I invite members and senators to take their seats. On behalf of the House I welcome, as guests, the President of the Senate and honourable senators to this sitting of the House of Representatives to hear an address by the Rt Hon. Tony Blair MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
The Rt Hon. Tony Blair having been announced and escorted into the chamber—
Mr Prime Minister, I welcome you to the House of Representatives chamber. Your address today is a significant occasion in the history of the House. I would also like to welcome Mrs Cherie Blair, who is in the gallery this afternoon.
Mr Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure both on a personal basis and, I know, on behalf of all of the people of Australia, whatever their political convictions, to welcome to this parliament the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Let us take the occasion to say unconditionally and without any reservation at all how much this nation of Australia owes to its British inheritance. Whatever debates we may have in the future about the constitutional arrangements in this country, nothing can erase the debt we owe to our British legacy and inheritance. Nothing can alter the fact that the great institutions of this country are institutions that we have derived from the British Isles—fashioned, tempered, altered and moulded to our own Australian purposes but nonetheless that golden thread of association with parliamentary democracy developed according to the Westminster tradition, the rule of law and the nature of our political discourse. For all the differences that may have emerged over the years, nothing can alter the fact that the political cultures of our two countries still have many things in common.
As we reflect on that inheritance and as we Australians pay full tribute to the British for what they gifted, through that inheritance, to this country, let us always remember the things that we have shared together in the past. Our two countries have stood together in defence of common values and universal truths and liberties, often at very great cost. History will never forget that, in 12 desperate months in 1940, Great Britain, aided by Australia and a number of other Commonwealth countries, stood alone without other assistance against the spread of Nazi tyranny. In the immortal words of the greatest figure of the 20th century, Winston Churchill, it was indeed not just the finest hour of the people of the British Isles but the finest hour of a broader family that had stared down a foul and monstrous tyranny.
Our guest today brings to his great office and to the leadership of a great country great personal qualities. I did not know Tony Blair when I was elected Prime Minister of Australia any more than I believe he knew me when he was elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Of course, it is a matter of public record that we come from divergent sides of the political debate in our two countries. But that has not altered in any way the capacity of the two of us to work for the benefit of our peoples.
My job as Prime Minister of Australia is to represent the interests of my country and to interact with the leaders of other countries to the best of my ability. In Tony Blair, I have found a man of courage, of moral purpose, of high intelligence and of a capacity to articulate with great clarity the challenges of the contemporary world. I have found him, on a personal basis, likeable, great company and a person who shares an avid interest in this country and the future of this country. I think it is fair to say that nobody in the aftermath of 11 September 2001 better articulated the reality that that was an attack not just on the people of the United States but also on the values and the people of a common family of nations of which we are a part around the world.
I pay tribute unconditionally to the strength of Tony Blair’s conviction in the fight against terrorism. Australian and British forces are serving together against an insurgency and against terrorism, bravely and courageously, in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We stand shoulder to shoulder as governments, and I pay tribute to the service and, sadly, in a number of cases on the part of the British, the sacrifice of our forces. Let us take this opportunity to record across the political divide—and I know this will be shared by the Leader of the Opposition—our enduring respect for the courage and commitment of the fighting men and women of both Australia and Great Britain.
Tony Blair is no stranger to Australia and he is no stranger to Australians. His friendships with many are well known. It is recorded that his great friend the Anglican priest Peter Thomson said, ‘The thing you have to understand about Tony Blair is that he is an Australian.’ Perhaps, in that spirit, I could say, ‘Well, where the hell have you been?’ Winston Churchill, when he addressed a joint sitting of the United States congress, famously remarked:
If my father had been American and my mother British, instead of the other way ‘round, I might have got here on my own!
Tony, if you had literally been an Australian, I am sure that you would have got here on your own and I am sure that you would have made a magnificent contribution. You have served your great country with enormous commitment and distinction. As a self-confessed supporter, unconditionally, of the relationship between Australia and Great Britain, I am delighted to welcome you here today. You come as a friend, as an esteemed international statesman and as the leader of a great country to which my country owes so much. On behalf of the government and the people of Australia, I welcome you.
