When it comes to economic issues, my instinct is for open markets, free competition.
He said that in this place on 9 February 2010. On ABC News on 1 December 2009 he said:
I am supportive of the position that the parliamentary party has taken on the ETS and that remains my position.
The member for Brisbane, Teresa Gambaro, said on 20 September 2007:
We are also developing a world-class national emissions trading system to further drive investment in low emission technologies.
The member for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, said:
As members would be aware, the coalition has a strong record in relation to an ETS. Indeed, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, which was put in place last year—
that being 2007—
provided the platform for the introduction of an ETS.
That was said in this place on 27 August 2008.
The member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, told Q&A on 19 February 2009:
Our very strong view is, we were the initiators of an emissions trading scheme, and we believe in a market-based approach.
One can only imagine whether perhaps that view would have prevailed in the opposition party room if only Twitter had spoken to the member for North Sydney with a stronger voice.
The member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, claimed very strongly an emissions trading scheme for the coalition, saying:
Perhaps the most important domestic policy was the decision of the Howard government that Australia will implement a national carbon trading system. … We hope that the new government will take up this proposal.
That was the member for Flinders on 28 April 2008. Of course, the member for Flinders had a long record of arguing this case. His own University of Melbourne law thesis, 'A tax to make the polluter pay', argued:
The market is the preferable regime as it better ensures that the polluter bears full responsibility for the costs of his or her conduct.
The member for Flinders has also referred to his lifelong commitment. He said his lifelong commitment was 'to use economic instruments to do that'.
The member for Swan, Steve Irons, said:
I understand the need for action to cut the world's carbon pollution … That is why the coalition supports, in principle, an ETS as part of a three pillars approach to climate change.
That was in this place on 4 September 2009.
The member for Bowman, Andrew Laming, said in this place on 29 October 2010:
I will be working as hard as I can to have it—
the CPRS Bill No. 2—
passed. I will be working with colleagues of mine in both chambers to see that it is passed.
The member for Farrer, Susan Ley, said in this place on 29 October 2009:
We went to the last election with an ETS policy—many have forgotten that fact.
I have not she also said:
The coalition had a well-designed policy in 2007.
I agree with that.
The member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, said on ABC on 29 September 2009:
We did take that policy to the last election and it was clearly enunciated as an emissions trading scheme that would be introduced perhaps in 2011 but most likely 2012.
The member for Cook, Scott Morrison, speaking in this place on 3 June 2009—back in the days when he spoke on days other than Friday—said:
There are a suite of tools we need to embrace to reduce emissions. I believe an emissions trading scheme, in one form or another, is one of those tools. Placing a price on carbon, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, is inevitable.
The member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer, was quoted in the Stonnington Leader on 1 December 2009:
Ms O'Dwyer said she supported an emissions trading scheme and would 'support the party's policy' and that 'Malcolm Turnbull as leader has got my full support'.
The member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, told Sky Sunday Agenda on 27 June 2009:
Let's not forget it was the opposition that first proposed an emissions trading scheme when we were in government. The idea that somehow the Liberal Party is opposed to an emissions trading scheme is quite frankly ludicrous.
I do not know how anyone could have gotten that idea. I do agree, though, with the member for Sturt that it is a ludicrous notion to oppose an emissions trading scheme.
The member for Canning, Don Randall, said in his electorate newsletter in September 2007:
In moving towards the world's most comprehensive domestic emissions trading scheme by 2012 … the Howard Government is committed to setting sensible long-term targets that will not impact on Australia's economy, jobs and families.
The CPI would agree with him.
The member for Goldstein, Andrew Robb, said:
We are very supportive of a price on carbon. We introduced the scheme to do that. … We are serious about good policy in this area. We are serious about a price on carbon.
That was ABC News on 27 July 2009.
The member for Fadden, Stuart Robert, said on Doors on 26 May 2009:
We went to the last election with an Emissions Trading Scheme.
The member for Casey, Tony Smith, said:
… I take my cue from the science and that is to give the planet the benefit of the doubt, and that's why we've always said that an emissions trading scheme is useful …
That was an interview with Helen McCabe on 16 November 2009.
The member for Boothby, Andrew Southcott, said on Doors on 19 October 2009:
I think that an emissions trading scheme is an important contribution.
The member for Murray, Sharman Stone, said in a media release on 20 June 2007:
Sharman Stone welcomed initiatives announced by the Prime Minister including … a 'cap and trade' emissions trading scheme that would help Australia substantially lower domestic greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest cost.
And how right that is.
The member for Aston, Alan Tudge, writing an op-ed in the Australian on 13 February 2007, said:
Government's role should be to create the market environment that will lead to the outcomes sought either through putting a price on CO2 or placing a cap on how much CO2 will be emitted and then allowing companies to trade CO2 entitlements … The decisions should be left to the market.
No recitation of past coalition statements on ETSs would be complete without the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, who says succinctly:
You won’t find an economist anywhere that will tell you anything other than that the most efficient and effective way to cut emissions is by putting a price on carbon.
That is from Q&A on 5 July 2010. Experts agree with the member for Wentworth. A survey of 35 leading economists conducted by Matt Wade and Gareth Hutchens of the Fairfax papers and published on 28 October 2013 found that 86 per cent favoured carbon pricing. Justin Wolfers, a professor at the University of Michigan, said that direct action would involve more economic disruption but would have a lesser environmental pay-off. BT Financial's Chris Caton said any economist who did not opt for an emissions trading scheme 'should hand his degree back'.
The respected former Treasury secretary Ken Henry has described the government's Direct Action con as 'bizarre'. A report by RepuTex on the government's direct action scheme has forecast that its costs could be triple the cost of an emissions trading scheme. The OECD's recent report found that carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes are the cheapest way of reducing carbon pollution. Indeed, things have gotten so bad between the minister and his department that the environment department has refused a freedom of information request, according to reports in yesterday's papers, for the incoming government brief on the grounds that it would have 'a substantial adverse effect on the department's working relationship with the incoming minister'. That is what happens when departments deliver frank and fearless advice.
What troubles me most about the coalition's position on this issue is that it is so at odds with the experts. Scientists are telling us that the world is warming and that humans are causing it. We have seen that very impact here, in Canberra. A report by Clem Davis and Janette Lindesay titled Weather and climate of the ACT 2007-11 and decadal trends points to an increase in extreme weather events, an overall decline in annual rainfall since the early 1990s, below average rainfall in the ACT for seven of the last 10 years and increased temperatures at Canberra Airport.
Putting a price on carbon pollution is favoured by all serious economists, me included, because it taps the ingenuity of businesses. I am surprised when those opposite in their speeches speak about their pride in free enterprise. I too am impressed by the ingenuity and innovation that we see in businesses around Australia. It is that very innovation which is tapped by a carbon-pricing mechanism. It is such a dour view of Australian business ingenuity to think that Australian businesses are not able to find low-carbon ways of producing their outputs, that they are unable to look at the—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Member for Fraser, I recognise the member for Kooyong.
Mr Frydenberg: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question or make a response?
Mr Frydenberg: I seek to make an intervention under 66A of the standing orders.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member accept the intervention?
Dr LEIGH: Not with a minute to go on my time, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Frydenberg: You are running away from answering the question.
Dr LEIGH: I would be delighted to debate you on these issues at some point, Josh, but the key point here is that the Liberal Party is running away from markets. We now see in China city-based emissions trading schemes being extended across cities, covering millions of people. China will probably have its nationwide emissions trading system up and running by 2020, joining over 30 countries worldwide that are using emissions trading schemes as the best way of reducing carbon pollution. But while a nominally communist Chinese government is running towards a market approach, the nominally free market Liberal-National parties are running towards command and control—a system so interventionist that it would make Lenin blush.
The number of bureaucrats that will be required to administer Direct Action is far higher than the pricing scheme and the confidence in business expressed by such a scheme far lower than the scheme the nation has in place. (Time expired)
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (17:12): I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013. If only the member for Fraser were talking about the carbon tax, we might have a reasonable, rational debate, because on 1 October 2013 he asserted that the carbon tax is the only type of market mechanism that can meet Australia's emissions reduction targets. That was his assertion in the Canberra Times. Of course, we know he is a true believer of the carbon tax. He has taken a poll of his electorate, of all of the bureaucrats that work in the climate change department, and they all say that we should have a carbon tax.
I have one thing to say to the member for Fraser, and that is that he ought to get out of Canberra more. He ought to go down to the streets of our major cities, to where the businesses and households are, and ask them how their electricity bills are going. He should say, 'What's happening?' He should find out what is happening outside of Canberra. Member for Fraser, you will find a place over the lake; if you keep going a few hundred kilometres, you will hit a place called Sydney, and that is where most of the economic ingenuity in this country comes from. That is where all of the small and medium businesses and households are that have to work hard to pay your carbon tax.
We know for a fact that no country in the world currently imposes an economy-wide carbon tax on greenhouse emissions—none. There are none that have a carbon price set, as it is today, at $25. This is the highest price in the world. With a trade exposed economy and a scheme that compensates large businesses, we saw the former government in a rush to compensate large businesses; but they did nothing for small businesses, nothing for medium businesses and nothing for those households in Sydney, New South Wales, who have had a 57 per cent increase in their power bills since 2010. I will say that again for the benefit of the member for Fraser: outside of Canberra, in a major city in our country, there has been a 57 per cent power increase in electricity bills for households since 2010. A segment of that increase is directly related to the carbon tax, which is designed to increase the price of electricity in order to punish producers, big businesses and what the former government referred to as 'polluters'. It is hypocritical for the member for Fraser to stand here and say, 'We respect the ingenuity of business in Australia today.' In opposition, they become great advocates of our business, but when they were in government they referred to them as the biggest, dirtiest polluters that had to be targeted with the world's most expensive carbon tax. That is what they did when they were in government. Of course, our medium and small businesses could fend for themselves. There was no compensation package for medium and small businesses. They had to suffer under the burden of increased electricity prices, refrigerant gases and all of the ongoing, flowing impacts of the carbon tax with no thought of their continued operation. The member for Fraser should be very keenly aware that his position of 100 per cent, die-in-a-ditch carbon tax—that he would not repeal the carbon tax under any circumstances—which comes into effect in July 2014. That is when the carbon tax is extended to the transport sector in Australia. If the member for Fraser thinks that, when we extend the carbon tax to the truck transport sector, the cost of every good and service in this country will not go up, he really does need to get out of Canberra more.
The government has the intention of repealing the carbon tax. It has been our clear position for the last three years since the former government brought it in without a mandate. They never had a mandate; they never sought a mandate; they never asked the Australian people whether they would approve of a carbon tax; and they put one in without their consent. Ever since that day, the electorate has been crystal clear about their dislike for that tactic—not seeking a mandate, not asking the Australian people first for something such as an economy-wide carbon tax. So, we arrive three years later and we have just had another election, where the Australian people have voted emphatically for the removal of the carbon tax. Why have they voted for the removal of the carbon tax? Because they have accepted the proposition put forward by the former opposition and others that the former government had this completely wrong. This was not the way to reduce emissions by putting in the world's most expensive carbon tax, punishing our economy, risking our economic prosperity, punishing households and small to medium businesses without any real environmental impact or regard for what the emissions reduction would be. They have clearly voted in such a clear way that it is really hypocritical for the Labor Party to say: 'We do not respect your mandate; you do not have a mandate to do what you have clearly been articulating for the last three years.'
The removal of the carbon tax, we know, will reduce and lower the cost of living, on average, across all households by $550, according to Treasury modelling—that is, households will be $550 better off. There are better ways of helping the environment. It was good to see the member for Fraser list all of the environmental credentials of the coalition. He was very methodical, speaking about our position. There are many and better ways of speaking to a better environment and of dealing with the problems of pollution and carbon emissions than taxing the economy. It is an odd view that the Australian taxation system is going to save the planet. It is an odd view that the Greens attack the Prime Minister every time there is a typhoon. It is an odd view that the Greens get up and say there is another bushfire and it is an example of why we should not repeal the carbon tax. If we already have a carbon tax and bushfires are more frequent, then I do not see any benefit from that tax and I do not think removing it will have any impact upon those individual fires or storms. Why then do the Greens and their bedfellows, the Labor Party, continue this line of argument? It is because they are guilty, in my view, of a fundamental mistake about Australian politics and world politics today: this debate is not about the science; it is not about scientifically based action or scientific responses. It has been confounded by politics. We understand what the Labor Party's agenda is—a left-wing ideological agenda to wrap up the instruments of our economy. They used some of the science which may be true—some of the things which are happening—to say that we need an economy-wide carbon tax, where you have to get permits to produce. It ignores the fact that small and medium businesses do not produce goods and services for fun; they do not pump out pollution for laughs. They do it because of demand for consumer goods and services.
To decontextualise big business by saying they are the big the polluters that need to be punished or by saying that individuals or households have no responsibility or that this is not a whole-of-society problem that needs a whole-of-society response is a political angle that the Labor Party and the Greens developed. They are bedfellows. That is why we had projects like the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a major white elephant of government, to fund projects that could not get financing out in the private sector—things that would never get a go, things like the collapse of HIH. HIH was insuring movies, movies that would never make a buck—D-grade movies that no-one would ever insure. All of that risk was taken on by HIH. This was the concept of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation: that it would take on all of the risks in renewables and projects that nobody else would fund and could not get finance anywhere else. What a great idea!
That is why we are moving to repeal this dog's breakfast of a piece of legislation that the Labor Party put in. It sought to save one section of our society, the most productive part—all of our industry and all of our businesses. Somehow they were evil polluters, and no one else has any responsibility for our environment. The truth is that this is a whole-of-society challenge. We accept that carbon emissions have to be reduced, and the member for Fraser eloquently listed all our comments in relation to that. It does require a whole-of-society response. This will not be solved by the Australian taxation system alone, particularly for one segment. We have seen from around the world a change in attitudes. We have seen that voting populations around the world have cottoned onto this climate alarmism that has come from politics, and not from science. It has not come out of the scientific community, but we have seen regularly and with increasing frequency, politicians from the Labor Party seize on parts of the science and then try to develop their own scientific understanding for political gain, rather than in a measured and competent way address the problems that are being raised by science. We have terms like 'denialists' used in this debate by members opposite. The Leader of the Opposition referred to 'unilateral disarmament': if we repeal the carbon tax it would be the same thing as unilateral disarmament. That was the phrase he used. I would defy him to knock on a door in my electorate and say, 'If we get rid of the carbon tax, we are unilaterally disarming against climate change in Australia.'
Mr Frydenberg: It is a cold war mentality.
Mr HAWKE: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is absolutely right: it is a cold war mentality in the Labor Party. If the Leader of the Opposition were game enough to walk into a household or small business in Western Sydney, they would articulate very clearly to the Leader of the Opposition that there are better and other ways of dealing with climate change that do not involve them paying higher power bills. This is considering the low number of emissions that Australia produces, in a global context, and the fact that we have seen even Japan revise down its targets this week. Japan acknowledges that with its nuclear switch-off it is now going to be responsible for three per cent increased emissions by 2020—they will not be dropping emissions, they will be increasing them.
The member for Kingsford Smith opposite, at the table, is saying 'Oh, well, nuclear power—we can't use the technological solutions available to the world today to reduce emissions. We have to cut ourselves off from the technological solutions, but we also have to somehow reduce emissions while increasing the size of our economy.' It does not stack up. But we have seen Japan acknowledge that. We have seen Canada say that they are changing their approach on this, in favour of more direct action on the environment.
That is what the government is saying. We have better ways of spending money, in a more direct fashion, and the Minister for the Environment will be putting together a full white-paper process on developing the best ways to reduce emissions. The government will do this by directly targeting the worst of our polluters in Australia today and helping them do something about it, not by saying that everybody has to pay an increased rate of tax and then go around handing the money back out and not requiring any environmental fix, not requiring any change in those businesses that will produce any environmental benefit.
We sit here today, listening to member opposite, as I think the minister in question time eloquently said, in government-change denial. They are in denial of the fact that the coalition—the government—has a mandate to repeal the carbon tax. It is one of the clearest mandates that I can remember in following politics for 25 years. It is clear. It is unequivocal. It is directly from the voters from Australia. It is directly from all segments of Australia.
If you see a poll put up on the Sydney Morning Herald website, you sometimes see some pretty skewed results in favour of the left-of-centre of politics, but when it asked about climate change, 54 per cent of people said that ,yes, we have a mandate to remove the carbon tax. If you are getting 54 per cent polled on the Sydney Morning Herald website telling us we have a mandate to repeal the carbon tax, I think members opposite should look very closely at this, because the Australian voters have been clear and unequivocal. They have said: 'Yes, we want to get rid of this tax. We do not want to be paying the highest carbon tax in the world without any environmental benefit, and we do want to make sure that when the government designs schemes it does not add burdens to the prosperity of our society.'
Why is that important? It is because, if our economy grows at a slower rate, if our society is held back by the world's biggest tax in a trade exposed world, we will not have the level of prosperity we could attain. Without the level of prosperity we might attain, we will not have technological and other advancements that will enable better environmental outcomes. This is where the Labor Party fundamentally fails. A strong economy—a prosperous society—is the best way to obtain better environmental outcomes. The only way to produce a stronger economy and a more prosperous society is to let government let our businesses—our large businesses, our small businesses, our medium businesses, our families, households and individuals—develop the goods, services and products that we need, and to do so unrestricted from tax and regulatory burdens.
It is no accident that the further advanced a society gets, the better the environmental outcome. We need to go forward. That is where the member for Fraser, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are failing here in this debate today. They are looking backwards. They are looking at the past. They are saying: 'Well, why can't we have an ETS?' or 'Why couldn't we do that?', 'Why didn't we do that?' then 'Oh, this person said that three years ago'—or five years ago or eight years ago. Going forward, the Australian people have very clearly said to give us the strength to build a strong economy—and we will deliver better environmental outcomes.
We have seen attitudes in our community change. We have seen people listening to the science. We have seen people listening to the concerns of the scientific community saying that we need to do better as a society in the environment. Do not use your political ideology to highjack this debate, to turn it into something it is not, and above all, in a democratic society, respect the mandate of the Australian people—the clearest mandate that the Australian people have given any political party in the last 30 years. (Time expired)
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (17:27): Zoe Reynolds is an amateur photographer from Clovelly, in my electorate of Kingsford Smith. For years, Zoe has been capturing the many ocean pools around Sydney's east. Her images tell the story of the wonderful beauty of our coastline, but they are also studies in the changing nature of our oceans.
Through her work, Zoe has noticed that the incidence of inundation of our coastal rock pools is increasing. It used to be the case that a huge surf or a king tide was required to breach the concrete constraint and make those pools unswimmable. But that is changing. That is not the case any more. Now, it appears, a regular high tide or an average sized wave is enough to create a washing machine in the many pools along our coastline and make them unswimmable. Put simply, Zoe believes that the sea level is rising—and her photos prove it.
For some years now, climate scientists have been predicting that our sea levels will rise and they are certain that this is due to human induced global warming. The most recent scientific data, an update, again reinforces this forecast. The fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released this year, concluded: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal and sea level has risen.' That is the view of the experts. That is the view of the people who make it their life's ambition to study the changing nature of our climate. If we now know beyond doubt that Mother Nature is warning us to change our behaviour, we need to seriously consider the consequences of no action or, importantly, the wrong action to combat climate change, and ensure that we as a nation get it right.
That is why the Labor Party is taking the principle position that it is taking on this important issue. If we misjudge our policy approach in tackling climate change, we will all pay. But alarmingly—and most disturbingly—it will affect our children, more than any other. They will bear the unbridled economic and social brunt of a mistake on climate-change policy.
Australia is a nature of weather extremes, of droughts and flooding rains, as it has been famously put. Failure to tackle climate change and global warming will see a greater incidence of extreme weather events that we will all pay for. The rebuilding of infrastructure and private property is covered by all of us through our insurance premiums and through government expenditure when we experience extreme weather events. It appears, unfortunately, that extreme weather events in the north of Australia in the summer are becoming an annual event. Most insurance providers now understand the threat of climate change, have outlined the potential costs of the looming threat and have been vocal in supporting action on climate change policy. In many respects, we have already begun to pay for climate change through our premiums. The effects of floods in North Queensland flow through to all of us through our insurance premiums. Many local governments, particularly those on the coast, have accepted the advice of scientists and tailored their development control plans to account for a receding shoreline or a bulging river. Our farmers are beginning to notice the changes in life cycle patterns of certain pests and insects, with correlated effects on crops.
We all know we need to take some action to reduce carbon emissions. What we have not been able to agree on at this point is what form that action should take. The coalition intend to repeal the carbon tax. That is not disputed. It is supported by the Labor Party. The real question what they must tell the Australian public is—becomes what system do they intend to replace it with? I have mentioned already that we need to take action. What is the system that the new government intend to put in place to replace the carbon tax? The policy that the coalition took to the election was called Direct Action, a system of subsidies to companies, paid for by all of us through our taxes, because there is no cost-free way—despite what those opposite might say about the illusion of Direct Action—to reduce emissions in our economy. It is paid for by all of us through our taxes, through subsidies to install clean technology and, hopefully, reduce emissions. That is the important word here: 'hopefully'. There are no guarantees under the Direct Action system. Because there is no cap on emissions, there is no guarantee that Australia as a nation will meet our international commitments. There is no guarantee that Australia as a nation will be able to reduce the effects of climate change and not pass on that unbridled economic cost to the next generation of Australians.
If we are to have a real impact on carbon emissions, then all big polluting companies, not just a few, must have an incentive to reduce their carbon emissions. We must all change our behaviour. That is the only way we are going to get an effect on emissions. It is not fair for some to get the benefit of government support to reduce emissions and others not to. Subsidies or so-called Direct Action will only change the behaviour of those who receive the incentive. Only those who get the subsidy will have the incentive to reduce their behaviour. Those who do not receive the incentive will go on polluting. Those who do not receive the subsidy will go on polluting in the same manner as they have in the past. In fact, they gain a competitive advantage over those who have been provided with the incentive to reduce their emissions, because there is no disruption to their normal production methods. They do not have to go through the disruption of installing renewable energy technology or cleaner technology to reduce their emissions. So the bizarre irony of Direct Action is that those who receive the subsidy, who receive the payment, get the incentive to reduce their emissions, but those who do not, who continue to go on polluting, have no impact on their business. In fact, they gain an advantage. That is the great misunderstanding, the great irony, of this policy and why it will not work.
Although we all pay the cost of such a scheme through our taxes, only those who receive the subsidy will benefit. This is an unfair and inefficient system. More importantly, it will not work. It will ensure that our children have to clean up the mess that we leave them. The costs of dealing with climate change will become much more drastic, much larger, the longer we wait. This is something that is agreed upon internationally by all respected economists: the longer we wait to tackle climate change, the greater the cost will be. If we fail to take the right action, then we simply pass that cost on to our children. I have two children, and as a decision maker in this place I cannot for the life of me see how we as responsible adults can take such a decision.
An economy-wide cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions will guarantee that we are able to reduce emissions in the cheapest and most efficient manner possible. That is because as a nation we can set a realistic cap. We can put a cap on carbon emissions and we can allow businesses to do what they do best, and to make their own decisions about how they reduce their pollution over time. That is the way market based economies work. We do not force companies to make decisions, as they do under command economies; we provide the right policy mechanisms and the levers for companies to make their own decisions, to reduce their emissions over time in the manner that they find the cheapest and most effective without harming their production of goods for market. This is a cheaper, more efficient and more effective option and it fits well with our market based economy. More importantly, it also represents our generation taking responsibility for the challenge we face rather than passing the cost and responsibility on to our children.
The Prime Minister's feelings on climate change were made clear a long time ago. 'Absolute crap' is the way that he described the science around the greatest moral challenge of this generation. Since that time, the rhetoric has softened somewhat. The advice was given that the Prime Minister should tone down his language if he wanted to win an election. But the coalition's attitude, under their leader, has retained the same level of disdain, and that is evident in the policy that they are putting forward to this parliament today. Their direct action policy is proof of this.
Since 1992 there have been no fewer than 37 parliamentary inquiries into the question of how we reduce emissions in our economy and the most efficient and effective way. Thirty-seven parliamentary inquiries and each and every one of them, including the Shergold review, which was commissioned by former Prime Minister John Howard, has recommended that a market based mechanism similar to an emissions trading scheme or a price on carbon is the most efficient and effective way to reduce emissions in our economy. What are we to do as a parliament? Ignore the advice of 37 separate parliamentary inquiries which have been advising this government and governments of the past that the cheapest and most effective way to reduce emissions is through a market based mechanism? That is exactly what this government is doing—ignoring the advice of the experts, ignoring the advice of 37 parliamentary inquiries, for cheap, cynical political means to win an election.
Instead, they have chosen to take an axe to some of our most important institutions charged with the task of leading the nation to cleaner future. They will cut funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency by $435 million and defer a further $370 million in investment. The Australian Conservation Foundation's campaigner Tony Moore said in the Sydney Morning Herald that the cuts:
… will starve research and development of clean energy in Australia, moving us back to the back of the global race for clean tech.
Investment in renewable energy will be diverted away from the Australian economy. It will go to other nations that are interested in seriously reducing and tackling climate change. So too will the jobs. The jobs in the new economy will move away from Australia, because the investment will not be there in clean energy anymore. This is in addition to the axing of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the body entrusted with assisting business to commercialise clean energy projects in our economy. It paints a vivid picture of the coalition government's indifference to the task of tackling climate change.
Labor, on the other hand, much like the vast majority of economists, believes that an emissions trading scheme is the most cost-effective way deal with carbon pollution. That is because you can put a cap on emissions. We can guarantee as a nation that over time the policy will be effective—that we can reduce emissions in our economy. It is a market based mechanism, which means that we allow businesses to make their own decisions about how they reduce their emissions over time without harming their business. More importantly, it represents this generation of Australians taking responsibility for making decisions and implementing an effective policy to tackle climate change.
One of the great ironies of the direct action policy that has been put forward by the Liberal government is the fact that it is a subsidy scheme. Here we have the bastions of the market based economy, the Liberal Party, advocating a subsidy based scheme to reduce emissions in our economy. I find it highly ironic—
Mr Frydenberg: We have a market system!
Mr THISTLETHWAITE: I have no doubt touched a nerve here with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. It is highly ironic that we are talking about getting rid of subsidies for the car industry, because many on that side see those subsidies as inefficient, as propping up industries that are no longer effective in our economy. So they are talking about getting rid of subsidies for the car industry but in the same breath they come into this place and then talk about providing subsidies to companies to reduce their carbon emissions within our economy. It is an unbelievable and bizarre irony in the policy approach of the government to this important issue. Anyone with any economic credibility knows that a market based mechanism is the only way that we are going to be able to reduce emissions in our economy.
I find the mandate argument even more amusing. In 2007 Kevin Rudd had a mandate to introduce an emissions trading scheme. At no stage did the Prime Minister accept that mandate. In fact, he went about destroying two Liberal Party leaders until he got his way and ensured that the Liberal Party never had and never supported an emissions trading scheme. He undid Brendan Nelson when he was the leader of the Liberal Party and then he set about destroying Malcolm Turnbull when he was the leader of the Liberal Party and never accepted the mandate that was given to Kevin Rudd on this important issue. The only thing that is certain under Direct Action is that jobs will fall and we will not meet our emissions targets.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (17:42): The great tragedy of the carbon tax debate will be that schoolchildren a generation from now will not learn about the respective strategies of those on either side of these chambers; what they will learn about is the ham-fisted mishandling of the Labor Party from 2007 to 2013 of the carbon abatement reduction issue. What we have seen is constant flux and change from a party that is confused between the moral challenge of this generation and the practical reality of Australian families who are struggling with the ever-increasing cost of living.
We are almost alone globally as a nation that has effectively put huge amounts of political capital into this carbon tax debate. It is a debate with such ferocious intensity that visitors to these shores are somewhat surprised as to how we got here. It is worth looking back to 2007 and the aspiring Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, who attempted to make the carbon tax and emissions reduction an issue upon which he would set himself apart while at the same time attempting to be as similar to John Howard as he possibly could on virtually every other issue.
In 2007, of course, there was hope of some international agreement. It is disappointing that the member for Canberra devoted half of his speech to reading out quotes from coalition MPs from 2007, because politically it was a very different time. Indeed, there was then hope of some form of international agreement. There was hope that we could go to Copenhagen and strike an agreement. There were MPs from both sides of this chamber who were willing to give that very prospect a chance.
What we have is a Labor Party that failed to come to grips with that reality, and when it fell apart at Copenhagen and we had then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd with the shiny apple of his own ETS in the front row of international agreements completely ignored by the major economies of the world, he came back, walked back over his moral minefield and backed out of the space completely. With that lack of confidence that was transmitted to the Australian people, he was soon replaced as leader. Probably for that reason more than any other. Enter the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard , making whatever promise it took to win the 2010 election. By this time the low levels of scepticism, which in my electorate were around 13 to 16 per cent, had grown to nearly 40 per cent, primarily because such an important policy issue became a political football, exploited by the other side of this chamber.
We are in a more paralysed, more confused and more polarised position than any other country on the planet because of the handling by this former government. When Wayne Swan said it was a hysterical allegation, when the previous Prime Minister Julia Gillard said that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led, Australians gave them one more chance, only to see it betrayed within weeks.
Let me make it fully clear. There was no need to embark on a carbon tax in order to gain a Greens agreement to govern. This was a Prime Minister that should have said: 'I need your support to govern, but I made a commitment to the Australian people and it is something that I cannot break.' What she said was quite simple: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' It should have been watertight but it was not. It was at that moment that she wrote the political epitaph for her administration. She never recovered. I am giving this political context to say: haven't times changed.
In my very marginal seat, where there was 16 per cent scepticism towards a carbon tax and emission trading, it soon tripled. We now have a situation where even reasoned debate from members of this chamber will probably fail to convince nearly half of our population that this vitally important issue is something that our great economy can move forward on.
Let's not forget that both sides of this chamber agreed to five per cent reductions on 2000 levels. That is an impressive cut—and it may not be enough—but we have still been hectored by the Labor Party for not reducing emissions satisfactorily. Yet their own figures show that under their carbon tax Australia's emissions would increase from 560 megatonnes to 637 megatonnes. That is not a reduction; that is an increase. Constantly—and from the perfectly coiffured member for Kingsford Smith—we have had an elaborate argument about the lack of market mechanism in Direct Action.
Let's just step back and look at international efforts around the world. Last time I checked, the UN clean energy abatement process involved abatement procurement. That must be a market mechanism. So is Norway's attempt to purchase abatement, and Japan's. In fact, anything that is not direct action, which is purposefully and specifically purchasing abatement, is by definition indirect action.
The whole problem is that, in this purist and economic approach to involving everyone in carbon abatement, we are affecting and molesting, we are ripping into, a system where people who cannot do anything to reduce their emissions pay anyway. If you are a senior living in my electorate, huddled around the heater in winter, made to pay more for your energy, wrapping a blanket around you because you cannot afford to turn on a heater, you do not want a bureaucrat telling you: '550 bucks should be enough'. You would rather they did not take the money in the first place. That is why half of Australia does not want this bloody tax. It is quite simple. And if you involve people who can make no difference to emissions reduction in this intentionally labyrinthine process, then you will get this kickback.
Let me go back a step. If you want to abate some emissions and you intentionally tender that process, surely that is a market mechanism. If I put $1 on the table and ask all comers to deliver a service or a good for me for that price, surely that is a market mechanism; if there is a price at a service station for fuel and people can drive in and pay for fuel, it is a market mechanism; $3.8 billion of all of Labor's approaches towards emissions reduction was direct action. Every time you gave money to a brown coal burning power station to clean it up, as this Labor Party did, it was direct action. Everything the globe has ever done to reduce emissions that did not involve an economy-wide tax was by definition direct action. Norway can do it; Japan can do it; UN can do it; but any direct action that is here in Australia is somehow an anathema. Seriously. We have an emissions target. You can purchase abatement directly or you can have an economy-wide tax.
To my second point and emphasised strongly by the member for Canberra: yes, most economists prefer an economy-wide scheme. That is because they are economists. If economists had their way, we would have a market based mechanism for everything: for returning plastic containers, aluminium cans, ring pulls—the lot. You could have an economy-wide scheme for all of them, but there are too many unforeseen costs. The returns are not sufficient; there is too much dead weight, so we do not do it. That is economics 102.
Of course not every economic idea becomes reality, because there are practical implications—that is, most people, through their ordinary work and going about their ordinary endeavours, have very little latitude and very little ability to change their basic emissions. We cannot rebuild our houses. After you have insulated the ceilings, there is not much you can do. So why do we make everyone pay more and then write them a cheque and assume that is going to cover everyone regardless? Fuel stress, the distance you live from a CBD or where you work, the number of people who live in your household, the materials with which you have built your dwelling, all change those figures and make it horribly imprecise.
Times have changed. This is a Labor Party that has traduced this debate. The politics of it has been appallingly handled and this has made it very hard for moderate members in this place to forge a way ahead. It has become polarised. It has become difficult, and now we have an opposition—that specialised in collecting money, specialised in collecting revenue even before it was received and specialised in spending it before they saw it—lecturing us about a direct and targeted approach to reducing emissions.
There is a role for technology. There is a role for our major agricultural and commodity economies with whom we both trade and compete to come to an agreement at some time in the future. In 2008, it looked like it could happen and Australia went there with good faith. There is no prospect of that anymore. There is no prospect in the US, despite their three-dollar-a-tonne tax on their nine eastern seaboard states. There is nothing in Canada. I do not see anything happening in Russia. I do not see Japan doing anything. I do not see China doing anything until 2020. Call me in 2019, because I think my phone will be fairly quiet.
Two elections from now, let us have a look at what China is doing and then maybe we can instigate international dialogue about a global approach and an approach with our trading partners. It is not just about big economies; it is about economies that have the same endowments as ours. I do not want to see effort shift with major mining enterprises moving to places where there is not a carbon tax. The previous government had no answer to that double-blow of a carbon and a mining tax. This side of politics will not stand by and watch high-paying jobs go to Zambia, no way. We will go to international mining conferences and see auditoria packed with new starts in the African continent, new starts in South America and new starts in Siberia. And the room where they talk about starting an enterprise in Australia that gives jobs to my friends and my friends' children will simply not occur. That is the legacy that will be studied a generation from now.
There is a chance still for the globe if we get together; there is no doubt. There is still a chance for major economies to take the lead but there was no point embarking on a $30-plus carbon tax in the absence of having other shoulders to the wheel, in the absence of having other economies move with us in a realistic way. I know on your hands you can count a dozen or so countries that have embarked on a carbon tax. But they are Swiss cheese carbon taxes: carbon taxes with all the exemptions where it might in any way affect the country's most beloved sectors. I respect those countries for doing it but paying $1 through to $11 per tonne is something very different to what was being foisted on us by a government that paid so heavily for such political short-sightedness.
It was a government that for six years, as I said, spent the money before it had collected it. Nibbling away and eroding confidence in it was the simple fact that the money, hard earned by you and me, was collected by a government—potentially $16 billion before there was any emission reduction at all—which then frittered it away on everything from insulated ceilings to green loan schemes—where young Australians invested $3,000 of their own money to become a green loan assessor and do their part to reduce emissions in this great nation. And what happened? It was ripped away from under them with no compensation. Close friends of mine trusted a government to not possibly destroy an ambition or a dream to help in this great green crusade that many of us had bought into. No, they lost everything. From an environment minister who chopped the numbers, who cancelled the program by SMS and who left them with no recompense and no refund for money they spent on training and registration, thousands of dollars went up in smoke—similarly, the pink batts scheme. These are examples of where this money was going to be spent.
The Clean Energy Fund was similarly simply propping up what were potentially non-viable loans in the private banking sector. And people lost confidence. What they are looking for is a government that does what it says: says one thing before an election and delivers it afterwards. This coalition government is utterly committed to that. Do not for one moment think that emission abatement cannot be equivalent to what was proposed over on that side of the House.
I have a very simple message to the people in my electorate of Bowman, an outer metropolitan bay-side economy deeply concerned about the ecology, deeply concerned about the environment and very proud of the environmental protection we have achieved so far. When you travelled from the islands to Brisbane, under the Labor Party you paid a carbon tax on all your transport every day, backwards and forwards. That is right: every day. What do you do about that under the Labor government scheme? Do you swim, sail or use a paddle boat? Seriously, there is no way to reduce those emissions other than get on that boat and pay more for the removal of the diesel rebate under the Labor government's carbon tax.
We go to the dumps every weekend and hope that we cannot have the carbon tax on our major landfill, and we do. How can we possibly make major reductions in the waste that we leave in our bins and have collected or drop off on weekends? It is extremely hard to do. Simply, an economy-wide tax on everything hurts too many people at a time when the economy is too precariously balanced, at a time when international confidence to move forward is limited. We must move with direct action. We must be focused. We must gain those reductions, and we can do it without the punishment of an economy-wide carbon tax.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member for Bowman to retract a word that he used when he referred to the tax in the body of his speech.
Mr LAMING: I retract the word.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (17:57): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election last week to that august role. Before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to correct a couple of myths—'myths' being a generous term—that the member for Bowman just espoused. Firstly, never have I seen such a great lack of knowledge of what is happening internationally, which I will address in my speech later. The member for Bowman—
Mr Frydenberg: He's a doctor.
Mr CONROY: So does that make him an expert on international action, does it? Secondly, the member for Bowman commented on the deep scepticism in the community that was growing over the last few years. That grew because of the demonisation of scientists that occurred by the current Prime Minister, his frontbench and his friends in conservative talkback radioland. They stand willingly under sign' that say 'ditch the witch' and talk about UN conspiracies around climate change science. They deride climate change. They give people an excuse not to take action and that is why this debate is where it is now.
This piece of legislation represents the final nail in the coffin of the economic illiteracy of the coalition. The party of Deakin, the party of economic liberalism, is now suspicious of markets. As the member for Kingsford Smith talked about before, they are now seeking to replace what is the most effective and efficient way of combatting climate change with a slush fund akin to government commander control. Mr Lenin would be proud of it, as the member for Kingsford Smith said, but I can imagine many Soviet era economists being very happy with this. The case is that it is now the member for New England that is writing the economic policy for the coalition government. We well and truly have a case of the National tail wagging the Liberal dog.
The fact is that in 2007 both major parties took to the election policies for an emissions trading scheme. It was only when the current Prime Minister knocked off the member for Wentworth and betrayed the trust of the Australian people that we saw this consensus on fighting climate change through a market mechanism break. I was elected as were all of my Labor colleagues on a platform of moving from a fixed-price emissions trading scheme to a flexible-price emissions trading scheme in 2014 and I will proudly vote that way.
We have been hearing a lot in the last two weeks about 'mandate this', 'mandate that'. I thought it would be illustrative to quote what the current Prime Minister said in 2007, when giving advice to then opposition leader Brendan Nelson. He said:
Nelson is right to resist the intellectual bullying inherent in talk of ‘mandates’.
… … …
The elected opposition is no less entitled than the elected government to exercise judgement and to try to keep its election commitments.
It is ridiculous for the Prime Minister, a man who is a self-confessed weathervane on the topic, who once called for a carbon tax to claim a mandate on this issue.
This bill demonstrates yet again that the coalition does not accept the science of climate change is settled. The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reinforced the fact that the science is settled. No other country in the world questions the science. No other government in the world questions the science and no other Prime Minister calls the science 'crap'.
The fact is that internationally action is occurring. Over one billion people now live in countries or provinces where some form of carbon pricing, whether it is a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, exists. They are in countries in Europe and states in the United States—for example, California, the ninth largest economy in the world in its own right, has introduced an emissions trading scheme around the $20 mark. There are 200 million people living in Chinese provinces where they are developing emissions trading schemes right now and they have a goal of a nationwide emissions trading scheme later this decade.
By 2016, over three billion people will be living in countries where there are emissions trading schemes or carbon taxes. To say that we are leading the world or that we are going by ourselves is a complete furphy, which demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of this debate.
Those who think that we can sit by and do nothing while our trading partners take action are kidding themselves and are exposing us to massive trade retaliation. Besides our trading relationships, it is vital that we take action so that we can harness the advantages that accrue to people in the low-carbon industrial revolution. Every previous industrial revolution has demonstrated that the countries that move first are the ones that will benefit the most. That was demonstrated by Britain in the first industrial revolution that concentrated on steam and textiles. It was proved by Germany and the United States dominating the second half of the 19th century with the rise of steel and railways. It was demonstrated by Japan and the United States in the electronic revolution post-World War II. It is the countries that solve the problem and develop the technologies that fight climate change that will be the ones in the best position to compete in the 21st century.
There has been a lot of discussion about international competitiveness, helping our industries. I can tell you: turning us into a rust belt economy while the rest of the world decarbonises will be a great disadvantage to our economy.
The fact is that we have a responsibility to play our part and the clean energy bills a fixed-price emissions trading scheme moving to a flexible-price emissions trading scheme is the most efficient way of doing it. It is a market mechanism recommended by people such as Professor Shergold, Ross Garnaut and Lord Nicholas Stern in the United Kingdom. Every serious economic commentator has said an emissions trading scheme is the way to go.
Despite the disgraceful exaggeration of those opposite, the implementation of the carbon price was smooth. The inflationary impact was modest—in fact the modelling probably overestimated the inflationary impact of the scheme. Nine out of 10 households were compensated. We had landmark economic reforms associated with a package, including the tripling of the tax-free threshold.
A leg of lamb does not cost $100 as the member for New England prophesised it would; in fact the price of lamb has fallen by 10 per cent in the last year. Whyalla has not been wiped out—it is still there—and 140,000 jobs have been created in the economy since the carbon price began. The stock market has grown by 32 per cent, and our emissions are flat, if not falling.
We have seen a 6.1 per cent fall in emissions from electricity generation over the last year. This represents 12 million tonnes less carbon pollution being emitted into the atmosphere than the equivalent time last year. This is the equivalent of taking 3½ million cars off the road, so a price on carbon works. Getting to a flexible-price emissions trading scheme is the way to go.