Welcome, Prime Minister, to the Australian parliament. This is not how it usually looks. This looks more like the House of Commons. We get a small taste of how parliamentary question time is for the British House of Commons when we have these joint sittings and it is crowded to the gills. The British parliament is the greatest institution of accountability in the world and the greatest historical parliament. I welcome Mrs Blair as well. It is always delightful to see you here in Australia.
Prime Minister, since we first met three decades ago, I have admired your ability to put values at the centre of your public life as well as your personal life. I respect that profoundly. Your love for your family is an example for all of us who know only too well the pressures of public office on family life. But you have never confined your values just to your personal life, you brought them to government: fairness for all; spreading opportunity; breaking the cycle of disadvantage that so many people experience even in wealthy nations like ours; putting extreme poverty on the international agenda with your passionate appeal to all nations to make poverty history—there is no other major leader in world politics who so profoundly believes in that and is so vigorously arguing for it; harnessing economic prosperity to build a fair and just society; equity in education and health; investment in training and skills; fairness and balance in the workplace; showing global leadership against the threat of climate change; tireless efforts in Northern Ireland and as head of the EU which remain an inspiration to all of us seeking peace, particularly that; the courage to do more than anyone else has since the creation of a free state in Ireland to bring to an end that bitter dispute; your preparedness to make atonement to the Irish people for errors committed in the past and your determination to finally bring that struggle to an end—we in this country have many people of Irish descent and that has been a source of enormous satisfaction for them; rebuilding, strengthening and bolstering British institutions, not undermining them; and respecting Western traditions like ministerial accountability.
You understand the inalienable values that sit at the heart of the choices that all governments make and that the central task of leadership is to give practical expression to our shared sense of humanity and community. Who among us can forget your inspirational leadership and personal courage in the aftermath of those despicable attacks recently in London? It meant a lot to Australians. I was not surprised, when those bombs went off in London, how personally most Australians felt them. You cannot kill 50 people in London without killing an Australian.
When you vowed that Britain would not yield to terrorists and that British values would prevail, we thought you spoke for all of us. Prime Minister, we stand shoulder to shoulder with you and with Britain in the war against fundamentalist terror. It is a long and complex war, and disagreements will arise on where priorities lie. As you would know, on Iraq my party and I take a different position from your government. But that does not diminish our regard for your leadership or our commitment to this long struggle against terror—far from it.
Our historic friendship allows us to agree on values and to disagree on policies. It allows us to respect enormously the fighting character of British servicemen, as the Prime Minister referred to—the most courageous servicemen in defence anywhere and among the most effective soldiers in the world, with years of experience in upholding a government determined to pursue values which are universal, beyond simply British interests.
Prime Minister, you have always engaged in public life and public debate with passion, depth, courage and vigour. Long may these qualities endure in our nations and in our great parliaments—yours in Westminster and ours in Canberra, who learned our style, our substance and our structure from the mother of all parliaments.
Prime Minister Blair, it now gives me very great pleasure to invite you to address the House.
The Hon. David Hawker MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives; the Hon. Paul Calvert, President of the Senate; the Hon. John Howard MP, Prime Minister; the Hon. Kim Beazley MP, Leader of the Opposition; distinguished members and senators of the Parliament of Australia: Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you and to the parliament for giving me this honour of addressing the members and senators of the Australian parliament who are gathered here in this superb chamber. It is good to see my old friend Kim, at whose feet I used to sit, back leading the Labor Party; and it is a privilege to be in the company of Prime Minister John Howard, whose steadfast leadership and firmness as an ally and friend have often given me cause to be deeply grateful. Thank you, both of you, for the kind words that you spoke about me. It has been quite a long time since anyone has been that kind about me.