If the member for Flinders bothered to read his own department's reports rather than Wikipedia, he would know that this fall in emissions was driven by fuel switching to cleaner energy sources and falling demand. Despite his claims to the contrary, electricity is an elastic good and demand has been responding to the price signals as economists have prophesised.
As the ETS has a harder cap on emissions, it guarantees that Australia's net emissions fall, and this was the important point the member for Port Adelaide was making in his response. No amount of misrepresentation or Treasury modelling by those opposite negates the fact that a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme means that Australia's net emissions in 2020 will be at least 130 million tonnes less than they would otherwise be.
That is why credible internationally linked emissions trading schemes are so important, particularly for emissions-intensive economies such as ours. They allow pollution to be cut at the lowest cost wherever it can be achieved. There is after all only one atmosphere, and a reduction in pollution anywhere in the world has the same environmental benefit.
The coalition's policy of prohibiting the trade of carbon permits with other countries is economic xenophobia. It is sending a signal that it is somehow dubious to trade with foreigners. It is typical dog-whistle politics and is in fact a white carbon policy.
I would now like to turn to the regulation impact statement that accompanied these bills. The RIS importantly admitted that not all prices will fall to their former level if these bills are passed. The RIS is very explicit on this point, and this has been confirmed by industry only as recently as last week.
The RIS also contained a very interesting table worth reading, which is table 8.1. This table outlines the expected changes to industry output in a scenario of a carbon price against one with repeal. This table in this official government document that accompanied these bills made it very clear that repealing the carbon price would cause agricultural and manufacturing output to be lower than output would be if there was a carbon price, which is a shocking revelation.
I wish to turn to the solution that the government is offering when they try and repeal these bills: Direct Action. This scheme is a joke; it is friendless. A recent survey of economists found near unanimity that a market based solution is the best policy option to reduce carbon price. Thirty-three out of 35 economists surveyed rejected the government's Direct Action policy. Of the two economists who favoured this farce of a policy, one did so because he favoured no action by Australia and the second did so because he rejected the established scientific fact that climate change is overwhelmingly human induced.
No policy to tackle climate change is cost free. That is the truth. You can either charge polluters or charge the taxpayer. Despite the protestations of those opposite, direct action is not market based. Direct purchase of abatement from the private sector does not change incentives to abate or emit throughout the economy. If you are not a successful bidder in their scheme, you have zero incentives to change your behaviour. I ask the coalition: how can you have a market without an explicit price? How is a government subsidy a market? If they were honest—and to his credit the member for Wentworth has been in the past—they would answer 'you can't' and 'it isn't'.
It is worth quoting the member for Wentworth's exact words: 'Tony Abbott is putting a price on carbon, it's just that the taxpayer is paying for it. Now the view that I've argued for, which is you know, and you have to be, you know, fair and say it's the view that most economists support, is that you're better off having the market determining the price of carbon and therefore you put a price on carbon either through an emissions trading scheme or through a tax ... Tony Abbott is ... saying there will be a price, but the price will be paid for out of taxpayers' resources via direct subsidies, as opposed to being paid by the emitting industries and then passed on through the market, and that is, you know, that's really a debate about the benefits of market forces versus direct action, as Tony describes it, by government. Now my preference, because I am a liberal and a free enterprise person, is always for the market.'
For once, the member for Wentworth is right, and I am proud that the Labor Party are agreeing with him on this point. Direct Action will not produce investment certainty and it will not produce sufficient abatement to meet Australia's abatement targets without creating enormous budgetary costs. Using the most optimistic assumption that it would be as efficient as a domestic only emissions trading scheme, Treasury found that to reach the minus five per cent target Direct Action would cost the government at least $48 billion to 2020. This is not the Labor Party saying it; this is the independent Treasury saying that it will cost at least $48 billion. This equates to a tax increase of $1,200 per household. You have two choices in this debate: either polluters pay or taxpayers pay. Direct Action is a recipe for a $1,200 increase in a household's tax.
Other independent experts such as the Grattan Institute have estimated that it will cost up to $100 billion to reach the 2020 target using schemes such as Direct Action. This type of direct action scheme has been tried in the past and failed. The Howard government tried the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, which was wildly unsuccessful and Direct Action will be too. Direct action is a ridiculous scheme. It will require tree planting on the combined land mass of Victoria and Tasmania to reach the five per cent target. They have pinned all their hopes on soil carbon. In fact, their joke of a policy document says that soil carbon will provide 85 megatonnes of the abatement. This, unfortunately, cannot happen because the process of soil carbon is unproven both scientifically and economically. Farmers who have looked into this matter reckon they are kidding if they think they can get away with paying only $8 to $10 for soil carbon.
This bill is really a debate about the future of Australia. I want a future where we are playing our part in international action to tackle climate change, where my daughter and her generation can grow up in an economy that has decarbonised and where our industries have taken advantage of the new technologies that will support changing our economy and combating climate change.
My electorate has the largest power station in the country and it has six coal mines. These companies are already taking action to reduce their emissions, in response to the price signals sent by the carbon price at the moment and because they recognise that they need to take action if they are going to compete internationally. Interestingly, when I talk to all these people not a single one favours Direct Action. They all support an internationally linked emissions trading scheme, which is exactly Labor's policy.
Labor have had a policy to combat climate change using an emissions trading scheme in our platform since the late eighties—long before the growth of fringe environmental parties—and I am very proud of that fact. I am very proud that Labor will keep fighting. We will not support this bill unless there is a guarantee that the scheme will be replaced by an internationally linked emissions trading scheme, which is the cheapest and most efficient way of combating climate change.
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (18:12): I am pleased to make my first contribution to debate on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, a bill that the Prime Minister promised would be this government's first order of business, and he has delivered on that promise. Every bill that is passed by this House and by the Senate and signed into law has an effect on people. Some legislation has more effect than others, like Labor's carbon tax. On this side of the House, we understand that. We understand that the ready answer to problems facing our wonderful nation is not simply to draft up new laws or impose more rules and regulations, or to have another press conference. It is about reducing the tangle of red and green tape, providing incentives for individuals to invest and innovate—in effect, to strip away the obstacles and create the conditions for long-term sustainable jobs.
Supporting jobs and endeavour is surely something that not one person in this House would oppose. Yet the carbon tax did so much to undermine that goal. Given the position taken by those opposite on this legislation, it is little wonder that Australians have become jaded about the conduct of their representatives. The people of Bass elected me and the people of Australia elected this government with a clear mandate to scrap the carbon tax. Yet those opposite still act as if they are in the 43rd Parliament, clinging to a toxic tax that their leader promised she would never implement, clinging still to paragraph 6.1(a) of the Labor-Greens deal that the Australian people so comprehensively rejected and which did nothing to enhance the reputation of politics.
I do not ascribe to all members opposite the views of the Greens, but it is fact that on 1 September 2010 the former Prime Minister signed her name to a coalition agreement with the Leader of the Greens in order to secure power. I respectfully say to this House that when the history is written from a longer perspective that decision by Julia Gillard will be seen as one of the monumental political misjudgements in our nation's political story.
Labor's national interest assessment on climate policy has been way off the mark since 2008. They have no excuses for the flawed legislation we seek to repeal or for their failure to properly articulate what domestic benefits accrue by leading a global response, particularly when the biggest global polluters are not following our example.
Labor's approach gave disproportionate policy authority to the Greens party, which as many members opposite know is founded on a fanciful ideology that is antibusiness and antidevelopment, and therefore anti-jobs. I genuinely hope that the views of members opposite who understand this will prevail in the counsels of their party. Those opposite said repeatedly that the lived experience of the carbon tax would reinforce its moderate impact. Well, let's consider the lived experience. Quarterly CPI figures released on 24 October 2012—the first since the carbon tax was introduced—saw a 15.3 per cent rise in electricity, with household gas and miscellaneous fuels rising by 14.2 per cent. This is the largest quarterly increase ever, two-thirds of which on average came from the carbon tax.
Labor knows that the lived experience of the carbon tax imposed economic pain on families and businesses. Far from wearing out their shoe leather to promote it, most of those opposite went into hiding. This is why many of them have argued since that Labor should not oppose the bill that we are now debating. We know that because some of them were brave enough to put that view publicly, both during the campaign and after the 7 September election.
It was the first test for the Leader of the Opposition and his leadership group as to how to approach this vital policy decision in the caucus, and it is a matter of deep disappointment that the Labor leadership group failed that first test. Even fierce political opponents of the coalition acknowledge that the campaign successfully conducted by Prime Minister Tony Abbott was centred—I say it again, 'centred'—on repeal of Labor's carbon tax legislation. He presented the compelling reality that the carbon tax is a $9 billion hit on our economy and that removing it will reduce cost-of-living pressure for families and help thousands of businesses that are doing it tough.
In response to our competing visions at the last election, Labor experienced their lowest primary vote in 100 years. In my seat of Bass there was an almost 11 per cent swing to the Liberal Party, and the Greens party vote was cut in half. Do those opposite really think that the people's verdict can be seen as anything other than a strong endorsement for repealing this toxic tax? Apparently some do.
In the early days of the 44th Parliament the message from Labor is a confused one. They created high debt, bad taxes, and a boat problem, yet complained that after only weeks in government we need to hurry up and fix the high debt, the bad taxes and the boat problem, all the while acting in this parliament to stop us fixing the high debt, the bad taxes and the boat problem—little wonder the Australian people are confused and disappointed.
And what a contrast we see from the Leader of the Opposition to his predecessor Kim Beazley. Faced with a similar example of how to respond to the coalition's clear mandate on the GST after the 1998 election, Mr Beazley said that he would listen to the clearly expressed view of the voting public. The Leader of the Opposition has, if I may use a sporting metaphor, squibbed it. He has bowed to those in his party who welcomed the alliance with the Greens and who have retreated from the once proud notion of the Labor Party as a pro-jobs party.
And that is also the case in our—with the member for Braddon here—home state of Tasmania, which has experienced a Labor-Green alliance even longer than the national version led by Julia Gillard. In a fragile economic environment like Tasmania, the Labor-Green effect has seen us fall behind in almost every objective economic measure.
Australians expect their parliamentarians to have some appreciation of the national economy, of the role of business and labour, of management and employees and of the various economic levers available to regulators and that naturally occur in the market. They do not want their national government to undertake policies which are isolated from the economy and diminish our place among competitive international trading nations. And yet, astoundingly, it was this damaging, anti-jobs and isolated policy position that the Gillard government took, hand-in-glove with its Green party supporters. Their decision to put a tax on carbon was a breathtakingly foolish move, totally divorced from the environmental policies being pursued by our major trading partners and neighbours.
Compounding this lack of any economic sense were two other decisions the former government took which totally undermined their credibility in bringing in this new tax. The first was the former Prime Minister's explicit denial to the Australian people that she would introduce a carbon tax, and then suggesting to the Australian people that it was not a tax at all.
The second major policy flaw, and this is the one which many otherwise thoughtful environmentalists overlook, is that the ALP's carbon tax did nothing—absolutely nothing—to affect climate change and reduce carbon emissions in Australia. In fact, domestic emissions in Australia under the carbon tax go up from around 560 million tonnes in 2010 to 637 million tonnes in 2020.
The bill before the House today repeals a tax that does nothing to help our environment and that concurrently damages Australia's international competitiveness. And, importantly, the House must remember that the bill we are debating, while doing nothing for the environment, did impose a significant unsolicited burden on Australian families and businesses. As the Prime Minister said when giving the second reading speech, this bill will have a direct and positive impact on the cost of living, the price of electricity and the price of gas. When this bill is coupled together with the suite of other Direct Action policy initiatives that were a fundamental part of the coalition's election platform, the result will be twofold: our competitiveness will be rebalanced and positive action will commence to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
As a representative in this chamber from Tasmania, one of the 'three amigos', with the member for Lyons and the member for Braddon, can I say it is particularly galling to us that people from our state have to pay inflated power prices because of a carbon tax when the previous Labor government took no account—I repeat: no account whatsoever—of the fact that the vast bulk of power produced in Tasmania is, and has been for around a century, both renewable and environmentally friendly. That was, of course, one of the direct failures of Labor's carbon tax policy. It was a blanket approach to a problem which did not take account of the different methods of power production in Australia. It was a blanket approach that, as I have said, was totally isolated from the policies being pursued by our trading partners.
It is as if the former Australian government had gone to some retreat run by business-ignorant Greens politicians, with a giant whiteboard, and decided: 'Let's adopt a policy that takes no account of what happened at the Copenhagen summit. Let's adopt a policy that puts a big weight around the neck of Australia's competitiveness and business growth for at least the next generation. And, at the same time, let's adopt this policy knowing it will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions at all.' So captured was the Gillard government with this anti-jobs policy, borne out of the reports of certain economists with no environmental credentials, seduced by the political courtship she freely entered into with the Greens, that she ignored the perils of Australia alone imposing an economy-wide carbon tax.
What Australia needs is an adult government that undertakes evidence based policy making and, importantly, makes decisions in the context of today's global economic market. After all, if Australia's economy is seriously wounded, there will be a direct effect on our sustainability and biodiversity, precisely because the resources we need to carry out positive environmental policies will be diminished and businesses simply will not find it in their commercial interest to fill that space.
We have seen much commentary about Labor's game of policy snakes and ladders on the carbon tax. It would be wryly amusing if it was not such a serious topic. Just weeks before the 7 September election, former Prime Minister Rudd said in Townsville, on 16 July 2013:
The government has decided to terminate the carbon tax, to help cost of living pressures for families and to reduce costs for small business.
After the election the member for Grayndler said he would put a zero price on the carbon tax. The member for Wakefield said on 11 September that Labor should 'let bills like this one through'. The member for Port Adelaide, who is sitting at the table here, said on ABC's AM that 'Labor supports terminating the carbon tax'. We know that the member for Corio, who had just completed his stint as minister for trade and who one would expect had an inkling of the fundamental economic impact of Australia going it alone with the carbon tax, said that the question of mandate must be taken seriously. Well, three cheers for these members, for their honesty and practical acceptance of the message that the Australian people so resoundingly delivered on 7 September. Three muted cheers, however, because they were clearly unable to carry the argument with their colleagues in caucus. It is unfortunate that the frankness of these members of the opposition, and perhaps others, did not carry the day when this important matter was discussed in the Labor caucus room. There is no shame in actually taking heed of the electorate's message, but there will be significant political pain to the Australian Labor Party if it continues to have, in the words of its former parliamentary leader, a policy tin ear on this subject.
Members on this side of the House take their election commitments seriously. We will follow through with what we promised. We welcome the fact that removal of the carbon tax in 2014-15 will reduce the consumer price index by around 0.7 percentage points from what it would otherwise be, according to Treasury modelling. We welcome the expected fall in big business compliance costs. Those who understand the time value of money will appreciate the long-term benefits of that outcome. The coalition have a plan for a cleaner environment, but we will do it without a pointless carbon tax which will see emissions go up, not down. We believe the five per cent target can be achieved by positive direct action and providing incentives, rather than by hurting Australian families and our economy with a damaging carbon tax.
I strongly urge those opposite to reconsider their approach to this bill. I commend the Prime Minister for following through with his promise to make it the first item of government business, and I particularly commend the Minister for the Environment and member for Flinders for his outstanding stewardship of this important policy area. As we have seen, the road from Kyoto to Copenhagen to Durban to Rio is littered with big promises but no binding international action. We will act, but in a way that is economically responsible and is consistent with our promise to the Australian people. I commend the bill and I urge its support in this House.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (18:27): There is a massive disconnect between the weather we are experiencing—drought in Queensland, bushfires in New South Wales, wild winds in Victoria, to say nothing of the typhoons in the Philippines, India and Japan—and the steps being taken by the Liberal government to bring action on climate change to a halt: disbanding the Climate Commission, defunding the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, not sending a minister to attend the climate change negotiations in Poland and, in the bills now before the House, endeavouring to put an end to a price on carbon. At the very time when the signals from our climate are that we need to take more action to combat extreme weather, not less, it is extremely and deeply irresponsible of the Liberal government to abandon measures which are reducing carbon emissions.
I have noticed that people who draw attention to the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events—floods, droughts, bushfires and storms—are subject to accusations of seeking to profit from the tragedy and misery of others. This is pathetic nonsense. When an accident happens on a country road and the local MP demands that the road be improved, I do not assume that they are trying to profit from the tragedy and misery of others. I assume that they want to make the road safer and to make the world safer. We do not assume that people who demand investigations into plane crashes or recalls of cars or trucks following crashes are seeking to profit from the tragedy and misery of others. If a chairlift or a Ferris wheel causes an accident we do not assume that people who demand action are seeking to profit from the accident. We assume that they want to prevent repeats and to make the world safer.
The climate change minister, when in opposition, pursued the issue of deaths associated with the installation of roofing insulation with great vigour. Indeed, he is still doing it—the government intends to have an inquiry into the administration of the scheme. I do not assume that he is doing this for political advantage or seeking to profit from a tragedy. So it is with extreme weather events. Members opposite cannot have it both ways, on the one hand demanding inquiries into the roofing insulation deaths and on the other hand accusing people who make the link between extreme weather events and our carbon emissions of doing so for political advantage or seeking to profit from a tragedy. It is just not right to leave to our children and grandchildren a legacy of bushfires, droughts, floods and storms, and people who point out the increasing frequency and severity of these events and the reasons for them are doing us all a service.
People who have been critical of the UN and Australian scientists who blew the whistle on extreme weather events usually have little scientific credibility and a vested interest to protect. I saw that the Institute of Public Affairs claimed that linking the New South Wales bushfires was a 'pretty wild assertion'. The Institute of Public Affairs has no science to back this up—reputable climate scientists have been explaining for years how increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere creates the conditions for more frequent and extreme bushfires—and their incessant attempts to run interference on action to stop climate change makes pretty clear that they are acting as a mouthpiece for corporations with a vested interest in dragging the chain on this issue. If this is not so, why is it that the Institute of Public Affairs constantly refuses to disclose its funding sources? It is time they came clean about their funding sources.
And as for John Howard declaring himself to be 'agnostic' about the climate science, this is quite amazing. You can be agnostic about religious matters, but you do not have the luxury of being agnostic about science. What will we get next: Liberals who are agnostic about whether smoking causes lung cancer or about whether the earth is round? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. If you had the opportunity to go to 100 doctors for a check-up and 98 of them said you were at risk of diabetes and should take certain precautions and two of them said you were fine and you had nothing to worry about, would you listen to the two? And yet this is the approach of former Prime Minister Howard and way too many Liberal MPs.
That climate change will load the dice in favour of more intense disasters is well established. The following information has been supplied to me by climate change author and activist David Spratt.
Mr Van Manen: Mr Deputy Speaker, under standing order 66A, is the member prepared to take a comment?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the member for Wills prepared to take a comment? No, he is not.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON: Five researchers in 2007 estimated that climate change would result in a two-to-fourfold increase in extreme fire days. Between 1973 and 2010, Melbourne and Adelaide recorded a 49 per cent increase in their cumulative annual Forest Fire Danger Index, and in February 2009 Victoria's Black Saturday bushfires killed 173 people, destroyed over 2,000 homes and cost $4 billion-plus in damage, and on that day the fire index was an unprecedented 190 on a zero-to-100 scale.
The government claims its motivation for this legislation is to bring down electricity and other prices for ordinary households. They have repeatedly claimed that households would be better off to the tune of $550 a year without a price on carbon. But less than a fortnight ago the head of the Australian Industry Group, Innes Willox, let the cat out of the bag. He said many businesses were not able to pass on the cost of the carbon tax in the first place. He said many price changes, if the carbon price is abolished, are likely to be limited. What he is saying is that consumers will not get lower prices if the carbon price is repealed.
I was elected on a platform of support for the carbon price and of action to combat extreme weather. I will be voting against the repeal of the carbon price. That is what my constituents would expect me to do, not to vote differently from the position I have expressed many times in the past 10 years. I listen to government members talking about mandate. That might cut some grass had they voted in favour of the emissions trading scheme the Labor government brought forward in the 42nd Parliament when we had expressly gone to the election on a platform of introducing a carbon price. Did the Liberal and National parties respect that mandate? No, they did not. They made disparaging comments about the whole notion of mandate. I will behave as I have told my constituents I will behave—voting for a price on carbon. Why on earth should we shred our international credibility on extreme weather and leave our children a heritage of bushfires, droughts, floods and cyclones for the sake of what the Liberal government says is $11 per week for a household and which the Australian Industry Group admits you will never see?
It is correct that electricity prices have been rising, and rising much faster than the CPI throughout the last decade. But this predates the carbon price. In 2010 I gave a speech to the House about rising electricity prices when I pointed out that prices in the larger capital cities were rising at roughly twice the rate of the CPI and had roughly doubled in a decade. I said the government should look into pegging electricity prices to the increase in the CPI and thereby give some relief to pensioners and retirees and others who struggle to pay their electricity bill. And I make the same suggestion to this government as I made to my own—do it. Peg electricity price rises. If members opposite are as genuine as they claim to be in their concern about the impact of rising electricity prices, then peg them. Call in the states, call in the power companies, and peg them to the CPI. I dare you.
The reasons why electricity prices in the capital cities were rising so rapidly with no carbon price in sight were threefold. First, there is the impact of rapid population growth. The Queensland academic Jane O'Sullivan has done some very important research in the infrastructure burden in rapidly-growing communities. She has found that the cost of meeting the infrastructure requirements of a population growing by one per cent per annum is fifty per cent higher than for a stable population, and if the population is growing by two per cent per annum it is 100 per cent, that is, double. Of course if your population increases by one per cent, that tends to bring in one per cent extra taxes or rates, not 50 per cent, so the cost of the extra infrastructure shows up in higher electricity, gas and water bills and council rates.
Secondly, there is privatisation of the electricity authorities. The National Combined Energy Unions, including the ETU, ASU and the AMWU, wrote to MPs in October pointing out that Victoria and South Australia, where all electricity assets have been privatised, have had the highest electricity consumer prices for the past 11 years.
This feeds into the third driver of rising electricity prices, the gold-plating of the poles and wires—increased expenditure on infrastructure—because electricity customers in practice have to pay for it and do not have a realistic choice to reject it; electricity is essential in a modern society. The upgrade of the Brunswick Terminal Station in my electorate is a classic example of this. Its cost has skyrocketed, but consumers have no effective recourse and no way of telling electricity companies they do not want a gold plated system and wish to explore alternatives.
It is fair to say, and indeed has long been my view, that a price on carbon is an important, but not sufficient, condition for reducing Australia's carbon emissions and that complementary measures are important also. Under the Labor government, two very important complementary measures were the 20 per cent renewable energy target and the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
But there are a number of other initiatives which could reduce greenhouse emissions, and if the Liberal government were serious about reducing greenhouse emissions it would seriously consider them. In the United States, President Barack Obama has been preparing regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants using the Environmental Protection Agency. In the US, electricity power plants are the largest single source of carbon pollution, responsible for nearly forty per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has set out steps to ensure carbon pollution falls with the urgency required, to demonstrate international leadership for strong global action, to increase renewable energy at the scale and urgency needed and to remove incentives for fossil fuel use and reinvest the savings for more productive use. It recommends that Australia commit to set science based caps on greenhouse pollution in 2014, based on advice from the independent Climate Change Authority, and commit to doing our equitable share for an effective global agreement to reduce the impacts of climate change. The ACF says we should complement the carbon price with a suite of policies that drive reductions in domestic emissions intensity by accelerating renewable energy deployment, increasing energy efficiency and ensuring declining pollution from fossil fuel use while the carbon price matures.
The ACF also says we should reform wasteful government incentives to produce and use fossil fuels, and reinvest the savings into a cleaner economy. It says international pledges made to the Copenhagen Accord, while significant, would still result in warming of 3½ degrees Celsius even if fully implemented. For Australia, warming of two to three degrees Celsius would result in 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef bleached every year; a 40 per cent reduction in livestock carrying capacity of native pasture systems; a five to 10 per cent increase in tropical cyclone wind speeds; and a 10 per cent increase in bushfire danger in many parts of the country. The ACF says a global agreement to limit warming to as close to 1½ degrees Celsius as soon as possible, and 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent, is in Australia's national interest. Beyond this point, the impacts of climate change for Australia and the region become severe and irreversible. To this end, Australia must speed the ratification of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.
I also note an article of November 2010 titled 'The economics of population policy for carbon emissions reduction in developing countries' by David Wheeler and Dan Hammer from the Center for Global Development. They draw the conclusions that family planning and female education are complementary activities that, jointly or separately, are highly cost-competitive with a broad range of carbon emissions abatement options that are current candidates for mitigation resources in global climate negotiations. Family planning and female education are both critical factors in sustainable development and they obviously merit expanded support, even without appeal to global climate considerations.
The carbon price has been doing exactly what it was supposed to do—cutting carbon emissions. Contrary to the scare campaign of members opposite, it has not adversely affected our low inflation, low unemployment economy. I particularly congratulate former minister Greg Combet on its success. The only reason those opposite have campaigned against this is that they are totally and utterly beholden to large corporations who have a vested interest in increasing, rather than reducing, carbon emissions.
The carbon price stands in stark contrast to the coalition position known as Direct Action. No serious economist believes it is efficient and no serious climate scientist believes that it will be effective.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (18:42): Just before I get into the substance of my contribution, I would like to touch on a couple of comments that the member for Wills made in his opening remarks linking severe weather events to climate change. With respect to the member for Wills, I suggest he read the latest IPCC report where, even in their conclusions, they have backed well away from this link. Also, I think it is instructive for the member for Wills to note global temperatures have not increased for the past 17 years, yet carbon dioxide has continued to increase in our atmosphere. Thirdly, it is interesting to note carbon dioxide is not listed as a pollutant either in the US or even here in Australia—I have just checked the Department of the Environment website. There is a discussion about carbon particulate as a pollution, maybe, but it is not about carbon dioxide because it is not even listed as a pollutant by our own government. I also checked the US EPA website and neither is it a pollutant according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.
As the member for Wills said, there are facts and opinions. I think he spent most of his time talking about opinions and not facts. Maybe he should get a few of those correct and go check some of the latest information out there.
I rise today to speak on behalf of the men and women in Forde who voted against the former Labor government's carbon tax. I speak on behalf of the business owners, the mums, the dads, the seniors and the pensioners who have entrusted me, along with my coalition colleagues, to remove this insidious tax—which this year alone will have a $9 billion impact—from our economy. The election was a referendum on the carbon tax and the Australian people have spoken. We have even seen Australia's four major business groups—the Business Council, the Minerals Council, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Industry Group—say that they do not want this tax.
Unlike those opposite, we on this side of the House are listening to our constituents and are seeking to deliver on our pledge to remove the carbon tax. The Prime Minister in his speech on these bills said, 'This is our bill to reduce the bills of the people of Australia.' We are focused on removing the burden of the increased cost of doing business and serving our community by scrapping the world's biggest carbon tax. When I say the 'world's biggest' I am referring to the fact that there is no comparable economy-wide tax anywhere in the world. It has been interesting since we introduced these bills to see the various notes of congratulations we have received from around the world. For instance, the Canadian parliamentary secretary on 12 November issued the following statement on behalf of the government of Canada:
Canada applauds the decision by Prime Minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia's carbon tax. The Australian Prime Minister's decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message.
Our government knows that carbon taxes raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries, and electricity. Prime Minister Abbott has said that, in Australia, the repeal of the carbon tax will reduce the average household's cost of living by … $550 a year …
Since that announcement we have seen the Japanese reduce their target for emissions by some 25 per cent. They now have a target of some three per cent over 1990 levels—their previous level was around five per cent.
In The Australian on 14 November, Alan Moran observed:
Other countries are not following Australia's lead in imposing a cripplingly high carbon tax, they are not even taxing emissions at the EU's $6 a tonne. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent grudging acknowledgment that its forecasts of soaring global temperatures have failed to materialise during the past 17 years can only reinforce governments' resistance to penalise their economies.
By the way, the IPCC should not be calling the shots over our economy in the first place, given that they are an unelected and unaudited committee.
The people in Forde know that the carbon tax is responsible for adding additional strains to their household budgets. As we draw close to the end of this year, families will find themselves under even more financial strain as budgets are stretched to accommodate the festive season. I am sure that we in this House with families all know that Christmas time can be a stressful and expensive time of year. This is further evidenced by the number of community organisations I have been speaking to recently that are struggling to meet the needs of ordinary people in our community. Organisations such as Lighthouse Care and CentroCARE are handing out record numbers of food parcels to those in our community who are struggling to make ends meet. Wouldn't it be a great Christmas gift to households not only in Forde but around the country and to these wonderful charities for the work that they do—and they receive no compensation for the increased cost of electricity to them—to provide some future hope that on 1 July 2014 the carbon tax will be removed once and for all?
Sixteen of the top 20 carbon tax bills have been sent to electricity companies. These electricity companies have had to pay over $3.5 billion in carbon taxes, which ultimately directly comes from the pockets of their customers. It is our charities, families, businesses, hospitals, schools, aged-care facilities, local councils and sporting community organisations that have footed the bill to date. In Queensland, out of the $3.5 billion, some $800 million worth of bills have been passed on to Queenslanders.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. No matter what the Labor Party and their carbon tax allies do to the name or the structure of this tax, it is still a bad tax based on a lie. The only way we can achieve a different result with real environmental benefits is through its removal and extinction.
Repealing the carbon tax will take away a huge burden from our community. Treasury modelling shows that household electricity bills will be cut by some $200 in 2014-15. Imagine the savings to our community organisations, charities and businesses that will benefit from the removal of the carbon tax and the funds that consequently they will be able to put back into our communities. As I touched on earlier, households can expect to be better off, on average, by around $550 a year without the carbon tax. Businesses will also benefit from a reduction in the cost of electricity, which can be passed on to their customers. We will ensure that this happens.
This will also address the issue of competitiveness, particularly with businesses that have an export focus. We have quite clearly said that we will task the ACCC and provide it with further powers to take action against any business that engages in price exploitation in relation to the carbon tax repeal. For example, there will be penalties of up to $1.1 million for corporations and $220,000 for individuals.
On the positive side for business, their compliance costs are expected to fall by around $87 million per annum as a consequence of repealing the carbon tax and removing some 1,000-plus pages of legislation. But as we have heard in this House from the contributions today and earlier in this debate, the Labor Party refuse to give up on their unpopular tax—even after it is clear that it is not achieving what it set out to achieve in the first place. For example, the previous government's own modelling, which was submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, shows that our emissions increase under the carbon tax will be around 560 million tonnes in 2010 to 637 million tonnes in 2020. This tax was never going to work, and Labor knew it was not going to be embraced by the Australian people.
In the 2010 election campaign, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised there would be no carbon tax. In the 2013 campaign, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he would terminate the carbon tax. And afterwards Anthony Albanese said he would put a zero price on the carbon tax. They just do not know what position to take. Now we have the current Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, attempting to deceive the Australian people into believing he wants to terminate the carbon tax. And yet right here, right now, Labor are clasping at straws to try to keep it alive; all they want to do is replace it with an ETS, which their own policy papers show is going to be increased by 2020 to some $38 a tonne anyway. They seem to neglect to mention that particular fact.
All of this makes me wonder who actually wanted to have this carbon tax in the first place. The member for Lilley, on Meet the Press on 15 August 2010, said that we, as in the coalition, were making hysterically inaccurate claims about them bringing in a carbon tax. The next day we heard the now famous line 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. As I have just touched on, the member for Griffith said he wanted to terminate it; the member for Port Adelaide, who is at the table, said it was too high. Well, here is a solution for those opposite: help us get rid of this unpopular, deficient tax; let us work together on strengthening our economy and protecting our environment with practical environmental measures.
One of the interesting aspects of the carbon tax is there is not a single dollar of carbon tax revenue that actually goes towards practical, on-the-ground environmental projects. The other issue with the carbon tax is it creates the impression that a tax can solve all of our environmental problems. Many of our environmental problems, such as littering and poor quality waterways et cetera, should involve better planning decisions, people taking personal responsibility not to litter and throw waste out of their windows; however, there is no discussion about how we actually improve our local environments. The carbon tax has nothing to do with that; it is just a great big money-go-round.
As has been mentioned plenty of times in this place, we all support the five per cent emissions reduction target, and our Emissions Reduction Fund will continue to work towards achieving that five per cent reduction in domestic emissions by 2020 without an electricity tax. The government will focus on measures that directly address the 440 million tonne abatement challenge to reduce emissions through measures such as reforestation, cleaning up power stations, cleaning up waste landfill and waste coalmine gas. We recognise that over the years the climate has changed and that it will continue to change, but we need to be individually responsible for our own part in looking after the environment, not just relying on governments to implement new taxes that do not even provide practical on-the-ground solutions.
In Forde we will invest in Green Army projects for the rehabilitation of the Pimpama River catchment, and the project partners at Twin Rivers Centre, the north-east Albert Landcare group and the Holcim Beenleigh quarry are all collaborating on a number of projects in this area, which have all been a great success to date—that is, for the projects already completed. These are practical projects, like eradication of weeds, the retention and protection of riverbanks and improved water quality. This is just one example of the practical on-the-ground measures that can help our environment without a tax.
The purpose of these bills is to deliver on the coalition government's commitment to abolish Labor's carbon tax and reduce the costs for businesses and households. These bills will abolish the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and we will deliver on our promises to the Australian people. (Time expired)
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (18:57): I speak against the coalition's Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related legislation and speak in favour of Labor's position. If the member for Forde is so concerned about the electricity prices of Queensland, he should go to his mates in the LNP state government. They promised before the last state election that they would freeze electricity prices, but we have since seen them go up and up and up. Yet I have not seen a press release or heard a word from the member for Forde in relation to his colleagues and comrades in Queensland on that particular issue.
I found a statement some time ago in relation to an ETS and the environment, and it reads like this:
To reduce domestic emissions at least economic cost, we will establish a world-class domestic emissions trading scheme in Australia (planned to commence in 2011). We are also committed to capturing the opportunities from being among the first movers on carbon trading in the Asia-Pacific region.
I wonder where that came from. Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, you would know this, and there are plenty of those opposite who would know this, as this came from the coalition party's policy. This was the Liberal Party of Australia's 'Strong, Prosperous and Secure' policy released in October 2007. The coalition believed that with an emissions trading scheme they would have a strong and prosperous and secure Australia. That was the policy they took to the 2007 election. I have debated LNP coalition opponents on numerous occasions across the last four federal election campaigns, including candidates from other seats. Every single time I have debated them I have found, when you really get down to it, they do not believe in the science. Every single time that has been the case.
The coalition once believed in a market based mechanism, but today they no longer believe in the market. They are not the party of the market when it comes to emissions trading, climate change and taking action in this regard. They believe in a command economy, picking winners, penalising companies and providing subsidies for polluters. 'Hurt the community and help the polluters.' That is the policy the coalition is bringing to this chamber today, but that was not the position of the coalition in 2007. John Hewson and John Howard did not believe in a policy of direct action, and, in fact, the member for Wentworth once said that the direct action policy was a 'fig leaf'.
The coalition's policy does not make sense, because an emissions trading scheme is the most economically efficient and environmentally effective way to deal with the challenge of human induced climate change. That is what the scientists will tell us. On this side of the chamber, we tend to believe NASA, the Bureau of Meteorology and the IPCC, not Andrew Bolt, Lord Monckton and Alan Jones. We tend to believe the experts. As the member for Wills was saying on this issue, it is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact. I have listened to the speeches of those opposite—and I have had to put up with the member for Forde's speech on numerous occasions; I reckon the computer just printed that out; he pressed a couple of buttons and it spewed out just like last time, in the last parliament. When you listen to those opposite talk about this sort of stuff, you can hear that in their heart of hearts they do not believe in it. They have a sort of agnosticism, if not an atheism, about this. They do not believe in the science. But Australia is responsible. We have a responsibility because we are one of the largest emitters per capita in the world: 1.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions comes from this country, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We have an obligation, accordingly, to act. Those opposite do not believe that.
We on this side believe we are standing on the right side of history. We believe an emissions trading scheme is the right way to go. A thousand scientists, along with NASA, CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, all believe that human induced climate change is adversely impacting our planet. Our position is clear. For four elections now, I have campaigned on this issue, believing that we need to take action on climate change. Do not give us this nonsense about mandate. We have heard about it again and again. Where were they on this issue in the last parliament? They stood up and voted against us on this issue again and again, and they have the hide to come into this place and talk to us about mandates. Our position is clear. We accept the science. We believe in a cap on carbon emissions in this country. We believe we need to take action. We believe that future generations require us to take action. With our policy, we were taking action and it was making an impact. We had a clean energy future Household Assistance Package, and 98 per cent of people earning up to $150,000 per year received assistance. Almost six million households in this country received tax breaks or increases in their payment—14,634 families in my electorate, in Ipswich and Somerset, received higher payments.
The member for Forde said we were not giving assistance. I want to talk about a couple of examples in my electorate, just to localise it, for the edification of the member for Forde. We notified the Ipswich City Council of a $1.2 million energy efficiency grant to implement city-wide LED street lighting. It was to start off with 14 per cent of lighting, saving $200,000 a year for the ratepayers of Ipswich. It was environmentally effective and we were covering suburbs like Leichhardt, One Mile, Wulkuraka, Sadliers Crossing, Coalfalls, Woodend, North Ipswich, Brassall et cetera. It was a great example of an innovative project. Now the coalition has said to us—when we were going to save $200,000 a year for the ratepayers of Ipswich, projected to save about $1.8 million eventually—and to the Ipswich City Council: 'The program is under review.' So much for actually taking action on climate change. When a local council in Queensland is taking action on climate change, the coalition puts that program under review. Let us not kid ourselves. The whole architecture—the Clean Energy Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program, the Community Energy Efficiency Program, the assistance to business, the assistance to households—is in peril from the legislation before the House. It is a terrible decision by the coalition government.
The member for Forde also had the temerity to say that we were not assisting businesses. On the first day of the campaign, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, came to my electorate, to the biggest meat-processing plant in the country, JBS. They kill 13½ thousand beasts there a week. I used to work there as a cleaner many, many years ago. We provided $1.1 million a year in savings to that company—through $4.4 million in assistance to that company, matched by the company—while cutting their carbon price liability by $790,000 a year. They warmly welcomed it, but did the then Leader of the Opposition tell the public or the company that he came into this place and voted against the funding to assist that employer in my electorate, which employs 2,000 people? That funding that we provided secured the future of the biggest meat-processing in the country. But the coalition opposed it. It was part of our clean energy package. That is what we provided. The member for Forde said we did not provide assistance.
Also in my electorate we provided funding under the $1 billion Clean Technology Investment Program—$498,750, firstly, and then another $932,625—for the Greenmountain Food Processing plant in Coominya, which employs 230 workers. And they say they support business and workers and jobs! Well, they will get rid of that type of funding, which was saving $114,000 a year, in energy efficiency gains through what that company was doing with those two grants, reducing costs initially by 34 per cent and then by another 44 per cent with the second grant. They were enthusiastic about that, but the coalition opposed that grant as well.
What they have said is that they will tax the taxpayers of this country. They were not fair dinkum about emissions trading schemes in the past, I believe, because John Howard confessed recently that he was pushed into it—he had to say something because the public was pushing him into it.
Their direct action policy has been described by former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry as 'bizarre'. He made those comments last month in a speech delivered at the Australian National University. He labelled the coalition's direct action plan strategy a 'con' and said it was 'bizarre' policy that actually pays the polluters. We need a better example than this.
But if they were fair dinkum about their direct action policies, I would like to see the legislation for that introduced at the same time. Where is it? Are we going to have a climate change action gap in this country? If this legislation passes, when are we going to have the direct action policy, which we know that many of those opposite do not believe in?
The member for Forde talked about facts and talked about the impact of the carbon price on the economy. But we do not take seriously on this side of the chamber those opposite when they talk about this issue, because Gladstone is still there, Whyalla has not been wiped off the map, and last time I bought lamb roast at Woolworths in Brassall shopping centre it did not cost me $100. Those opposite made ridiculous claims in relation to carbon pricing. So let's talk about some facts. Since we brought it in we have seen a 7.4 per cent drop in emissions in the national electricity market. That is almost 12 billion tonnes less pollution from the electricity sector. We have seen renewable energy generation rise by almost 30 per cent. We have seen nearly 200,000 jobs created. We have seen businesses and companies find ways to reduce their carbon footprint and to save energy costs, like the companies I mentioned before. When we first introduced a price on carbon the projected increase in the CPI was 0.7 per cent, less than one-third of the impact of the GST on the CPI, but I did not hear those members opposite at any stage talk about that.
We stated when we went into the last election that we wanted to reduce people's household costs and it was our intention to terminate the carbon price and move quickly to an emissions trading scheme which places a legal limit on carbon pollution and lets business work out the cheapest and most effective way to operate. In effect, it was pretty similar to the policy the Liberals announced in 2007 before the election. But the coalition's policy now, direct action, sets no limit on carbon pollution and it costs businesses and households more. I agree with Ken Henry. 'Bizarre' is the right word for this reckless and pointless plan.
Be under no illusions, they are getting rid of a whole architecture here. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Climate Change Commission, the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—it all goes. It is a step backwards and not a step forward.
On 30 October this year the Climate Change Authority published its comprehensive draft analysis of the caps and targets they believed Australia needed in order to take meaningful action on climate change. It is not going to happen under the coalition. According to the Climate Institute, more than 80 countries representing 80 per cent of global emissions are now committed to reducing carbon pollution. All major economies, including the US and China, are implementing policies to reduce emissions, drive clean energy investment and improve energy efficiency. Several developing nations, China, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and India amongst them, are following suit. Our No. 1 trading partner, China, has introduced a carbon price to an emissions trading scheme arrangement and, at the time China, indicated its wish to link its scheme to us. So did the Prime Minister of New Zealand—a conservative and a National—when he came to this place and spoke in this House.