Australia may not be in my blood; but it surely is in my spirit. My earliest memories are Australian. From the age of two until five I lived in Adelaide. I remember returning from the hospital where my sister Sarah had just been born, looking at her in the back of the old Austin that we drove; running errands for our neighbour, Mr Trederay; taking showers under the garden hose in the heat on the lawn; visiting friends up-country in the Adelaide Hills; and being chased by magpies as I ran across the open ground near our home—early training for later skirmishes with the media. At uni I was reintroduced to religion by an Australian, Peter Thomson, and introduced to politics by another, Geoff Gallop—both dear friends to this day. As you know, I have been back many times. I love the people; I love the place—always have and always will. Australia is just a very special place to be.
We are all familiar with our shared history and our shared sporting passion and rivalry. The English victory in the Ashes was like a carnival of celebration, I have to say, perhaps as much for its rarity value. At the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, you once again showed the world the exuberance and the sheer style that is modern Australia. And you also won rather more than the rest of us. I wrote a speech once about how Britain had to become a ‘young country’ again, and it was Australia I had in mind.
Today I like to think that we share a lot more than history and endeavour on the playing fields. We share an outlook on life: we are both confident, outward bound, ‘up for it’ types of nations. This is a world in the course of choosing. Underneath the daily tumult, the stories of strife and sensation that blast their way into our consciousness, we are in struggle of a more profound kind. Globalisation is a fact, but the values that govern it are a choice. We know the values we believe in: democracy and the rule of law, but also justice, the simple conviction that, given a fair go, human beings can better themselves and the world around them. These are the values that our two countries live by, and others would live by if they had the chance. But we believe in more than that. We believe that the changes happening in the world that make it more integrated, the globalisation that with unblinking speed reshapes our lives, are an opportunity as much as a risk. We are open societies. We feel enriched by diversity. We welcome dynamism and are tolerant of difference.
Left and Right still matter hugely in politics and the divergence can sometimes be sharp, as we all know. But the defining division in countries and between people is increasingly open or closed: open to the changing world or fearful, hunkered down, seeing the menace of it, not the possibility. This is the age of the interconnected. We all recognise this when it comes to economics, communication and culture. But the same applies to politics. The struggle in our world today, therefore, is not just about security. It is a struggle about values and about modernity—whether to be at ease with it or in rage at it. To win this struggle we have to win the battle of values as much as arms. We have to show that these are not Western—still less American or Anglo-Saxon—values, but values in the common ownership of humanity, universal values that should be the right of the global citizen.
This is the challenge I believe we face, and ranged against us are of course the people who hate us; but beyond them are many more who do not hate us but question our motives, our good faith, our even-handedness, who could support our values but believe we support them selectively. These are the people we have to persuade. They have to know that this struggle is about justice and fairness as well as security and prosperity. And, in truth, today there is no prosperity without security and no security without justice. That is the consequence of an interconnected world. That is why we cannot say we are an open society and close our markets to the trade justice the poorest of the world demand; why we cannot easily bring peace to the Middle East unless we resolve the question of Israel and Palestine; and why we cannot say we favour freedom but sit by whilst millions in Africa die and millions more are denied the very basics of life.
If we want to secure our way of life, there is no alternative but to fight for it. That means standing up for our values not just in our own countries but the world over. We need to construct a global alliance for these global values, and act through it. Inactivity is just as much a policy, with its own results. It is just the wrong one.
The immediate threat is from Islamist extremism. You mourn your victims from Bali as we do ours and those from July 7 last year in London—and thank you, both of you, for what you said about that. We can add to them victims from Madrid or September 11 in the United States. But this terrorism did not begin on the streets of New York. It simply came to our notice then. Its victims are to be found in the recent history of many lands, from Russia and India but also Algeria, Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, Kenya and countless more. And though its active cadres of terrorists are relatively small, it is exploiting a far wider sense of alienation in the Arab and Muslim world.
We will not defeat this terror until we face up to the fact that its roots are deep and that it is not a passing spasm of anger but a global ideology at war with us and our way of life. Their case is that democracy is a Western concept we are forcing on an unwilling culture of Islam. The problem we have is that a part of opinion in our own countries agrees with them. We are in danger of completely misunderstanding the importance of what is happening, as we speak, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops, British and Australian, are alongside each other and I know, whatever our views on either conflict, we are all deeply proud of the commitment, dedication and bravery of our armed forces. But in each case we have nations engaged in a titanic struggle to be free of a legacy of oppression, stagnation and servitude. In each case, the people have, for the first time, been offered a chance to vote. In each case, they have seized it, despite obstacles we can scarcely imagine. What better symbol of hope and of belief in these values that we hold dear. But in each case also the forces of reaction are at work, trying through the most evil of means, terrorism—the slaughter of the innocent because they are innocent—to destroy this hope.
I know the Iraq war split this nation as it did mine. And I have never disrespected those who disagreed with me over it. But for almost three years now we have been in Iraq with full United Nations support. From the outset our forces in Afghanistan have been there with UN authority. In both cases, there is the full support of democratically elected governments. Every reactionary element is lined up to fight us. Why? They know if they lose a message is sent out across the Muslim world that strikes at the heart of their ideology. That is why they are fighting us hard. We must not hesitate in the face of a battle utterly decisive as to whether the values we believe in triumph or fail. Here are Iraqi and Afghan Muslims saying clearly, ‘Democracy is as much our right as yours,’ and, in embracing it, showing that they too want a society in which people of different cultures and faiths can live together in peace. This struggle is our struggle. If the going is tough, we tough it out. This is not a time to walk away. This is a time for the courage to see it through.
But though it is where military action has been taken that the battle is most fierce, it will not be won by victory there alone. Wherever people live in fear with no prospect of advance, we should be on their side, in solidarity with them, whether in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma or North Korea; and where countries, and there are many in the Middle East today, are in the process of democratic development we should be there extending a helping hand.
This requires, across the board, an active foreign policy of engagement, not isolation. It cannot be achieved without a strong alliance. This alliance does not end with, but it does begin with, America. For us in Europe and for you, this alliance is central. And I want to speak plainly here: I do not always agree with the United States. Sometimes they can be difficult friends to have. But the strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European and in world politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in. The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is that they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged.
The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them. Our task is to ensure that, with them, we do not limit this agenda to security. If our security lies in our values and our values are about justice and fairness as well as freedom from fear, then the agenda must be more than security and the alliance include more than America.
That is why I repeat: once the Israeli election has taken place, we must redouble our efforts to find a way to the only solution that works—a secure state of Israel and a viable, independent Palestinian state. It is why we must continue to mobilise the resources and will to turn the commitments of 2005 into action to combat the ravages of conflict, famine and disease in Africa where, as I say, literally millions die every year preventably.
We must focus on the threat of climate change, now made all the more acute by anxiety over energy supply. I know there are disagreements here. We strongly support Kyoto; you did not. But we need also to look to the future now. You have the Asia-Pacific partnership. We inaugurated the G8+5 Gleneagles dialogue. There is the UN process after Montreal. At some point we must bring it all together. There will be no agreement worth having that does not involve the United States, China and India, as well as the rest of us. There will be no resolution without a clear, disciplined framework for action, with measurable outcomes. And there will be no forgiving of any of us if we do not pay attention to the degrading and polluting of our planet.
Then, in the immediate term, we are confronted with the World Trade Round. Again the issue, to my mind, is: open or closed. People in our countries look at the rise of China and the emergence of India, they see the competition, they fear the loss of jobs and they push back. Everywhere you look today, the tide of protectionist sentiment is flowing. In this World Trade Round we have the opportunity to make it ebb. At stake, obviously, is our commitment on world poverty and development. But also in the balance is the very idea of multilateral action to achieve common goals. If we cannot put a decent trade round in place when it is so plain that our long-term national interest and the wider interests of the world demand it, this will be a failure with multiple consequences, all of them adverse.