Ultimately, we were looking to link our emissions trading scheme with the European Union's 500 million to establish a common carbon price and a common carbon market with our major trading partners. The coalition's legislation is a national embarrassment to our country and our region—an international embarrassment as well. They cannot even take the steps to go to conferences that deal with this issue. Many of those opposite will not accept the science. This is a very retrograde step by the coalition. Our children and their children will suffer. Our country will suffer. It is not the most environmentally effective way to deal with the challenge of climate change. It is not good for productivity, it is not good for the economy and it is not good for future generations in this country.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:06): I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills. Firstly, today should be a great day for our democracy. Today is the day that we restore trust in government to the Australian people. We know that the Prime Minister, when he was opposition leader, made it very clear that if the coalition were successful and he was elected Prime Minister that the very first order of business would be to come into this chamber and table legislation to repeal the carbon tax. That is the promise that the coalition took to the Australian people. We are here today delivering on that promise.
What concerns me the most about the debate on the carbon tax is that I think our country has never seen so many half-truths, so many misleading statements, and so many outright lies than it has over this carbon tax issue. We can all remember before the 2010 federal election, with the poll only a few days away, the then Prime Minister looked down the barrel of a camera and pledged hand on heart to the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led. It was not only the then Prime Minister; it was also the Treasurer. Just days out from the 2010 federal election, the then Treasurer said: 'Certainly, what we reject is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals in their advertising. We certainly reject that.'
We all know the history; we all know the betrayal. We all know how the carbon tax was introduced as legislation and passed by this parliament and how the public have been burdened and businesses have been burdened with that for the last few years. Let us look at some of what the previous Labor government said during their term of government when the coalition announced that they would repeal this bill. The Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, claimed the coalition was not like Labor. She said, referring to the then opposition leader: 'It is all too difficult. It is all too hard. He cannot do it now.' Well, we are doing it. We are repealing the carbon tax. Then there was Labor's climate change minister. He declared that Tony Abbott 'cannot and will not repeal the carbon tax'. We can and we will and we are.
Then we move on to the most recent election. This is where I am very confused about the position that the opposition are now taking. I have some flyers from the last election. I have an election flyer here for the member for Moreton. It says: 'Kevin Rudd and Labor have removed the carbon tax.' This is before the election. There is also a shopper docket on the flyer that has a few things listed on it:
School expenses: reduced
Gala apples: $5.12
Eggs: $4.02
Carbon tax: abolished.
At the last election, only a few months ago, the Labor Party were handing out literature to the public, not claiming that they were going to repeal the carbon tax, but claiming they had actually removed it. Yet we have them coming into this parliament today, telling us they are not going to vote for the repeal of this legislation—and it is not only the member for Moreton. I have here another Labor flyer from the last election, this time authorised by Senator Louise Pratt. It says: 'Kevin Rudd and Labor removed the carbon tax.' This is not after the election—this is during the election campaign—that the current opposition claimed that they had removed the carbon tax.
There is even one here, printed in my electorate, Milperra Road in Revesby. Again it claims that the Rudd Labor government has removed the carbon tax, saving the average family $380. Again, there is this row, a nice little photograph, of a shopper docket which says: 'Carbon tax: abolished.' Yet here we have them coming into this parliament today opposing the very legislation that repeals it.
You become lost for words. What this Labor opposition want to do is impose years of cost-of-living misery on the struggling Australian consumer, the struggling Australian family. Not only that; they want this carbon tax to increase and they want it to spread and grow larger. They actually wanted to extend this carbon tax to our transport sector on diesel fuel. This Labor opposition want to punish every one of those hardworking truck drivers out there in our cities and our country towns doing interstate haulage, so that every time they go and fill up at a bowser, they will be paying the carbon tax, which will increase year after year after year.
What the Labor Party does not understand is that this tax acts as a reverse tariff; it puts Australian businesses at a competitive disadvantage. We want to see higher wages in this country. But the only way we can pay people higher wages, the only way people can earn higher wages, is if we are internationally competitive. And that is where the great flaw in this tax lies, because it punishes an Australian business that produces a good in Australia. When the very same article, the very same item, is made overseas, the carbon tax is avoided. So is it any wonder that the unemployment queues in this country became 200,000 people longer over the previous term of the Labor government?
The misleading statements just go on and on and on. Perhaps the most misleading claim we hear is that this carbon tax is somehow taking action on climate change. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past six years of the Labor government. We need in this place to be honest with the Australian public. We cannot mislead them as happened here for the last six years. We need to be honest with the public and we need to admit that even if the carbon tax was kept in place and it reduced our emissions—let's say by 10 per cent, which is way above the numbers that this government has promised, and let's assume, the IPCC's estimates of warming of 3.3 degrees over the next century—by how much would this carbon tax reduce the temperature? That is the ultimate question. For a carbon tax to be effective, how much will it reduce the temperature? Those calculations are done.
If we were to have a carbon tax that reduced Australia's emissions by 10 per cent between now and 2050 we would reduce global temperatures by 0.0015—that is, 15 ten-thousandths of one degree. So members of the opposition cannot come into this parliament and claim they are taking strong action when the fact is that, even if it were effective and even if the IPCC's estimations of warming were on the upper limit, we would get a reduction of 0.015 of one degree by 2050.
The other thing that is very misleading in this debate is the claim that other countries are taking action and that Australia is not out on its own. Greg Sheridan, thankfully, detailed this in a recent article in the Australian. He went through some facts. There are 195 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Only 34 of those countries have anything even resembling an emissions trading scheme. Twenty-seven of those are in the EU scheme. We hear much about how China has reduced its emissions. The facts are that in China there are just seven designated pilot projects and only one, just one single project, has begun operation in Shenzhen. Guess what? All the permits are given away for free. It has absolutely no effect on China's carbon dioxide emissions. The Chinese are simply laughing at us. We know that unless China has a mass rollout of nuclear power stations throughout that nation the Chinese emissions of carbon dioxide are going to continue to grow and grow over the years to come.
Let us have a look at some other countries. Japan has effectively abandoned all plans for an ETS. Japan has no economy-wide carbon tax or ETS. Japan has recently announced it will increase its targets for CO2 emissions, not decrease them. It is the same across South Korea. Yes, South Korea has a plan but it is issuing all permits for free in the first period. Let's talk about the USA. The USA has no carbon tax. It has no ETS and is unlikely to ever have one. We hear about California—where 90 per cent of the permits for electricity generation are given away for free. As for Canada, we know Canada has no ETS. Canada has no carbon tax. In fact, the Canadian government only last week issued a press release from the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, Paul Calandra. He said:
Canada applauds the decision by Prime Minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia's carbon tax. The Australian Prime Minister's decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message.
… … …
Our government knows that carbon taxes raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries and electricity.
… … …
Our government has reduced greenhouse gas emissions while protecting and creating Canadian jobs—greenhouse emissions are down since 2006, and we've created 1 million net new jobs since the recession—and we have done this without penalising Canadian families with a carbon tax.
I could go on. It is the same in India; it is the same in Indonesia: no carbon tax, no ETS. Then we move to comparisons with the European scheme. We know that the price is currently around $7. In its first five years, the European scheme intended to raise 500 million a year whereas our carbon tax aims to raise nine billion a year. So all of Europe, the entire continent of Europe combined, imposes a cost of just one-eighteenth of the cost we here in Australia are imposing on ourselves. That is the massive absurdity of this tax.
In the remaining time, I would like to look at the opposition's proposals to have an ETS scheme. What this actually does is sell out our national sovereignty. If we are to link the price of our carbon tax to the EU scheme, we will be allowing European beauracrats to set the price of the tax paid by Australian citizens, so the electors in my electorate of Hughes will not have the rate of the carbon tax that they pay decided by me or by other members of the Australian parliament. We will be subcontracting those decisions out to unelected beauracrats in Brussels. We should support this carbon tax repeal. It must be repealed urgently.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (19:27): I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and associated bills. I find this place quite extraordinary really. The election was won on the basis of the debt that the ALP had rolled up of $350 billion, and quite rightly so. The new government within eight weeks had raised that $350 billion to $500 billion. You run an election saying you are going to fix up this debt and then eight weeks later you increase the debt dramatically. The public are extraordinarily gullible to agree that this is a good thing to happen—that you say one thing before an election and then do something else after it. That was what happened with the carbon emissions: we had a Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who, in my opinion, was never, ever in favour of a carbon tax. To become Prime Minister she had to enter into a coalition and the price of the coalition was imposing a carbon tax—as the member for Hughes has so ably expressed to the House—upon the Australian people. I can remember walking into this place and the interviewers said, 'You are completely out of step with your anti free-market policies.' I said when I walk inside that door I am most certainly a minority of one. On some issues I might have the member for Hughes and be a minority of two. That will put the mockers on you.
Out there in the public arena, 70 to 85 per cent in every single poll that has ever been done says that we should be protecting jobs. Similarly here, we have the Liberal Party coming into this place and acting like champions opposing the carbon tax. I hate to remind the government that the carbon tax was introduced into this place as a trading emissions scheme. I failed to be able to draw a distinction between a trading emissions scheme and a carbon tax. Please: I am a simple Cloncurry boy at the end of the day.
John Howard moved it with Malcolm Turnbull beside him. John Howard left as leader and he was replaced by—I am trying desperately to think who—and he was a good member of parliament who was very, very strong on carbon. So the second leader of the Liberal Party over these years was a very strong proponent of a carbon tax, and then Malcolm Turnbull became leader and of course he was the architect of the emissions trading scheme.
I am a very cynical person and ask: who benefits from a trading emissions scheme? Who is going to be richer and who is going to be poorer?' Clearly, the people that are trading the emissions are going to be a hell of a lot richer. The fact of the matter is that Goldman Sachs are one of the principal people that will be benefiting from the emissions trading scheme.
It is still imposing a cost upon carbon emissions. Australia depends on resources for almost its entire income. There is gold and there is aluminium. Aluminium is being crucified by the highest electricity charges in the world. I cannot see how the aluminium industry can survive in Australia. The reason aluminium came here was supercheap hydropower in Tasmania and supercheap power in Queensland, where I had the very great honour of being the Minister for Mines and Energy. I deserve no credit for it. My great mentor Ron Camm took the overburdened coal from Utah under the Utah agreement, so we fuelled half of Queensland's power needs with free coal—reserved resource policy, which Western Australia has, which New South Wales most certainly has not and which Queensland most certainly has not. Not a single gigajoule of the gas in the Northern Territory or Queensland has been reserved for the people of Queensland or the Northern Territory.
We strained every nerve, muscle and sinew to ensure that we had the cheapest electricity charges in the world. When the socialists defeated the government—the government fell at the start of 1990—we had the cheapest electricity charges in the world. Australia has now amongst the highest electricity charges in the world. How could a country whose entire economy depends upon coal could be so stupid as to propose an emission tradings scheme which imposes a huge burden upon the carbon which is the coal industry? Have a look at the figures: 199 tonnes, the annual emissions from the electricity industry. The nearest to that is 94 million tonnes from stationary engines and 90 million tonnes from the transport industry. When we are talking carbon emissions, we are actually talking about the electricity industry and the coal industry. You mercilessly hammer the one industry that the country's economy depends upon: coal.
The Liberals have made a very big deal of their direct action. I have not even caught a hint of what direct action is, but the Liberals in New South Wales have taken direct action: they have already reduced the ethanol content from 10 per cent. Mr Iemma, when he introduced ethanol, said 'I cannot go another week with having the deaths of people in Sydney upon my conscience that simply do not have to die.'
The head of the AMA said more people die from motor vehicle emissions than motor vehicle accidents—not me, the leading medical person in the country. The head of the air quality control council said exactly the same when he was addressing the national air quality control annual conference. Petrol contains over 120 chemicals, but 23 of those chemicals are carcinogenic and the aromatics are highly carcinogenic.
When you say, as the leader of the National Party said in this place at the time, we cannot interfere with what goes into motor cars, people must have free choice. We were the people who took the lead out but then we would not order the motor companies to keep the aromatics out. We had a policy that was favourable to the oil companies but a policy that was going to cost lives in this country. The government at the time was either incredibly stupid—and successive Labor governments have been incredibly stupid—or callous to stand by the estimates for deaths in Sydney of 1,400.
Why did the world go to ethanol? Every single country on earth, except the oil-producing countries obviously—and I refer to the Macquarie Bank's investment potential in agriculture; there is the map—is now coloured in except Australia and Africa. Every single country is on ethanol except Australia and Africa. We are in good company.
Canada, the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Chile—the whole of North and South America is coloured in. Every single European Union country has signed up to 15 per cent. Britain was the last to sign and she signed at the start of this year. In Asia, China will have 15 per cent of all motor fuels on it by 2020. Also, there is India, Vietnam, Philippines and even Indonesia, which has a lot of oil, and Japan. The only country on earth without it is us.
For those who consider Mr Al Gore their patron saint—and there are many on both sides of the parliament who have quoted Al Gore on many occasions in this place—on page 172, but I might have that wrong, his book An inconvenient truth of he says that the first solution to the carbon problem is ethanol. I think there are some 23 reports in the congressional library in Washington DC on this and almost all of them invariably state there will be a 28 per cent reduction if you move to grain ethanol and a 72 per cent reduction if you move to sugarcane ethanol.
Take the No. 2 item on the list, transport. The Brazilian experience is 90 million tonnes. More than half of the petrol in Brazil comes from ethanol. There is a reduction of 72 per cent. So you are looking at a 40 per cent reduction in that figure.
I have the list here and it shows a reduction of six per cent with electricity. But if I were running this country there would be a whopping 40 per cent reduction in the transport item. That would dramatically pull down the amount of CO2. I am not losing sleep like the people in the government, the Liberals. On numerous occasions they have stood up and talked about the carbon emissions problem and global warming. Many of them are very strong supporters of that point of view and their government believes in trading and emissions schemes. I do not. I believe that, if you introduce ethanol like every other country on earth has done, you will directly reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
I believe in the new and revolutionary methods of processing sugarcane. I pay very great tribute to NQBE. They are in China at the present moment. Whilst we will die in this country from motor vehicle emissions, the Chinese government is acting with great aggression to reduce the emissions in that country. What touched all this off was a very long study that was done in California in the United States. It found that tens of thousands of people each year die from motor vehicle emissions. It is not so much the carcinogens in the petrol but the small particles that come out of the emissions. You do not get a very good burn with petrol because it has no oxygen. Ethanol contains 30 per cent oxygen, so you get a much better burn and you do not get the amount of small particles.
In fact, 60 Minutes recently did a show on Sao Paulo, which is the cleanest city in the world. Sao Paulo has a larger population than Australia. Their population was 23 million when I was over there briefly on an ethanol tour—the only time I have been out of Australia. Their population is bigger than Australia's by one million. All those people are jammed into one city and it is the cleanest city on earth because 55 per cent of their petrol is ethanol.
I take my hat off to the oil companies. They are good! We are so gullible and so much in the hands of the oil companies that we believe the rubbish that they tell us. They told us our motor cars would break down if we used ethanol. We have all watched the movies made in Hollywood where they show the belt highway used by millions of cars every day. Do you see the belt highway held up with broken down cars? The latest figures show the production is now 50.3 billion litres a year over there. It would seem to me that they are on 20 per cent now. I have not noticed any cars breaking down there. Are all the cars breaking down in Brazil? Could that proposition be seriously put up in the parliament of Australia and actually believed by a lot of the people in here? There are a lot of people who believe what they want to believe and, if the oil companies are leaning on them, I know what they are going to believe.
I have a picture here of a very handsome person in a big white hat filling up his car in Sao Paulo. The price was 123 reais, which was 74c a litre when that photograph was taken in 2007. I lost my photograph showing me filling up in Minnesota at 84c a litre. When I came back to this country I filled up at 139c a litre in Sydney. I can tell you that we are paying a hell of a lot more than that where I come from. We do not have commuter transportation systems in the big cities in North Queensland. The answers are there and it is about time the government twigged to them. (Time expired)
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (19:43): I do welcome the chance to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 because I have always been against the carbon tax and I have always been against an emissions trading system, especially where the world does not operate an ETS and there is nothing that would not see Australia disadvantaged. What I am absolutely certain about is that there will never be a consensus on an ETS and there will never be a worldwide or comprehensive agreement on an ETS. If it could not be done with trade talks, it will not be done with a taxation and wealth redistribution scheme.
As the Prime Minister has said, the Labor-Greens carbon tax is socialism masquerading as environmentalism and its time is over. We have always said we were against the carbon tax. We are against it because of the way it was imposed upon the Australian people and we are against it because it is not in the interests of any Australian out there beyond this building. It was not and is not helping the lives of the people in Girrawheen, Woodvale, Ballajura, Warwick or any one of the 25 suburbs of Cowan. It does not help the people or businesses of Australia and it works against the retention of jobs in this country, at least the private enterprise jobs anyway.
We have always been against it and always said we would repeal it as a matter of urgency. That is a point not lost on my constituents, and I have fielded many questions about that in the last four years. A fairly persistent question was 'How would it be done?', and while people wanted it gone, there was a concern that it could even be done. But what we know is that if it was put in it can be taken out, and the legislation we are considering will do exactly that.
The Clean Energy Act 2011 and five associated charges acts will be repealed. The ACCC, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, will be used to enforce the changes. Prices will be monitored and enforcement will take place to ensure that prices will fall because there will be no carbon-specific price exploitation. The bottom line is that when prices went up due to the Labor Party's carbon tax, prices will come off in the same way, and the ACCC will be there to enforce those changes.
The industry assistance schemes put in place to return some of the money taken from certain industries in programs such as the Jobs and Competitive Program, the Energy Security Fund and the Steel Transformation Plan will be abolished from 1 July 2014. I also look forward to the abolition of the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, delivered through the repeals of the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012. I also welcome the reduction of future appropriations for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency delivered through amendments to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011.
Of course when we take this tax off, the compensation comes off as well. The former government was so interested in popular politics that they put this carbon tax in place to change behaviour and then compensated so that behaviour did not need to change. Therefore the income tax cuts put in place to compensate for the carbon tax will not be needed from 1 July 2015.
The carbon tax currently stands at $24.15 and will rise to $25.40 from 1 July 2014. If Labor stands in the way of lower prices then every Australian will continue to be hit by the effects of the Labor-Green carbon tax, and they will be hit again from 1 July 2014 with that tax lifting. I would also like to note that at the introduction of their carbon tax legislation, Labor spent millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to advertise how fantastic it was going to be and then just over 100 days later proposed major structural changes on top of the eight changes already undergone to this, their fantastic tax. It is no wonder that the Australian people felt so strongly about voting in the Liberal Party and the coalition, who had stated that they are 100 per cent committed to repealing the carbon tax.
There can be no doubt that the repeal of Labor's carbon tax was at the very centre of our policy platform. It was clear what we stood for and in that context the coalition won 90 seats out of 150 seats. That is what we call the will of the people being clearly stated. As the Prime Minister said before the election, the first bill introduced would be the repeal of the carbon tax—and it was. What a contrast to those on the other side; we say we will do something before the election and then do exactly that after the election. The contrast being with Labor at the 2010 election, where the then Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'.
Of course, a similar thing did occur, again with Labor at the latest election. Senator Pratt of the Labor Party sent out a flyer into my electorate of Cowan with the headline of 'Carbon tax: abolished. Kevin Rudd and Labor have removed the carbon tax.' This, of course, was not true, but clearly an indication that, in electoral trouble, Labor wanted to distance itself from its own policy.
Unlike the Labor Party, which went to the 2010 election promising that there will be no carbon tax only to introduce one after the election, we are committed to delivering on the commitments that we took to the last election. Leaving aside political history in this country, the bottom line is that we said we would get rid of the carbon tax and we will. We are the only political side that can be trusted. It is clearly the will of the people that we do so and, despite the viewpoint of the fringe extreme Left, the Greens and elements of the Labor Party, the clear majority of Australians have spoken. Despite others trying to be noisy, they are merely a minority viewpoint.
The reason that there is a majority view on this issue is also somewhat obvious. We know that there has not been any real warming of the planet since 1998, and up until a few years ago the drought in the eastern states provided such convenient images of dry, parched and cracked earth, sheep or cattle on fields without grass and the Murray River looking particularly low. It certainly made for good imagery, but then the floods and the end of the drought reduced the credibility of the extremism. Australians began to see once again what was happening as cyclical, and the main issues of concern came back to areas such as cost of living, national security and other more immediate concerns. I do not think that it is that complex to see why public opinion shifted in this area.
The trouble with the stock standard tactics of the Left is that speaking in dramatic, extreme and shocking terminologies is nothing more than of short-term political benefit. Yes, concern is raised and people are motivated, but as time goes on the apocalypse does not actually arrive and the signs of the end of days do not seem to be particularly ominous. This is despite the Greens still pushing their wagon. To try to keep up the alarmism they keep trying to attribute bushfires or even typhoons to climate change. The point is that the climate change card has been overplayed and the Australian people are increasingly sceptical. The result is now that other issues have become more important and the carbon tax is now more a cost of living issue, particularly when the previous government's own modelling showed that our emissions will rise in 2010 from 560 million tonnes to 637 million tonnes in 2020.
I often wonder whether those on the other side—Labor and the Greens—think the Australian people are stupid. The fact is that the people in this country can see through such policies. They do not see the apocalyptic prophesies coming true but they do see their cost of living rising for no benefit. They are smarter than Labor and the Greens think they are and this has resulted in those on the other side wondering why the majority of Australians have swung against them. I can just imagine those responsible for the Labor and Greens election reviews scratching their heads, wondering what happened and why everything went so badly. Well, to help with the analysis: the Australian people are smarter than they were given credit for, and do not fall for the cheap politics that Labor has tried to play.
The Labor-Green opposition to our repeal of the carbon tax today is in defiance of the will of the people, and the defiance of that will is pretty arrogant. It is saying to the majority of the Australian people, 'You don't know what is good for you, and only the Labor Party and the Greens do.' That is wrong, and if Labor and the Greens block the will of the people here, the extra power and utility bills, and the extra prices that flow down correspondingly to the prices of goods and services for every Australian, will be entirely the fault of those who sit opposite, and the people will know it.
It would be wrong of me not to talk a little about the vested interests that stand behind and in support of the previous government. Of course, every university department or NGO with 'climate change' in their name knows that an increasingly dubious Australia or world is a risk to their jobs and their funding. At the UN climate talks in Warsaw, in defence of their position and funding sources, NGOs tried to embarrass the government by awarding Australia 'fossil of the day' awards. Sensing a threat to the bucket of money, they rushed to the defence of their self-interest. Apparently you were given these awards if you disagreed with these non-elected environmental group NGOs. If you do not want to give them money or redistribute wealth then they call you names. But, as I said, fringe left-wing groups are increasingly being seen as self-interested parties. Even some business groups that were in Warsaw are looking to make money from carbon prices and trading and therefore are also concerned that the Australian government and the people have decided that we are not going to help them make that money and we are not going to fritter away the taxpayers' money.
I am proud to be a member of this Abbott-led coalition government, particularly so when we send just a handful of diplomats to Warsaw, in such fine contrast to the delegation of over 100 for former Prime Minister Rudd's attendance at the utterly ineffective Copenhagen conference—the conference at which he, as Miranda Devine put it:
… staked the nation's entire prestige, and indeed alleged future survival, on the outcome of the global climate talks that he, singlehandedly, was going to guide, thanks to his Mandarin-speaking rapport with the Chinese.
Lo and behold, he was treated as an irrelevant joke in Copenhagen, and the talks were the flop every sensible person had predicted.
In what those on the other side would be better placed to judge, he 'flew into a narcissistic rage' and used terms and phrases that cannot be repeated.
As I have said many times before, I am no adherent to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. But, regardless of my viewpoint, what has changed in the political environment is that the people have moved on. The drought, the parched earth, the Murray-Darling river system problems, together with Al Gore's fictional movie An Inconvenient Truth, served to scare and alarm people. But the apocalyptic scenarios by Gore, Flannery and others, whose livelihood began to depend on the promulgation of fear, began to evaporate when there was so much water in Warragamba Dam that flooding became an issue. That is the problem, as I have already stated: when you talk up the situation in grand and terrifying terms, the whole campaign begins to fall apart when the people see the exact opposite of what you predict. I think a fair few people probably still have concerns about global warming, but when they see empirical evidence contrary to the predictions of those with vested interests they too begin to question whether the Labor Party's plans to hurt the Australian economy with a money-churning carbon tax are actually worth it.
I also note that the outgoing Future Fund chairman, David Murray, who last year described Labor's carbon tax as 'the worst piece of economic reform I have ever seen in my life', last week added to his comment by saying that 'the climate problem is overstated' and suggesting there had been a 'breakdown in integrity in the science'. It is interesting that there are other business leaders who are now brave enough to come out of the woodwork to voice similar opinions when they were not there years ago. As was rightly stated in a recent article in The Daily Telegraph:
Already climate alarmists are seizing on this year's early bushfires to rev up another panic in the public mind, and will use a hot summer, or any unusual weather, to prosecute their case for a renewed jihad on cheap coal-fired electricity, which is, of course, the source of Australia's competitive advantage.
They are not troubled by the appalling illogic of their position, in which, even if Australia retreated to the Stone Age and reduced carbon dioxide emissions to zero, there would be precisely zero effect on bushfire behaviour or summer temperatures or sea levels.
The carbon tax is an economy-wide tax that is hurting Australian people and businesses. If the opposition continue to try and stop the repeal of the carbon tax they will personally be responsible for higher electricity prices for families, pensioners and businesses and for fewer jobs and a slower growing economy. This is the reality if they try to stop us from implementing our mandate to scrap the carbon tax.
The coalition are totally committed to our promise to scrap the carbon tax as swiftly as possible because scrapping the carbon tax is very important for Australia's future. Scrapping the carbon tax will help families and pensioners across Australia. It will help workers and businesses. It will help businesses across Australia because it will reduce the cost of doing business and it will help make the position of workers more secure. It will make jobs more secure because, of course, it will help businesses across the country to prosper. As the Minister for Finance has previously said, look no further than the former government's own economic modelling. The modelling released by the former government showed that, as a result of their carbon tax, our economy was going to grow by $1 trillion less, in 2012 dollars, between 2012 and 2050—a whopping $1 trillion of economic growth was taken out of our economy as a result of Labor's carbon tax.
It must not be underestimated that repealing the carbon tax also delivers on a clear and emphatic commitment that we took to the last election. Unlike the Labor Party, we stick to the commitments that we take to an election after that election. By delivering on this election commitment we are enacting the will of Australians all over the country. As I often say when I visit students at schools within my electorate of Cowan, both sides of parliament believe in making the country the best it can be; where we differ is on what is the best way to achieve this. To this effect, both sides agreed on the target of a five per cent emissions reduction by 2020 but were divided over the means to achieve it. However, let us keep in mind that at the election Australians, when faced with a choice, made that choice. It is clear that they had faith in our policy to repeal the carbon tax and faith in the vision we had for environmental action. The fact that the Greens and Labor are now stunned by that choice is a problem for our political opponents, not for us, but if they reject the will of the people that will remain a problem for them way into the future.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (19:58): I would just say to the member for Cowan that he seems to have forgotten that when John Howard was the Prime Minister back in 2007 he actually took a policy to introduce an emissions trading scheme for this country. Plainly, he has completely forgotten—
Mr Simpkins: There were a lot of conditions on that!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Member for Cowan, you enjoyed silence. It would be nice if you gave the same respect to others.
Ms MACKLIN: Plainly, he has no regard for his own coalition parties' previous policies. They have flip-flopped all over the place and now we have the legislation that is before us. This matter has been the subject of debate in this parliament for many decades. Across that time we have seen the coalition parties take many different points of view on this issue. Throughout the debate, though, Labor's position has been consistent. Most importantly, we accept the overwhelming consensus of the scientists. The science tells us—whether it is from NASA, the CSIRO, or the Bureau of Meteorology, they all agree—that human induced climate change is real. The member for Cowan has certainly just indicated that he does not think it is real even though, of course, there are many members of the government that disagree with him.
Climate change is caused by carbon pollution. Its effects are harmful to the environment. The extreme weather events that are occurring around the globe, not just in Australia, with increased frequency and intensity are occurring because of climate change. Global temperatures are rising. Global sea levels are rising. On this side of the parliament we accept this evidence. If you accept the evidence, then of course the responsible thing to do as a government is to act. This is the view of the Labor Party.
What is then the most efficient way to reduce our emissions? This really is what this debate should be about. What is the most efficient way to make sure that Australia contributes to the overall reduction of emissions in our country? This really is why the government's position is so irresponsible. The policy choice that we have before us is between the opposition's view that there should be a market based emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon and the government's so-called 'Direct Action' model. The choice is very clear. Labor's view is that we should have a market based mechanism that puts a price on carbon. All the evidence shows that this is the most efficient way of dealing with climate change, the cheapest and the fairest way of cutting pollution. It is the view of leading climate change economists like Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut, both internationally renowned for their knowledge and understanding of the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions.
The alternative that the coalition has is their so-called Direct Action model. What we know about that is that it will be costly and simply cannot guarantee we meet the emissions targets that the government itself has set. Even the coalition is no longer confident that they will meet the targets that they have set to reduce carbon pollution with their Direct Action approach. Make no mistake, the coalition's Direct Action policy will hurt families because of course it is families as taxpayers who will be paying the cost of Direct Action.
A market based approach achieves a reduction of emissions at lowest cost. We have already seen an 8.6 per cent reduction in emissions in the National Electricity Market during the first six months of the carbon price the creation of 150,000 jobs, continued growth in our economy and low inflation, and a 25 per cent increase in renewable energy. These are the facts.
By contrast, Direct Action has an Emissions Reduction Fund that actually uses taxpayers' money to pay polluters to make emissions reductions. The former Secretary of the Treasury, Ken Henry, recently described Direct Action as 'bizarre'. It was bizarre from Ken Henry's view because it involves the government paying big polluters in a scheme that will cost more and reduce productivity. That is not Labor saying that; it is the former Treasury secretary. It is almost impossible to find a reputable economist that backs Direct Action over an emissions trading scheme. Direct Action will be costly. It will use taxpayer funds to pay big polluters and we know that it will harm Australia's chances to create job opportunities, especially in the renewables sector.
I also want to emphasise that this approach the government is taking without a market based price on carbon pollution means that Australia will be left behind. Other countries around the world will attract investment in clean energy technologies that create jobs and generate economic growth. Around the world right now more money is being invested in new renewable power capacity than in new fossil fuel capacity. Other countries are taking action. In June of this year China launched its first carbon emissions trading scheme in Shenzhen, a business hub with a population of around 10 million people. China is going down the path of carbon emissions trading with a further six emissions trading schemes to be established throughout China, ahead of a national scheme in 2015. South Korea passed legislation last year to establish an emissions trading scheme. California launched its own emissions trading system in January, and of course the European Union has had an emissions trading scheme for some time.
This legislation will do immeasurable harm to Australia's international reputation in the fight to combat climate change. The new Prime Minister has wanted to avoid taking action on climate change for some time. He seems to want to deprive Australian workers of the job opportunities offered by a clean energy future. Unlike the coalition, Labor wants to make sure that we both care for the environment and reduce our emissions at the same time as seeing innovation and new jobs across industry. We have demonstrated our commitment to helping families and seniors with cost-of-living pressures, and of course our Clean Energy Package did exactly that. Our Clean Energy Package was designed to make sure that big polluters and not Australian families and pensioners pay for the harmful pollution they emit into our atmosphere. It has directed and continues to direct revenue raised from pricing carbon to Australian families and pensioners through increases in their payments.
We also made sure that support was provided to industry so they are best placed to innovate and take advantage of the opportunities presented by a clean energy future. This is all so that our children and grandchildren can inherit a cleaner and more prosperous Australia. All of this is now at risk under the coalition. As I have mentioned, under the prime minister's direct action policy it will be families and pensioners that will be subsidising big polluters.
I am glad that we did shame this government into maintaining Labor's household assistance for Australian families and those self-funded retirees and pensioners that need extra support. Without the pressure that came from Labor in the last parliament, those opposite would have shamelessly cut assistance to families and pensioners. The government has now unfortunately abandoned the previously bipartisan policy of lifting Australia's target for cutting carbon emissions if global action on climate change were to be strengthened. Since 2009 until now, there has been bipartisan support for increasing Australia's emission reduction target to 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 if there was a genuine global effort to reduce emissions. But not anymore—that, like many of the other commitments from those opposite, has just gone out the window.
By contrast to those opposite, Labor intends to do what we can to reduce carbon emissions—to make sure we have the most effective carbon pollution reduction scheme. We refuse to consign future generations of Australians to a world that is beyond repair. Ultimately, it will be future generations that will look back on us today and cast judgement on this government—a government that refuses to take the most effective action on climate change through an emissions trading scheme, and all for base political motives. That is why we are having this debate today—because this coalition is putting their political interest ahead of our country's future.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (20:09): The carbon tax is the one issue that defines the Labor Party. It is the one issue that encapsulates the integrity of the Labor Party. You might think that this question was removed from political debate with the departure of former Prime Minister Gillard. Not so. Even today, I invite the people to judge the Labor Party by one simple test: will they keep their word on the carbon tax or not? What could be more simple than that? Will they act in accordance with the clear and overwhelming view of the Australian people as expressed at the last election? They are in denial. They refuse to honour their word. They refuse to accept what the people of Australia have said.
When the then Prime Minister of Australia said, four days before the 2010 election, that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led, Australians understandably took that promise at face value. As history has recorded, the prime minister broke that promise and, indeed, the trust of the Australian people. The carbon tax came into effect on 1 July 2012 and was supposed to impose a tax of $23 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions on the so-called 500 biggest polluters. The Clean Energy Regulator, however, was constantly updating and revising its hit list of local councils and companies, resulting in chaos and confusion. At one stage it was supposed to be 500 and then 250; the list was eventually revised to 315, of which 77 operate solely in Queensland.
In late July 2012, almost a month after the carbon tax came into effect, the Clean Energy Regulator decided that an additional 24 organisations, primarily electricity providers, would be added to the list of so-called big polluters. On 7 August 2012, the list was revised again. Little wonder that confusion reigned when it came to Labor's carbon tax. This was an economy-wide tax which hit every level of industry from multinational corporations to small businesses and families. This was an electricity tax, a gas tax and a food tax. It was not, however, a tax to reduce emissions. It was all financial pain for no environmental gain.
The tourism industry was among the hardest hit by this toxic tax. In my home state of Queensland, tourism is a crucial industry generating jobs and income for many residents and businesses located outside the south-east corner. Labor's carbon tax hit at a time when the industry was only just starting to recover from some of the Sunshine State's worst natural disasters—the devastating floods of 2011 and Cyclone Yasi up north. When the carbon tax was first announced, the Tourism and Transport Forum produced a damning report that highlighted the loss of 6,400 jobs industry-wide. The TTF also stated the impact of the carbon tax would cost the tourism industry 10 per cent of industry profits and that the net beneficiary of that carbon tax would be outbound tourism. It was not good news for an industry already in trouble. Virgin Australia, in February this year, confirmed it had paid $24.4 million in carbon tax in the first half of the financial year. That was just in the first six months of the carbon tax, up to December 2012. During the 2013 financial year, the company paid $47.9 million in carbon tax, a cost which they were unable to recover due to strong competition in the market. The company was also forced to impose a surcharge on ticket prices following the introduction of the carbon tax. That meant an extra $1.50 for flights of less than 900 kilometres, rising to $3 for flights between 901 kilometres and 2,000 kilometres and $6 for sectors longer than 2,000 kilometres. It was everyday Australians who were footing the bill for the carbon tax, not the so-called big polluters.
The Brisbane City Council was also branded by the Labor Gillard government as one of the top polluters in the country. It was estimated that the carbon tax would cost the council about $65 million over a four-year period from when the carbon tax was introduced in 2012. Brisbane Lord Mayor, Graham Quirk, lobbied tirelessly against the government's ridiculous decision to penalise Brisbane's ratepayers, but those pleas fell on deaf ears. The lord mayor confirmed the total carbon tax bill for the council for 2012-13 was $15.8 million, which included up to $11 million for the 0.7 per cent rise in inflation, $3.5 million in carbon permits for landfill and $1.3 million for carbon tax administration. Given these costs, the 2012-13 council budget showed that average residential rates would rise by 4.5 per cent The federal government's carbon tax made up 1.9 per cent of the subsequent overall increase in rates. Councillor Quirk estimated the $1.05 a week average rise could have been just 60c a week without the carbon tax, so approximately 40 per cent less.
Brisbane City Council is Australia's largest council, with over one million residents. As a result Brisbane has greater responsibilities than other councils, including the operation of landfill sites and public transport. Brisbane ratepayers have already spent millions of dollars achieving real green initiatives. Between 1990 and 2010 Brisbane City Council more than halved its annual carbon emissions from 500,000 tonnes to 220,000 tonnes on the way to achieving its target for the council to become carbon neutral by 2026.
The LNP council is currently purchasing 100 per cent green power for its buildings and offsetting all carbon emissions from its public transport and vehicle fleets. In addition, it has planted two million trees and acquired more than 500 hectares of at-risk bushland from development. Yet, despite these great green initiatives to reduce the council's carbon footprint, Brisbane City Council still did not meet the Gillard government's flawed carbon tax criteria because it had landfill sites and capturing the methane was not taken into account.
The impact of the carbon tax did not stop there. It hit many small businesses across the country, including in my electorate of Ryan. Luke Sherman, the owner of Cave Coffee in Keperra, asked me during the election campaign to imagine a cheese sandwich—no ham, no tomato and no spreads; just a humble cheese sandwich. How much do you think that would cost at your local cafe? Around $4? Luke's food costs went up around 25 per cent with the introduction of the carbon tax.
By the time a cheese sandwich lands in Luke's refrigerators ready for his customers he has essentially received it fourth-hand and paid for it. The cheese has made its way from the factory and the bread from the bakery to the wholesaler. At this stage the transportation of the goods has incurred carbon tax and now the wholesaler will be paying extra in his electricity costs as a result of the carbon tax. Once Luke has received the goods from the wholesaler he has to pay any extra costs that have been passed on as well as paying extra on his own electricity bills. So in the end Luke has to make a decision: does he pass the extra costs on to his customers, does he stop stocking certain types of food or does he, like many other owners, take a pay cut and wear the extra costs himself?
Luke used to own two coffee shops: one in Keperra and the other in Fortitude Valley. He had to close his Fortitude Valley shop because it was no longer viable. But on a more positive note, he says that consumer confidence has been returning since the change of government. He said that people are much happier with a stable government and he is looking forward to the economy improving under the coalition.
Back in August 2012 I promised every constituent in my electorate of Ryan that there would be no carbon tax under a coalition government. I am proud to say that we will keep that promise. The coalition was elected with a mandate to scrap the carbon tax and reduce costs for businesses and households, boost jobs and manufacturing and restore Australia's international competitiveness. This government is committed to abolishing the carbon tax and will work to ensure that the repeal bills are passed as soon as possible.
Australian households and businesses will be better off without a carbon tax. Households in Ryan will be about $550 better off in 2014-15 than they would have been with the carbon tax in place. This is about taking the pressure off electricity and gas bills.
To ensure that companies will pass the benefits on to consumers, the government will give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the powers and resources to take necessary action against businesses that engage in price exploitation. The ACCC will be given new powers to take action against businesses that attempt to exploit other businesses and consumers by keeping prices unreasonably high or making false or misleading claims. Penalties of up to $1.1 million for corporations and $220,000 for individuals will apply.
The carbon tax will be abolished but the government will keep the Household Assistance Package to help families with the cost of living. Julia Gillard promised that there would be no carbon tax. Kevin Rudd said that he would terminate the carbon tax. Anthony Albanese said that he would put a zero price on the carbon tax. The Labor Party is going to vote to keep the carbon tax but does not even have the courage to say so. Only the coalition government is taking action to abolish the carbon tax lock, stock and barrel.
No new carbon tax liabilities will accrue from 1 July 2014. This includes both the carbon tax and the equivalent carbon tax on fuels used in shipping, rail and air transport and on synthetic greenhouse gases. Ending the carbon tax at the end of the financial year will make the transition as simple as possible. Industry assistance programs will continue for the remainder of the year to help businesses meet current liabilities but will be abolished when the carbon tax ends. The Climate Change Authority will be abolished, as its functions will be delivered through the new merged environment department.
On this side of the chamber we believe that good governments engage in proper consultation. That is why public consultation was invited until 4 November. That enabled the legislation to be considered before its introduction into the parliament. The repeal of the Clean Energy Act and associated regulations is modelled to reduce cost-of-living pressures on households and cost pressures on businesses.
By reducing the cost of electricity and gas we will help to make households better off, workers more secure and our economy stronger. As well as ensuring that households in Ryan will be, on average, $550 better off in the 2014 financial year, it is estimated that retail electricity should be around nine per cent lower and retail gas prices around seven per cent lower than they would otherwise be. This will mean that household average electricity bills will be around $200 lower in 2014-15 than they otherwise would have been with a carbon tax and household average gas bills will be around $70 lower than they otherwise would have been with a carbon tax.
By repealing the carbon tax, businesses will see a reduction in the cost of inputs. The main driver of input cost increases has been the impact of the carbon tax on energy prices. Business compliance costs are also expected to fall by around $87.6 million per annum as a consequence of repealing the carbon tax. As Rod Sims from the ACCC said earlier this month, 'What went up will clearly come down when you take away the carbon tax.'
The carbon tax did not do the job the previous government said it would. Domestic emissions under the carbon tax continue to rise. Labor's own modelling, which it submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, shows that our emissions increased under the carbon tax from around 560 million tonnes in 2010 to 637 million tonnes in 2020. Australia's emissions were 557 million tonnes in the year to March 2013—exactly the same level as the previous year according to the latest emissions data.
The centrepiece of our Direct Action Plan will be the Emissions Reduction Fund, a fund which provides a powerful and direct additional incentive for businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. This fund will use positive incentives to reduce Australia's emissions. The government's Emissions Reduction Fund will achieve a five per cent reduction in domestic emissions by 2020 without an electricity tax. Preliminary figures from the Department of the Environment indicate that our abatement challenge is now around 440 million tonnes to 2020 rather than the 750 million tonnes assumed in the last official projections in 2012. We will focus on measures that directly address the 440 million tonne abatement challenge to reduce emissions through measures like reafforestation, cleaning up power stations, cleaning up waste landfill and waste coalmine gas. The government will purchase domestic emissions at the lowest possible cost to meet its targets. Labor would rather burden families and businesses with an economy-wide carbon tax that fails to reduce emissions and sends industry offshore.
As the Prime Minister correctly stated when introducing these repeal bills: the Australian people have already voted on this bill; now the parliament will get its chance. This election was a referendum on the carbon tax, and now we intend to show the people of Ryan that we listened.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (20:24): Everyone in this chamber, indeed everyone in this entire country, knows that they have a personal interest in the health of our environment. This is not just about the environment—of course good environmental policy is good economic policy—it is also about sustainability. We must ensure that we have a sustainable economy that acknowledges that we do live in a carbon constrained future; we must prepare ourselves for that future. We should always strive to be ahead of the curve, to be alert to global environmental issues and, at all times, to give the environment the benefit of the doubt.
This is also good economic policy. It is called fundamental risk management. And that is where climate change, and all issues which this parliament will consider over this year and years to come, needs to be considered. Indeed Australia being the driest continent on the planet means that we have an extra responsibility. We know what the risks of inaction are and, if we are doing our job as legislators, we should heed expert advice from the scientists and act upon it. Indeed, on the issue of climate change, I do not think there is any doubt about the need for action; there is no doubt that human activity is contributing to changes in the environment. I do not want to reprosecute that case for action today; I will leave it to the scientists who have put through the various forums—through the CSIRO in Australia or through the scientists involved in the IPCC—the facts on the table.
We must act, and we know through economic analysis and reports such as the Stern report in the United Kingdom, or indeed the work that Peter Shergold did here in Australia, that the earlier we act the cheaper the cost of action is. The alternative that has been put forward by the previous speaker, the member for Ryan, and those on the coalition benches, the so-called Direct Action Plan—planting trees and storing carbon in the soil—is inadequate to address the problem. It is a bandaid on a bullet wound.
I am all for planting more trees and for soil sequestration and any other type of mitigating action that can be taken to reduce carbon emissions but, based upon what the scientists are telling us, it simply will not be enough. That is why I support a market based solution. That used to be a consensus in this parliament. John Howard campaigned in 2007 in favour of an ETS as a result of the work that was done in the Shergold report. Labor also campaigned in the 2007 election for an ETS. We did so because we understand that it is the power of the market that can drive change in our economy.
The alternative plan, the command style economy plan of the so-called Direct Action Plan, simply will not be enough. Earlier this year senate officials told a Senate estimates committee hearing that the coalition's Carbon Farming Initiative would reduce carbon emissions by fewer than four million tonnes—that is if it is all put in place. The coalition claimed that it would reduce emissions by 20 times this amount. Based on CSIRO research, the coalition would have to utilise two-thirds of the Australian land mass to achieve the emissions reduction targets they say they support.
So let us have none of this nonsense that we have heard opposite about their wanting to get rid of the price on carbon. Indeed, under the legislation that is before this House, the price on carbon will continue up until 1 July next year. If they were fair dinkum at all, they would move so that, once this legislation is carried, the carbon price would go. But they are not fair dinkum. It is all about politics, as it always has been with those opposite.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which we attempted to implement after our election in 2007, consistent with the mandate that was given not just to the Labor government but to the coalition opposition, was designed as a market based solution. Indeed, Malcolm Turnbull remains a supporter of that position, because he knows that the so-called Direct Action Plan is a farce, and he has said so very clearly.
It is not just the coalition, though, who bear some responsibility for walking away from action needed for this and future generations. If the five Australian Greens senators had got up off their butts and walked across the chamber to vote for action on climate change with the Labor senators and the two Liberal senators who had courage in December 2009, we would have had a price on carbon implemented through legislation then, and today it would have been accepted as a consensus in this parliament.
In the last term, we were able to pass legislation for an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price until 1 July 2015. Earlier this year, when Kevin Rudd returned as the Prime Minister and I was Deputy Prime Minister, we committed to the abolition of the carbon tax and a move to emissions trading from 1 July 2014, embracing the power of the market in order to drive that change through the economy. That is the position that Labor took to the election and it is the position that we hold today, and yet those opposite are not only sceptics when it comes to climate change; they are also market sceptics. That is absolutely extraordinary. From time to time, the Liberal Party likes to talk about the power of the market, but on this critical issue with such serious implications for our economy, for employment and for our environment, the Liberal Party, instead of using a market based mechanism to drive that economy, prefers to subsidise the big polluters. It is a 'pay polluters' scheme that they want.
And where does that money—the billions of dollars that is going to be used to subsidise the big polluters—come from? It comes from taxpayers. So what they want to do is slug ordinary Australian working families in order to subsidise the big polluters. That is their plan—rather than embracing the need for a price signal, one that is understood by the business community and one that would put in place a driver of that change through the economy. Those opposite pretend that they have a mandate for this and that somehow we should just agree with their position. I say this to them: we were elected in 2007 with support for an emissions trading scheme, which they were also elected upon, and yet they walked away from that commitment.
Yesterday, thousands of Australians marched and demonstrated their desire for action on climate change. Fair Australians who have looked at the science and considered the issues know that our responsibility to this and future generations requires more than just mitigation. They know that taking action to prevent dangerous climate change is far preferable to spending money to alleviate the result of climate change. Common sense tells you that that is the case.
This is a fundamental issue between a political party that understands our responsibility to the future, our responsibility to look ahead, our responsibility to prepare for the change that is required, and those opposite, who say, 'There is a cost to carbon pollution, but we'll pass that on to future generations.' It is reminiscent of those in earlier times in our great nation who built industrial warehouses and factories alongside rivers. Why did they do that in our capitals and regional cities? They did that because if the pollution from, for example, the sugar mill on the Cooks River, in my electorate, expunged its waste into the river then it was someone else's problem. They passed on the cost to what is now this generation for the pollution in the Cooks River, the rivers going into Sydney Harbour and other rivers right around our great nation. We see the impact of their saying, 'We will not worry about waste and externalities'—to put it in economic terms—'we will just pass that on to future generations.'
That is exactly what the coalition would have us do when it comes to carbon pollution. There is a cost to carbon pollution and we need to accept responsibility, not out of any bleeding heart position but because we know that the cost of acting will be far, far cheaper if we act now.
During the 43rd Parliament the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the now Prime Minister, sought power with a political strategy of just being negative. He just said, 'We will oppose everything.' In the hung parliament Mr Abbott was so desperate to create the appearance of chaos he refused to back anything put forward by our side of politics. The problem with that is that you now have an incoming government that does not have a plan for the future. It is just what they are against. In all of their measures—repealing the price on carbon, repealing the Mineral Resource Rent Tax, stopping various infrastructure projects going forward—there is nothing positive. It struck me when the Governor-General gave her speech to the opening of parliament last week that this is a government based upon what it is against, not what it is for.
Government requires actual solutions. It requires something more than just being negative. According to the scientists across the nation, we know that when it comes to climate change we need a positive solution—a solution that understands we must be part of international action, yes, but we also have responsibility as the highest per capita emitter in the world to take action ourselves. That is why I support Labor's position of moving from the fixed price on carbon to a flexible price mechanism through an emissions trading scheme.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (20:39): It is with great pleasure that I join the debate this evening. The reason I say that is that the people of the Latrobe Valley and Gippsland have waited a long time for this moment. Right from 2010 when the former Prime Minister betrayed the people of Gippsland by announcing after the election that she would in fact introduce a carbon tax—after promising in the days leading up to the election that there would be 'no carbon tax under a government I lead'—the people of Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley have lived under a cloud of uncertainty as they have lived the real-life experience of the carbon tax and the uncertainties provided not just in the Latrobe Valley power stations and major manufacturing industries but also through the small business sector and into households and farming communities. The people of the Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley have waited a long time for this opportunity to hear tonight's debate and they welcome in no uncertain terms the Prime Minister's commitment and capacity to deliver on his promise to repeal the carbon tax as the first order of business of a new coalition government.
There is a clear contrast between this coalition government and the former Labor government in that we went to the election with a clear promise to the Australian people that we would, as a first order of business on the first sitting day of parliament, take measures to repeal the carbon tax. Contrast that with the former Prime Minister, who told the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led and then promptly ditched that promise in the most extraordinary betrayal of trust the Australian people have seen in a very long time as part of the deal with the Australian Greens. That decision by the former Prime Minister to go into a formal agreement with the Australian Greens and to betray the Australian people by introducing a carbon tax was pivotal in the former Prime Minister's failure to connect with the Australian people over the ensuing months of her prime ministership.
So it is with great pleasure that I stand here tonight on behalf of the people of Gippsland and welcome this decision by the Abbott and Truss government to repeal the carbon tax. While the previous speaker, the member for Grayndler and former minister for infrastructure, would like to pretend that there is no mandate for the coalition government in this regard, there is a clear mandate. Leading up to this election the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, all the shadow ministers and candidates right throughout the Liberal and National parties across Australia made it very clear that this was a referendum on the carbon tax. Quite clearly the Australian people handed a majority of seats to the Liberal and National coalition and we are in the position we are in today where the legislation is before the House.
The reasons for my support for this legislation to repeal the carbon tax relate specifically to jobs and the future of the Latrobe Valley. Throughout the period of 2010 to 2013 we have seen enormous uncertainty affecting investment decisions made by the brown coal power station generators in the Latrobe Valley. That uncertainty has led to reduced investment in maintenance and that has had a flow-on effect right through the heavy construction sector and the contract workers in the Latrobe Valley region.
During this period the people of the Latrobe Valley were given enormous assurances from former cabinet ministers. They were told that there would be a regional structural adjustment package to assist my community as it dealt with the impacts of the uncertainty and the additional costs imposed as a result of the carbon tax. The government actually came down to the Latrobe Valley, met with community leaders and promised in the order of tens of millions of dollars would be available under the structural adjustment package. I think it was a $270 million package across Australia, but I could be corrected on that. But once the government abandoned its Contract for Closure scheme, it also abandoned the regional structural adjustment package.
What we have seen over this period of the last three years is a region disadvantaged by betrayal of trust in the form of the former Prime Minister; then misled on the policy direction that was supposedly going to assist that community to adjust to these new policy directions; and then finally left with virtually nothing, until, in the very dying days of the former government, we had the new regional infrastructure minister visit the region and make some more promises to the Latrobe Valley about how they would be assisted, if only they re-elected the Labor government. Thankfully, that is not the case. Thankfully, the Labor Party was not re-elected and we have this opportunity today in this place to begin the process of repealing the carbon tax and providing more certainty to large manufacturers and large employers in my electorate, including the power stations.
I cannot quite figure out what it is about this issue that the Labor Party do not get. What don't they understand about the decision made by the Australian people on 7 September? The Australian people made their position on this issue abundantly clear. The previous speaker, the member for Grayndler, spoke about rallies on the weekend, with supposedly thousands of people supporting the opposition's position. There were rallies week after week after week between 2010 and 2013 opposing the carbon tax and demonstrating against that betrayal of trust I spoke about earlier. I cannot quite figure out why the Labor Party will not listen to the Australian people on this issue. If they took the time to go out and meet with regional business owners in my electorate they would understand very quickly just how hated the carbon tax is in regional Australia. It is not just the major manufacturers I talked about before; in the small business sector and in the agricultural sector I am constantly approached by business owners raising their concerns about how the carbon tax has added to the input costs of their businesses—the cost of doing business in the transport sector and a whole range of small businesses, particularly the dairy sector. The average dairy farmer is faced with an extra $5,000 a year in energy bills as a direct result of the carbon tax. These are businesses that we were assured, in the aftermath of 2010, would not pay the carbon tax. They may not have been liable for the carbon tax directly, but they had the indirect costs associated with higher energy prices and fuel costs.
At a time when the Australian dollar was strong and Australian exporters were finding it difficult to compete on world markets, what genius in the former government came up with the idea to add to the imposts on Australian business owners? It was not the Labor Party who came up with it—it was the Greens. We all do an analysis of our party's result after elections and try to figure out what went right and what went wrong. I suggest to those in the Labor Party that they need look no further than the Australian Greens to find out where their problems started. They need look no further than the Australian Greens to find out why the Australian people are abandoning the Labor Party in droves. The Greens are the greatest threat to jobs in regional communities throughout Australia. They are a threat to jobs in our traditional industries, such as the timber industry. They are opposed to commercial fishing and they are opposed to jobs in the agricultural sector. They keep passing on an enormous burden to the agricultural sector. They led the charge against the live export industry, which led to enormous job losses through Northern Australia and that had a flow-on effect throughout the entire beef industry in Australia. As the Labor Party does its analysis of where things went wrong, they should look no further than their formal agreement with the Australian Greens and the carbon tax and the betrayal of trust that that led to.
The broken promise by the former Prime Minister led to an enormous lack of confidence in Labor in regional communities. Small business owners in particular were saying to me that they simply did not trust the government and the direction it was taking . Some of those listening tonight will have played team sports. When your team lacks confidence it is almost impossible to get it back. It is the same in the business sector. Once the business sector starts losing its confidence, it takes a lot of things to go right for business to regain the confidence to invest, whether it be in new infrastructure or in hiring more people. Following the betrayal of trust by the former Prime Minister in 2010 business simply lost confidence that the government was heading in the right direction. They simply did not believe that the government knew what it was doing. We had a Prime Minister who promised one thing before the election but did something completely the opposite after the election, and that led to a severe lack of confidence in the business sector right throughout regional Australia and indeed through our cities.
Today we hear members opposite saying they are not prepared to listen to the will of the Australian people—the will clearly communicated through the ballot box at the federal election. It strikes me as extraordinary that any party which intends ever to govern again in Australia would fail to learn the lesson from their electoral experience and think it could continue to support a carbon tax when the Australian people have so clearly called for its repeal. The key issue for those listening at home tonight is the extraordinary additional costs of living which have been passed onto their households as a direct result of the previous government's carbon tax. According to Treasury modelling, upon repeal the cost of living across all Australian households will be on average $550 lower than it otherwise would have been if the carbon tax remained in place. Extending that figure into the broader community, the modelling indicates that the carbon tax has been a $9 billion a year hit on the economy.
When I talk to people in the broader Gippsland region, they say to me that they are keen to have a government that listens to them—not a government that continually lectures them and tells them what they are doing wrong; not a government led around by the Australian Greens, who tell people what jobs they can and cannot have. The people of Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley tell me they have had a gutful of being told by city based Greens what jobs they can and cannot have. They are saying to me that they want a government that tells them what it wants to do before the election and then does it after the election. That is the fundamental trust that the Australian people want to have in their government. When the Australian people voted at the last federal election they were very clear in their own minds about what they would get in an Abbott-Truss government. It was clear to them that they were voting for the abolition of the carbon tax, and that is what is eventuating. The Australian people expect us to repeal the carbon tax. There is a level of expectation in the community that has been factored into the lives of ordinary householders and into the decisions of both small and large businesses. They knew in advance that if the coalition government won government we would take action immediately to repeal the carbon tax. So it is a proud day for me, as a member of the coalition and as a member of the Nationals, to be able to stand here today and support the measures being taken by the coalition government.
One of the key issues members opposite try to use as a political weapon against the coalition is the environmental measures associated with the carbon tax. The bottom line is the carbon tax did not do anything for the environment in Australia. The carbon tax did not result in reduced emissions from Australian sources. It never has and probably never will, whereas the coalition's plan for Direct Action is targeted precisely at improving the environment for the Australian community.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: It is interesting the member opposite, who seeks to interject, has been in the parliament for all of 30 seconds and is already keen to have an argument. Perhaps he would like to go back to his constituency and explain why his party is ignoring the will of the Australian people, the overwhelming majority of Australian people who voted to repeal the carbon tax, and explain also why his former leader promised one thing before the election and promptly betrayed the Australian people only days later as a part of a dodgy deal with the Australian Greens. Perhaps he would like to go back to his constituency and explain all that or get on board with the Nationals and with the Liberal Party and support the repeal of the carbon tax; it is his choice. The great thing about the Australian democracy is we have a choice. The Australian people made that choice and, in making that choice, were very clear.
I will finish where I started and refute the member for Grayndler's suggestion that there is no mandate for this. The member for Warringah, the current Prime Minister, and all National and Liberal shadow ministers at the time—now cabinet ministers—campaigned precisely for this moment. We campaigned and said this was a referendum on the carbon tax. We campaigned and told the Australian people that we were prepared to repeal the carbon tax as the first order of business if we were elected. That is what we have done; that is why we are here tonight. I encourage those opposite to listen to the will of the Australian people and support the coalition in its efforts to repeal the carbon tax. Let us get on with delivering for the Australian people what we promised.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (20:54): I would take the minister far more seriously when he talks about mandate if he had used that language when the then Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, voted against putting a price on carbon when the Labor government of the day had clearly won an election on exactly that policy. We are in a Westminster system here where the parliament is elected and the parliamentarians vote. Nobody is suggesting that the Palmer United Party drops all of its policies and picks up all of the policies of the Liberal Party because they won government. Nobody is suggesting that Bob Katter put all of his strongly held views aside and go with the government on every single point because they won. That is not how the system works; it is not how the system has ever worked in this country and it is certainly not how the system worked when in 2007 the Labor Party went to the people with a policy of introducing a price on carbon, as did John Howard, won the election convincingly and yet when Tony Abbott became Leader of the Opposition he decided to vote against the will of the people. And there was no screaming of the word 'mandate' at that time from his mouth in the way that there is now.
The most frightening thing about this debate I have been listening to for the last few hours—unfortunately it will not go long enough—is that so far I have not heard a member of the government talk about their own policy. What I am hearing from them is almost a denial that they won the election. They are not talking about themselves at all, even though they as government have the responsibility to act in the interests of future generations and take action on climate change.
I believe that climate change is real. I believe we are already starting to see the effects of it through extreme weather events. I believe the science and that we will see greater and greater extreme variations in climate and greater disasters as the years unfold. And I believe that this generation, those of us who over the last century have ripped stuff out of the ground and burnt it and benefitted economically from that action and became wealthy on the back of that action, are obligated to act in the interests of generations that will follow us and ensure that they have a world that is as easy to live in as the world that we inhabit at the moment. I can only assume that any government that puts up a sham of a policy such as Direct Action—a policy with no detail that no credible economist or scientist believes will work, which gets called a figleaf at various times—either does not believe in climate change at all or does not understand or accept that a government governs not just for this generation but for the generation that follows and the generation after that.
This is a government, we have seen in the last few weeks, that does not consider the future. We can see other examples of it: the intention to abolish the MRRT, which preserves some of the wealth of this generation for the next one. We have seen them put together a cabinet that does not look to the future at all. It has no science minister, no innovation. We have seen them now take incredibly weak action on perhaps one of the most significant policy challenges that the world faces. It is incredibly disappointing that in a debate as important as this not only did they seek to gag it but they failed to speak at all on their own policy. We are still waiting for the details of this sham policy. It is clear it does not exist. It is clear there has been very little work on it since 2010 when the most recent paper was released. And it is incredibly disappointing to stand in this House opposite a government that clearly does not accept its responsibility to govern for future generations as well as this one.
We know from the International Energy Agency it is estimated that, for each year effective action is delayed, it will cost an additional $500 billion in the world to cut global emissions. That is for each year we fail to act. In the last 15 years we had the Howard government that failed to act significantly for far too long—failed to sign the Kyoto Protocol, failed to take significant action, became a convert towards the end of the Howard years and put together their own emissions trading policy, but essentially failed to act over 12 incredibly important years. Those years will be seen as lost years by future generations. It will be an even greater tragedy if this time around the Liberal Party cannot live up to the responsibility of government once again.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (21:00): Order! I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Fraser Electorate: Hackett and Watson 50th Birthday Celebrations
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (21:00): Suburbia is an oft maligned word in Australia, but our suburban communities here in the ACT are something to be proud of. As part of the Canberra centenary, Canberra has been celebrating the unique character, the history of our local communities. As the Parties at the Shops grouping as part of the Canberra centenary has noted, Canberra is probably the only city in the world where you have to have road signs to find the shops, secluded as they are from our leafy avenues.
I want to speak about two celebrations in my electorate. The 50th birthday of the Hackett community on 21 and 22 September was a celebration which brought out Canberra City Band's John Agnew Band, a Reminiscing Corner with early photographs, including from now closed Hackett school.
Hackett Community Association members Greg Haughey, James Walker, Bruce Smith, Terry de Luca, Kay Murphy, Lorraine Mason, Jenny Pierson, Erika Alacs, John Carty and Marian Williams should be commended for their hard work in making the Hackett celebrations such a success. As James Walker noted:
There are still people here who moved in in 1962, '63, ' 64. We're also organising reminiscing sessions …
He went on:
When we were looking to buy when we moved to Canberra, as soon as we looked at Hackett we knew we wanted to be here.
… … …
The suburb was largely founded for defence people, CSIRO, ANU—so many people were ripped from their previous lives and moved here and had to sort of band together. A tradition has grown up that you know your neighbours and are aware of things happening.
It is that community spirit in a city in which people really do know their neighbours, which is one of the many reasons why I am so proud to represent the ACT.
On most measures of civic life, the ACT tops Australia and indeed postcode 2602, in which Hackett is located, is the most generous postcode in Australia according to donation statistics.
Hackett's Music in the Park organised by John and Christy Murray brings together local bands in the Bragg Street Park, again building the community spirit.
Another 2602 postcode is Watson, which celebrated its 50th anniversary on Saturday, 16 November. I commend the Watson Community Association, including Julie Smith, Richard Larson, John Real, Gillian Helyar, and the MC for the Watson Community Association's Great Debate, Julie Derrett.
Watson is named after the first Labor Prime Minister, who regrettably only served for four months. The streets of Watson are named after lawyers, and so the Watson Community Association asked lapsed lawyers Gary Humphries and me to debate the topic: That Federation is a Failure, Canberra is a Catastrophe and Lawyers are Laughable.
I drew the short straw getting the affirmative case and had to do a little nimble footwork so as not to place myself in an invidious position vis-a-vis my constituents.
I commend too the work of the Watson Woodlands group, which is working to preserve the local community and also Julie Smith and others who have prepared a brochure on Watson and its history, going back to the 1940s with the CSIRO Dickson Experimental Station being established for agricultural research in Watson and referring also importantly to the history of the Ngunnawal people in Watson.
I believe that better knowing your community, its history and your neighbours is fundamental to our sense of self. I think we are better versions of our selves when we are better grounded in our local communities. I commend the communities of Hackett and Watson on teaching all of us more about our local communities and giving neighbours a chance to get to know neighbours. It is a city which is a great privilege to represent.
Australian War Memorial
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (21:05): I would like to make comments on the proposal to take a chisel to the Tomb of the Unknown Solider just down the road from here to obliterate the words 'Known Unto God' and replace them with some other words by ex-Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating.
This proposal, if allowed to be undertaken, would be an act of vandalism. The words 'Known unto God' are the words that Rudyard Kipling advised the Imperial War Graves Commission to adopt in 1917 to mark the graves of soldiers whose remains could not be identified. That includes 23,000 Australians and over 212,000 Commonwealth soldiers whose remains could not be identified from the First World War.
Who more appropriate than the great Rudyard Kipling to have penned these words? Prior to the war, Kipling was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1907, becoming the first English-language recipient. The Nobel prize citation said:
… in consideration of the power of observation, originality of imagination, virility of ideas and remarkable talent for narration which characterize the creations of this world-famous author.
It was Rudyard Kipling who wrote the immortal poem If— which includes the words which will live through the centuries.
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
… … …
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same
Foremost, Kipling knew firsthand the experience and the emotions of those who were lost in war during that time, those whose bodies were never discovered.
Kipling's only son, John, was posted to the Western Front just before his 18th birthday. He was reported wounded and missing six weeks later in his first action, the Battle of Loos, on 27 September 1915. He was last seen stumbling blindly through the mud, screaming in agony after an exploding shell ripped his face apart. When Rudyard Kipling learnt the news, he was said to have cried a 'curse like the cry of a dying man'. He then embarked on a long campaign to find his only son, hoping for a miracle that he was still alive. It was only in 1919 that Kipling finally accepted that his only son had perished in the war. Kipling then focused his energies on commemorating all those who had fallen in the Great War and he joined the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and put his skills to the task to determine what words should be chosen for those tombstones. That is how the words 'Known unto God' were chosen.
One can only ask what those whom we entrusted with the responsibility to protect our War Memorial were thinking when they came up with this proposal? The words carved into the Tomb of the Unknown Solider are not an item of fashion, not something that gets changed. No-one has the right to change these words because they believe that they have found something better, more fashionable or more politically correct. To take a chisel and obliterate the words 'Known unto God', for whatever reason, is worse that an act of vandalism. To attempt to replace these words with something that is seen as more politically correct is an act of desecration, a defiling of a national sacred monument. Thankfully, we have men of substance such as Senator Ronaldson and our Prime Minister, who were also appalled at this proposal and were prepared to stand up and prevent this desecration from occurring.
Parramatta Electorate: Building Multicultural Communities Program
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (21:10): Earlier this year, I was pleased to announce funding to 12 great local organisations under the Building Multicultural Communities Program. The funding was given to improve facilities and to help them build stronger communities. The grants were awarded under proper procedures and were fully funded in the 2013-14 budget. Successful applicants were notified and there were many happy people in my electorate when those grants were announced. Unfortunately, community organisations around Australia are now being told by departmental officials that their funding is in limbo. This is despite the fact that Minister Scott Morrison tabled the approved grants in parliament earlier this month. I call on the Minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews, to honour these funding commitments, properly processed in the budget and announced in the proper way, and give these communities the certainty that they deserve.
The community organisations in my electorate who represent some of our most diverse communities do extraordinary work, building their communities and their facilities. I have been to Hindu services on vacant lots in the mud and the rain, because they have managed to buy a piece of land and they are holding their first service out in the open as an indication of great things to come. I have seen the BAPS community in Eleanor Street, Rosehill, buy an old pie shop and over a 10-year period turn it into something that is visually very beautiful, that houses a community of several thousand people. I have seen the Murugan Temple develop beside the M4. Again, it was originally a block of land right alongside a freeway of not much value to anyone else and they have turned it into an extraordinary facility for their community. The Turkish community have been in Australia for just over 40 years and they well and truly own Turkish House in Auburn. These are extraordinary achievements by communities.
Three of the communities that were granted larger amounts of funding under this program are doing significant work on improving facilities which they already own. The Hindu Society of New South Wales bought an old church and house in Old Toongabbie—it is known as the Shakti Temple. They received $75,600 to renovate a small brick church at the front of the property to be used for training. They have done a remarkable job of turning what was a very rundown group of buildings—an old church, a hall and a house out the back—into a usable space. There is much more work to be done, but it is an extraordinary achievement by a community which has not been in Australia for all that long.
There is the Hope Mission Centre. I went to the opening of their first premises about five or six years ago. I went to the opening of another one a few months ago. They have bought something that looks like a warehouse on Church Street in North Parramatta and have already turned it into a place which houses a strong and growing community which does great work for their community. The Global Organisation for Divinity have purchased a rather rundown property in Winston Hills and have received funding under this program to build a car park, disability access and toilet facilities. These are incredibly important projects to these communities and their loss will be quite devastating to people who have worked incredibly hard.
I call on the minister to confirm funding to ACCA Aged Care for the purchase of computers and a printer; to the Anglican Church Property Trust Diocese of Sydney for a fridge, projector and a sound system; to Community Migrant Resource Centre for laptops and a data projector for their Australia Asian Cultural Association; to the Ethiopian Community Association in New South Wales for printers and software; to Granville Multicultural Community Centre for additional outdoor space; to the Hindu Society of New South Wales to renovate and restore their temple; to the Hope Mission Centre Incorporated for their data projectors and chairs; to the Information and Cultural Exchange for 15 iPad minis and accessories; to the Maltese Community Council of New South Wales for office equipment; to the Relief Hope Agency Nation Development Service for a photocopier and other office equipment; to Sikh Youth Australia for a portable projector, a wireless microphone set and other equipment; and to the Global Organisation for Divinity for a car park, disability access, toilet facilities and a kids' play area.
Clontarf Foundation
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (21:15): I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House a wonderful organisation that operates around Australia—the Clontarf Foundation. Clontarf was started in Western Australia approximately 15 years ago. It is a football academy specifically for Aboriginal boys. It was based originally around Australian Rules and for probably the first 10 or 12 years was solely in Western Australia with that football code.
In the last 18 months or two years Clontarf has moved to the eastern states and, indeed, has been operating in my electorate of Parkes for the past couple of years. There are four Clontarf academies in the Parkes electorate: Moree, Brewarrina, Bourke and Coonamble. They have done an incredible job in turning around the lives of young members who are part of those academies. The academies are based within a school. The lads who join have a classroom of their own with Clontarf mentors there. In Moree, they start their day with football training. I have been to training with these lads a couple of times. They are picked up by bus at about six o'clock in the morning, taken to school and have an hour of football training, then breakfast, a bit of a meeting, a shower and then go to school.
To be a member of the Clontarf Academy the boys must attend school and if they want to undertake special excursions and treats as rewards through the Clontarf Academy they have to have that ticked off by the school's headmaster. The turnaround in the lives of these boys in my electorate in such a short time has been astounding.
I was at the opening of the Coonamble Clontarf Academy a few months ago and many of those young men now have a clear vision of what they want to achieve. One young man spoke about his desire to be a policeman. These are lads who, before Clontarf, really did not know where they fitted in. I was speaking to some of the retailers in Coonamble and they said that before Clontarf these young men would not attend many of the businesses in town. They felt that they were not welcome and were not wanted. They did not have the self-confidence to go about what the rest of us would take for granted. But through Clontarf these boys have developed a self-esteem and a direction in life.
In Moree, for instance, Clontarf has a relationship with GrainCorp and some of those boys are now doing a school based traineeship. They work one day a week with GrainCorp and during school holidays work there as paid employees, also with continued employment when they leave school.
There has been a lot of money spent for disadvantaged Aboriginal people but I have never seen anything work as efficiently as Clontarf does. Last year at a reception here I had the privilege of hearing a young man from Geraldton who was a Clontarf boy 15 years ago. He is now probably in his late twenties or 30. Through guidance from Clontarf he works as a fly-in fly-out miner. He has a partner and a couple of children. Clontarf is still guiding him in saving for a deposit on a house. Things that many Australians take for granted, that were beyond the realms of possibility for these young men, are now being made possible.
Clontarf is funded one-third by the federal government, one-third by private industry and one-third by state government. I understand my colleagues in New South Wales at the moment are looking at supporting a further rollout of Clontarf. I particularly hope they look favourably upon this. I know that in Dubbo alone 240 boys have been identified as being suitable to attend a Clontarf Academy. It has been a great privilege for me to be part of this academy, to know these boys, to see the self-esteem and to see what wonderful young men they are and the potential they have.
Learn Earn Legend Program
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (21:20): The Learn Earn Legend Program was an initiative of the former Labor government aimed at encouraging young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to stay at school, study to get a job and become a legend. For too long the rate of attainment of HSC and postschool education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders has been well below the national average. The former government had a program, Closing the Gap, in particular for educational attainment. We have been achieving results that indicate that the gap is closing.
I am proud to have a strong, active and proud Aboriginal community in my electorate. A number of community organisations do great work in assisting to achieve the aims of the Learn Earn Legend program. One of those great organisations is Souths Cares. Souths Cares is the independent not-for-profit benevolent institution that is an initiative of the South Sydney Rabbitohs rugby league team. This year they have teamed up with the University of Sydney to run the Souths Cares Framing Health project. This is a partnership between the University of Sydney and Souths Cares, designed to challenge the fears and doubts of Aboriginal students about attending university. It is aimed at not only giving them a feel for what it is like to be a student at Sydney university but also helping them to realise that it is well within their reach to become students and that all they have to do is have the drive to go out and get it.
The program was launched in 2013. It sees graduate diploma in Indigenous health studies students from the university work with Souths Cares students who are undertaking their Schools to Work program as part of the Learn Earn Legend! They work collaboratively to produce four short films, aimed at informing and educating their communities about the dangers of smoking. The students had the opportunity to work with university students from the School of Visual Arts in putting these films together.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students were from my electorate. They were part of the program. They got the opportunity to experience life behind the scenes as filmmakers. It involved students from Matraville and Alexandria Park high schools and students from a number of other schools throughout New South Wales. They joined with the postgraduate students in working on these films. The aim was to produce a short film from go to whoa. They came up with the idea, storyboarded, wrote the script, directed, shot, starred in, produced and edited these short films. They had a wonderful opportunity to work with these experienced students who were undertaking visual arts as one of their subjects at the University of New South Wales and, importantly, to get experienced in using the software. This was a rare opportunity and it gave students a chance to develop unique skills and to learn invaluable lessons about education and health.
Another aim of the project was to challenge any barriers these Indigenous students may have about attending university in the future. Through their recent experiences on campuses the students now know that university is a real option for them. The South City Rugby League Club also provided access to some of their key players, including Greg Inglis and Beau Champion, who are both undertaking part-time studies at the University of Sydney. These two wonderful players spoke to these young students about university as an option.
I want to congratulate the very gifted students who took part in the program. I want to congratulate Souths Cares for this wonderful initiative. It comes on the back of other programs that they run, such as the Souths Cares Teachers' Aide program, the Healthy and Active Lifestyle program, the Oral Health program, and the School to Work Transition program—Nanga Mai Marri, which means 'dream big'.
I want to congratulate, in particular, the general manager of Souths Cares, Shannon Donato, a wonderful community based person who has the advancement of Indigenous affairs at heart; Leellen Lewis; Indigenous mentor and former State of Origin fullback Rhys Wesser; and administration assistant Kiara Maza.
Reid, Mrs Isobel Louise
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Industry) (21:26): Madam Speaker, may I congratulate you on your speakership.
On indulgence, I rise tonight to ask this parliament to reflect on and to admire the life of Isobel Louise Reid, a woman of brightness, intelligence and vitality. She was born in Brisbane in 1921 and passed away quietly on 9 November, 2013, having enjoyed a life spanning two centuries and leaving a legacy and spirit that will doubtless span a third.
She graduated from the University of Queensland in science and worked for some time in Rockhampton before marrying Jim Macfarlane in 1945. That marriage produced four children: Louise, Robert, Neil and Ian. The first and last, as she would often remind us, were unexpected but definitely not accidents.
She was not born to be a farmer's wife in a remote part of the South Burnett away from her family and university friends, but she soon became an integral part of the Boondooma community, a community she lived in and loved for almost 35 years.
She joined the Kingaroy Forum Club so she could improve her public speaking skills and overcome her inherent shyness. Deputy Prime Minister Truss, then Mayor of Kingaroy, who often adjudicated at the forum club, would attest that she was an accomplished public speaker who spoke with knowledge and conviction.
During her time as a wife and a mother, Mum did not always get an easy run in life and at times had to put up with a lot. She guided her second child through a life plagued by mental illness and at the same time encouraged her third child, who was severely handicapped by cerebral palsy, to have the determination to live a life of independence and fulfilment.
She invariably did what had to be done, dealt with each situation as it happened and made the best of what was, whatever the circumstances she and her family found herself in.
She was thoughtful but would not want to be known as a thinker or intellectual. She loved conversation which reflected her love of life and the people and places that were important to her. She put her point of view loudly and with enthusiasm, but it was her interest in the world and particularly the people of that world that made Mum the unique person that she was.
With a brother who was once the chief political reporter for the Courier Mail here in Canberra, politics were never far from her thoughts.
Each Sunday, when I rang her, she provided a commentary on local, national and international affairs, along with advice on all facets of my life and advice for those with whom I might come in contact with during that week—prime ministers included. She had a view on any topic I cared to raise and was so well read and had such an extraordinary memory that she could tie the future predictions in with the past, weaving them into the present during a discussion on any topic you might care to mention to her. She was, by any measure, an extraordinary woman.
She was compassionate, artistic, strong, determined, opinioned, modest, forgiving, caring, thoughtful and, most importantly, wise. She was, without doubt, one of the most intelligent women I have ever met but not an intellectual. Rather, she was someone with a practical sense, who imparted knowledge without feeling that she was giving anyone anything special.
A friend once described Mum to me as a sensuous woman, to my instant embarrassment, until I realised there was no better description of her as a woman who thoroughly enjoyed all the sights, sounds and vibrancy of a life she lived to the full.
There were examples of Isobel Macfarlane evident in each of her descendants who gathered to farewell her last Friday. Her attitudes are our attitudes, not because she imposed them on us but because she set an example that we of each generation of her wanted to follow. She was like no other woman I have ever known. Her honesty and her forthrightness drew attention and admiration and, ultimately, friendship from those who came in contact with her.
She leaves this world having made Australia a better place for her having been here. I thank the House for its indulgence.
House adjourned at 21:30
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Pyne to move:
That, in relation to proceedings on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:
(1) at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 5.30 pm on Wednesday, 20 November 2013, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate and then without delay the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the second reading stage of the Bill to be put;
(2) if the second reading has been agreed to the Bill then being taken as a whole during consideration in detail for a period not exceeding 60 minutes at which time any Government amendments that have been circulated shall be treated as if they have been moved together with (a) one question being put on all the Government amendments, (b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by non‑Government Members, and (c) any further questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill being put; and
(3) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Mr Nikolic to move:
That this House notes:
(1) with concern that Tasmania has the lowest gross state product per capita in Australia, the nation’s highest unemployment rate, the lowest proportion of adults in the nation who have attained a year 12 qualification, one of the lowest retention rates to year 12, the lowest population growth, and the highest proportion of Australians without superannuation coverage;
(2) that Tasmania has enormous potential with productive land, a skilled and willing work force and people with a strong commitment to improve the State’s economy by endeavour and hard work; and
(3) that the Federal Coalition’s Economic Growth Plan for Tasmania, promised in the election campaign and reiterated in Her Excellency the Governor-General’s speech opening the 44th Parliament, will provide the architecture to help tum Tasmania’s economy around and encourage long term, sustainable employment.
Ms Rishworth to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that November is Lung Cancer Awareness Month;
(2) acknowledges that more than 9,100 Australians are diagnosed with lung cancer every year;
(3) recognises that lung cancer claims the lives of more Australians than any other cancer with only 14 out of 100 Australians surviving five years beyond their initial diagnosis; and
(4) calls on Australian and State and Territory governments to work together to improve the survival rates of Australians diagnosed with lung cancer by encouraging early detection and providing access to high quality health care treatment and support.
Ms Vamvakinou to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the recent passing of former President of the Republic of Cyprus, and Greek Cypriot Leader, Mr Glafkos Clerides;
(2) expresses its condolences to the Cypriot community in Australia and Cyprus;
(3) recognises Mr Clerides’ lifetime commitment to the pursuit of peace and stability in Cyprus, a country which has been divided since 1974;
(4) notes that the continuing division and partition of Cyprus is unacceptable for both the Greek and Turkish Cypriots;
(5) calls on the Australian Government to lend its support as a Member of the United Nations Security Council to the ongoing peace process, so that a lasting and just settlement can be reached in accordance with international law, the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and the Australian Parliament’s motions on Cyprus.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Ross, Mr David John
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (10:30): Last Friday I attended the funeral in Katherine of David John Ross—or 'Wewak'—a man I was proud to call a friend for over 30 years. The funeral service with close to 1,000 mourners was held in the pavilion at the Katherine Showgrounds. Many were family members, either direct and extended family members, or members of his wider family of brothers and sisters from his childhood at the Retta Dixon Home in Darwin where he was taken at the age of four. He remained there until he left school at the age of 15 to start work as a ringer on Mountain Valley Station. Wewak was born at an army base in the Territory on 1 September 1945. He was the eldest of 11 children born to Theresa Hayes.
His life was forever framed by his life at Retta Dixon, which is where he first met a young woman, Shirley, who was destined to be his life partner and soul mate. They first met in 1959, and on 22 April 1962 they started living together in Darwin. Their life together led them to working across the Top End of the Territory. Their first child, Dorothea, arrived in 1964. In 1965 they moved back to Katherine to stay with David's mother and his siblings, and their second child, Elizabeth, was born. David and Shirley lived in Katherine for many years and their family grew with the arrival of David Jr in 1967, Leonnie in 1968, Diana in 1971, Graham in 1972, Brian in 1973 and Robert in 1975. By the time of his death, David and Shirley had been proud and loving grandparents of 35 grandchildren and great-grandparents of 24 great-grandchildren. For David and Shirley life revolved around their family and work. While life may have often been tough, there was always joy. A party was always an opportunity for sharing or for a song and a couple of beers.
David was a very good sportsman, playing basketball for St Mary's in Darwin in the early sixties. He played Aussie Rules in Darwin, initially for Transport and Works, later for Nightcliff in the early fifties and then the Darwin Buffaloes from 1962 to 1968—although he did have a season with West Perth in the WAFL in 1964. This sporting ability flowed through the generations.
David's working life crossed many jobs—ringer, drover, wharfie, leading hand, surveyor's assistant, CDEP supervisor, road worker, cook and senior project officer for the Northern Land Council variously at Ngukurr, Borroloola and Timber Creek.
David and Shirley often worked as a team. At Montejinni Station, Wewak was a truck driver and Shirley was station cook. That was ever constant—the partnership between Shirley and Wewak. They had unconditional love. Each was the centre of the other's universe. Despite a lifetime together, it was not until March of last year that they finally tied the knot on the banks of the Katherine River. Where else could it be?
He leaves a huge hole in the lives of so many—a unique patriarch, a genuinely good bloke, a wonderful human being for whom nothing was ever too much trouble. He was a man with a huge heart. He was a devoted husband and father and a community leader who had an enormous influence on the lives of so many. He was a great Territorian. May he rest in peace.
Food Labelling
Dr STONE (Murray) (10:33): Through no fault of their own, our food manufacturing industry has all but been destroyed by the flood of cheap imports snapped up by the supermarkets—the big duopoly in particular—and the food services sector. They have pushed this product into their no-name brands to improve their bottom line. They can confuse shoppers and con them into a false sense of security about the safety of these imports because our weak, inadequate labelling laws let them baffle shoppers about the real origins of the product. We know that this imported product has scant attention from quarantine services in relation to inspecting their contamination levels.