Europe’s agricultural protection is a policy born of another age and it is time to end it. But change in Europe alone is not the answer. America must open up; Japan, too. In non-agricultural market access, we look to leadership from Brazil and India. And we must agree a development package for the poorest that includes 100 per cent market access and aid for trade. This is a cause of prosperity, because we all benefit from open markets; of justice, because the poorest nations need to be able to stand on their own two feet and trade in our markets; and of self-interest, because if we want to build the right relationship with China the sensible thing is to bind them into the world economy, not put them in opposition to it.
And if all of this were not enough, we have to fight for our values here at home, too. Both our nations have been formed in part by waves of migration, and today’s world is a world on the move. We need rules to ensure such migration is fair. But both Britain and Australia have long since gotten over the fear that different ethnic groups damage our identity and put our cohesion at risk. Today we take pride in our diversity. We know tolerance, respect for others and a basic way of life founded on democratic freedoms are held in common by the vast majority of our people, whatever their race or creed. When the terrorists struck, Britain and Australia reacted in the same way. We did not turn on Muslims; we united against terrorists. In doing so, we sent out a signal of belief; and the world heard it.
So this is a big agenda. It means action on all fronts. There will be many insidious and persuasive voices that will urge us to stay in our comfort zone, high in the stands, and to simply watch the field of play. It is tempting, yet I do not believe our countries will ever truly prefer spectating to playing. We naturally get stuck in. It is our way, and it has certainly always been yours.
In 1939, when Britain declared war on the Nazi tyranny, that same day your Prime Minister announced you were at war too—no ifs, no buts, just solidly with the world. How magnificent and how typical of Australia. We needed you then, and we need you now. Today’s struggle is of a very different nature, but it will determine our collective future. I believe it is one that together we can win. Thank you.
Hear, hear!
Mr Prime Minister, on behalf of the House, I thank you very much for your address and I wish you and your wife a successful and enjoyable stay in Australia.
Hear, hear!
Sitting suspended from 12.48 pm to 2.34 pm
I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs will be absent from question time today. He is attending the Australian War Memorial with the British Prime Minister. The Minister for Defence will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that from today, the first day of the government’s war on workers, nearly four million Australian employees completely lose their rights in unfair dismissal? Isn’t it also the case that from today all 10 million Australian employees are at risk of being unfairly dismissed without a remedy because of the so-called ‘operational reasons’? Prime Minister, doesn’t this just mean that from today Australian employees can be sacked, sacked unfairly and sacked for any reason or no reason?
The answer to the question is no. The truth is that today marks the introduction of legislation that will continue the process of economic reform that is so necessary to maintain the economic growth of this country. I ask a rhetorical question of the opposition: why is it that this economy has performed so well? It is because of ongoing—
Opposition member interjecting—
Oh, did you! Can we have that again? It is because they did. Oh, deary me, I have been in total ignorance of that fact for 10 years and so have 20 million Australians! These reforms are not extreme; these reforms are measured improvement to the labour market laws of this country. Now that they are implemented we will still have a labour market that is more highly regulated than the labour market of New Zealand or the United Kingdom. The truth is that this country’s continued economic prosperity is dependent upon having people in charge who have the courage to continue the process of reform. By his question, the Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated that he lacks the courage to embrace the reforms that are needed for Australia’s future.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House how the government is delivering on its promise to the Australian people at the last election to keep the economy strong? Are there any alternative views?
Can I take the last part of the question first and say that there is an alternative view: it is the do-nothing alternative of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has had 10 years. He may not have been leader for the whole of that 10 years but, for the period that he was not leader of the Labor Party, he was a person of great influence and stature in the Australian Labor Party. He has effectively had 10 years to come to terms with the reality that, when you are thrown out of office after a long period of government, you have got to do something about policy reform before you can be taken seriously by the Australian public. The Leader of the Opposition has had 10 years to develop an alternative, and his only alternative is to say, ‘Anything good that happens in the Australian economy now is due to what the Hawke and Keating governments did.’