The relentless regulation of the workforce under the Labor government and the highest carbon and refrigerant gas taxes in the world imposed by Labor banged more nails into the coffin of all of our manufacturers, but the food manufacturing sector in particular has taken a king hit.
As Gary Dawson, CEO of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, recently observed, food is the largest manufacturing sector in the country with a value-add five times that of the car manufacturing industry. At least half of the direct employment of over 300,000 people in this sector live and work outside our cities. The food and grocery manufacturing sector receives little government assistance and effectively no tariff protection, despite the extent of dumped food entering our domestic market.
We are currently seeing a feverish race between local and foreign competitors to buy up the Warrnambool Cheese and Butter business. One of the world's largest grain handling companies is trying to buy up GrainCorp so it can control all of the key grain handling assets in eastern Australia. This would suggest it is a viable sector. This would suggest there is competition for ownership of various parts of this food production chain in both the domestic and the export sector.
We are also regularly told that there is a glorious future for Australian food manufacturing production and exporting as our neighbours to the north demand high-quality foods as their incomes improve. So we have this amazing dichotomy. On the one hand, there is triumphant trumpeting of our great future prospects in the food manufacturing sector. On the other hand, there is a collapse of food manufacturing. We are down to one fruit manufacturing business—SPCA. That is, of course, in the electorate of Murray. And there is one vegetable manufacturer in Tasmania. They are both struggling, as we speak, to survive. SPCA has been failed by the Productivity Commission in their evaluation of an emergency safeguard measure. They said, 'Look, there is no real problem with the imported product,' while the Anti-Dumping Commission said, 'Yes, there is a significant problem with the importing of cheap product.' In fact, there is a dumping action now in place in respect of Italian tomatoes. The Productivity Commission found no such problem and gave no such support through the World Trade Organization sanctioned duties and tariff measures. So we have to do better in this country or we are going to lose SPCA. That is beyond contemplation.
Mental Health
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (10:36): I am putting my support towards the establishment of a headspace outpost in Lake Macquarie. There is currently a headspace office situated in Newcastle and one situated in Maitland. Lake Macquarie has a large number of young people who need the services of headspace both in the Shortland electorate and in Charlton. A group works out of my office. We look at employment and community issues. A number of key stakeholders are involved in this group. A discussion led to the fact that one thing that is needed in our area is a headspace that young people can access without having to travel great distances to access its services.
It is my understanding that there will be a call for expressions of interest in round 7. That will be released early August next year. They are looking at 10 new centres around the country. What we think would work really well in Lake Macquarie is very similar to what has been announced for the northern Wyong shire where the government has committed to a headspace service in the northern part of Wyong shire, which necessitates young people travelling a great distance, where there is no transport, to access those vital services. There is a high level of young people with mental illness and problems that cannot be resolved by Centrelink but which could be resolved by headspace.
It is a very similar situation in Lake Macquarie. There is a high population of young people who really need to be able to access those services within their local area. There is a high level of mental illness and also issues that could be resolved by headspace. So everybody is coming together to work on the satellite option for Lake Macquarie.
We have a strong working group that is putting together expressions of interest. We are encouraging and getting on board all the key players and putting together a lot of regional data. People within the community are going to support this proposal because there is such a need being generated by young people in the area.
Waite Agricultural Research Institute
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (10:39): Wheat is Australia's second largest export and all the indications are that 2013 will be a bumper harvest. I want to take this opportunity to remember one of the individuals whose generosity has done so much to make Australia competitive in this area.
Recently, I was able to attend the Waite Centenary dinner at Urrbrae House, on 6 November. In 1913 Peter Waite gave the University of Adelaide South Australia's largest ever individual bequest when he gave large portions of his property to the University of Adelaide.
The Waite Agricultural Research Institute was established on this land in 1924. Since then, the Waite Campus has built an international reputation for its strengths in plant science and breeding, particularly cereal crops; landscape and soil science; and wine and viticulture research.
People who are involved in the agricultural research area tell me that the Waite research institute stands with the University of California, Davis, as the two premier agricultural research institutes in the world. The partners for Waite include the University of Adelaide; the CSIRO; the South Australian Research and Development Institute; the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics Pty Ltd; the Australian Plant Phenomics facility, also known as the plant accelerator; Australian Grains Technology; Arris; the ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Cell Walls; Food SA; the Australian Wine Research Institute; and the Australian Genome Research Facility Ltd.
Waite represents a premier example of a cluster and all those host organisations really do foster innovation. There are 12 world-class researcher organisations and centres on the one 300-acre site. There are 1,100 research and technical staff, including a very strong component of international PhD students and postdoctoral students. There are 845 research and agricultural students. They spend $100 million on research each year. There is $265 million of research and teaching infrastructure and 80 per cent of southern Australian cereal production comes from Waite developed varieties. There is also significant infrastructure, including the state-of-the-art plant accelerator. In 1913 Peter Waite wrote to the SA Premier offering his land. He said:
We have now reached a point when it behoves us to call science to our aid to a greater extent than hitherto has been done, otherwise we cannot hope to keep in the forefront.
Waite today is an excellent facility. The precinct is world renowned. I am very pleased to commemorate this centenary of the Waite bequest.
Reg Geary House Nursing Home
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (10:42): I stand with regard to the proposed closure of Reg Geary House by the Victorian state government. Reg Geary House is a high-care nursing home in Melton, within my electorate of Gorton.
On 25 October this year the staff and residents of Reg Geary House were notified that their workplace and home will close by 30 June next year. The residents and staff of this wonderful institution are, understandably, very distressed by this news.
In 2001 the then Victorian Minister for Health, Bronwyn Pike, announced $600,000 in funding to renovate Reg Geary House so that it met accreditation. That was the right decision for Melton and for the residents of Melbourne's west. I am very disappointed that the current Victorian state government is planning to close this important place.
Given the difficulty that many older residents have in finding a nursing home that is suitable to meet their needs and that the Victorian government is proposing to close a much loved and valued nursing home in one of the fastest-growing parts of Victoria demonstrates a remarkably short-sighted approach to planning.
It is a sad and, may I say, a cruel day when a longstanding high-care nursing home such as Reg Geary is closed because a state government does not invest in the needs of older Australians.
I urge the Victorian Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr David Davis, to work with Western Health to find a way to ensure that Reg Geary House is kept open and is able to continue to assist older Melton residents who require the services of a high-care nursing home.
In conclusion, without a proper response by the Victorian government, it is a reprehensible act by them to cut the funds which, in effect, would lead to kicking to the kerb, if you like, some of the most vulnerable people in the Melton community just to save a few dollars. I am highly concerned that the Victorian government is not providing sufficient community health infrastructure for Melton and Melbourne's booming western suburbs. I therefore urge Minister Davis to do everything he can to ensure that Reg Geary House is able to continue the great service that it provides to the Melton community.
Carnegie Primary School
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (10:45): On Saturday night I was delighted to join parents, friends, teachers and past alumni of Carnegie Primary School to help celebrate their 125th anniversary year. Carnegie Primary School was established in 1888. It predates Carnegie as a suburb and was in fact called Rosstown State School, reflecting the original name for Carnegie. There can be no doubt that 125 years is an amazing milestone for any organisation; however, none more so than one that is dedicated to the education of our young people and, in so doing, responsible for their future and indeed our nation's future.
It is easy to say '125 years'. However, it is far more difficult to comprehend the impact that, over that period of time, this school has had on so many students—six generations or so. It is also difficult to truly appreciate the degree to which our world has changed since the 1880s and the integral role that schools such as this have played in those changes. Of course, in 1888, we were not yet a nation but were still a colony of Victoria. Apart from the formation of Carnegie Primary School, 1888 was an important year for the colonies as it marked 100 years since the arrival of the First Fleet. The then Premier of Victoria was Duncan Gillies, and Queen Victoria was still on the throne.
1880s Melbourne was 'Marvellous Melbourne', one of the wealthiest and largest cities in the world, for a time second only to London. Of course, this was built on wealth generated by the discovery of gold in central Victoria and the rush of people from around the world keen to improve their position in life. Carnegie—or Rosstown, as it was called—was developed on the edge of Melbourne in the 1870s, and, as a natural consequence, a school was soon required. In 1891, only 76 per cent of the population between the ages of five and 14 could read and write. However, in just over 20 years, or one generation, this had lifted to 90 per cent.
While I am sure that these literacy results would not please today's teachers or parents, they are, however, a dramatic indicator of the life-changing education that schools such as Carnegie have provided to children over the past 125 years. They have opened a world of opportunity that would otherwise not have been possible, and sometimes we take this for granted. The lessons of history are sometimes difficult to discern. However, I have no doubt that the inroads that Carnegie Primary School has made each and every decade have transformed education and the lives of the children who receive it.
The coalition government is committed to a clear funding model for education that provides certainty for all schools, and to delivering autonomy back to schools and their communities. Carnegie Primary School will benefit from this.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (10:48): The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, loudly cheered on by News Limited and the conservative think tank IPA, are planning to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This section is of course the one that affected Andrew Bolt, the News Limited columnist, who was found to have breached it when he penned a column on light-skinned Aborigines. Despite the legislation having been in force since 1995—that is, invented and legislated under the conservatives—it was a case against the most-read blogger in Australia and probably the biggest supporter of Abbott which galvanised the Liberal Party into action. I noticed that, strangely, the picture of Mr Bolt was larger than that of Mr Abbott in the post mortem of the elections that was run in that newspaper. I am not familiar enough with the details of the case to say that Mr Bolt was unfairly prosecuted. However, I do notice that some commentators on the Left—Bernard Keane and Margaret Simons—have criticised the decision.
A single controversial case does not make bad law. As Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane noted:
… 18C consists of an objective test that unlawful acts are those that are proven reasonably likely, in … the circumstances, to cause harm. It doesn't apply to "mere slights" but must—
have—
"profound and serious effects." Where people have fallen foul of section 18C, it has involved racial vilification of a standard that goes well beyond trivial name-calling.
It is not, as some from the Right appear to claim, a law specifically aimed at stirrers such as Andrew Bolt. There have been several very important cases in which 18C was used against some of the most disgusting peddlers of hate in our society.
Jeremy Jones, the former President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the national Jewish organisation, used section 18C to win a landmark case against Fredrick Toben, Australia's most notorious and persistent against-the-courts'-will Holocaust denier. This legislation has also been successful against an infamous Tasmanian denigrator of survivors of the Nazi genocide, Olga Scully; against an Arabic language paper in Sydney that incited, with infamous references to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; and against a far Right political party that made the allegation that Jews created the internet to control information. I would like people who are on the internet to know that! According to Jones, without section 18C, we would not have had victories over Scully, Toben, One Nation or El Telegraph. In Jones's words:
There is no rational argument that Australia is somehow 'less free' when bullies have consequences for their actions.
As Dr Soutphommasane said:
The state of multicultural Australia is strong. There is now a high level of agreement that we should be emphatically proud of our achievements as a multicultural society.
As the doctor has also observed, a race hate attack in Bondi demonstrates:
… racial vilification can escalate to racial violence. Our indifference can allow bigotry to breed, and encourage hatred to erupt.
That is why we need to keep 18C.
Abbot Point
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (10:51): In November 2011, a collection of extreme Green groups, many of which are subsidised by the Australian taxpayer, produced a report called 'Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom'. In that manifesto, there is a litany of lies—deception, hijacking and environmental terrorism, or at least a plan for it, perpetrated by the Green lunatic fringe—in an attempt to stop the expansion of the Abbot Point coal terminal. On one hand, the extreme Greens talk about 10,000 ships a year based on every possible mining project going ahead, even the ones which have been ditched; on the other hand, they argue that expansion of the current Abbot Point coal terminal should be stopped because there is insufficient demand and the port is operating below capacity. Which is it? Are there too many ships or not enough? You cannot have it both ways. Are they worried about too many ships or about too many people being gainfully employed?
The extreme Greens have hijacked the Great Barrier Reef, telling the world about Australia apparently dumping toxic dredge onto the reef. The stuff is not toxic and it is not being dumped onto the reef. The last thing the Greens care about is the truth. Equally outrageous is their demand that Abbot Point not go ahead because a Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority report said that dredged spoil travelled further and had more impact than previously thought, but now the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has released an interpretive statement to accompany the report which says that the risk assessments in the study were for comparative purposes only and could not be used to assess the impact of a particular project. That interpretive statement says:
Due to budget and timeframe constraints, and the technical challenges posed by the large spatial coverage and the extended period for simulation, it was necessary to make a number of simplifying assumptions. Some of these assumptions (for example, no consolidation of material, all placed material is re-suspended, and no re-suspension of sediments in shallow water) do not reflect real conditions, leading to a lack of alignment with existing field measurements.
It goes on to say:
These assumptions resulted in the model overestimating the dispersion of dredged material from placement sites in both the amount and distances travelled.
So if the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority can tell the truth and stick with good science, as it should, why cannot the Greens? I can only imagine what would happen if private enterprise employed such a tactic as do the Greens. If the CEO of a company were to publish such blatant misinformation about the operations of another organisation, I dare say they would be hauled before the courts and quite possibly find some sort of sentence passed on them. This is yet another Green lie fabricated to destroy the Abbot Point project as a means to achieve their own socialist agenda. I say to the Greens, 'Stop the lies. Get out of the way of decent people who are trying to earn an honest living. Let Abbot Point go ahead for the sake of all of North Queensland.'
AusAID
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (10:54): Government is about choices and those choices tell us a lot about people's values. A top priority of this government is to give a $4 billion tax cut to mining billionaires. The beneficiaries will be among the world's richest people. At the same time, this government is cutting over $4 billion from aid to the world's poorest people. That cut will affect aid workers, too. We have seen this government forcibly integrate AusAID into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in a botched process with little care for the passionate development workers who have been involved. We saw a terrible initial briefing in which AusAID workers were herded like cattle into the middle of the DFAT auditorium, while those in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade looked down upon them from the atrium and one of the DFAT officials reportedly mimed machine-gunning the AusAID staff.
We have also seen this government breaking its pledge to new graduates who had accepted jobs with AusAID. There was an assurance from Minister Eric Abetz that, despite Public Service cuts, the government would continue to support graduate recruitment but that pledge has been broken. The government has terminated the contracts of about 20 graduates, many of whom had turned down offers from other agencies and had signed contracts with AusAID. Georgia Burns Williamson said:
When I was first hired it was one of the most exciting days of my life. … AusAID was my dream job.
She had quit her job as a tutor at the University of Melbourne and had passed the security clearance. She also said:
It's like being told you've won the lottery and then someone saying, 'O h sorry, we've made a mistake'.
Darwin-born Michael Currie had accepted a job with AusAID and then rejected offers of graduate programs at t wo other government departments. He said:
I thought I was doing the right thing telling them so they could give those offe rs out to the other candidates .
Emily Hadgkiss, 27, had resigned as a researcher in public health at a hospital in Melbourne. She said:
It was a surprise to me that that decision was made.
She says she was 'aware there'd be changes and cuts' but that those were not supposed to affect the graduate program. As Georgia Burns Williamson put it:
The bigger loss is all the people in developing countries who desperately need aid for basic services who are now going to miss out because there's been such a cut to the budget.
This government has broken its promise to these young Australians and it is going to hurt the world's poorest in order to help some of the world's richest.
Cowan Challenge
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (10:57): On Friday, 8 November I held my sixth annual interschool mixed basketball competition for primary school students named the Cowan Challenge. The Cowan Challenge is an initiative I created to assist with promoting competitive sport and healthier living and to enable schools across the entire electorate to compete against each other. This includes schools that would not normally have any involvement with each other. I have received some great feedback from students, staff and parents involved in the competition saying that they had a great time competing against students from schools that they would not normally compete against.
The 2013 Cowan Challenge was held at Ashdale Secondary College and attracted 23 teams from 13 schools including Alinjarra Primary School, Ashdale Primary School, Ballajura Primary School, Banksia Grove Catholic Primary School, East Wanneroo Primary School, Greenwood Primary School, Hudson Park Primary School, Lake Joondalup Baptist College, Mary MacKillop Catholic Primary School, South Ballajura Primary School, Saint Mary's Anglican Girls School, Saint Anthony's School and Wanneroo Primary School. Some of these schools are not within Cowan but do have students from Cowan and that is why they competed.
The competition took place across the whole school day, with schools competing in two pools before the successful schools rose through the semifinals and then ultimately the finals. The larger schools competition, the cup, ended with Lake Joondalup Baptist College winning the final against team 2 of Ashdale Primary School, with St Mary's team 1 being awarded third place after the other bronze medal event.
In the smaller schools competition, the Cowan Challenge Shield was awarded to Kingsway Christian College. Second place went to Banksia Grove Catholic Primary School team 2 and third place was awarded to St Anthony's team 2. Thanks must go to Bill Coghlan in my office for organising this event and making sure it ran as smoothly as possible. I would also like to thank the referees from Woodvale Secondary College for their excellent job, and the scorers and the staff, including Tony Granich from Ashdale Secondary College, for their outstanding support provided on the day.
As a former Australian and state representative in rowing, I am a firm believer in the value of competitive sport. It is good on many levels. It is good for health and fitness, it is good as a learning experience, and it is good for children to exercise control, good conduct and sportsmanship, despite being under a degree of pressure. To that end, I was very pleased that the competition was conducted in a competitive yet friendly manner, even though it was quite a warm day and we only had two indoor courts. Once again, I thank the schools for their support and the competitors for their great efforts on the day.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Doctor Who: 50th anniversary
Debate resumed on the motion by Mr Christensen:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the television series Doctor Who will celebrate its 50th anniversary on the 23 November 2013;
(b) that the 50th anniversary of the first screening of Doctor Who in Australia will take place on the 12 January 2015;
(c) the many connections between Doctor Who and Australia including (but not limited to):
(i) the very first Doctor Who story, 'An Unearthly Child', written by Australian scriptwriter Anthony Coburn;
(ii) the score for the signature Doctor Who theme tune, written by Australian composer Ron Grainer;
(iii) the incidental music in the series throughout most of the 1960s and 1970s, written by Australian composer Dudley Simpson;
(iv) Australian actress Janet Fielding, playing an Australian character Tegan Jovanka in the series (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Peter Davison);
(v) actress Katy Manning, playing the character Jo Grant in the series (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Jon Pertwee), and becoming an Australian citizen in 2004;
(vi) Australian horse racing icon Gai Waterhouse, playing the character of Presta in the Doctor Who episode 'The Invasion of Time' (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Tom Baker); and
(vii) Australian pop star Kylie Minogue, playing the character Astrid (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by David Tennant) in the 2007 Christmas Special 'Voyage of the Damned'; and
(d) the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been the main broadcaster for Doctor Who in Australia; and
(2) requests that:
(a) in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first screening of Doctor Who in Australia, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) consider filming the 2015 series of the television show in Australia; and
(b) the ABC, Screen Australia and the various State-based film funding bodies consider offering finance to entice the BBC to film the 2015 series of Doctor Who in Australia.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (11:01): Firstly, thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for calling on me to bring a prop. For the purposes of the Hansard: I am wearing a large Tom Baker scarf. I also thank the member for Mitchell and the members for Moreton and Fraser for speaking on this motion, which is one which I hope enjoys bipartisan support, given the fans across the chamber.
Fifty years ago this Saturday, two historical events occurred. The first was the tragic news of the assassination of John F Kennedy. The other was the first screening of the British Broadcasting Corporation science fiction series Doctor Who. A bit of trivia: the first screening of Doctor Who was actually delayed by the news of the US President's death at the time. Doctor Who was marketed as an educational show. The first story, called 'An Unearthly Child', introduced us to the Doctor, as he is called; not 'Doctor Who' as is traditionally thought but 'the Doctor'. He was an old, gruff, eccentric man who was in fact an alien being to our planet. We were also introduced to his granddaughter and two of her schoolteachers who were whisked away in this strange blue police box to the year 100,000 BC where they interacted with some cavemen—and that was the educational aspect of the show, that they would go back in time, looking to see what happened in the past. In fact, that strange blue police public call box was a machine that travelled in time and space—anywhere throughout time and space. The very next story took the characters to an alien planet, Skaro, where they met the Daleks for the first time. The Daleks became almost synonymous with the show and that is true to this very day—in fact, that probably made the show what it is, because it scared the hell out of a lot of kids throughout Britain and elsewhere. For five decades, the show Doctor Who has enthralled audiences right across the world, particularly in the Anglosphere, with Australia being one of those countries where the enthralment has occurred.
There are a lot of links between Doctor Who and Australia that people are not aware of. In fact, I have left out of the terms of the motion a crucial link that I want to state from the outset. That link is that one of the architects behind the concept of the show was a fellow by the name of CE 'Bunny' Webber, as they called him. CE 'Bunny' Webber helped Verity Lambert and Sydney Newman, the other two people behind the show, to come up with the entire concept for Doctor Who. CE Webber was an Australian. He came up with the plot of the first story, which was then written in full by another Australian, Anthony Coburn. So the very concept of Doctor Who was formed with the help of an Australian; the very first episode of Doctor Who was written by an Australian; and, more than that, the famous theme tune—the 'dum de dum, dum de dum—'
Mr Perrett: I would like to see Hansard record that one!
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I won't go further.
An honourable member: Sing it!
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I could if you want, but we have only got 10 minutes. That theme tune was actually written and composed by an Australian, Ron Grainer.
It is absolutely fantastic that there are so many links between our country and Doctor Who. But it has not stopped there. As is outlined in my motion, there are also plenty of Doctor Who actors who have links to Australia: Janet Fielding, who is an Australian, played an Australian character in the TV show playing opposite both Tom Baker and also, mainly, Peter Davison, who portrayed the Doctor at that time during the 1980s. There is also Katy Manning, who went on to become an Australian citizen. She was married to Barry Crocker, and she played the character Jo Grant back in the 1970s, opposite the Doctor as portrayed by Jon Pertwee. The member for Mitchell told me to add this, and it is an interesting bit of trivia: the Australian horse racing icon and our Melbourne cup winner, Gai Waterhouse, portrayed the character of Presta in the Doctor Who episode 'The Invasion of Time', also in the 1970s opposite Tom Baker. More recently, Australian pop star Kylie Minogue has played the character of Astrid in the new series, opposite the Doctor as portrayed by David Tennant, in the Christmas special 'Voyage of the Dammed'. There is a myriad of connections between this show and our nation. In fact, there is one thing I neglected to mention about Anthony Coburn: not only can he be credited with writing the first story but also it is believed that it was Coburn's idea for the TARDIS to resemble a police box—simply because he saw one in the street outside his office when he was writing the story and thought it would be a nifty British institution to put in this show. There are so many connections between Australia and this show, not only behind the scenes but also in the series. Sadly for us—I think it is sometime in the year 200,100 AD— we actually get wiped out by the Daleks, so that is something to look forward to in the future!
Seriously, though, all of this culminates in what I think is a good request to the BBC to consider bringing Doctor Who to Australia. In the year 2015 we will mark our 50th anniversary of the show first appearing on Australian screens—15 January 2015. That is an opportune point in history that the BBC could bring Doctor Who Down Under. Just as they have taken it over to the US, just as they have taken it to many places throughout Europe, they could take Doctor Who to Australia.
There has been some support for that at the very top. In fact, one of the Doctor Who executive producers, Caroline Skinner, was asked about this in London late last year and she said she would consider it, obviously not for the next series but it would be something in the future. She was accompanied by the current Doctor Who, Matt Smith, at the time, who said he thought it would be pretty cool to come to Australia and do the filming. Recently there has been an interview with the main man, chief executive producer Steven Moffat, who said, 'Well, maybe we could, maybe not.' Australia is pretty similar to the UK in terms of its settings but I have got to say: imagine the TARDIS landing near the Sydney Opera House, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, in the Australian outback, Uluru or Ayers Rock. Think of all the exotic locations we could have. Canberra is certainly an exotic location for many Australians. But there is a bit of vested electoral interest in that I would hope that if we are able to secure something like that they could bring the TARDIS to the Whitsundays, where we have had experience before in filming major Hollywood motion pictures and also the great Baz Luhrmann film Australia. That is one of my hopes.
In the lead-up to this 50th anniversary of Doctor Who there are so many connections between this show and this nation that I think Doctor Who is as much an Australian institution as it has been a British institution. In the lead-up to this debate there have been lots of MPs who have approached me telling me the same thing over and over, that when they were a kid they used to hide behind the couch and build cushion fortresses to protect themselves from whatever was on the screen, and they loved the show. They remembered it fondly like that. Now with the new series a new generation of children are learning the same thing. It is great to have that show still on the air. It is great to have the Australian connection with it, but I think a greater Australian connection could come if a series were actually filmed Down Under. I am really hopeful that they will do that. There are precedents for the ABC contributing, and for the 20th anniversary they put some money into it. As the motion states, I would encourage the ABC to consider that, and organisations such as Screen Australia and other film funding and tourism bodies throughout the different states here in Australia. If we can jag this, it will be of immense benefit to both the arts world here in Australia and also tourism.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (11:11): I am sorry that I do not have a Tom Baker scarf to present this speech. I am proud to support the member for Dawson's motion. I grew up in country Queensland where we only had the ABC, so Doctor Who was a big part of my life. I guess there is a renaissance of Doctor Who. Most Doctor Who fans can be broken up into the earlier group of doctors and then the later group of doctors. I think the member for Mitchell might be in the later group. I know even my young son likes the new Doctor Who. I see the excitement about the new episode that is coming up and is being televised all around the world I think on Sunday, 24 November at 5.50 am Queensland time. There will be a lot of people staying up all around the world to watch this and there will be live coverage. The ABC will set up a 24-hour-a-day Doctor Who radio station, if you have a digital radio, where Spencer Howson from Brisbane will be one of the experts talking about Doctor Who. There will be 12-hour loops of interviews and discussions with Doctor Who actors and experts. One of my brothers, Nicholas, is a Doctor Who tragic. He knows all about the new episode and I am sure he will be switching on to it.
As the member for Dawson pointed out, there are many connections with Australia. I will not repeat the ones in the motion and already mentioned by the member for Dawson but I touch on some other ones. The Australian actor Robert Jewell played the Chief Dalek in the 1960s before playing a cameo as Bing Crosby in the series 'The Daleks' Master Plan'. His daughter Sandy now lives in Chermside in Brisbane. The member for Dawson did mention one of our very talented exports, the actor Janet Fielding, who played an Australian character, Tegan Jovanka, alongside the doctor. I am going to quote from one amusing scene that someone from North Queensland might take an interest in where Janet Fielding asks about the zero room where the Doctor goes to regenerate. Tegan says, 'What is a zero room anyway? The doctor said something about null interfaces.' Nyssa responds, 'I suppose it is some sort of neutral environment, an isolated place cut off from the rest of the universe.' Tegan replies, 'He should have told me. If that is what he wanted, I could have shown him Brisbane.' That is a slur on the city I represent but quite amusing.
My earliest memories of Doctor Who, which started a year before I was born, are of being scared despite the dodgy special effects and dodgy costumes, props and sets. I do remember being scared by it. Even though it is a very British show with the London police box, the TARDIS, its messages are obviously universal. I was interested to hear the member for Dawson say that it started off as an educational show. It is a British show but with universal messages. I want to refer to one particular episode, called 'The Green Death', and, just in case the member for Melbourne is listening, this is not linked to the 44th Parliament. It is actually about an oil refinery that ignores basic environmental practices and causes the deaths of a few miners and creates a new disease that is transferred by giant killer maggots, which then become a threat to humanity. The super computer mastermind behind the whole thing is linked to a bunch of corporations with significant capital sunk into the project and therefore with a lot of self-interest. Fortunately, leaders in our society today are much wiser and they would not stick their heads in the sand when Earth was worried about significant threats to the safety of the environment and the human race. Obviously, the Doctor saved the day then and, hopefully, that will continue to be the case as humanity works out the right thing to do.
The member for Dawson outlined the many Australians involved in the production of the Dr Who series—and he capably indicated the Dr Who theme—and it is telling that the member for Dawson has asked for the production to move to Australia, particularly to Queensland. We do have a fine history of making films in Queensland, particularly in North Queensland. I will not mention the film made near my wife's home town of Babinda, called Turkey Shoot, because that would not be appropriate, but there are great films like The Thin Red Line and The Pacific, all filmed in North Queensland. I mention them because they are classic American stories told in Australia. They are American stories with Australian talent—Australian cinematographers and Australian production crews help to tell those stories. I think the member for Dawson touched on the call for the ABC to support the production of Dr Who coming here, because I think it is essential that we be able to tell Australian stories. We are such a small audience in terms of global consumers of media, but we have to have our skills used to tell other stories. It could be telling a British story like Dr Who; it could even be an Australian director like Baz Luhrmann telling a quintessential American story like The Great Gatsby, but it is still called an Australian story. It is only when we look after and nurture the talents like people like Baz Luhrmann and those who shoot a great film like The Great Gatsbythat we can then tell those other Australian stories—and not just stories that can only be told in Australia like Ten Canoes or Samson and Delilah—but those other stories that reflect the modern Australia. I am thinking of a movie like The Rocket, set in Laos, telling a Laotian story with Australian talent helping to tell that story.
It is essential that we fight the rest of the world to have their productions filmed here—not for a few cultural crumbs thrown our way by Britain or America but because we will be able to tell our stories with the skills from major overseas productions. The reality is a high Australian dollar, and it is a horrible factor for Australian film companies. We now have studios and equipment being shipped off to Taiwan and South Africa. Screen Australia is doing what it can to show our expertise. We still win Oscars because of our expertise, but the reality is that we are competing with other countries that give offsets that we cannot compete with. I am saying this to the current government as much as I said it to the governments of the 43rd and 42nd parliaments. The reality is that we need to have greater incentives to come here. There is no point in saying that we will have the producers' offsets if we do not have productions taking place in Australia. I know that Australian cinematographers, production assistants, script writers and musicians can hold it with the rest of the world, but if there is not enough incentive for them to work here they will go overseas. They will win Oscars for other countries' stories being told with Australian talent. That is the reality.
I fully support the call from the member for Dawson. This seems like a perfect opportunity for cloud funding for a production of Dr Who. There would not be any conflict of interest. I am sure I would not have to go to the member for Dawson's electorate and buy an investment property. We could just fund this; we could start the process by calling them to come to Australia. Australia has the oldest, continuous culture and civilisation in the world and so what better place for a Time Lord to come to? Here we can combine the old with the new. Australia is that classic country for Dr Who. We are the driest continent, so there are the challenges of climate change, but we also have other great settings. I can imagine the TARDIS landing in front of the Sydney Opera House and other iconic places around the Great Barrier Reef. I can imagine Dr Who coming up with a story that combines the past with the future—which he does so often. It is the classic narrative device that works so well with Dr Who: he puts up a mirror to where we are now by looking at where we were and where we will be. It is a good device for all of humanity. I commend the member for Dawson for bringing this motion to the chamber.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:21): It is certainly worth this motion coming before the parliament just to hear the Clerk say 'the 50th anniversary of Dr Who'. I want to congratulate the member for Dawson on this worthwhile motion, which has a very serious aspect—that is in supporting the Australian film industry and bringing a great world-impacting TV show to Australia for filming. I do want to support the member for Moreton's remarks that this is a bipartisan motion. I am a fellow Whovian; I am from the Tom Baker vintage generation but I am a modern man. I, like other members in this chamber who have the Dalek app on our phone or iPad, can have my voice appear like a Dalek. It is a great app; I highly recommend it to members in this place.
The 50th anniversary of Doctor Who is a remarkable chance for us to reflect on the synergy between Australia and this great production. In his motion, the member for Dawson has gone through all of the iconic people who have appeared in Doctor Who, including Kylie—you cannot get more iconic than Kylie—and our recent Melbourne Cup winner, Gai Waterhouse. I do think, in a bipartisan spirit, that both the member for Dawson and the member for Moreton would have made good 12th doctors—they both look like a doctor. Certainly, the choice of Peter Capaldi, who played 'Malcolm Tucker', as the new Doctor shows that the producers were looking for someone political. So both of you would have had a really good chance for the role if you had put your names forward. The Labor Party would have a lot to learn from Dr Who. I am sure they would all like to hop into the TARDIS, jump back a few years and have an episode centred around the leadership turnovers. Certainly they tried regeneration at the last election, which was a dismal failure.
This is a bipartisan motion. I want to take up the member for Moreton's reference to the educational aspect of Doctor Who. It has been pointed out to me that there was a very educational episode called 'The Sun Makers',where an evil little green creature called the 'Controller', controlled the government and the weather. He taxed the population very, very harshly just to make the sun come up. 'The Sun Makers' was an educational and inspirational episode and ahead of its time.
Great things in this show have come out of Australia, including its music. The iconic Doctor Who tune, which is known around the world, was composed by an Australian. We should be pretty proud of that. We should be proud of the fact that from the very first story, the very beginning of this worldwide phenomenon, there has been a great Australian influence.
In relation to the serious side of the member for Dawson's motion, the 11th doctor, Matt Smith, said that it would be a good idea to shoot an episode in Australia, with the story being set in the Outback. This takes up the member for Dawson's suggestion that our ancient culture and continent would be a perfect setting for Doctor Who in its 50th year and with a new Doctor. I am sure that we would all love to meet the character who played 'Malcolm Tucker'. There is something to learn from him.
As someone who has watched countless episodes of Doctor Who, I am very happy to be called a Whovian. The imagination of those episodes have had a big impact on me. The member for Moreton talked about the special effects. I think he referred to the 'dodgy special effects'. We all understand that it was never about the special effects. There is nothing like a good story. I guess I am old enough to understand the difference between a story well told and a special effect. I know that all of the generations below me—including the member for Longman—would not have any idea of what I am talking about. But a good story is better than every good special effect that you can put together—and we must uphold good storytelling in this country. We have got great stories to tell from our culture and they would make a great series for Doctor Who. A great set of episodes could be made in one of the oldest continents on the planet. I have no hesitation in recommending and endorsing the member for Dawson's motion. I think we should encourage the producers to look at Australian history and at the great contributions made by so many of our senior figures, including Kylie Minogue, who is world renowned. We could get all of the Australian actors who were involved in Doctor Who episodes to appear in a rehashed series. I am coming up with suggestions on the run! We could get all of the Australians who appeared in previous Doctor Who episodes to appear again. We could even get the member for Moreton and the member for Dawson to appear as extras! They might put the member in as an extra—especially with that scarf.
I have no hesitation in endorsing this motion. I hope that the producers, the BBC and the ABC take this motion seriously and for what it is intended to be—a great endorsement of Australian culture and history.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:26): In the spirit of bipartisanship that pervades this debate, let me acknowledge the members for Moreton, Mitchell and Dawson for their fine speeches before me. It clearly proves that sci-fi nerdom is a bipartisan gene. The next series of Doctor Who should be filmed in Australia and, indeed, it should be filmed right here, in Canberra, because what better setting to host an attack of the cybermen, the Daleks or the Slitheen than the 'Shine Dome', the home of the Australian Academy of Science, colloquially referred to around town as the 'Martian embassy'.
The member for Dawson has done a terrific job in his motion of highlighting a range of connections with Doctor Who to Australia. I might also point out another one from one of my electors, Peter Martin, that Doctor Whoproducer Verity Lambert, who essentially set up the program, came to Australia many years later in the 1980s to film Evil Angels in the Central Desert. Peter Martin also points out that several of the lost tapes for the early episodes, which had been binned by the BBC and assumed to be lost forever, were actually found in Australia, archived by the ABC. The love of Doctor Who also extends to Senator Conroy. One can go on Twitter and look at the twitter account, @ConroyMO, which features not Senator Conroy's face but the logo of a Dalek.
Doctor Who turned many Australian kids onto science and technology. It made science 'cool', and in recent episodes it has broadened that discussion to ethics through 'Torchwood'. There are many pieces of advice from Doctor Who which are sage for this government. In season 2, episode 2, the Doctor said: 'You want weapons? They're in the library—books. The best weapons in the world.' It is good advice for a government which is cutting back on science. For those of us who are perhaps mourning a government that fell too short, in season 3, episode 6, the Doctor says: 'Some people live more in 20 years than others do in 80. It's not the time that matters; it's the person.'
I put the call out on Twitter for suggested episodes which one might mention in this debate. @joshgans suggested 'The Green Death', which is about an attempt to effect a corporate takeover that will lead to greater pollution and brainless, brainwashed humans. The member for Moreton has mentioned that one. @davstorm75 suggested 'The Daleks' Master Plan', in which the action takes in the world of Kembel, a place where, as the Doctor says, 'The atmosphere outside is entirely poisonous'—something that I hope this government will avoid in its public relations. @bilbo_fraggins suggested the early Doctor Who episode, 'The Meddling Monk', which focuses on a monk who liked to meddle in history, lending mechanical assistance to, for example, the builders of Stonehenge, despite that clearly not being needed. @acaderama suggested the 'Genesis of the Daleks', in which the species sees the introduction of Davros, who will ultimately terrorise not only his planet but other species. @StrangeBrew55 suggested 'Aliens of London'—this was a favourite—in which the Slitheen take over the government. They look innocuous, initially, and are terribly popular until it turns out that, in fact, what they want to do is take over the planet. The episodes featured that simultaneously awful and compelling line: 'What's the use of school league tables if we can't use them to decide which children to get rid of?' @JamesTeach suggested the 'Monster of Peladon', in which a power struggle bisects the miners and the government, with the workers left off to the side.
There is much fruit here. Certainly my own childhood experience, in which the only half-hour of TV I had each day was Dr Who, has made me a lifelong lover of this series and one who believes that the lessons of Dr Who writ large can not only benefit the film industry, as the member for Moreton so articulately put it, but can perhaps one of these days give us a better government. I commend the motion to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Goods and Services Tax
Debate resumed on the motion by Ms Hall:
That this House:
(1) notes that the:
(a) Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has released a draft ruling which will impact residents of moveable homes in low-cost living estates;
(b) moveable home industry is the primary provider of affordable accommodation for over 100,000 Australians, the majority of whom are pensioners;
(c) ATO ruling would see residents in moveable home parks who own their own dwelling on a rented site being subject to paying 10 per cent Goods and Services Tax (GST); and
(d) added cost of GST will cause financial hardship to many residents in these estates; and
(2) calls on the Government to ensure these residents do not have to pay GST on their site rental.
Ms HALL (Shortland) (11:31): I was most disturbed to learn that, on 30 October, the Australian Taxation Office brought down a draft ruling to impose a 30 per cent GST on the site rental of people in relocatable home parks. In the electorate of Shortland there are some 25 relocatable home parks, in which people have chosen to live. It is mainly older residents who live in these relocatable home parks, or manufactured home sites. They pay $300,000, sometimes up to $500,000, to purchase their homes and then they pay rent on the site. The people living in these relocatable home parks are people who have sold their home and have chosen to live this type of lifestyle. They feel secure and they have around them people who enjoy similar circumstances to themselves. They have made this decision based on what they understood the situation to be.
In 2000, the Howard government determined that these village home parks were deemed to be residential premises and therefore exempt from the GST. The ATO has now released this draft ruling, which will force a 10 per cent increase on the rent of over 100 low-income earners. That increase is a minimum, because it is not paid directly by the residents; it is paid by the park owners. The park owners will be able to add an administration cost as well. That could mean an increase of as much as 12 to 13 per cent on the rental.
Before going on to a meeting that took place on Thursday with the Affiliated Residential Park Residents Association, or ARPRA, which is the park residents association, and the ATO, I thought I would share with the House the feelings of some of the people who are living in residential parks. The first is a person who lives at Bevington Shores, which is at Halekulani in my electorate, and who is very disturbed about this. They said:
This will not only affect those of us who live in Bevington Shores (manufactured Home Village) Halekulani … it will affect everyone in the same boat nationally. It will cost us approximately $30 a fortnight.
That will be added onto their existing rental of $300 a fortnight. They go on to say how many parks there are and how many people it will affect. Another letter I would like to read from is from a couple who live in Saliena Avenue in Lake Munmorah who said:
Such legislation would affect the livelihood of many pensioners. The majority of people living in mobile homes are pensioners. Most people now in the 65+ age group were not offered to superannuation at an early age, received no parental leave and no assisted child care. We worked hard to pay off a house and raise our children with not a great opportunity to build up large "nest eggs". We sold our houses and opted for mobile home living to enable us to retire with a little more comfort. If the proposal is implemented and we had to sell our homes, where would we live—public housing?
I might add, public housing has a lengthy waiting time within my area, sometimes in excess of 10 years. I am sure that is pretty constant across the country. They continue:
Many people took the step of selling their houses because in 2000 GST was not deemed payable.
People made the decision to purchase into relocatable home parks based simply on the fact that there was no GST. There are a number of people in this House who worked very hard to see that people living in residential parks would not have to pay GST on their homes. I would argue that nothing, whatsoever, has changed, but now we have a number of people who will be very badly affected by a decision of the ATO. I am calling on the government—I understand the Treasurer is meeting with the head of the Affiliated Residential Park Residents Association this week—to make sure that this draft ruling is not implemented. I have been contacted by other members at the North Lakes Division of the ARPRA. They are circulating a petition around all the parks. I suggest that members check in the parks in their electorates to make sure that those petitions are structured in the correct way, because I have a feeling that the petitions may be flawed.
I will move, now, to the meeting that took place last week between Affiliated Residential Park Residents Association and the Assistant Commissioner of the Taxation Office. When they discussed definitions, how those definitions needed to change, and how they determined that people living in relocatable home parks should have to pay GST, they went to the Macquarie Dictionary to find out what the definition of caravan park was. That definition did not quite fit in with their perception of the lifestyle that people have chosen by living in relocatable home parks. It is important to note that the industry is very fluid. Lots of changes are taking place. A further comment made by the Taxation Office was, 'These villages look different from how they looked in 2000.' Looking different does not justify trying to slug pensioners with an increase in their rents.
People have pointed out that there is a possibility that this change would lead to an increase of 12 per cent to 15 per cent in rents. The tax office said that this would not be retrospective. That is good. People living in relocatable home parks were worried that this charge would be retrospective. One thing has changed since the tax office made their original decision. People wanting to make submissions to the Taxation Office had to do so by 29 November. As a result of this meeting on Thursday, submissions will now be taken up until 20 December.
Because of the way some of these parks have evolved there are sometimes still two, three or maybe half a dozen caravans there. It is important to note that one or two caravans at such a park does not justify an exemption; there has to be a significant number. That information came straight from the Australian Taxation Office.
This situation is not good enough. It reverses a decision of the Howard government. It reverses statements made by the government in the election that they would not extend the GST. It is not a decision of government; it is a decision of the tax office that will impact on vulnerable people, whom we represent in this House. I am not going to see these vulnerable people being done over in this way. It is an absolute disgrace. We cannot allow it to happen. These people made decisions to purchase a home based on the fact that they would not have to pay GST on the site rental. This will force them to sell their homes. I call on the government to ensure that this does not go ahead.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (11:41): I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to the Speaker's panel. I thank the member for Shortland for bringing this motion to the House. I spoke to her about it in the chamber last week, following a number of bits of correspondence and phone calls to our office about this issue. This issue has arisen from a review by the Australian Taxation Office but has been brought about by a long history of court cases to consider the proper application of GST to different types of property. As the member for Shortland has correctly pointed out, back in 2000 the then Howard government successfully sought to have GST not applied to residences in mobile home parks.
Since then I think we all recognise that there has been a significant growth in that industry. I disagree with the comments from the member for Shortland that people bought into mobile or relocatable home parks on the basis that there was no GST on their site rent. I think people had far more salient reasons for purchasing in those parks than the fact that they would not have to pay GST. There are a lot of benefits in terms of the community that these parks create and the security these people feel, particularly if they are travelling regularly. People can lock up their homes and leave, knowing that their contents and their homes will be safe. It also allows them to live in a smaller property that does not take so much care and maintenance at a time in their lives when they want to enjoy retirement. They do not have to look after a big block of land and a big house. There are far more reasons for people going into mobile home parks than the fact that they do not have to pay GST on site fees.
When you look at the history of this matter you find that this review has been under consideration for some time now. The former Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury knew about it as well. The Australian tax office had a draft ruling to see whether residents in removable home parks, when they owned their own dwelling on a rented site, would be eligible for their 10 per cent GST.
As I said earlier, over the past couple of weeks my office has received many inquiries from residents at a number of the parks around the electorate. Over 100,000 Australians currently live in removable home dwellings in these parks and the majority of these people are pensioners on either the full or a part pension. It is also interesting to note that, with that, they receive rent assistance from Centrelink. So Centrelink treats these site fees as rent and provides people with rent assistance.
In Forde we have a number of these villages, such as Palm Lake Resorts, which has five different villages, and Little Gems, which has two. We also have Greenbank village resort, Claremont Resort, and River Glen at Bethania. In these resorts there are some 2½ thousand home sites and roughly 3,700 residents who would likely be affected by these changes.
We recognise that the majority of these residents, after the proposed changes—which will result in an increase of between $500 and $800 a year in their site fees as a result of the application of the GST—will face, in certain circumstances, financial hardship. We fully recognise and understand that. However, it is instructive to note that we have a member of the now opposition also talking about cost of living pressures for people, and yet, at the same time, failing to recognise the cost of living pressures that the former government heaped on the Australian community—in particular, on residents in mobile home parks who are also on fixed incomes.
The coalition has quite clearly stated that we are committed to reducing cost of living pressures and fighting for these people. Whilst we acknowledge that it does not fully offset the cost impacts here, one way that we as a government believe we can help people in Australia, particularly those living in these mobile home parks, to reduce their cost of living pressures is to remove the carbon tax. Reducing cost of living pressures on electricity and other essential items goes directly to the amount of money people have to spend every week. Does it take away from the desire to not see this draft ruling be continued through to implementation, which would probably be in the middle of next year? No, it does not. We do not want to see any additional cost pressures on those who are already struggling to make ends meet. And I want to make this very clear: the ATO has not yet made any firm decision on whether the ruling will apply; this is a draft ruling, and we have communicated our concerns to the Assistant Treasurer. We are also contacting the residents in the various parks to get them to put a submission to the tax office to ensure that their concerns are made known to the tax office in relation to this matter. The Taxation Office will, once these submissions close on 20 December, consider those various arguments and then make an informed decision.
So I fully appreciate and understand the concerns of the residents in these mobile home parks, and we will work as a government always to look to make the situation better for all Australians. As part of that, we will continue to fight for the residents in these parks to help protect their standard of living. But it is not only dealing with this GST matter; there are many other matters to deal with, in terms of getting rid of the carbon tax and reducing cost of living pressures more generally, that will benefit our residents in the various parks.
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (11:48): I rise in support of the member for Shortland's motion, and I urgently call on the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National government to act to ensure these residents do not have to pay GST on the site rental for their mobile homes. I will continue to hold this new government to account for a whole range of issues that impact on the people of the North Coast, and this is one issue of grave concern. Since this matter was first brought to my attention, in the past weeks I have been inundated with concerns from very deeply distressed constituents who quite simply cannot afford this rent increase.
Throughout the nation, mobile home parks provide affordable housing for hundreds of thousands of Australians every day, particularly pensioners. On the New South Wales North Coast, thousands of local residents live in these parks. These are people who are already doing it very tough when it comes to any increases in the cost of living, and they simply cannot afford to pay an extra 10 per cent GST on their rent. It is also important to note that mobile home parks are very strong communities and often provide vital support and friendship for those residents, and this government has again severely underestimated how vocal these groups will be in fighting the government to stop this unfair cash grab.
We have had this fight before and the community has spoken out on this issue before, as we have heard some speakers mention today. When the Howard government introduced the GST, it caused great distress as to how it was to be applied to mobile homes in caravan parks. They disregarded the effect the GST could have on the most vulnerable in society and those living in these parks. They did not think to protect those who live in mobile homes by specifying their exclusion when they drafted the legislation. It was cruel then that those most vulnerable in our community were being hit with this GST, and it is equally cruel now. Back then, the people of the North Coast fought back and later forced the then Howard government to back down—a great community victory. And the victory in 2001 meant that mobile home parks were to be deemed residential premises and were therefore exempt from GST. However, just a few weeks ago, on 30 October 2013, following a review, the Australian tax office released a draft ruling to say that these mobile home estates would no longer be considered residential premises and therefore no longer exempt from GST.
Given that initial community outrage 12 years ago, and the outrage in the past few weeks, I cannot understand why the Liberal-National party have not acted and spoken out against this unfair ruling and stated what action they will take. What I find particularly appalling is that the local National Party on the North Coast have remained completely silent on this issue whilst their party is looking to bring in this unfair GST increase in the mobile home parks. In that shameful grouping I will include the state National Party members of parliament, the National Party councils and indeed local National Party branch members—all have been silent while their party is bringing in this most devastating GST affecting thousands of people in mobile home parks. In fact, they will probably remain silent; as they have shown on other issues, they just do not seem to care about the most vulnerable in our area on the North Coast.
I would like to also take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those locals in my area who have spoken out about this very cruel and nasty plan. I would particularly like to give credit to Mr Ken Cummins from the Tweed branch of the Affiliated Residential Parks Residents Association and the attention that he has brought to this very important issue. Ken has highlighted that, with the imposition of the GST on mobile home rents, rent increases in some parts will be up to $50 a fortnight. This means that those who can least afford it could be forced to sacrifice some very important everyday necessities, because of the low incomes they are on. This is an increase they simply cannot afford.
I would also like to acknowledge the fact that many of our local media on the North Coast have done a great job in highlighting this issue, particularly the Tweed Sun. I think their headline on 14 November said it all: 'Sneaky move: federal government GST plan targets park rents'. The article quotes Ken Cummins saying that it would impact more than 2,000 people in Tweed parks alone. Mr Cummins also highlighted the fact that they have a local petition which already has more than 1,500 signatures. So you can see that a lot of people, in signing those petitions, are concerned.
The online Echo, on 13 November, had the headline 'GST hike on mobile-home pensioners "devastating"'. The article outlined the concerns of the many local pensioners who will be impacted by this. The headline in the online My Daily News was 'Parkies face 10 per cent rent rise from GST proposal'. I also note the local ABC has raised the issue on a number of occasions. The reason they continue to raise the issue is that most people who have been in that area over the past decade realised many years ago what a big issue it was and have mobilised very quickly, particularly the people within those mobile home parks. It is not just Ken; he has a lot of people signing this petition. There is very widespread concern across the community, and, as I said, it is causing great distress to very vulnerable people.
In light of that, I would like to conclude by urgently calling on the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National party to listen to the concerns of people across the country. I ask them urgently to act and to ensure these residents do not have to pay GST on the site rental for their mobile homes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Fisher and welcome him back to parliament.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (11:53): Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that. What disappoints me, at the outset, is that this chamber is supposed to be about us looking after our constituents, and what the member for Richmond just did was nothing but base party politics, frightening her constituents in an unnecessary fashion. This is not a decision of the Abbott government. This is not a decision full stop. This is a draft ruling by the ATO which commenced under the Labor government. It was not the Labor government's fault that it was commenced. It was commenced as a result of independent personnel putting propositions to the ATO asking the ATO to give a definitive ruling.
Let me take the member back to 2000. The legislation was put before the House here for the introduction of the GST. That legislation was then amended before the first day, 1 July 2000, before the introduction, to ensure that there would be a concessional rate of GST applied to these locations. It was fought by the then member for Richmond, Larry Anthony. He was the one who actually worked on behalf of his constituents to ensure one of two things, and he was not alone.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr BROUGH: What really gets my goat is that you both stood here today playing base politics, rather than really being interested in your public, so that you could get stuff into your newspapers rather than trying to deal with the matter. Let's tell the truth. The truth is the member for Richmond should have been saying that this is not a decision of government but that we all, on both sides of this chamber, can and should express the concerns of our electorates and we should ensure that the ATO is given that information—that everybody puts forward the information.
Let's get to the points. First and foremost, this is a draft ruling. It now behoves all of us to ensure that the public puts forward the concerns that we are echoing here, and I support the member for Shortland for bringing this forward. Secondly, at the moment there are two rulings. There is a ruling that applies that the mobile home parks can use input tax credits. In fact, I think you will find that is where this is coming from: potential investors who want to be able to use input credits. Therefore, it is to their benefit and it is to the detriment of the personnel who live there. Also, they do pay GST at the moment. It is at 5.5 per cent. It is a concessional rate, which means that when that is applied it should actually be equal. In other words, the parks pay it and they have their offsets. It is technical.
The bottom line from my perspective is this. This is a very important part of the housing mix in Australia today, and it is growing—not only for pensioners but also as a first homeowners option. What we want to do is give people certainty. The reality is that the ATO is totally separate from government. I am sure that the learned members opposite would have to agree with that. They had a job to do; they have done it. They have made some mistakes in their ruling and in saying that there has been considerable change to the mobile home circumstances. That is not true. Maybe they misinterpreted it back in 2000. That is possible. What we are saying is that, in the event that they come to the conclusion that mobile home estates are not part of commercial residential premises, it is my belief that—to protect the people that are in that situation and those who are looking at it as a housing option, whether they be first homeowners, retirees or those who are just opting for this type of housing—no additional impost should be put on them.
I am not going to stand here and play politics. All of us should be putting our constituent matters first. When a government is to blame, they should put up their hand and say, 'I did it.' When they put in a carbon tax, they should say, 'I did it.' Admit it and say that was a deliberate choice. This is a decision of the ATO. It is a draft ruling. It is up to us to mobilise those who stand to lose by it to say that this is wrong. Let's make sure that the ruling that was agreed before the introduction of the tax on 1 July 2000 and the amendments that were made are honoured.
This is not the first, and it will not be the last, time that draft rulings will come forward that we will disagree with. For goodness sake—if you have learnt nothing from the last six years, learn that base, partisan politics is not what the public want. Stand up here and argue the case on behalf of the constituents that you represent, but do not start throwing around blame like confetti because it looks good in your local paper. It belittles the people that are doing it, it belittles this chamber and it does nothing to progress the debate. I support the motion. I will support it in government, and I will ask my constituents to ensure that they have an input to the ATO on this important issue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Charlton and welcome him to parliament as well.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (11:58): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your appointment to the Speaker's panel. I find it incredibly ironic that the member for Fisher was taking us to task for petty politics, given the fact that both he and the member for Forde, in quite a desperate and malicious attempt, tried to link this to the carbon price issue. This is yet another example of the coalition government hitting low-income earners and pensioners.
The member for Fisher is quite right that in 2000 the Howard government did take action—and I applaud that—because of urging on both sides of parliament to deem these village home parks to be residential premises. However, the new government through the ATO is planning on applying the 10 per cent GST to older residents who own their own dwellings on rented village sites.
As other speakers have noted, this will affect around 100,000 Australians who live in this form of affordable accommodation. This is hitting 100,000 Australians who are on fixed incomes that are often quite low. In my electorate of Charlton, up to 1,000 people will be affected. These are most notably in areas such as Bonnells Bay, Morisset and Toronto. On the member for Forde's figures, the hit will be somewhere between $500 and $800.
My office has been contacted by many residents worried by these changes. For example, Lynne Wilson, president of the Grange village residents committee, has told my office, 'We are prepared to do anything. People in this village are panicked by these increases.' She has spoken with other local residential park presidents and they tell her that their residents are terrified too. This is just one piece of feedback about the level of concern out there in the community that has been noted by both this side and, to be fair, the member for Fisher as well.
The residents association estimate that 95 per cent of residents in these parts are pensioners. According to the association, there are no changes to park practices that justify the application of the GST, and this was echoed by the last speaker. However, it should be noted that, unless there is intervention, it will be the Abbott government that will be happy to slug some of the poorest people in my electorate and in other electorates in the country. In other words, the new government is even meaner than the Howard government, and that is something that is quite remarkable.
It is incumbent on the government to explain what has changed and, if they cannot, to intervene and try to avoid this outcome. They should not be hiding behind the ATO. This change will affect 100,000 people on the lowest incomes, and it is a matter of fundamental inequity.
I will turn to some of the comments by the member for Forde when he was trying to rationalise this $800 hit. He tried to link it to the carbon price and the impact on pensioners. It is well worth noting that the carbon price had a 0.7 per cent impact on the Consumer Price Index and, in return, we lifted the pension by 1.7 per cent, well above the cost-of-living impact. That is an example of a government recognising the cost-of-living impact of a measure and compensating low- and middle-income earners for that.
The hit from this particular measure will be $800. It was quite desperate to try to link that to their flawed claims on cost-of-living pressures from the carbon price that are quite mischievous and based on hypothetical scenarios. What is more important to acknowledge is the $800 hit from this and the $1,300 hit that will occur to families from Direct Action. This $1,300 figure comes from the Treasury costings very recently. That means that within the first 100 days of the new government we have seen a $2,100 hit on poor and low-income earners in places like Charlton. So this is a hugely important issue. I applaud the member for Shortland for drawing it to our attention. I certainly support the member's motion and I urge the government to rectify this matter.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (12:03): by leave—I will not take too much time. Can we just ask the next speakers from the Labor Party to answer a couple of basic questions. We accept that the member for Shortland is concerned about this, as we all are. But I say to the member for Shortland—not so much the member who just addressed us, because he is only a new member here—that this issue was actually brought to the attention of the public by the ATO, saying that it was going to have a draft ruling, more than 12 months ago—12 months under the Labor government. It was brought to the attention of the then Assistant Treasurer. I was an Assistant Treasurer and I know that you have backbench meetings and that this would have been raised. I just ask the next contributor to the debate to answer: did any Labor member stand in this place in the 12 months under the Labor government throughout 2012 saying, 'This should not change. This is correct'? Did anyone raise it or are we actually now at the eleventh hour trying to create blame for a government? I am not blaming the Labor government for it, but I am saying to those opposite: if you raised it then, were you blaming your side of government? Or are we here to actually try to rectify the issue? That is what we should be trying to do.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (12:04): by leave—I would like to answer. I refer the honourable member to the fact that this draft ruling was made only on 30 October. Once the draft ruling was made, I decided that it was of such great importance, with it set to impact on so many residents and so many people who live within the Shortland electorate, that the appropriate place to discuss it was here in the parliament and that it was also appropriate that members work with their constituents to put in submissions to make sure that this ruling remains only a draft ruling and does not come into play. If the member had listened to my contribution to the debate, he would have heard that that was what I was talking about and he would have realised that this is a very important issue that needs to be addressed immediately by us here in this parliament. From today, we need to go back to our constituencies and we need to ensure, as I mentioned in my contribution to this debate, that those petitions that have been circulated around all the residential parks within our electorates are petitions that can be accepted by this parliament. We need to ensure that residents of parks within our electorates put in submissions to the tax office by 20 December.
I was very disappointed by part of the contributions by those on the other side. This is an issue that impacts on the lives of people, and it is not an issue that should be played with politically like the two speakers from the government tried to do.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:06): In 1957 an Illawarra resident by the name of Eric Cleary built a caravan park named the Surfrider Caravan Park in the Illawarra for the sole purpose of providing housing for low-income people. He would be turning in his grave if he saw this ruling, which, as the member for Shortland has advised us, was published in October this year. I congratulate the member for Shortland for taking the first opportunity available to her to bring this motion before the House. In the 55 years since the Surfrider Caravan Park was established, it has continued to serve its valuable purpose of providing low-cost housing to low-income people in the Illawarra. In fact, it is still owned and operated by Mr Cleary's wife, Ada.
I have a number of caravan parks in my electorate: the Windang Beach Tourist Park; the Lake Windemere Caravan Park, at Windang; the South Pacific Park Village, at Windang; Jettys by the Lake, again at Windang; the Moss Vale Village Caravan Park; and the Mittagong Caravan Park. Most, if not all, of these would have permanent residents. Most, if not all of them, would have weekend renters, people who have a site that they use as a weekender. And, because of the shortage of rental accommodation in my electorate, most, if not all, caravan parks are also a home for emergency accommodation or last-resort housing for many, many people.
For these residents, every cent counts. They were concerned, with the introduction of the GST, that they would be hit with additional costs and in that respect had some relief that movable home sites were finally treated as exempt from the operation of the GST. Indeed, we all recall, in the recent election, the coalition, led by Tony Abbott, giving a rock-solid guarantee that there would be no extension of the GST—no increase of the GST. That was only a few weeks ago. And now we discover that this is about to be reversed.
We have an opportunity to do something about it. In fact, members opposite have an opportunity to do something about it. They have an opportunity to go into their party room and say to their Treasurer and to their Prime Minister, 'This must not happen.'
The lowest income earners in my electorate cannot afford the burden of being slugged with the GST on their rental accommodation. This is discrimination, because, if these people were lucky enough to be able to access rental accommodation anywhere else, in any of the suburbs that I have mentioned, they would not be paying GST. Quite simply, this draft ruling represents discrimination against people who are permanent residents in caravan parks. The effect of this ruling is to discriminate against the people who can afford it the least, some of the most disadvantaged, some of the people with the lowest incomes in our community.
I have already been contacted by my constituents, who are concerned about these changes—constituents including Marie McCormick of Surfrider Caravan Park—and I welcome the first opportunity I have had to come into this House and raise their concerns. Many at Surfrider are there because they cannot afford normal rent in the tight rental market. They have been priced out of the mainstream housing market. On their fixed incomes, most of them get barely $800 a fortnight. Marie currently pays about $110 a week, $220 a fortnight, for her two-bedroom demountable home. Under the new GST laws, this would amount to more than $20 extra rent per fortnight—on a fixed income. That may not sound like a lot to you. It may not sound like a lot to the member for Fisher. But it is a lot to the people who are on a fixed income, a low income, who are living in these places.
So I call upon those opposite. I note that the member for Fisher, who has been away from us for a while, has called on us not to introduce politics into this matter. I have to say that that is a bit like getting a lecture from Ronnie Biggs on fare evasion—isn't it, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the guy who introduced some of the most base politics into the last election campaign and stands on the same side of the chamber as those who took every opportunity available to them in the last parliament to bring politics into every single matter. I call upon the member for Fisher and all of those opposite to do their darndest to ensure that this draft ruling never makes law. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Postcodes
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (12:12): With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I say how delightful it is to see you as Deputy Speaker. I just have an amendment to paragraph (3), and I formally seek leave of the Federation Chamber to amend the notice of motion relating to postcodes by omitting paragraph (3) and substituting:
(3) calls on Australia Post to review the allocation of unique postcodes for localities which currently share a postcode with a geographically separate locality.
I have checked with the opposition.
Leave granted.
Mrs PRENTICE: I therefore move the motion as amended:
That this House:
(1) notes that Australia Post is responsible for and has sole discretion over introducing, retiring or changing postcodes;
(2) recognises that:
(a) residents in more than 50 localities from Amberley, Benarkin to Karana Downs and Vernor share the postcode 4306, suburbs which in some instances are more than 130 kilometres apart;
(b) these localities fall within the four divisions of Ryan, Maranoa, Wright and Blair;
(c) the shared postcode is having a detrimental impact on mail delivery services, postal delivery costs and insurance premiums for people living in these areas; and
(d) communities within the 4306 postcode have previously petitioned the Government on this issue and to date have had their request rejected; and
(3) calls on Australia Post to review the allocation of unique postcodes for localities which currently share a postcode with a geographically separate locality.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr Bruce Scott: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mrs PRENTICE: As we sit in this place and debate the major issues of the economy, foreign affairs, health and education, it is timely to note that even seemingly innocuous decisions can impact adversely on ordinary Australians. That is the very situation covered by this motion. Something as straightforward as a postcode is impacting on those in nearby electorates.
I thank my colleagues who have indicated their support for this motion. This is an important issue not only for the people of Ryan but also for residents in the electorates of Maranoa, Wright and Blair and no doubt many more across the country. This is an issue that could be resolved by a common-sense decision if it were not for the total lack of interest by Australia Post.
Today I draw the House's attention to the issue of shared postcodes and particularly the plight of the communities within the 4306 postcode region. A quick search on the Australian Electoral Commission's website shows that there are at least 50 suburbs, towns or localities which share the 4306 postcode. These localities are spread across four large electorates and across six different council areas, including Ipswich, Brisbane City, Scenic Rim, Somerset, Toowoomba Regional and South Burnett Regional.
These communities within the 4306 postcode region are extremely diverse. They not only represent the acreage properties of the far western suburbs of Brisbane through to the quiet regional towns of Blackbutt and Benarkin but also cover the significantly more urbanised communities surrounding the city of Ipswich.
There is also a distance of some 135 kilometres between Karana Downs in Brisbane and Blackbutt in the Maranoa electorate, yet the two communities still share the same postcode. Responsibility for the allocation of postcodes falls to Australia Post. The postcode system was introduced in 1967 to facilitate the processing and delivery of mail.
Australia Post says that postcodes are assigned solely for delivery purposes and indicate the delivery centre from which mail deliveries are made. From time to time, changes may be made to postcodes on the basis of providing either customers with an improved standard of delivery or Australia Post with some operational efficiencies or advantages.
However, the relevant issue is that postcodes are used for much more than just efficient mail delivery services.
Most important, perhaps for many of the people living in a shared postcode region, is that insurance companies rely heavily on postcodes for quoting purposes. This is particularly true in the case of car insurance. Insurance providers have access to statistical data provided by impartial organisations, as well as their own record of claims that have been made according to the postcode.
Unfortunately, probably the most common factor that affects the likelihood of a car being stolen is the postcode where the car is kept. This is why car insurance quotes always require information regarding in which postcode the car is going to be kept and also in which postcode it is likely to be parked at other times, such as during work hours.
Car insurance providers will increase your premium if your car will be spending most of its time in a postcode that has a heavy history of car thefts. On the other hand, if the postcode where you live has a pretty good history with fewer incidents of car thefts, this will impact on your insurance premium positively.
This means, sadly, that the people who reside in the more rural and regional areas of the 4306 postcode zone, including Mount Crosby, Karana Downs, Blackbutt and Benarkin, are having their insurance premiums based on the more metropolitan suburbs of Ipswich.
It seems statistically inevitable that a suburb in a city would have a higher crime rate than the outer suburbs of Brisbane regional towns. It hardly seems fair that all of these communities should be considered under the same postcode for insurance purposes.
In my electorate of Ryan, the 4306 postcode covers the areas of Mount Crosby, Karana Downs, Lake Manchester, Chuwar and Kholo. I was contacted earlier this year by a constituent of mine who lives in Karana Downs. He told me that he is constantly hit with higher freight charges, simply because the 4306 postcode is connected to the Ipswich region and beyond. His suggestion was that Australia Post may wish to allocate Karana Downs the postcode of the neighbouring suburb of Anstead.
Another Karana Downs constituent contacted me and the local councillor about the 4306 postcode issue late last year. He had called an ambulance for his wife. However, it did not arrive until another 2½ hours later. The ambulance, which came from an Ipswich station, due to the Karana Downs' postcode, did not know where Karana Downs was located and had instead driven to Browns Plains, which is 30 kilometres away.
I subsequently wrote to Australia Post to explain the situation and put forward the case for a new postcode for Karana Downs. The response from Australia Post was that they would definitely not change the postcode and suggested that the resident contact his phone carrier to ensure his correct details were stored in the Integrated Public Number Database to avoid a similar situation occurring again.
I understand that my colleagues have also received similar responses to their inquiries on behalf of concerned constituents not only from Australia Post but also from the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Insurance Council of Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
I note that my colleague the member for Maranoa has also spoken about this issue in the House of Representatives and has also presented a petition from his residents requesting a change of postcode but, so far, it has been to no avail.
A recurring theme in the response from Australia Post has been that they will 'only make changes to postcodes when there is a significant benefit to the processing of delivery of mail. In making an evaluation of such benefits we would assess aspects of the geographical area such as the volume of mail currently—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12:19 to 12:33
Mrs PRENTICE: Since 2008, the Karana Downs area has maintained a population greater than 6,000, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Prior to that, the region showed significant growth since it was first established in the 1970s and 1980s. Some of these postcodes were allocated to the gazetted localities almost 30 years ago. Much has changed since then, with many communities, not just Karana Downs, seeing a growth in population. It is hard to believe that four little digits can have such an effect on everyday life. Even trying to find accurate weather data online can be difficult. Many websites use postcodes. Looking for a business in the 4306 postcode zone, you could be searching in Ipswich, Brisbane or even the South Burnett. Then of course there are the added frustrations of extra costs for mail delivery and insurance companies using postcodes to calculate insurance premiums. Australia Post has told residents that they should simply speak to their insurers about having their premiums assessed under different conditions rather than basing them on the postcode. It seems a shared postcode issue goes beyond just insurance premiums. It affects residents in a number of different ways.
This issue is not just affecting communities in the 4306 zone; there are many shared postcodes across the country. I am certain the member for Maranoa will highlight more areas in his electorate, which covers a significant part of south-west Queensland. It is imperative that Australia Post seriously consider the many requests by residents living in the 4306 postcode zones and allocate new postcodes to the region. These communities are not only separated by distance but also they are extremely diverse in terms of the people who live in these localities. It is hard to believe that in many parts of my electorate neighbouring suburbs have different postcodes—suburbs such as St Lucia, Indooroopilly and Chapel Hill or Toowong, Milton and Bardon, suburbs which are a couple of minutes drive from one end to the other, all with different postcodes. Yet towns and locations 135 kilometres apart and two hours drive away have the same postcode. I can only see the problem becoming worse as more and more people relocate to Brisbane's west and to the Ipswich areas. Assigning new postcodes to the suburbs and towns within a shared postcode zone will help to alleviate many of the issues residents living in the 4306 postcode region are experiencing. Mr Ahmed Fahour, Managing Director and CEO of Australia Post, has reinvigorated Australian Post over the last few years. It is unfortunate that this new Australia Post appears so lacking in heart that it is not prepared to take the simple step to help its customers. I commend the motion to the House and request Australia Post to take positive action to remedy this situation.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (12:36): I rise to speak on the motion before the House. In doing so I would like to say that I can sympathise enormously with the member for Ryan. Australia Post is recalcitrant. It is difficult to change their position on any number of issues. I have fought a battle for over 10 years to get them to put a post office or an agency at one of my shopping centres. It is quite interesting that they have refused to do that but at the same time they have agencies and post offices in other areas. They are very black and white, the member for Ryan. They make a decision and, once they have made a decision, they are not for shifting. They have made that decision; they believe it is the right thing to do; and, no matter what issues we raise with them, it is really hard for them to change their minds.
I can understand the issues that you have raised about postcodes and the sharing of postcodes for distinctly different areas. I think I share your same frustration that you have locations that are 130 kilometres apart. I am sure that the member for Maranoa is going to add to that argument. I am going to put forward something that is a little bit different—I have the opposite in my electorate. Once again it is something that we approached Australia Post about five-plus years ago. There is one area within my electorate that is severely disadvantaged. Its postcode is Windale 2306, but there are other areas that are very similar to Windale incorporated into larger postcodes. A suburb may be one kilometre down the road but it has been incorporated in the 2290 postcode. The simple fact is that this distinct postcode for the subgroup of Windale has led to some discrimination over a period of time. When levels of disadvantage or unemployment are considered, they are considered for that postcode. The residents of that area have for a very long period of time been arguing that they should be incorporated into postcodes that are minutes away.
Unlike the situation that the member for Ryan has highlighted in the chamber today, this is the other side of the situation, where an area would benefit if it were incorporated under another postcode. Australia Post has a very closed mind; they cannot see the benefit of it. There was a working party established within the Windale area, called the Windale renewal group. That was back in the early 2000s, and one of the strong recommendations of this group was to be incorporated into the 2290 postcode with suburbs that were close by. That would have had the impact of moving away from some of the discrimination based on that postcode. It did not happen. Australia Post did not listen to the argument. There was a lot of investment through the Windale renewal scheme, where a lot of work was done to help the community. It is very strong and vibrant community; it is actually one of the strongest communities within the electorate of Shortland. People who live there are proud of the fact that they live in Windale; but, on the other hand, they are very concerned that this simple postcode effect leads to discrimination. So, just as postcodes affect the electorates of Ryan and Maranoa with the unintended consequence of disconnection, here is an area which would be better if it were incorporated into other postcodes and it has a very similar effect. Perhaps the answer is that Australia Post needs to sit down, take a really good look at postcodes throughout Australia, determine the best way of allocating those postcodes and go through the process of putting in place postcodes that truly reflect the areas those postcodes cover.
I thank the member for Ryan for bringing this to the chamber's attention. I note that she has made an amendment, but in looking at it I would have to say we really need to strongly encourage Australia Post to listen to the community that it represents. We need to strongly encourage Australia Post to have a more open view of how it looks at situations—be it the starting of new post offices or the establishment of a post agency or the allocation of postcodes. Things change; things do not remain the same. If your opinion stays the same, it shows that you are not reacting to the concerns of the communities that you service. Australia Post is a service organisation and, as a service organisation, it needs to listen to those communities that it services. I suspect also that a number of its employees would find it a lot easier if those postcodes did not cover such diverse areas as have been outlined. As I was saying, I thank the member for Ryan for bringing this to the chamber, and I am quite happy to support any request for Australia Post to be more receptive to the communities it services.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Deputy Speaker) (12:44): I rise to support this motion as a seconder of the motion put forward by my colleague the member for Ryan, and for very good reasons. I have got many communities in my electorate that do not have a postcode that is allocated to their community. From the far west of my electorate almost on the border of the Northern Territory, the community of Bedourie, the headquarters of the Diamantina Shire, does not have a postcode, yet it is headquarters of a large region of the Diamantina Shire. Its postcode is Rockhampton, based on the Pacific Ocean rim. It is just nonsensical that they could not allocate a postcode in these circumstances to communities like Bedourie. Yowah, west of Cunnamulla, has to share the code with a community 150 to 200 kilometres away. Why not give them their unique postcode? They have a school and a community centre; they are quite a big centre now. They have mobile phone coverage but they do not have a postcode for delivery of mail. What Australia Post needs to understand is that they serve the people, they have a universal service obligation to serve the people for the delivery of mail. They really need to listen to concerns of members and the community where this is a significant issue.
As the member for Ryan has put it quite well, Benarkin in my electorate and also Blackbutt share a postcode with some other communities up to 130 kilometres apart. For instance, Blackbutt is not geographically located on the edge of Ipswich, but that is the postcode that has been allocated. It causes significant problems and costs to that community. Blackbutt is located in the South Burnett region not far from Kingaroy and very near Nanango and Yarraman, which have their own postcodes.
What does it mean for those communities? Centrelink believes that Blackbutt is a suburb of Ipswich, and that requires residents to travel 130 kilometres to transact Centrelink business in lieu of, say, a 60-kilometre drive up to Kingaroy, which is their nearest Centrelink office in their own region. I have had farmers call me because of some labour situations, such as that holiday backpackers on a special visa are allocated to rural Australia and that after 12 months they can apply for an extension of it if they are in a rural area, as they are. But because their postcode is Ipswich they cannot have the extension on that visa. This disadvantages the farming community, where they have a need for a workforce in horticulture and other activities in the Blackbutt region. Then we have the issue of insurance. When insurance companies look at the postcode of the people of Blackbutt, and Benarkin for that matter, they say, 'Ah, a suburb of Ipswich.' They then go have a look at the crime issues and say, 'This will be a high risk area,' so people are actually paying a premium for their insurance because of that very postcode that is associated with Ipswich. I take nothing away from the good people of Ipswich but, because their postcode is that of Ipswich, they are charged an additional risk factor and it is costing up to $150 in addition each time they get quotes for insurance on a business or a house, on household risk. So it is a disadvantage for these people.
On the issue of crime and drug related issues, Blackbutt is a proud community and they do not want to be associated with other communities that are necessarily in Ipswich's case associated with the greater risk of crime and also drug-related issues in their community. What I am saying and what the motion suggests is that we are calling on the government to request Australia Post to listen to the people and allocate a unique postcode rather than sharing in geographically separate locations. That would not be difficult for Blackbutt. It could be associated with Nanango or Yarraman or even Kingaroy. Nanango is about 60 kilometres away and Yarraman about 20 kilometres. They have their own postcodes: Nanango is 4615 and Yarraman is 4614. Surely it would not be difficult to give them the same postcode as their very near neighbouring communities—or even Kingaroy if that would suit them better. But it would certainly mean much lower costs to the community and would mean that the Centrelink issues could be addressed and that those visas applications to extend a holiday visa, a working visa, would be able to be addressed locally. I commend the motion to the House and call on Australia Post to act on this very significant issue for many rural communities.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12:50 to 16:00
CONDOLENCES
Thomson, the Hon. David Scott MC
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House express its deep regret at the death on 13 October 2013 of the Honourable David Scott Thomson MC, a former Minister and Member of this House for the Division of Leichhardt from 1975 to 1983, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (16:01): The Hon. David Scott Thomson MC was born on 21 November 1924 in Sale, Victoria. In 1942 David Thomson enlisted in the Australian Army and trained at the Royal Military College Duntroon, beginning as an officer in 1943. Deployed to defend his nation in both World War II and the Korean War, David Thomson is remembered by his colleague retired colonel John Sullivan, who was the then National Country Party member for Riverina between 1974 and 1977, as a great and highly decorated soldier. Mr Sullivan was also a Duntroon graduate. David Thomson was, John Sullivan said, a much loved and respected director of infantry who had a distinguished military career and was awarded a Military Cross for his service to the nation in Korea. He served as director of infantry and regimental colonel of the Royal Australian Regiment between 1967 and 1970.
Upon finishing his career in the Defence Force David Thomson ran a guesthouse before his election to parliament. Turning his hand to politics in 1975, he was elected as the National Country Party member for the federal division of Leichhardt in 1975, reclaiming a seat the Labor Party had held for the preceding 24 years. In December 1979 David Thomson was appointed Minister for Science and the Environment before his appointment as Minister for Science and Technology in November of the following year. He retained that portfolio until the defeat of the Fraser government on 5 March 1983. It was at this election that David Thomson also lost his seat, the then bellwether seat of Leichhardt, to Labor's John Gayler. Above all, John Sullivan remembered his friend and parliamentary colleague as 'a bloody good soldier, a bloody good member and a bloody good bloke'.
Aged 88, David Thomson passed away on 13 October this year in Batemans Bay. I join the current member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, and others in this place in extending my sincere condolences to David's wife, Judy, and his family.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (16:04): I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Member for Griffith
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (16:04): I was hosting a dinner for the Indonesian vice-president when the member for Griffith and former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, announced his retirement from parliamentary life. So I regret that I was unable to join the tributes to him in the other chamber.
It may surprise a few people present to hear that the retiring member for Griffith, Mr Rudd, and I actually have a few things in common. We both support the same Rugby League teams, especially the unstoppable Maroons in the State of Origin. We are both incredibly proud Queenslanders and share links with the Sunshine Coast and its hinterland. I think we are both unapologetic for our love for serving the people and trying to make our country a better place in which to live. That of course does not say we do not have differences, particularly in terms of policy approaches.
Despite our different views it certainly would be remiss of me not to recognise some of the member for Griffith's achievements during his time in parliament. Mr Rudd became only the second Queenslander to lead his party to a federal election victory, the first being Andrew Fisher, who was the first member for the electorate of Wide Bay. To lead a party to victory, as he did in the 2007 election, was a remarkable feat and one he should be recognised for. The Kevin 07 campaign will long be remembered by many Australians and it was really reminiscent of the famous 'It's Time' campaign that brought the Whitlam government to office.
The presidential style of the 2007 poll will, for a long time to come, influence the way in which election campaigns are conducted in this country. It is a trend that I do not think fits well with the traditions of a Westminster style of government. But, nonetheless, it seems as though it is inevitably upon us and that future elections will be as much about the personality and the like or dislike of a particular individual who will serve as Prime Minister that determines their results.
Mr Rudd defeated a government which history is judging as one of our nation's best. He was able to overcome a Prime Minister who was respected and who most voters thought had done a good job. Indeed, he, at many stages, promoted himself as just a younger version of John Howard, as somebody who would perhaps be a little different but not radically different so that people could feel comfortable with evicting a government that they had actually respected for one that might be a bit more adventurous. In the end of course he was very different and his government will be remembered for its excitement rather than for its methodical approach to government.
His role in particularly promoting reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, including his apology to the stolen generation in 2008, will be regarded as one of his achievements. Symbolism has a place in political leadership and, in this instance, the time and the cause was right. It marked a significant day in the history and future of our country. In the member for Griffith's maiden speech, back in November 1998, he said:
Politics is about power. It is about the power of the state … as applied to individuals, the society in which they live and the economy in which they work. Most critically, our responsibility in this parliament is how that power is used: whether it is used for the benefit of the few or the many.
I believe Mr Rudd experienced firsthand how powerful politics can be. The shocking dismissal at the hands of his own party will be forever etched in the minds of many Australians and of course the mind of Kevin Rudd. It is no way for a Prime Minister to be treated, let alone in his first term so soon after the people had decided. Perhaps the struggle with the power of politics witnessed over the recent past serves as a reminder to us all that power requires responsibility and should be used to benefit the community we serve.
It is indeed the greatest honour to serve the people of Australia, one that only a relatively few will ever understand let alone appreciate—and, of course, there is the toll that that service takes on one's family and friends. It is often a thankless job, full of constant scrutiny and pressure, with limited down time. It involves long days of trying to find outcomes to myriad problems, and late nights spent preparing to do it again the next day. Obviously, Kevin Rudd was one of those who gave every minute of every day. He never shirked from a public occasion and was always willing to go the extra mile, travelling the extra distance, and that must have had an enormous personal toll on him as an individual.
Family events and contact with ones who are near and dear are often missed. Holidays are unheard of, and every three years you are subject to the most intense employee review that anyone could ever experience—namely, the judgement of the Australian people. That is as it should be and no member of parliament would have it any other way, but it does take a toll on individuals. Inevitably, there comes a time in every politician's life when you reassess and prioritise for your family that has sacrificed so much so that you can do this job.
The member for Griffith leaves this place with the understanding and appreciation of every member in this chamber. When he made his announcement last Wednesday night, no one could deny that he and his family have made great sacrifices. In his maiden speech, Mr Rudd finished by saying:
I do not know whether I will be in this place for a short or a long time. That is for others to decide. But what I do know is that I have no intention of being here for the sake of just being here. Together with my colleagues it is my intention to make a difference.
Well, Kevin, you certainly made a difference. You have left a permanent impression on Australian politics, which will be studied and pored over for a very long time. I salute the member for Griffith and wish him and his family all the best for the future, for good health and for every happiness.
Ms KING (Ballarat—Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Regional Services and Local Communities and Territories) (16:12): It is with some pleasure and a bit of sadness that I speak on the retirement of the member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, but I think that in terms of this contribution I will probably be one of the few people who speak on this particular topic, on this particular aspect of the work that he has done.
In particular, I want to pay tribute to Kevin's—and I hope you will give me some leeway for using his first name a little; I know that is not within the standing orders—enormous contribution to organ and tissue donation. I had the enormous privilege of being parliamentary secretary for health, with carriage of organ and tissue donation and the legacy that Kevin has left and the incredible work that has been done in this space. There is much more to do and a long way to go, but it would not have happened and it would not be where it is today if it had not been for the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd taking a decision and actually pushing this agenda and making sure that there was change in this place.
For many of us in this House, our values and ambitions for public office are formed by our own life experiences, especially from the generosity of others in our community who inspire a willingness to make a positive change and to give something back. The member for Griffith was twice a recipient of the most generous gift a person can receive: the gift of life. Such a generous gift is not easy to repay. As Prime Minister, in 2008, Kevin put a world's-best-practice approach to organ and tissue donation at the forefront of the national reform agenda. It was followed up in 2009 by the establishment of the Organ and Tissue Authority, and through the DonateLife network we now have in this country a nationally-coordinated approach to organ and tissue donation for transplantation, in partnership with states, territories, clinicians, consumers and the communities. DonateLife's research identified that one of the key findings to lifting the rate of organ and tissue donation is to encourage families to have the difficult conversation about their donation wishes, enabling loved ones to make an informed decision at a time of grief and tragedy.