Let me say, in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, I have always been willing to give the former Labor government a bit of credit for one or two things that it did do that were very good such as picking up the Campbell reforms which the former government, under my treasurership, initiated, and also the dismantling of tariff protection. That process has gone on under this government, and the reason that we are so prosperous is that this government—unlike the opposition—has had the intellectual and policy commitment to the reform process.
I am pleased to report that, since 1996, real wages have risen by 16.8 per cent. How much did they rise under the former government? They rose 1.2 per cent over 13 years. We have created 1.7 million jobs over the last 10 and a bit years. But the message is that the process of economic reform is an ongoing one. We live in a globalised, fast-changing world and, unless this country is prepared to continually embrace reform, it will lose economic momentum and it will see jobs begin to disappear. No industrial relations system can guarantee to insulate a workforce against a downturn. The Leader of the Opposition is now arguing against our industrial relations policies in favour of his industrial relations prescription which, in the early 1990s, saw a million Australians thrown out of work. You can regulate the Australian labour market—you can regulate it to a point of strangulation—but, if you do not have a strong economy, jobs will be lost and wages will go backwards rather than forwards.
The test of our industrial relations reforms is not so much the level of regulation or deregulation. The test is: will they improve the strength of the Australian economy? Will they encourage more investment? Will they encourage more risk-taking by entrepreneurs? Will they encourage the making of bargains at a workplace level between Australian workers and their employers? The answer overwhelmingly to all of those questions is yes. That is why these reforms are good for Australia, and that is why the Leader of the Opposition represents the backward-looking policy approach that he has embraced for the last 10 years.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the launch of the coalition’s industrial relations election policy in September 2004 when, in response to a question about the government reducing the number of allowable matters, he said:
... we don’t at this stage ... have proposals to do so because they’ve worked pretty well ...
Isn’t it the case that the government’s legislation which takes effect from today breaks that promise and reduces the 20 allowable matters to five so-called minimum standards which do not include overtime, penalty rates, shift allowances, leave loadings or casual loadings—those which make ordinary Australian workers capable of sustaining their mortgages? Don’t ABS statistics show that, as a consequence, an average Australian employee who works overtime is now at risk of losing $233 a month in penalty rates alone?
The answer I gave that the honourable gentleman has quoted was a perfectly factual response, and no promise has been broken.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the state of relations with Indonesia?
First, I thank the honourable member for her question and her interest. The Australian government, and I think Australians in general, are committed to a deep and abiding relationship with Indonesia. After all, Indonesia is not just a very substantial nation in our region and a country with which we have long historic ties but, importantly, as the country with the world’s largest Islamic community, also a shining example of a democratic and pluralistic society. That is a point that we as a government have been making to our friends from the United Kingdom and the United States over the last couple of weeks.
Of course, there is some controversy at the moment about the decision by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to grant temporary protection visas to 42 Indonesians from Papua province. The Indonesian reaction to this decision is understandable and has not come as a great surprise to us, but I repeat what I have said once before and what I think the Prime Minister has been saying too, and that is that the decisions made by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs are made by individual decision-makers in accordance with both international law and Australian law. This in no way means that Australia has changed its policy or its approach to the question of the province of Papua. We recognise Indonesian sovereignty over the province of Papua; we do not support any secessionist movement or attempts of other kinds to achieve separation from Indonesia in Papua.
Let me also say that the government has been very impressed with the efforts made by President Yudhoyono to achieve wide-ranging autonomy in Aceh province. I think the president’s initiatives in Aceh have been very successful. Let me also add that we do welcome the President’s commitment to finding a peaceful, just and dignified resolution in Papua, based also on the principles of special autonomy. Indonesia has shown it can resolve its own problems in its own way through dialogue. It did that in Aceh, and I am sure that the government of Indonesia will endeavour to do the same thing in Papua.