The then Prime Minister had the willingness to share his own story, and to roll up his sleeves and go to hospital after hospital to talk with people on the waiting list and to transplant recipients to gain a complex understanding of what is a very difficult area of public policy, but one that was desperately needed. The importance cannot be underestimated of the then Prime Minister's commitment in taking a submission to cabinet, making sure that the funds were available—some $140 million and continuing—to lift the rate of organ and tissue donation in this country. We are starting to see the results of that work.
Many more Australians are now having that conversation and the results are proving to be what we anticipated, but there is more to do. Since 2009, the number of organ donations in Australia has increased by more than 43 per cent. It would not have happened without the then Prime Minister's commitment. Last year, almost 250 more people received an organ transplant than in 2009. From 2009 to the end of last year, the number of organs transplanted increased by 30 per cent, and the number of organ donors and transplant recipients was the highest since national records began. We are starting to see consent rates slowly improve, and we are starting to see family conversations happen as a matter of course.
When I was Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing, I met with countless families who had performed the most gracious and selfless act of donating their loved ones' organs. For all the generosity of donors and their families, there are thousands of Australians who have been given a second chance at life. We owe each of these donors and their families our most sincere gratitude but also, in this debate, I would like to pay tribute to Kevin Rudd, the then Prime Minister, for taking the decision on organ and tissue donation. Lifting Australia's quite woeful rates of organ and tissue donation was something that needed the attention of a prime minister, and it took the attention of a prime minister to have it placed on the national agenda and acted upon. I pay tribute to his contribution to many thousands of lives; they now get a second chance.
Over the course of these reforms, from the start and for the many years to come, we will continue to see increases in the rate of organ and tissue donation. I do want to highlight not only the fact that this is an area of public policy that was lagging behind but also the fact that we had a prime minister take a decision to invest such substantial amounts of money as well as research and investigate the best model to adopt. It has made a substantive difference.
I know that the member for Griffith has signalled that this is an area he wants to continue to work in, and I certainly hope that he does bring all of his skills to bear on what is probably one of the most fundamental areas of health policy that you could ever come across. It is not often in public life that you are involved in making a policy change that effectively saves lives. This is one of those changes. I want to pay absolute tribute to the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and member for Griffith for having that foresight and for making that extraordinary investment in the gift of life for people in this country.
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Chief Government Whip) (16:18): I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for Griffith for his service to the nation—as the member for Griffith, as a minister and as the Prime Minister. I was interested in some of the remarks made earlier that suggested that the member for Griffith said in his maiden speech that he would be here as long as he could make a difference. I must say that the remark that I often make about my length of tenure is that I should only remain as long as I can make a difference. I do not wish to disparage his service; a great deal has been said of it, but I would give greater credit for all of the expenditure achievements if we had been able to achieve them without debt.
In relation to the member for Griffith, I notice that there have been a number of comments made as to why he might—and I do not know yet whether he has done so—tender his resignation, and that he might be doing so on the basis of his commitment to his family and their expectations of him. If that is the case, to an extent I can understand because families do bear a very significant load if you are making a contribution to this nation and its future. I notice that some others writing about the former Prime Minister's potential departure have some other comments to make. I was interested in one of them over the weekend in The Australian where Dennis Shanahan wrote:
The Rudd-Gillard parliamentary era is over, finally, and only now can the Australian Labor Party look to some semblance of a true healing of its most bitter wounds in 60 years.
If his departure is to provide a period of healing for the Labor Party, that may be a significant reason for his departure. But I want to lament the departure of another Prime Minister. Mention was made in the Leader of the National Party's speech about some of the practices that have developed here in Australia in relation to the personalising of elections around a leader—interesting observations. I want to make some other observations about changes that have happened in the time I have been involved in public life.
I have met all of Australia's prime ministers since Chifley. Chifley was removed at an election. I knew Robert Menzies. He was here in government for 23 years and he left of his own accord when he had given very long and very distinguished service to the nation. In a sense I understand why he might have left the parliament at that time given his age. Interestingly, he was followed by Harold Holt, who was tragically taken we believe by accident at sea, who was also followed by Sir John Gorton. I served with Sir John Gorton. He continued to sit in this parliament and in the other House. I served with Sir William McMahon. He remained in the parliament. In fact the practice, as it seems to me, of former prime ministers quickly leaving the parliament occurred with Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating. It is interesting that Gough Whitlam in fact stayed on in the parliament and was Leader of the Opposition for a time.
John Howard was defeated not only in an election but in his seat, but I wonder whether John Howard would have left the parliament had he not lost his seat. Julia Gillard elected not to stand again and now Kevin Rudd has left us. I lament it. I would like to think that, if he believed he could still make a difference, as he said in his maiden speech, he would still be with us.
There is a view that the parliament itself cannot accommodate former prime ministers. I want to say that I think that view is wrong. If Kevin Rudd is leaving because he believes he would be demeaned, in some way ridiculed, seen as a lesser person and simply as a member of the parliament, that would disappoint me enormously. I want to reflect. We are supposed to be modelled upon the Westminster system and I can remember Ted Heath continuing as a member of the House of Commons. I can remember Callaghan continuing to contribute in the House of Commons. I can remember Maggie Thatcher contributing in the House of Commons. Some of them later translated to another House, but they continued to play a role. I hope the time will come when our parliament will mature sufficiently to be a parliament where those who have served us in the highest office can feel free to be able to remain with us without being disparaged in any way.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (16:25): I thank the member for Berowra for his contribution. I am not sure that I agree with all of his sentiments, but I do think he presents a cogent argument as to how we might mature in this place at some point in the future. My observations about the former Prime Minister come from my personal interactions with him and my admiration for much of what was achieved under his stewardship.
We are all flawed in one way or another, and the previous Prime Minister had flaws, just like you and I. It is not my intention to examine his flaws or even comment on them, because this is neither the time nor the place. I do want to concentrate our minds on the legacy that will be left as a result of his prime ministership and the partnership he had at that point with his deputy Julia Gillard and with his ministry, of which I was a proud member.
We have heard a lot of words in this place, and last week some very moving tributes. I accord with the sentiments of those tributes. From my personal point of view there are a couple of things that I need to make clear. The first of these is that the single most important moment for me in the 24½ years I have been in this place was the apology to the stolen generation. Bear in mind that my electorate, which was all of the Northern Territory at one point, is now Lingiari, which is 1.34 million square kilometres. It is all of the Northern Territory except Darwin, which is the seat of Solomon, which has 330,000 square kilometres.
The bulk of the Aboriginal people who live in the Northern Territory live in my electorate. Around 40 per cent of my constituents are Aboriginal people. A significant number of them were members of the stolen generation. Indeed, last Friday I had cause to go to the funeral of a very dear old friend, David 'Weewak' Ross in Katherine. There were 1,000 people there. A significant number of those thousand people were members of the stolen generation or descendants of members of the stolen generation. I know what that apology meant for them. Knowing that the Prime Minister was going to do it, being able to offer to provide assistance with words and make a contribution to the speech if that was thought necessary to him, I was absolutely flummoxed by the breadth of this understanding, the depth of his knowledge and his commitment, and the courage which exhibited in making that apology. The words were his.
To be in the parliament, to see him go to Mrs Fejo, a senior Aboriginal woman and a member of the stolen generation from Northern Territory; to see the people in the parliament itself respond in such a way; to see the emotional outpouring across the country; and to see the international recognition that it brought to us was something that none of us will ever forget, I am certain. I do not think we really understand yet the implications for us. I want to make it very clear that this single most important event in my time in this parliament was that apology.
Not only was the apology important but also Prime Minister Rudd took a great interest in issues to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. He was a principal architect of the government's commitment to closing the gap in employment and to health measures and education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We have made a significant contribution as a result of the investments made because of his policy commitment. Significant efforts have been made and improvements have been brought about directly as a result of his leadership. Again, in the future people will look back and see how significant that move was. And it was done in partnership with people in the broader community—with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people right across the country. So I want to say thank you to him for that commitment and for the changes which have been brought about as a direct result of that commitment.
I also want to make some comments about the work he did in the global financial crisis and the leadership shown by him, by the then Treasurer, Wayne Swan, and by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. I know that the then opposition opposed much of the effort made and many of the things that were done at the time, and said that they were a waste of money. They ran around the country talking about the waste of money on school halls and the like. Well, in my own case, I can tell you that every dollar spent was a dollar well spent and a dollar well spent that would not have been spent had it not been for that government and the leadership shown by the Prime Minister to bring us through that global financial crisis. As I travelled around the Northern Territory and open new classrooms, assembly halls or libraries, in communities which had never seen a new single dollar, let alone hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions of dollars in some cases, for improvements in capital works, it was indeed astounding. And there is not one community that I can think of that I visited that was anything but ecstatic about receiving that investment as a direct result of the decisions taken by that government.
I know we hear a lot, have heard a lot and will continue to hear a lot from the current government about the so-called fiscal delinquency of that government investing in this way, but Australians all know that it was the right thing to do and the right time to do it. Not only was it the right time to do it but it will be seen in the future as a great legacy for this country, for the educational opportunities of people living in the most remote communities and, indeed, in communities with the poorest educational outcomes in this nation in my electorate—all of whom benefited directly from the investments made as a result of the strategies adopted by the then Labor government under the leadership of Kevin Rudd and over the global financial crisis. Despite the cynicism from those opposite, we should be forever grateful. I know I will be and I know that the people of the Northern Territory who receive the benefits of those investments will, too, be forever grateful.
I think there is a lot more to be said about the legacy of Kevin Rudd to this great nation of ours, and I think people are a bit too quick to be critical and do not really appreciate the significance of what was achieved under his very dynamic leadership. Yes, as I said at the outset, he had flaws—but so do we all, and I think that if we all had a bit of time for self-criticism and self-examination we would acknowledge our own flaws. But this is not a time to examine flaws; this is a time to examine his contribution to this nation of ours and say: 'Thank you, Kevin, for your leadership, your hard work, your courage and your commitment.'
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (16:33): I rise to speak on the retirement of the Hon. Kevin Rudd. I read with interest a long time ago the first speech of the honourable member, because by reading first speeches you get a sense of the character of the person and of what they will champion based on their beliefs and their passions, and more importantly, of the expectations that I, as an individual in the Australian community, place on that individual based on their first speech. And, as you follow their career while they are in politics, you get a sense of whether they have been true to that level of passion and commitment.
On Wednesday, 11 November 1998, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, as member for Griffith, rose to make his first speech. The thing that struck me was his opening statement:
Politics is about power … as applied to individuals, the society in which they live and the economy in which they work.
I saw that evidenced in his leadership as Prime Minister, in the way he tackled issues, the way he had a strong belief in himself and the way he led debates—his position on which we, on our side, sometimes challenged. Politics has a critical role in shaping the way our society behaves, believes and responds. In his maiden speech he went on to say:
Most critically, our responsibility in this parliament is how that power is used: whether it is used for the benefit of the few or the many.
In this, he always strived to influence and make decisions for the greater good of Australian society.
Some of the priorities and policies you find when you read through his first speech are reflected in the priorities that he established within the construct of the 2020 forums that he held. He went on to say:
I believe that ideas are important. Ideas shape behaviour—the behaviour of governments, of bureaucracies, of business, of unions, of the media and of individuals.
I think he tried to encapsulate what he said in his maiden speech through those forums, with the hope that what would come out of them, from ordinary Australians, would help to give him the basis to take forward a reform agenda.
Equally, in his youth, and because of the circumstances he found himself in, he reflected on the things that he would include and encompass within his first speech. He said at one point:
It made me think that a decent social security system designed to protect the weak was no bad thing … a decent universal health system should be one of the first responsibilities of the state.
… … …
If equality of opportunity does not begin in the school system, it begins nowhere at all.
When you take those three statements in isolation, separate from the body of the speech, they form the essence of some of the priorities that were established by the honourable Prime Minister, and I do not think that he has ever resiled from them. Even during moments of criticism in some of the key debates, he was consistent in his message in those areas. He believed unapologetically in an active—sometimes too active—role for government. He went on to say:
Education is both a tool of social justice as well as a fundamental driver of economic development. I believe that the nation needs a revolution in its education system.
… … …
I would also like to address the nature of Australia's international engagements.
He certainly played a significant role in all of those areas.
On 13 February, when he delivered the apology, he started the healing process. It was not until I became a member of the parliament that I got to know Kevin Rudd the man. I had a very similar experience to that of my colleague Minister Malcolm Turnbull. I interacted with the former Prime Minister at functions. After my first speech he spoke with me, and on other occasions we shared views and considerations in respect of the future for Indigenous Australians in all fields—how we could enhance their opportunities in life and their capacity and capability to step out of dependency on welfare in directions that would make an incredible difference.
In those discussions he asked me, 'What was the impact of the apology and how did you feel about the significance of that apology?' I said to him: 'The referendum was a defining moment within Australian politics—the recognition that came when Australia, with the majority of states and the majority of votes, ticked off on the 1967 referendum. But, when you did the apology, you created a healing process that has galvanised a lot of people—in acknowledging that there were policies, practices, programs and services that were not conducive to the strength and unity of families or communities.' The decisions of the past had displaced people, but, in their coming back together, people's connections with their families was a stage in their healing. But the apology had a far greater potency through the way in which it was delivered at a time when Australia had considered, and given support to, many of the reforms in Aboriginal affairs. The other thing that was important was the way in which Kevin Rudd worked. He became involved with, and immersed in, Aboriginal communities and Torres Strait Islander communities. I compliment the current Prime Minister on doing the same.
I think all of us in this chamber often forget the impact on our families. As Kevin Rudd said in his closing speech in the chamber, our families are important to us, but the time that we take from them to serve in a public role is significant. For prime ministers the burden must be much greater because of the time they are away from their families. All members on the night of Kevin Rudd's announcement recognised both his exaltation in his family and his exuberance in the fact that he was going to be able to spend time with them as a husband, a father and a grandfather, because those elements are often forgotten in the roles that we play.
I said to Kevin—I will call him Kevin because this is what I said to him—'I want to retain a friendship in the work that you do around the apology's Healing Foundation and in relation to homelessness.' I think his contribution on those things will be significant. He will not lose the passion for what he wanted to do as a person.
In closing let me say that I think we should thank Kevin Rudd's wife, Therese, his daughter Jessica and son-in-law Albert as well as Josephine, Nicholas, Zara and Marcus for the time that they allowed Kevin to be with us, because his contribution to public life in many areas will always be there, alive and huge in the psyche of Australia and, importantly, within the history of this country. In particular, I know that Indigenous Australians right across this nation will always consider what he did for them and the journey that has begun. The next stage is our commitment as a parliament to the recognition of Indigenous Australians within the Constitution. That will come through the bipartisan work of many.
To the Hon. Kevin Rudd: I salute you in what you achieved as Prime Minister. I acknowledge that, as an individual—as is the case with all of us—you had your failings. I hope that you enjoy the time that you will now have on your free journey away from the Australian parliament. Thank you for what you have done.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (16:43): Many words have been spoken, and eloquent tributes paid to Kevin Rudd on the occasion of his retirement from parliament. Many, including the members for Lingiari and Hasluck, just now, have mentioned the transformative impact of the national apology to Indigenous Australians, the timely and effective response to the global financial crisis—as confirmed by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, among many others—and the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Many have mentioned the successful advocacy for the G20 and our place as a nation in it—we are about to assume the G20 presidency for the next year—and for a seat on the UN Security Council at a time of dramatic events and upheavals in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. The National Broadband Network, the paid parental leave scheme, the raising of the pension, the championing of organ donation and the unprecedented investment in schools, local government, public transport and social housing infrastructure are also achievements for which Kevin Rudd is receiving due recognition.
Less well-known but important reforms of the Rudd Labor government include the removal of discrimination against same-sex couples in more than 80 Commonwealth laws, the legislation to prevent the re-introduction by the states of the death penalty, the endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its optional protocol and the establishment, together with the Japanese government, of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd oversaw the Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness, leading to a more structured, effective, transparent and accountable foreign aid program, as confirmed by the OECD peer review into Australia's aid effectiveness earlier this year—a report which encourages Australia to communicate more widely the structures and achievement of our aid program for the benefit of other countries.
In recognition of the size and importance of the aid program, Kevin Rudd appointed the first Minister for International Development in 20 years—the previous such minister having been Gordon Bilney, during the Keating government. I am very grateful to Kevin Rudd for giving me the absolutely unexpected privilege and opportunity to serve in that role. It was for me; given my background, expertise and interests, the perfect job. During that fleeting 2½ months I had the opportunity to work with an extraordinary agency, AusAID, that was full of people who only wanted to do good in the world. I had the opportunity to see first-hand in the Solomon Islands and in Timor Leste some of the significant work being done by AusAID and by our NGO partners in the region, where our international aid program is making a genuine difference to lives and economies.
I feel personally wrenched by the present government's decision to abolish AusAID and roll it into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I can only hope that the spirit of AusAID, which I was fortunate to be part of for a little while, lives on somehow in our ongoing commitment to combatting poverty and disadvantage wherever it exists—as an extension of our national ethos, first and foremost, as well as with reference to our broader national interest. It was somewhat fitting, therefore, that, as I was having a late dinner last Wednesday night to thank my former AusAID ministerial staff—late because of Kevin Rudd's surprise announcement of his retirement and the subsequent speeches—who should walk into the Jewel of India restaurant in Manuka and sit at the next table but Kevin Rudd and his son Marcus, with other Labor colleagues. Kevin came over to our table to say hello. Upon learning that some of the people were from the entity formerly known as AusAID he said, 'I'm sorry; I did my best.'
Indeed he did. The aid program increased under Labor by 80 per cent from 2007 and, as mentioned, became highly effective and transparent, as well as forging meaningful long-term partnerships with respected Australian NGOs. Kevin did not hesitate to agree to my proposal, as minister, that an ambassador for disability-inclusive development be appointed to advance Australia's efforts to advocate for the millions of people world-wide who suffer the most because they are not only living in extreme poverty but also living with a disability.
I recognise the achievements of Labor under Kevin's leadership in two further areas that are especially meaningful to me and the people I represent in Fremantle. The first is action on climate change, which Kevin championed as a key pillar, on Labor's return to government in 2007. At this point I think it is worth reflecting on the fact that life can take some strange twists and turns and that sometimes it feels as though it is only a matter of sliding doors that separate alternative realities. That was certainly the case at the end of 2009, when, having painstakingly negotiated a bipartisan agreement on the carbon pollution reduction scheme, the leadership ructions of the Liberal Party saw the abandonment of that consensus.
Australian policy and political life might have been very different but for one vote in the coalition party room and the pride and political self-interest of five Greens senators. I have not heard any expression of regret from the Greens for their colossal error in siding with the coalition to vote down the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme nor am I likely to. But I think that, in their heart of hearts, they know—certainly with the benefit of hindsight—that they made a terrible mistake. This was a mistake that prevented all of us from moving quickly and comprehensively to an emissions trading scheme which, while by no means perfect, had the support of business, trade unions and the environment movement. It would have been bedded down by now and accepted by the community and it could have been strengthened and built upon without significant dissent. We would not, I think, have seen the rampant growth in climate change denial and the consequent confusion and apathy around climate change that now exists in many parts of the community. The deeply damaging decision by Kevin Rudd to defer the emissions trading scheme would not have occurred, and it is likely his prime ministership would have continued—with, of course, vastly different outcomes for the Labor government, the Labor Party and the nation. But that is life, and sometimes history turns on such fine points as the events of a single day or a handful of votes.
The other policy area in which Kevin did so much, driven by his own experience of social and economic fragility, was housing and homelessness. As Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health and Parliamentary Secretary for Homelessness and Social Housing, I saw some extraordinary outcomes from our $20 billion investment in social and affordable housing and in programs to prevent and end homelessness. Of course, this investment was only the beginning of what needs to occur to end homelessness and ensure sufficient affordable and social housing in the community, but we made a very good start that I hope can be built upon, together with the necessary commitment from the states and territories.
Kevin came to Fremantle to speak at the Gimme Shelter concert, an annual event in Freo to raise funds for and awareness of homelessness. He and John Butler shared the stage for a while, and I can tell you that, while John Butler, as a local barnstorming, guitar-playing, activist folk hero, received his customary adulation, the crowd around Kevin as he moved through the grounds of the Fremantle Arts Centre was no less supportive.
I do not want to enter into an appraisal of the leadership wars, as there are many others engaged in parsing every incident and betrayal. I believe that Julia Gillard did an extraordinary job as Prime Minister under very difficult circumstances, and there were incredible Labor achievements during her government that I will go into on another occasion. If I were to lay responsibility anywhere for the difficulties Labor finds itself in, much of it would be with the factional leaders—with the fact that power is wielded by so few, that it is frequently wielded for shallow or self-interested purposes and that the few are largely unaccountable, are never held responsible, for the exercise of power affecting so many, however badly it may turn out. Kevin Rudd's party reforms were a necessary beginning to what must come next: root-and-branch reform to properly democratise the Labor Party.
For all his acknowledged faults as a leader and as an individual—and who among us is free of fault?—we owe Kevin Rudd enormous thanks for his vision and for the achievements of the government he led, for they include significant and lasting changes for the benefit of many people and for the future of this nation. I wish Kevin and Therese and their family happiness as they go forward with their lives.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (16:51): I rise to pay tribute to the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith. People who come to this House on both sides of the political fence do so, I believe, for the same reason: they want to make Australia a better place. And, by and large, they meet their aims. But when we disagree with each other we have to be big enough to acknowledge the contributions of those opposite. In fact, it was once said that all the good bowlers are not on one team. There are good politicians and people of principle and values on both sides of politics.
At this point, I would like to acknowledge the contribution that Kevin Rudd has made not only to the people of Griffith but to the country as Prime Minister. There are two particular areas of note. The first is his apology in the national parliament to the Aboriginal people of Australia. That was a very significant moment, and it deserved bipartisan support. The second is his deep, abiding and expert interest in foreign affairs. I have been a public critic of a number of things that Kevin Rudd has done in foreign policy and defence policy, but I do accept that he has a level of interest and experience as a former diplomat, and of expertise, that is hard to match in this parliament. Therefore I welcome the announcement by Kevin Rudd that in his life after politics he will pursue both those areas as a public citizen. I am sure he will continue to make a significant contribution to the Indigenous population of Australia, as well as on the international stage as he pursues his interest in foreign policy, in particular his knowledge and expertise around the rise of China.
I would also like to pay tribute to his family. In his farewell, Kevin Rudd mentioned that his family had said, 'Enough is enough,' and that they had been extremely supportive of him during his time in office. Members on both sides of this House know that they would not be here but for the support of their families. So, to his wife, Therese, to his children, Jess, Nick and Marcus, and to their extended family: I wish you all the very best. I wish Kevin all the very best for his career post parliament. He can rest assured that during his time in office there were things that he did that made Australia a better place.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:55): It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand here today in this chamber and pay tribute to Kevin Rudd, somebody who I believe is one of the finest prime ministers that Australia has ever had. From the perspective of a Labor member of this parliament, when he led Labor to victory in 2007 I would have to say that that was one of the most exciting moments of my political career. It felt as if a veil had been lifted from our society here in Australia and that as a nation we were regenerating. We were a country that had ideas, we were a country that had a hope and we were a country that was looking to the future. I think that great excitement, hope and joie de vivre was really generated to a large extent by Kevin Rudd and the victory that we enjoyed in 2007.
Following that, we had the apology to the stolen generation. I would without a doubt say that was the most moving time that I have had in this parliament. It made me proud to be a member of parliament. I was proud to stand there with members from both sides of this House as the apology was given to the stolen generation. I still remember very vividly looking up to the press gallery and seeing a young Indigenous journalist. As the apology was delivered, he jumped in the air. He cheered. He had tears running down his face. If you looked around the gallery you could see the raw emotion that existed in the House as that apology was delivered. It was something that was long overdue.
I know many members in this House and past members were involved with the Sorry Day. I walked across the bridge on Sorry Day. As I crossed the bridge, I spoke to three young girls who came from Taree. They were so excited. They said to me, 'This is the third time we have walked across the bridge and we are going back to do it again.' I think the apology was the culmination of that Sorry Day, something that had been building and building for a very long time. And it took a person like Kevin Rudd, a person who could grasp that momentum, to actually deliver that apology and bring us all with him.
The other thing that is quite often forgotten is the apology to the forgotten generation, the British children who were brought to Australia as migrants. I have met and spoken to many of them, some of them in my own electorate. They were so emotional about that apology, as were those people covered by that apology who grew up in orphanages and institutions. Those were two really significant apologies that changed the face of our country and changed the lives of those people that those apologies were directed to. That would not have happened when it did without Kevin Rudd. Kevin has a unique ability to connect to people. Australians love and identify with Kevin Rudd. As a Prime Minister, he was able to listen to what people were saying to him and then actually move towards bringing that to a reality.
One of the first things that Labor caucus was given as a challenge after the 2007 election was that we were to visit a centre or organisation which worked with homeless people. We all went out and learnt of the issues that confronted the homeless on a daily basis. Then we had to come back to report to caucus. Once again, I think that showed the unique quality of Kevin. We were not just sitting down and reading books about homelessness; we were actually connecting with homeless people and understanding how it affected their lives.
The member for Fremantle spoke about foreign aid and the work Kevin did on foreign affairs. He was the person who started the push for a seat on the UN Security Council. While many on the other side may not agree with the action taken in the global financial crisis, I know that it made a real difference on the ground in my electorate. I have heard people on the other side criticise the money that was spent in schools and in the enormous infrastructure programs. On the other hand, I had employers coming to my office, employers who have always voted Liberal, who said to me that, but for the actions of Kevin Rudd and the Labor government in 2008-09, they would have lost everything. Providing that work in schools was their savour. Once again it was his forward thinking, his ability to look at a problem and develop a strategy to work towards a resolution that really did save Australia. Despite what those on the other side might say, Australia did come through the global financial crisis better than any other country.
Under Kevin we have undergone enormous party reform. Since his election, we have changed the way we elect our leader. This has shown what a democratic party the Labor Party is. Members of the Labor Party now feel they can have a say in who should lead their party. It gives a new value to Labor Party membership. You are not just a member of the Labor Party handing out on election day. As a member of the Labor Party, you can vote to choose who leads your party federally. Once again, this would not have happened without Kevin Rudd. I think that is just the start of many more reforms which we will see in the Labor Party.
Every Australian should be proud to have had Kevin Rudd as prime minister. He delivered much to our nation. As has already been said, he will be studied throughout history and I am sure that the place reserved for him will be very special, one where all his attributes are touched on. Everybody has touched on something a little different. Kevin Rudd is a man of enormous empathy, a man who gives his all and a man who is now going to spend more time with his family, but at the same time a man who has established goals—with the establishment of the indigenous foundation, with continuing his involvement with homelessness and with organ donation. These are all very important to Kevin Rudd and really epitomise the person he is. Thank you, Kevin. I have appreciated being in parliament with you and I have appreciated all you have given to the Australian people and to the Labor Party.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): Are there any other statements? I call the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (17:05): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation to high office.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr BRIGGS: I will be brief in my remarks but I think it is important that we acknowledge the contribution of people who reach the highest office in the land, and Kevin Rudd obviously spent two terms as Prime Minister of our great country. He was—and still is, of course—a great intellect and a man of great passion. But it is not an insignificant feat to defeat an incumbent Prime Minister. It happens very rarely in our political system and, when it does, it is substantial.
When you change the government you change the country, as Paul Keating famously once said, and undoubtedly Kevin Rudd changed the country when he became Prime Minister and during his terms as Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, you leave a mark on our nation; you leave a legacy for future generations to reflect upon and to live with, good, bad or otherwise. He is someone who has contributed in that significant way, and we should acknowledge and honour people who have been in that great office.
He was a very difficult candidate for the former Prime Minister—speaking as a member of the staff in 2007, it was a difficult election for us. Undoubtedly, that was the case because Kevin Rudd was a very skilled professional at campaigning and put the Labor Party in the best position that they had been put in for many, many years. They had the success that he undoubtedly brought for the Labor Party in that election. No doubt he would be reflecting now upon what he achieved in that office, and I am sure he would wish some of the events had played out differently. But this is the life that we are given, and you deal with the events as they unfold.
I think Kevin Rudd has made a brave decision. He has been in parliament a relatively short time for somebody who reached the prime ministership. It is not usual. I think maybe in some ways he reached the prime ministership too early on in his career. It is an office which is enormously demanding. You have to be extraordinarily disciplined and utterly prepared for the mental and physical demands which the office puts on prime ministers, particularly in modern political life. The term that Sir Robert Menzies had in office was undoubtedly longer due to the fact that he did not face the intense scrutiny that modern prime ministers do, and we are unlikely to see a 12-year service such as John Howard's again in our lifetime because of that very fact—that the intensity, the pace, with which we now serve in this business has been ramped up to be so much more than what it once was.
It is an intrusive lifestyle, as all of us know, and it is an extremely lonely experience being a candidate in a federal election, particularly on that night when you are waiting for those votes to be counted. There are very few people across the country who can really understand what that experience is like, and that is exaggerated many times when you are sitting there waiting for the results as the leader of a party seeking government, as Kevin Rudd was in 2007, or the leader of a party defending government, as he was in 2013 at the recent election.
He should be congratulated on his career. His family should enjoy now that time with him and also be able to reflect upon what has been a very significant career. Very few people reach the office. Kevin Rudd was one of the very few lucky people in our country to have achieved that office. He should be congratulated. We should remember him fondly for the contribution he made to this place, and we should wish him well in whatever future he seeks to make for himself and for his family.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (17:09): Madam Deputy Speaker , may I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation as well. It is a very fine job. I did it in the previous parliament.
I take this opportunity to say a few words about Kevin Rudd—as I know him—the member for Griffith, who, as the House is aware, chose to resign and therefore end his active parliamentary political career. It is very important, I think, to say a few things about Kevin. I met Kevin all those years ago when I first came into parliament as a much younger member. One of the things that struck me the most about him was his incredible knowledge. Kevin is one of those people who has incredible knowledge. Basically, there are people in the world who can very quickly learn lots of things, and he was one of those people. He was also one of those people who had travelled extensively and obviously had a great love for foreign affairs. He is, if I can describe him as such, probably the consummate global citizen, which is what he described himself as the other day as well. He is a very proud Australian, very committed to this country, but is also recognised and moves in a very global community. In fact, that is pretty much the way of the future for all of us. I think we all at some point in time have to become, at least in our thinking, global citizens, and certainly Kevin has embraced that global thinking.
Kevin is also well known for the fact that he has a very strong connection to the Australian people. I think everyone has seen that relationship over the course of his time here in parliament and certainly as Prime Minister. He had a remarkable ability to connect with people. For me in particular it became very obvious and evident at the time when he became the Leader of the Opposition in 2006 and then led the then opposition through to the 2007 election campaign victory.
I have been lucky to have Kevin visit my electorate on many occasions throughout the time that I have been the member for Calwell. In fact, his very first meeting was in a tiny little house in one of our neighbourhoods. He came to visit my local Iraqi Christian Chaldean community. I was not sure how the meeting was going to go, because the emerging Iraqi community were in the middle of being involved in the Iraq war. They are refugees here in Australia.
I have to say that there was nothing that Kevin did not know about ancient Mesopotamia, nothing he did not know about their history and nothing that he did not know about the ancient church of the east. I was struggling to understand all of those nuances. Kevin knew them all, and he forever impressed that community, so much so that they became devotees of him. In fact, that was so not only for that community but for other communities in my electorate, to the extent that I have often referred to the federal seat of Calwell as very much a Rudd seat. Certainly the people that live in the federal seat of Calwell had a very high regard for Kevin Rudd as a parliamentarian and in particular as Prime Minister of Australia.
One of the most remarkable examples of his visits to my seat was in the lead-up to the 2007 election campaign. It was the Monday before the Saturday, and it was supposed to be a very low key, sort of secret meeting with people in my electorate. I will not disclose any further—it was not me, but I just had an office close to the airport. We had to work very hard to make sure that it was kept secret or low key. But he was spotted. My office is in a railway station centre, and as he entered he was spotted by busloads of schoolkids who were going home. They refused to leave the station. They waited for Kevin to come out, because they wanted to see him, to shake his hand. For me, that was an indication of just how popular he was amongst young people. In fact my constituent Ian Hogarth had popped into my office that day to say hello—I know that he would want me to say this and to quote him—and he said to me: 'Do you know what this feels like? I walk into your office and there's Kevin Rudd. It's like going to church and God shows up.' This is a quote from Ian Hogarth. I do not mean to offend anyone or anything, but that was the extent of the impact that Kevin Rudd had on people.
Of course, you cannot speak about Kevin Rudd and not make reference to the events of 2010. I do not want to say very much other than to say, again, that it was a turbulent time and one that horrified the Australian public. I think it is fair to say that it horrified the Australian public and that in fact it traumatised them. I was having dinner that evening with Shane Maloney, the author of the Murray Whelan series of crime novels, who was in Canberra, and he was later to write about that day:
What I don't yet know is that an accident of timing has put me in the dress circle for the biggest show in town.
That is from a very interesting article about Shane's experience here in Canberra on that day.
Kevin visited the electorate of Calwell on many other occasions, and in particular last year. I want to thank him for his friendship. I want to thank him for his contribution to the Labor Party. But I particularly want to thank him for his contribution to Australia, his foresight, the stolen generation apology, and all the things that he did to enhance our country's reputation abroad. He is highly respected by the diplomatic corps. Wherever I travelled overseas as an Australian member of parliament, everybody knew Kevin Rudd and I think that that is an indication of the extent to which he is recognised internationally as well.
I believe that Kevin still has a contribution to make. I want to wish him well. He is very devoted to his family. His little granddaughter, Josephine, is delightful, and he is totally besotted by her. So I wish him well and look forward to seeing him again. I also look forward to his further contributions on behalf of Australia in the international community.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (17:17): That was a fine speech by the member for Calwell, and I think she encapsulated exactly what we all think about the member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, in that he had so much to offer and yet—and this is such a shame—that potential was perhaps never fully realised. He was a self-confessed 'policy wonk', and the member for Calwell spoke about his infectious enthusiasm—and the Australian public's infectious enthusiasm, at times—for Kevin. I know that when he came to Wagga Wagga one day, unannounced, he was treated like an absolute rock star.
In 2007, when Kevin Rudd swept to power and swept John Howard out of office, I was the campaign director for Kay Hull, a very popular member for Riverina—and I will come back to Kay in a moment. I had been Kay's campaign director at the previous election in 2004. My seat is not a Labor stronghold, and in 2004 Kay was enormously popular. We got out there and we campaigned, as we always do, as the National Party, and won the seat very, very well. It was a different story in 2007. The whole Labor movement was engaged. They had their Kevin Rudd corflutes up many, many hours before the National Party had got to the polling booths—and, let me tell you, that is a feat in itself, because we always get out there if not the night before then very early in the morning. But when we got there every polling booth—and there are more than 100 in the Riverina at any given election—was just plastered with 'Kevin'. You did not see the local candidate; it was just all about Kevin. And I think that probably pretty much sums up his prime ministership as well, in some ways—and I mean that nicely, but it was all about Kevin.
For someone who had the love and the admiration of the Australian public, it was such a shame, in one sense, that he did not realise his full potential. It is unfortunate that factionalism also cost him dearly. I am glad that I belong to a party which does not have factions, because it must be so difficult to achieve and fulfil—
Mr Zappia: Come to South Australia!
Mr McCORMACK: The member for Makin says, 'Come to South Australia!' I hear you loud and clear! I assume that you are talking about Labor, not the National Party. Anyway, we digress.
Much has been made of the retirement of the member for Griffith, Australia's 26th Prime Minister. As the member for Mayo indicated earlier, you do not get to be the Prime Minister unless you are an extremely talented person. Whatever your politics, it is fair to say that Kevin Rudd's contribution to this place has been historic. He will be remembered for many years to come. In his retirement statement to parliament last Wednesday, 13 November, Mr Rudd praised Australia's enduring egalitarianism and the fact that he as the son of a dairy farmer in Queensland could make it to the top of Australian politics. This is certainly true.
Just recently, I attended a presentation evening at the Batlow Technology School in my electorate. While I was there, the principal, Michael Rathborne, gave a tremendous speech, one which I think the Prime Minister's statement last week embodies. Mr Rathborne's advice to students was simple: because I am from Batlow I can. This statement sums up perfectly the Australia we live in today, the one which allowed the former Prime Minister, growing up in Nambour in country Queensland, to assume this nation's highest office. It is a statement that is true of all our regional communities. For the former Prime Minister it must be said that it is because he was from Nambour that he could. The former Prime Minister was from a country family, too. His father, Albert, was from the community of Uranquinty in my electorate, about 15 kilometres south of Wagga Wagga. When visiting the city of Wagga Wagga in 2008 for a family reunion, the community, as they always are, were very welcoming of the then Prime Minister. I know that he remembers the Riverina, the region of his father, with pleasure. After his speech the other day I walked over, as did all the coalition members in the House at that time, shook his hand, warmly bade him farewell and wished him all the very best. I reminded him of his family's Uranquinty origins. He remembered and said, 'Yes, wish them well.' That was nice; that was good.
While it is notable that Kevin the dairy farmer's son made it to the very top, I like many other members, believe that it was Mr Rudd's apology to the stolen generation which means the most to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this nation. It is important that this legacy is the one that we remember the most. Members will be aware that my electorate has a large and proud Wiradjuri tradition. They are a people that I feel very proud and honoured to represent in this place. Like many communities, the city of Wagga Wagga was an Aboriginal mission during the stolen generations. Mr Rudd's apology meant a tremendous amount to the people who were part of or affected by the stolen generations. Like many communities, we salute Mr Rudd for his historic apology on 13 February 2008. I certainly echo the words of the current Prime Minister, the member from Warringah, from his speech at the opening of this, the 44th Parliament, on Tuesday, last week. The welcome to country, facilitated by Ngambri elder Matilda House-Williams, is a fitting, appropriate, right and proper way for this parliament to open, and it was the member for Griffith who made that part of the ceremonies of the opening of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.
But it would be remiss of me not to mention that some of the Rudd government's policy changes had an impact on the Riverina that was not all that desirable. I refer particularly to the decision by the former Prime Minister's government—and Mr Rudd was certainly very much conspired with by the member for Watson—to abolish the single desk for wheat in June 2008. The Nationals considered this decision not to be in the best interest of wheat growers and reacted accordingly. Then, as now, it is the National Party that people in rural and regional Australia can rely upon to stand up for their interests.
However, we come to this place today to acknowledge the role Kevin Rudd played. I mentioned Kay Hull earlier. I mention her again inasmuch as on 24 June 2010, that dark day when Kevin Rudd announced that, having been tapped on the shoulder the night before, he would not be continuing as the Prime Minister of Australia. He came into question time that day—and that was a brave and bold decision by him, as the just ousted Prime Minister—and sat in the back benches. That must have been terribly embarrassing, and hard for him to do, but he was gutsy; I'll give him that. He sat in the back benches and Kay Hull, the member for Riverina and Nationals Chief Whip, stood up, wandered over to the government side and sat beside Kevin and asked him to sign the children's book he wrote. I am surprised more has not been made of Kevin's children's book, because he is a children's author of note. She got him to sign the book Jasper + Abbyon behalf of her grandson, Ashton Hull. And, not an hour ago, Kay told me that that book—that great children's book—is a treasured part of the Hull household library. Certainly, little Ashton, who has grown up a bit now, absolutely loves that book. That will be a treasured piece and, I am sure, a family heirloom in years to come. Kevin wrote in the book: 'Be a good boy for your mum.' That shows the warmth and humanity of this fellow. It also shows the warmth and humanity of Kay Elizabeth Hull that, when Kevin was sitting there desolate and alone, she would get up and go over to him. I suppose some of her colleagues probably thought, 'well, you know, we have had a change of leader and sometimes you leave the isolated wildebeest there for the jackals to devour'—but not Kay Hull. She went over and sat beside Kevin and offered him encouragement. Certainly, that was very much appreciated by Kevin. I know Kevin said in his farewell speech to us in this place, 'be gentle with each other'. I think that those words are also something we should take on board. I see Tony, the member for Makin, Andrew, the member for Fraser, and Kelvin, the member for Wills, opposite—and I will use their Christian names—and I think, we do form good relationships in this place; it is not all about the argy-bargy and the adversarial nature of the place. We form friendships in this place. I think Kevin, by his words and his actions and his deeds, formed a lot of friends in this place on both sides of politics. That is a good thing. May that long continue into the future, and may Kevin Rudd's legacy—the member for Griffith's legacy—live long into the future.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (17:27): It is my pleasure to rise in this place to pay tribute to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd's prime ministership was one of towering achievements, but on a personal level—as the member for Riverina has said—Kevin Rudd's time in this place also touched many of us. I remember an event which I organised for Labor members of parliament where we talked about engaging with one's community. At that forum, the member for Griffith told the story of Rudd Bikes, and of how Rudd Bikes provided him with just one of many ways of engaging with his local community and making a real, tangible difference, by providing a BMX bike to a child whose family might not have been able to afford one. In the Queensland floods, Kevin Rudd was out there, working with sandbags, with his local community—the community that he knew so well.
On the evening I was preselected as the member for Fraser, I decided that it might be nice to buy a gift for my campaign manager for the hard work that he had done. And so, between the announcement of the preselection result and a post-election party, I decided I would stop off at the Dendy Cinemas in the city and pick up a couple of gold passes for my campaign manager, Dan Ashcroft, to enjoy. Having bought those gold passes, I immediately stepped back, turned around and saw Kevin Rudd there with, I think, his son Marcus. Without thinking anything more of it, I went up to him and blurted out: 'Kevin, I have just been preselected as the member for Fraser. I am delighted to be joining your team.' He looked slightly nonplussed at this, and it was only as he stepped away that I realised what this scene must have looked like. Kevin Rudd must have thought to himself, 'So, you have just been preselected as the member for Fraser, and now you are going to the movies—on your own.' It was one of those moments where you realise that you have made a terrible mistake, and you cannot take it back.
The reforms of the Rudd government will stand tall. Many have spoken in this place about the apology, that significant act of contrition to the stolen generation. I think the most lasting legacy of the Rudd government is steering Australia through the global financial crisis, a crisis where unusually we got a telegram from the other side of the world in effect saying, 'The slump is about to hit. You have a couple of months to put something in place.' Australia listened to the experts, listened to Ken Henry's advice, 'Go early, go hard, go households,' and got that timely, temporary, targeted stimulus to households in December 2008, well ahead of the stimulus that was reaching households in many other parts of the world. That quick action meant that Australia did not slide into recession, one which almost every economic commentator at that time thought was inevitable. We avoided recession.
I know the impact of recession all too keenly, having graduated from high school in 1990 in the teeth of the last Australian recession. Recessions have a huge human toll on young people who do not have an opportunity to get a job, sometimes for years, and that corrodes their sense of self-worth and their skills. Australia averted that in large part because Kevin Rudd was then our prime minister. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands owe Kevin Rudd a debt of gratitude. Many small businesses which exist now would have gone to the wall were it not for the quick actions of the Rudd government—supported in the case of that first stimulus package by then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull.
Kevin Rudd's legacy is a proud one on the international stage. He strode it with the pride of a Doc Evatt or a Gareth Evans in the great Australian Labor tradition of internationalism and engagement in the councils of the world. I remember a foreign aid forum which Kevin ran at the Australian National University with me and with Gai Brodtmann, the member for Canberra. It was packed. There was standing room only and Kevin Rudd impressed everyone in the room not just with his passion for foreign aid but with his knowledge of the issues and his evident compassion for the world's poorest. It was Kevin at his best, understanding the issues but sensitive to those helped by government policy. He clearly took great pride in increasing Australia's contribution to dealing with world poverty, bringing it up to the average for the developed world. Many in that room were informed and impressed by the power of his oratory on foreign aid.
Kevin Rudd has many things in front of him. He has mentioned his apology foundation. I am sure there will be international organisations clamouring for an opportunity to have him assist them with his knowledge of the world and with his contacts. I have benefited personally from reading many of the speeches Kevin Rudd made at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. He is so well informed about China and its leadership and, through the leadership transition, was thinking creatively about the transitions still to come in China. Many of us in this place will continue to draw on Kevin Rudd's expertise, knowledge and experience. I wish Kevin and Therese and their children Jessica, Nicholas and Marcus all the best for this next stage in their lives. Kevin Rudd has great contributions to make to Australia and to the world and I look forward to seeing them over the decades to come.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (17:34): Last Wednesday night, Kevin Rudd announced that his time in this place had come to an end. His announcement, I suspect, caught most of us by surprise but reflecting on it now I believe he made the announcement knowing that his time here and what he had been hoping to achieve had indeed come to an end. I believe that for any member to know when their time is up is in itself a reflection and a strength of their character. It says much about their own understanding of their ability and their own understanding of what is proper and right to do.
It is often said, and has been said perhaps even more in recent days, that politics is a tough profession, tough on the individuals and even tougher on family life and family members, who are not in a position, like each and every one of us, to respond, whether it be in this place or through the media, but who nevertheless have to endure the attacks sustained on the family member who happens to be in public life. It is something that often has its own very severe price. As we all know in this place, family members often are the ones who are the worst affected as a result of the work of someone who puts themselves up for public office.
Few people that I have known in public life, and I have known such people now for decades, have endured the pressures, the scrutiny and the criticism that Kevin endured, particularly after 2007, when he became Australia's Prime Minister. Perhaps Julia Gillard was in a similar situation as well and equally endured a great deal. It was a kind of criticism and public scrutiny that I had never, ever seen applied to any other public leader prior to either of those two people. And yet they both worked right through that and continued with their focus on the job which they had been elected to do.
For Kevin it was indeed a huge task. It was a mammoth job. He had just been elected at the end of 2007 after a long period of conservative government in this place. He had a massive social reform agenda that he was committed to and had committed to in the lead-up to the 2007 election, and then almost immediately on being elected he was confronted with the global financial recession. Managing the two, I believe, was a challenge that few leaders of this country have ever had to deal with. Yet, in the relatively short time that he was in office, I believe that he did manage the two and managed them very, very well, because, whilst on one hand Australia was shielded from the worst of the global financial recession through the leadership efforts of Kevin Rudd and his team of ministers, his government simultaneously got on with the reform agenda that he had committed to in the 2007 election campaign. These were massive challenges, achieved under extraordinary circumstances.
Other members have talked about the apology, reforms in education and health, the River Murray agreement, tackling climate change, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the NBN rollout, pension increases and IR reforms, and the list goes on. None of these singularly were small challenges, but they all were underway by 2010 when Kevin was replaced. They all originated under Kevin Rudd's leadership. They were all major social reforms that only a Labor government ever could or ever would deliver. And they were all well overdue.
Commentators will each have their own views about Kevin's achievements, what his best achievements were and perhaps what he did not do so well. My view is that his greatest achievement was that he changed both the direction and the nature of Australian politics and the direction of our nation in 2007. He took us from a government that was truly stuck in the past to a government that was focused on the future, the challenges that lay ahead and the importance of Australia's engagement with the rest of the world, bringing his own personal experience in international affairs to the prime ministership. In doing so he earned the respect and won the respect of international leaders across the world for his own leadership of this country and on global issues.
My view, however, is that his greatest achievement was, as Kevin put it himself in his speech last Wednesday night:
To think that the son of a dairy farmer whose family who did not really have much money could secure a place at university through the Whitlam reforms and upon graduation become a diplomat and then serve as chief of staff to a premier, be elected to the parliament to represent the great Australian Labor Party and ultimately to be elected as leader of the party and then as Prime Minister says everything about how extraordinary this country is.
What I believe that statement also says is how extraordinary Kevin himself was. He did not come to the prime ministership or to the position he did in this parliament through the union movement. He was not a Labor Party official or staffer in the real sense but a highly motivated and determined intellect who became Australia's 26th Prime Minister. He did that through his own ability and he did it his way. It was that very ability that his adversaries feared the most.
Whilst he was a much different personality in many ways from two other great statesman that I speak of, Gough Whitlam and Don Dunstan, he also had a great deal in common with the two of them, Gough Whitlam being a former Prime Minister and Don Dunstan a former Premier of South Australia. They too were great intellectuals who became leaders through their own merits, who took over from long periods of conservative governments and who also embarked on major social reforms that last until today. In Gough's case he changed the direction of this country and in Don Dunstan's case he changed the direction of South Australia. They too were subjected to intense personal scrutiny and frequently cruel media commentary.
Some commentators have also said that Kevin was driven by his ego. I think I got to know Kevin fairly well having first met him in 2004. Kevin was as much driven by his sense of justice and his sense of getting things done as he was by his ego. I suspect his greatest regret was that his time as Prime Minister of this country was cut short in a similar way again to that of Gough Whitlam, where so much of what he wanted to do was still unfinished business at the time he had to step aside. That I suspect is partly what would have also caused his very emotional speech last Wednesday night. But though he did not achieve all he wanted, my view is that Kevin Rudd achieved so much. I spoke about some of those things earlier. Much of the work that he commenced was finished later on but it is still a credit to him that it was done in the first place.
In closing, I will say a couple things about Kevin on a very personal level. Kevin came out to my electorate in 2004 and 2007 on several occasions and later on in the last year or so. One of his real strengths was his ability to connect to the broader Australian people. It enabled him to communicate directly with them and people after many years once again re-engaged in Australian politics. That in itself is an achievement, because our democracy in this country is only as good as the number of people who take an interest in democracy and the governance of this country. Kevin was able to engage with people. (Extension of time granted) In closing, I wish Kevin all the best in his future. Of many MPs I have got to know in this place, I consider Kevin a friend. I consider that his time in this place is a time of great achievement. I have no doubt that he will go on to serve this country in one capacity or another. I also have no doubt that his family, Therese and his children, will welcome him back home.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Question proposed:
That grievances be noted.
Shortland Electorate: Government Programs
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (17:45): It has been nearly three months since the federal election. Prior to that election, as a member of parliament and as a candidate in the election, I raised concern about the possibility of enormous cuts and how they would impact the people that I represent. Since that election unfortunately that prediction has come to fruition. I am really concerned that there have been a number of services and programs that have been cut by the current government since it came to power, such as the schoolkids bonus, payments for small business, the environment, community safety programs and other public programs.
The government has put a stop to the NBN rollout in the Shortland electorate and it has clawed back community grants. It has cut its support for small business. The schoolkids bonus will go; the instant vehicle depreciation for small business will go; the Climate Change Commission has already gone; the crime prevention grants look set to go; and the high-speed NBN is missing in action. Tangible benefits to local communities in our region have been impacted upon. There is no concern about local families, business or building valuable support networks in our community. It is a government that does not get the way communities work. It is a government that does not get the way that people are feeling.
I was absolutely horrified when privatising of HECS debt was floated. Scaling back the new National Disability Insurance Agency has been touted as well as cuts to Centrelink offices. There is the prospect of Centrelink services being contracted out to organisations who I do not believe have the ability to handle the sensitive nature of frontline services. In just 2½ months things have changed. Prior to the election we heard so much about debt and now there is a bill before the House to increase our credit card to $500 billion, or nearly doubling it. I find it absolutely amazing that in such a short period of time the rhetoric of a government that was elected on slogans could change so much. They have closed down access to the media. They are being less transparent. As far as accountability is concerned, I get the impression that they do not think that they need to be accountable. If they can cut this much in just over two months, what will they do in two-and-a-half years? The mind boggles.
In the first two weeks in office, the new government said it would scrap the schoolkids bonus such that eligible families would lose $410 a year for students attending primary school and $820 a year for students attending high school. This is going to have an impact on an enormous number of families in the Shortland electorate. This is one program that really benefited families. I do not know how many people have posted on my Facebook page or contacted my office, but it would be in the hundreds, saying how supportive they are of this program. If you can get 100 postings on Facebook supporting a program, it really makes you think that this government is right out of touch with what people want. The overwhelming response I have had within my office on the dismantling of the Climate Commission just shows that this government is not committed to protecting our environment.
Prior to the government going into caretaker mode, the previous federal government announced that it would provide $2.7 million to build a new youth and community centre at San Remo in the northern part of Wyong Shire in the southern part of my electorate. It is a very disadvantaged area, and it is an area where there are no community facilities. The thing that was really special about this program was that it was to be built on the land of the Darkinjung people. They were giving the land. It was made up of a consortium of local organisations—the San Remo Neighbourhood Centre, the Central Coast Medicare Locals office, Youth Connections, ET Australia and the local advisory group of Better Futures, Local Solutions. It was just such an exciting project. It was to be funded under the regional program. It was to be a new centre with an innovative learning hub for the area. It was going to deliver community based health care, training and skills development, and also community and cultural engagement.
I do not know what has happened to this. We have been told that this program is being reassessed. This is a program that will deliver enormous benefit to the northern part of the community, and it has all the ingredients that I like to see in a program, such as whole-of-community involvement and partnerships—everything you could ask for. Yet this government is on the verge of just abandoning it. It is not good enough. It is a really despicable act. I find it just as astounding as I find the fact that they are considering capping student university enrolments and all the things that have increased the access to education within the community.
In the Shortland electorate there are two projects that were successful in gaining money under the Community Safety Fund. One of these was for the Lake Haven shopping precinct—an area where there has been considerable community vandalism and where people fear for their safety. There has been a project that has gone through a number of stages. This was the final stage of this project. The Lake Haven project received $194,000 from the National Crime Prevention Fund and it was to be delivered by the Wyong Shire Council.
The new coalition government has indicated that these funds will be clawed back. Minister Keenan has stated:
… we are in the process of advising organisations who were promised funding under the national crime prevention fund not to make any financial commitments on the basis of commitments made by the former government.
These commitments were made before the former government went into campaign mode. These were good projects and they were being funded from the proceeds of crime. Now this government wants to move away from them, just as it wants to move away from the funds that were allocated to the Lake Macquarie PCYC for the purchase of a Holden Captiva to help case managers work with youth offenders and the mentoring program for morning boxing, where young people who are at a risk engage with the local community. What a difference a few months can make to my community.
I think 19,000 residents in Shortland will miss out on the superannuation contribution, while at the same time a 15 per cent tax concession on superannuation for those earning above $100,000 will benefit 16,000— (Time expired)
Health: Sport and Recreation
Media
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (17:56): Prior to entering public life, I was in the business of developing multi-activity sport and recreation clubs—some were very successful and some were very public failures. My first meeting to discuss a future in politics was with Dr Brendan Nelson. We talked of my interest in preventative medicine through participation in sport, exercise and active recreation. Dr Nelson, a fit and healthy former medical practitioner, and I found ourselves in violent agreement. I learned that he had also started life wanting to be a great tennis player; we lamented our respective shortcomings. We also lamented the loss of tennis courts due to real estate development in the North Sydney region, where around 90 per cent of the courts had been built on. The proportionate reduction in participation in sport is equal to the reduction in the production of world-class Australian players.
Illness resulting from lifestyle represents 60 per cent of our total health cost when the underlying condition is taken into account. Type 2 diabetes is our biggest killer and our children are now world leaders in obesity rankings, where once we led the world in sporting participation and performance. Australian culture once revolved around participation in sport. The celebration of our sporting heroes held second place only to the celebration of our real heroes. Various assaults on this lifestyle have combined to diminish the distinction that provided us with the physical, mental and social benefits of an active lifestyle.
The business of malling sport that I pioneered in Australia sought to make preventative medicine affordable and accessible for the user through the provision of a mix of recreational facilities under one roof and also economically viable for developers and operators. Whilst it is important to allow this industry to fulfil its potential, such opportunities must be provided for those in the community who want access to recreational activities at no or little cost and that is convenient to their homes for the benefit of the whole family. To this end, I have been eager to visit and to learn of local initiatives and also to share my experiences of the efficiencies gained in the construction and operation of facilities where a mix and size of activities and amenities are combined.
This collection of knowledge and experience has built the concept for active parks that I am now pursuing. It has the potential to provide an abundance of recreational and sporting opportunities for the people of Bennelong through empowering our local councils with the concept that we are open for business in this preventative medicine space. Parks, where our traditional sports have been played, are without exception under utilised and usually subject to demands of peak usage by individual sports associations lobbying constantly for priority and funding. These parks can be converted into active parks by providing a greater mix of activities and improved amenities that allow greater access and opportunities for commercial viability while enhancing the amenities for traditional sports and the opportunity to upgrade fields to artificial surfaces in order to generate greater participation.
In my previous role, as Managing Director of Next Generation Clubs Australia, I developed three major clubs: Royal Kings Park in Perth, Memorial Drive in Adelaide and Ryde Aquatic Centre in Sydney. For the past 13 years, the Ryde Aquatic Centre has provided Bennelong constituents with a standard of access to recreational services that is unique to the region. This includes a very large gym, two 25-metre swimming pools, tennis courts, squash courts and leisure facilities—all under the one roof. As the member for Bennelong, I have been witness to the positive impact that this improved access to sporting facilities has on the local community. As a representative I am a strong advocate for policies that will allow Australians to enjoy this level of access to healthy outcomes.
As a member of federal parliament I find it hard to think of anything more related to electorate business than the promotion of good health for all Australians. In July last year I was invited to travel to Perth to deliver the keynote speech at a Curtin University forum relating to sporting-club development. During my short stay in Perth I had the opportunity to visit the club at Royal Kings Park and also to meet with the CEO of Perth Airport to discuss our shared issue of aircraft noise, another electorate matter.
While on the west coast I accepted an invitation from my committee colleague, the member for Forrest, to visit her region to meet with business leaders to discuss my work as chair of the coalition's Sustainable Cities Taskforce. This work was born from the No. 1 issue facing Bennelong residents—a lack of urban planning, leading to our streets becoming the funnel for one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. Bennelong now boasts five of the top 10 most congested roads in NSW.
The answer to this conundrum will not be solved in a vacuum. In my maiden speech I spoke of my experiences in Atlanta, Georgia, as decentralisation took the pressure off the major cities. I questioned: 'Where is our Atlanta? Our country's south-western corner has had its own unique infrastructure experience, and these communities represent the benefits of growth from effective policies of decentralisation, the type of which would save the sanity of Bennelong's residents. Yet it was an unrelated feature of the Forrest electorate that garnered a journalist's interest in this trip more than a year later: the Margaret River community's successful wine-production industry.
In order to ensure the public perception matched the integrity with which I approached the trip, I scheduled meetings over three days and was keen to ensure that all activities during that period related only to work matters. Whilst in the region, I also took three days of personal time, solely at my own expense. As a result of the success of my earlier meetings, more work related meetings took place on my personal days. I made no claim for that.
Early last month I was contacted by a Fairfax journalist wishing to have details about this trip. The questions were answered with a clear conscience, but preferring to avoid a story the information was given off the record, as background only.
The journalist in question affirmed his understanding of the status of this information, by reply email. Shortly after sending this email, the journalist transmitted a barrage of tweets that repeatedly quoted from the off-the-record information I had provided. I have great respect for the fourth estate, but this faith was certainly tested by this clear breach of the code that exists in the provision of information to journalists.
By contrast, Michelle Grattan—from two experiences I have had working with her—has been flawless in her reporting and requirement to have all comments approved before going to print. That is why she maintains the respect of everyone in this place after such a lengthy and distinguished career.
Interestingly, the final tweets from the Fairfax journalist read: 'Mr Alexander's trips fit within entitlements.' So no story. Ten days later he printed a story that demeaned the good work that was being done into a farcical claim—that I had visited Margaret River to study traffic congestion. This absolute lack of accuracy in reporting directly undermines the important relationship between constituents and their elected representatives. These actions are performed in an overt attempt to injure us, to damage our reputations. Madam Deputy Speaker, please excuse my little vent of frustration here, but I have taken the grievance part of this debate quite literally on this occasion.
The point I wish to make particularly for the many new members is that there are many obstacles to the completion of good work in this place. We all have passions and interests. Some of mine relate to the great opportunity available to our country to be proactive in the administration of our health policy to encourage wellness so as to limit rather than just to treat illness. Despite the obstacles, I will continue to work hard and to fight for real solutions on these issues, to promote access to healthy activities for all Australians.
Member for Griffith
Organ and Tissue Donation
Canberra Electorate
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (18:05): Just following on from the discussion before this debate, I would like to add my congratulations and thanks to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Kevin achieved an incredible amount in his time as Prime Minister. He achieved so much, in fact, that often some of what might be considered his smaller achievements are overlooked, and I want to mention just one of those tonight.
In 2008, then Prime Minister Rudd announced a reform package for organ and tissue donation worth more than $150 million, which included establishing the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. These reforms have seen Australia's organ and tissue donation rates improve significantly. The reforms have meant that Australians everywhere are now having a conversation with their loved ones about organ and tissue donation. There is still a lot of work to be done in this area, but the reforms introduced by Prime Minister Rudd have well and truly put us on the right track. On behalf of all Australians, I thank him for that and wish him well in his retirement.
Despite the fact that about 83 to 90 per cent of Australians support the concept of organ and tissue donation, about half of that number actually go through with the wishes of loved ones who have expressed a will to donate their organs and tissues when they pass away. I understand that when you are in the process of grieving it can be quite confronting to consider the possibility of making your loved one who has just passed away an organ and tissue donor. As I said, between 80 and 90 per cent of Australians support the concept of organ and tissue donation, yet half of that number actually carry through with the wishes of their loved ones. So I encourage Australians to have the conversation with their loved ones to find out their intentions and to uphold the intentions of their loved ones at the time of their passing.
I understand the grief that people go through—I do understand that—but this is the gift of life. Organ and tissue donation is the gift of life, and organ and tissue donation from one particular person can save up to 10 lives. It can give sight back to people. Skin is vitally important for people who have had burns or major operations. Organs—of course, we have all heard stories about hearts that have saved lives and kidneys that have saved lives. This can have a life-changing effect on many, many Australians—up to 10 Australians. One organ donor can have a huge impact on up to 10 Australians. So I encourage Australians to live out the legacy that former Prime Minister Rudd left us with by establishing this authority that is now coordinating organ and tissue donation like never before.
It has brought together the medical professionals who do the organ donations in the hospitals. It has brought together people out there, people like I was. In my former life, I was a voluntary member of the board of the Gift of Life, and we were out there raising awareness and raising funds for organ and tissue donation. It has brought all those organisations together right throughout the country—because there are many people like me who are very passionate about this issue. It has brought us all together to speak with one voice and constantly reinforce the message. So I encourage Australians to have the conversation with their loved ones. Once they decide to donate their organs and tissues should they pass away, please, please uphold their wishes.
On another matter, I am seriously aggrieved—severely aggrieved—about the disdain that is being shown towards my electorate of Canberra by this new Abbott government. Prior to the election, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister Abbott, made no secret of his disdain for Canberra. He announced that his plans for Canberra included cutting 12,000 public service jobs as 'a starting point', although both he and his Treasurer suggested on more than one occasion that they believed that the public service should shed up to 20,000 jobs. He also said that he would like to move at least one entire government agency from Canberra to Gosford, as well as the possible removal of thousands more public service jobs from Canberra to various locations, including Tasmania, Geelong and numerous Northern Australian cities. Finally, he announced on the eve of the election that he would not only keep the public service efficiency dividend—which his colleagues here constantly derided me about over the course of the last three years—but he would increase it by 0.25 per cent.
Prime Minister Abbott was clear prior to the election about his plans to hurt Canberra. Accordingly, and since the September poll, Canberrans have been bracing themselves, waiting to find out the detail of these plans. They have been waiting to find out where and when the jobs will be cut—which departments are going to be moved interstate and whether they will have a job this Christmas. Deputy Speaker, we are talking 12,000 jobs in a city of about 360,000 people. It would not be acceptable anywhere else in this country. Why is it acceptable here in Canberra? However, some 72 days since the federal election, Canberrans are none the wiser about his plans. They still do not know when, where or how the axe is going to fall.
The government has not, however, been entirely silent on the public service since the election. In fact, it has made a number of announcements, but without providing details of whether someone is still going to have a job before Christmas. Those announcements have included machinery of government changes that involve scrapping and merging various government departments, notably abolishing the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport; integrating AusAID into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; abolishing the Major Cities and Social Inclusion units within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; and splitting the Department of Education and Workplace Relations. An indefinite hiring freeze has also been announced that has thrown the jobs of thousands of contractors and non-ongoing employees into doubt, including up to 1400 jobs of scientists and people who do impressive work that is exported to the world. These are 1400 jobs at the CSIRO.
The government has also cancelled the AusAID graduate program, quashing the hopes of talented young Australians who have been successful in a very competitive recruitment process and who have turned down other job offers to take on these worthwhile positions. None of these announcements has provided Canberrans with any more certainty. In fact, all they have done is provide more questions. Perhaps the question Canberrans most want answered is: how the 12,000 plus jobs are going to be cut? Prior to the election, Prime Minister Abbott stated very clearly that any job cuts would be made through natural attrition—that is, waiting until someone retires or resigns of their own volition and then simply not replacing them. In a joint doorstop interview of 14 July in Homebush, Prime Minister Abbott was asked directly about the reduction of the public sector payroll and how it would be achieved and specifically whether there would be any involuntary redundancies. His response was clear: it would all be through natural attrition. His loyal foot soldier in Canberra, ACT Liberal senator Zed Seselja, also promised that all job losses would be through natural attrition. On 4 July this year, on 666 radio here, he said that the coalition have:
… been good enough to put their policies on the table and that policy is to, across Australia, reduce the size of the public service by 12,000 through natural attrition. Now, my job should I be elected to the Senate will of course be to hold the Coalition to that promise that it will occur through natural attrition.
On 9 July, also on 666 radio, Zed Seselja, said:
The Coalition has said through attrition across Australia that they’ll reduce the size of the public service by 12,000 … it would be through attrition that they would reduce the size of the public service … The Coalition has announced a plan to make savings. They’ve been very clear about that, that it will come through natural attrition …We’ve got one party, the Coalition that grows the economy, that has announced a plan through attrition.
And on 5 August:
Our policy is stated … that the public service through natural attrition will be reduced over two years.
Further, on 31 August:
I think the positives about it are the natural attrition and it will be my job if I’m elected to the Senate to hold an incoming Coalition to account on that … if you’re going to make savings you should do it through attrition …
Despite the promise of only using natural attrition, there have been reports of post-election redundancies in at least five government departments, including the Attorney-General's Department, Department of the Treasury, Department of Finance, Department of the Environment and Department of Health.
This has left Canberrans asking many, many questions. While Prime Minister Abbott has been up-front about his planned cuts, he has also promised that they will only be through natural attrition. What will actually be happening? There are redundancies now happening, but there has been no explanation from the government as to why the change of policy or any detail about how many redundancies will be made, in what areas and over what time frame.
Canberrans deserve to know how many jobs will be cut, in what areas, over what time frame and what it will mean. And they deserve to know whether or not they will have a job at Christmas. (Time expired)
Microalgae Technology
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (18:15): Madam Deputy Speaker Griggs, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new role.
Ryan is blessed with many outstanding research facilities. I recently had the opportunity to meet with Professor Ben Hankamer and Dr Evan Stephens from the University of Queensland Institute of Molecular Bioscience to learn more about the cutting-edge research they are undertaking with algae.
Professor Hankamer leads the Solar Biofuels Consortium, which is working to develop sustainable solar powered fuel, bioproduct and bioremediation systems, based on microalgae. The consortium is made up of many international multidisciplinary teams from industry and universities, all working together to conduct advanced and targeted research and development in biology, engineering and systems development.
As we look towards a future with cleaner, more affordable and sustainable energy sources a number of different perspectives must be explored. Professor Hankamer's research is focused on developing single-celled green algae, or microalgae, capable of capturing solar energy and converting it to chemical energy for clean fuel and food production.
Biofuel is no new topic. Research and trials using sugarcane and corn to produce ethanol as a 'fuel of the future' have been investigated for decades. We all remember when E10—10 per cent ethanol fuel—was first available at the petrol station. While it is often easy to become excited at the prospect of a new renewable source of energy, just as quickly as a potential new answer to our fossil fuel dependence surfaced it was disputed and viewed as unviable for one reason or another.
The primary problem with traditional biofuels is that they are currently inefficient to either produce or use, unable to be produced en masse or come at the cost of another vital resource, such as food. By definition, biofuels are a fuel derived from a living source, usually requiring large expanses of fertile land, water, nutrients and sunlight, which in themselves are a finite resource.
The attribute that makes Professor Hankamer's research and the research of others in the Solar Biofuels Consortium so important is that it is efficient, does not have the nutrient demand of traditional agriculture and can be grown just about anywhere there is light. Algae is so efficient as a biofuel that researchers estimate it could yield 61,000 litres per hectare, as opposed to just 450 litres from traditional biofuel sources.
Microalgae technology can be located on non-arable land and uses waste and saline water sources, such as the waste water from coal seam gas fracking. This approach means that microalgae technology is becoming recognised as a viable option to eliminate the 'food versus fuel' debate of earlier biofuel systems, such as sugarcane for ethanol.
This can result in new economic opportunities for arid regions. Microalgae systems produce products on a continuous basis as opposed to a seasonal basis, as occurs with crops. Microalgae technology is not just limited to one form of fuel; it can produce hydrogen. By altering the algae's usual biocycle, researchers can force algae to produce pure hydrogen as a by-product of its normal respiration. Hydrogen is theoretically the most efficient form of biofuel. Hydrogen is usually split from water using a process called electrolysis, which usually requires more energy than is produced by hydrogen. The algae method only requires the sun, water and some sugar.
Microalgae technology can produce oil-based fuels. Microalgae produce oils that can be extracted for the production of aviation and diesel fuels. These oils can also be used to make plastics, further reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Microalgae can produce ethanol directly as a by-product of normal biological processes, in a similar way to yeast being used in the brewing process. The microalgae biomass, normally considered waste, can be anaerobically decomposed to produce methane. This means that a large proportion of the nutrients in the biomass can be recovered and recycled.
Microalgae systems can produce bioproducts. There are a multitude of biomolecules that can be found in the leftover algae biomass. These can be extracted as a source for pigments, omega-3 fatty acids, other nutraceuticals (nutritional products with proven health benefits), protein-rich fish and animal feeds, amino acids, complex sugars and a range of high-value oils. Microalgae also absorb nutrients for growth. This process can be used for a range of bioremediation processes, such as domestic waste water treatment and the bioremediation of mine sites. I was particularly excited to learn about this last point during my meeting with Professor Hankamer and Dr Stephens. In my home state of Queensland, the Great Barrier Reef is under serious threat from the crown-of-thorns starfish which recent research has shown is a greater contributing factor to the reef's degradation than climate change. The greater number of crown-of-thorns starfish is as a result of high nutrients run-off from farms into water systems which eventually end up in the Great Barrier Reef. This issue of nutrient run-off affects both federal and state levels of government. The research being done at the University of Queensland on algae systems provides a potential answer to the problem. Bioremediation using algae is the process where 'good' algae species are introduced to waterways impacted by nutrient run-off. As the algae grows, it draws up the unwanted nutrients from the water. The algae can then be captured and placed back onto the land as fertiliser for crops. This type of algae is not the blue-green, 'bad' algae that is responsible for the destruction of many waterways, but a responsible and viable method of improving our waterways, saving the Great Barrier Reef and assisting farmers to grow their crops.
Under the direction of Professor Hankamer, the Institute of Molecular Bioscience, in partnership with industry and the Queensland government, is researching higher efficiency strains of microalgae and developing one of Australia's most sophisticated algal biofuels pilot plants. I look forward to working with the federal and state governments as well as with Professor Ben Hankamer and his team at the University of Queensland's Institute for Molecular Bioscience to turn this impressive research into reality. There are trials happening already.
It saddens me that despite there being so much cutting-edge and world-leading research into sustainable fuel happening in Australia, the previous Labor-Greens government instead preferred to promote a combustible home insulation scheme and an economy-wide tax to reduce Australia's carbon footprint. Investing in important Australian scientific research relevant to tackling tomorrow's problems today is direct action that will achieve real results.
Racism
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (18:23): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and it is a pleasure to appear in front of you in this capacity for the first time: congratulations on your appointment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): Thank you.
Mr PERRETT: I was elected for the third time by the people of Moreton because of the many things that I have championed over the years. On 24 November 2007, I won against the sitting member who had represented Moreton for 12 years and who, just before the election, had said in a radio interview which became quite famous in my community: 'My community is being exhausted by African refugees.' I came out loudly against that statement back in 2007 and, ever since, I have called out racism when I hear it and when I see it, whenever I can—even though things have changed significantly; racism is not a big part of the Australian community the way it was back in 1901 when Australia was formed—I think the White Australia Policy was the very first piece of legislation to come through this parliament. Now, we do not condone such behaviour.
A member's first speech sets the key performance indicators for their beliefs. In my first speech I made very clear my position on racism and hate speech. I promised I would work hard to make sure that unfair, racist accusations were never, ever given oxygen in my neighbourhood, the part of Australia that I represent. I stand here representing an electorate where one in three voters was born overseas. They are from all parts of the world, particularly from Taiwan and China, but also from India, Britain, Africa and Vietnam. I said in my first speech that the price of harmony is hard work. Fear will always come out, especially when times are tough. Intolerance will always come to the fore if people see an opportunity to exploit it. We must build understanding, trust and friendship, irrespective of the race, religion, age or political beliefs of the people of our communities.
Today I rise to fulfil that promise, because I heard about the Attorney-General's flagged intention to repeal section 18C of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. I am more familiar with the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act, which is an area of law I worked in as a solicitor, but I am quite familiar with this flagged proposal.
I want to flag a few things about this, because there was a bit of misinformation flying around before the election. I clarify and state unequivocally that the changes that the Labor Party brought in did not stop individuals making racist jokes or religious jokes. If you want to sit in the pub and do so, that is your right. If you want to sit in your home and do so, that is your right. Two people can make Irish or whatever jokes that people want to make, but it is a different kettle of fish when it comes to public comments.
The act provides protection from the sort of bigoted and vitriolic abuse that can be quite damaging for people. It can actually be damaging for individuals. I say this having been a teacher for 11 years: the damage can flow down into the schoolyard very quickly. It can lead to a breakdown in community cohesion and even, sadly, to physical violence or such harm to communities.
In Queensland we have largely been blessed. We have not seen things like the Cronulla riots, although the Kuraby mosque in my electorate was one of the first religious institutions to suffer after 9/11, when it was firebombed. Since then the community has come back stronger and more cohesive and with more understanding of our faiths and graces.
We saw with the Cronulla riots how comments by an individual, I think it was Alan Jones—I am speaking as a Queenslander, so I do not know the process; thankfully, we do not get him in Queensland—who made some inflammatory comments, and from there people took up the cudgels and ignorance flourished. Admittedly, he was then found to have breached the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act.
I know we are talking not about New South Wales but about Commonwealth law. However, the Attorney-General's coming out and flagging this change as though it were the No. 1 agenda item, outside of getting rid of the licence to pollute that Labor had brought in, seemed to be something that had been touched on but not highlighted before the election. I certainly got no literature about it during the election campaign. I do worry. I do not want to sound like some sort of manic street preacher, or anything, but I do believe that if we tolerate this then our children will be next. Once you say to people that you can start targeting others because of their race it leads to all sorts of complications. I think there are people in the chamber who would remember the divisive comments of the former member for Oxley, who was only a one-term member—it was not that long ago. She drew out the ignorant, misinformed and xenophobic parts of our community to the extent that she got 11 seats out of 89 in the Queensland parliament a few years after she was elected. She attacked Asian immigration, which caused harm to the Taiwanese community that I now represent. It caused harm in the schoolyard, because people thought it was okay to attack someone because of where they came from.
People were even attacked because of their faith. It is something that I would flag as a topic for another day. In Queensland, if someone attacks you because of your faith, under Queensland anti-discrimination laws you actually have grounds to make a complaint, but not under Commonwealth law. That is something I think we should look at down the track.
I am a proud representative of Australia's largest Taiwanese community. The member for Fowler, next to me, also has a significant Taiwanese community and has close connections to the Taiwanese community. He knows that if you let this sort of ignorance flourish then you get those sort of misguided comments that Andrew Bolt was found guilty of not having a defence for. He said, 'I am able to make a comment because I am a public broadcaster.' That was not the case. There was a time when we did not have an Age Discrimination Act, a Disability Discrimination Act or a Racial Discrimination Act, which is something I will actually commend Malcolm Fraser on. I think he was the minister who brought in the Racial Discrimination Act. I could be wrong on that, but I think it was something that he was particularly proud of having brought in because of his connections with the Indigenous community. We also have the Sex Discrimination Act and the human rights commission act where we have a commissioner who will go out there and make sure that people are doing the right thing.
But for an Attorney-General to turn around and say that it is important that someone is able to insult, offend, humiliate or intimidate someone on racial grounds I find quite surprising. I would wonder why that would be an agenda item for this government. I would ask the true liberals with the small 'l'—I am looking at members opposite, and I am sorry to out them—to say, as they have said so often, that we need to be careful about this .
As I said, we are not trying to impose. We are not trying to have this government create a nanny state, which seems to be shorthand for anything that interferes with someone's life. The reality is that we are not interfering with someone's set of domestic circumstances. We are not even interfering with a comedian's right to tell jokes that people might say are offensive. That is not what we are trying to do. It would have to be racial vilification that people would find in all reasonable circumstances offends, insults, humiliates or intimidates another person or group. That is not a nanny state. For a start, I have never had a problem with nannies; I think they do a great job.
Why would the Attorney-General, with all the time that he has had to contemplate what vision he would bring to his legislative agenda, say that we need to revisit this? It is because of one judicial decision handed down against Andrew Bolt. I respect his right to speak freely. Australian democracy is probably all the better for him being able to make comment. But racial vilification is something I am passionately opposed to, and I urge those opposite when they come to considering this in the proposal stages to consider these words. (Time expired)
Australia Post
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (18:33): Congratulations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your high position. The member for Moreton is a survivor. He has battled it out in a marginal seat and he is in their caucus room now to keep fighting the fight on behalf of the goodies of this world.
Tonight I am speaking to every country person from Geraldton to Byron Bay and from Hobart to Cooktown on examples of the political class facing the possible alienation of our country constituencies. Australia Post is jeopardising the viability of rural communities by handing delivery contracts to city based supercontractors and other changes to their business model without concern or reference to rural communities.
In my electorate of McMillan jobs have already been lost. In Toora—a tiny, but vibrant community—the post office is staring down the barrel of extinction as Australia Post continues its search for the cheapest possible option for delivery services. In fact, while the cost of doing business has continued to go up, what Australia Post is offering mail contractors is steadily going down. How many other post offices like Toora's are out there? How many local post offices that support themselves with delivery contracts have been stripped of them and now face oblivion across regional Australia?
The result has been the intrusion of large megabusinesses at the expense of smaller established rural ones. In other towns like Leongatha parcel and mail delivery contracts have also gone to big operators who do business at an amazingly cheap rate. One man who spoke to Leongatha's local paper, the Star, reported being paid $8 an hour and being asked to use his own vehicle for part of his first and last day on the job. Despite the alarm bells this would raise in many quarters, Australia Post told the paper it was satisfied the contractor was honouring its commitment to customer service and the payment of award wages.
As in Leongatha, Toora's mail deliveries have been gifted to people with little or no experience. To keep the contract, post office licensees Greg and Maree Stewart were asked to work hundreds of hours more for thousands of dollars less. Similar stories abound in my electorate—and I suspect across the country—as a company that was once an iconic Aussie success story turns its back on the people and the regions of this great south land and the citizens of Australia who guaranteed its status. The Stewarts' mail delivery contract eventually went to a large Melbourne based contractor, Auslanka Express, who threatened a local reporter at the Leongatha Star—not to mention his editor and the paper itself—with a lawsuit if he exposed the company's link to a Sri Lankan based 'educational consultant', Aus-Lanka Education. Maree Stewart said she was also threatened with a lawsuit by Auslanka Express if she continued to mention them in the media. An online ad featuring the two Auslankas inviting overseas students to 'study in Australia', as well as offers of 'visa processing facilities', airport pickup, part-time work and guidance in becoming permanent residents was hastily removed. The same man was the listed contact for both Auslankas. The question must be asked whether Australia Post know that this is the way Auslanka conducts one of its contracts and conducts its PR with threats of bullying and rough-house confrontation.
In rural areas like McMillan, post offices are hubs for the community, more than just places where letters are sent and received. In Toora, a town that has a population in the hundreds, the loss of local jobs and the fear that the post office, which has served the area since colonial days, could close has sent seismic shocks through the community.
Australia Post's business model has become all about short-term profit over long-term sustainability. I know Australia is changing and I know Australia Post has to change with it, but never mind who gets hurt along the way. And the Stewarts are not the only post office licensees who believe they are at risk of going out of business. I recently met with eight Gippsland licensees who share the same concerns. As I speak they are preparing a petition which will implore this House to offer licensees transparency and security in the face of this onslaught on their futures. Dozens more licensees from across the country met with Senator Ron Boswell and Independent Senator Nick Xenophon in Adelaide with similar complaints. Toora's story, it seems, is one among many. As if the loss of people's livelihood is not enough, Australia Post is demanding that contractors—some of whom have given decades of faithful service to the company and their communities—train the very people replacing them. They are asking them to pass on their expertise and knowledge of the local community.
I want Australia Post to prosper. I want this nation to prosper. But I want to do it have regard to people's feelings, having regard to the investment people have put into their businesses. If someone came to me and said, 'Here is the work you've been doing. We really like the work you've been doing for us. Your delivery service is fantastic, you tick every box. We have not got a complaint. Great. But we want you to take a five per cent cut or a 10 per cent cut or a 15 per cent cut because we can get a contractor to do it for that price. Or we will give you some pointers so that you have got more advantage in the contracting process. So you can put your price up a little bit and you can still get it.' Great. So one person put their price up and what do you reckon happened, Madam Deputy Speaker? They did not get the job . The reason : they were too dear . They were pipped at the post after the people who asked them to apply to renew their contract told them they were able to put their prices up a bit.
I do not pretend to have the answers but I know that there is no government in this country that has governed this country without the backing of rural Australia. You may laugh at that. You may think it is all about the outer suburbs of our major cities. But if you have a look at the last election and at all the governments—this is the 44th Parliament of this nation—not one has governed without the support of the regions, the country areas outside of Darwin, outside of Melbourne, outside of Sydney and outside of Brisbane. This is where people are probably facing some of the hardest—for example, in South Australia, where the car makers are now under pressure. These are the people who make this nation great.
I want Australia Post to do well but, in the process, I want all those small businesses to do well—people who sometimes have invested their superannuation and life savings in these businesses. The Australia Post changes are making it harder and harder. They are reinvesting. You probably think I am just talking about rural, small country towns. No. Some larger centres that run local post offices in their communities are under enormous pressure as well. It seems that we politicians think this is all right.
I am putting to the minister tonight that there needs to be consideration for regional Australia and these bigger towns where they operate. There should be a Senate inquiry into Australia Post and how it delivers its services. There should be a productivity inquiry into where Australia Post is headed. It is always going to be a difficult issue, but let us be honest with the Australian community. If Australia Post is going to end its relationship with regional Australia, if Australia Post is going to end its relationship with local post offices, if Australia Post is going to say, 'We are not going to be what we were in the past' why does it not come clean and tell the Australian people that?
I apologise to Minister Turnbull, the Minister for Communications, because I was not able to get to his briefing today and I may be right out of order. But I am not out of order when someone threatens or bullies my community, I am not out of order when people have done a great job over a long period of time and lose a contract for a measly few-hundred dollars, I am not out of order when I am defending country people and none of us are out of order when we are defending our constituents and bringing their message to this House. After all, that is our job.
I know it is hard to govern; I have been in government before. I have been in opposition. It is easy in opposition to have a go. But I would just put to you, the government will be predicated on how well it delivers the services to the Australian community and on this tyranny of distance that we face in support of our country communities. They are as important as anybody living in the city.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (18:43): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:43