In the meantime, the Australian government very much values the friendship and cooperation that we have with Indonesia. That cooperation is in our mutual interest to help fight terrorism, to help deal with illegal fishing and to help deal with people smugglers and illegal people movements—and so the list goes on. I think it is important that it is recognised as being in both of our interests to achieve those things, and we will do what we can to ensure that that close friendship continues.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to comments on 16 March by the President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, Justice Geoffrey Giudice, that the creation of the Fair Pay Commission would ‘be accompanied by a slowdown in the rate of growth of minimum wages; that is what the Fair Pay Commission is for’. Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that, if the government’s submissions on the national wage case over its period in office had been accepted nearly two million Australian employees dependent upon the minimum wage would today be $50 a week or $2,600 a year worse off? Prime Minister, isn’t Justice Giudice right that all Australian employees have to look forward to from today is a reduction in the minimum wage in real terms?
In answering that question, let me turn first of all to the remarks made by the President of the Industrial Relations Commission. I did see those remarks. Let me say that I do not share his view and we will just—
Ms Macklin interjecting
No. Let me say that I do not share his view and we shall see.
Ms Macklin interjecting
I think the public will pay on performance, just as they have over the last 10 years when we have seen real wages go up by 16.8 per cent. So I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her interjection. The public is interested in results, and the side of politics that has the runs on the board when it comes to real wages is the Liberal and National parties. The real wage suppressors were the Australian Labor Party; the real wage enlargers and enhancers have been the coalition parties.
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline recent data on Australian private sector wealth? How has the government contributed to this improvement and what more needs to be done?
I thank the honourable member for Tangney for his question. I can inform him that the Treasury, in its round-up, has today released estimates of net private sector wealth featuring data to June 2005. The data shows that net private sector wealth grew 11.8 per cent in nominal terms over the last year. Net private sector wealth in Australia now stands at $6.2 trillion—around $305,000 for every Australian—and over the last 10 years net private sector wealth in Australia has more than doubled. That means that, on average, Australians over the last 10 years have twice the level of wealth that they had before the government was elected.
This is reflected not only in property values but particularly in business assets. Business assets have grown extremely strongly in recent years, with company profits as a proportion of GDP being the highest ever recorded in Australia. In particular, Australia has become one of the great share-owning democracies of the world. There are more Australians who own shares, as a proportion of the public, here in Australia than anywhere else in the world.
The government’s policies of locking in low inflation, locking in low interest rates, of improving the macro-economic climate and of improving structural policy have contributed to an extended period of economic growth, low unemployment and business profitability, and all Australians are seeing that reflected in private sector wealth. We cannot sit back and say that we will now rest on our laurels. It is important that we drive economic policy forward, just as we have done over the last 10 years, against the opposition of the Australian Labor Party, which objected to balancing the budget, objected to monetary policy, objected to the repayment of debt, objected to the introduction of GST, objected to the halving of capital gains tax, objected to the reduction in the company tax rate and objected to last year’s income tax cuts. Over the last 10 years all of the big economic changes in this country have been driven through against the objections of the Australian Labor Party and its do-nothing leadership. We have seen the results today—the reforms of yesterday—and it is the reforms of today which will lead to the results of tomorrow and these are the policies Australia needs to drive it forward.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. Isn’t it the case that the legislation and regulations which take effect from today consist of 1,252 pages of legislation and explanatory materials and 592 pages of regulations and supplementary materials—more than 1,800 pages in total? Does the Prime Minister agree with the view of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Minchin, who said to the HR Nicholls Society on 3 March that the unintended consequences of the legislation were ‘mind boggling’? Does the Prime Minister agree with the comment by HR Nicholls Society president, Ray Evans, that the legislation is ‘rather like going back to the old Soviet system of command and control, where every economic decision has to go back to some central authority and get ticked off’? Prime Minister, isn’t your so-called simple, single system just a complex dog’s breakfast or, as you put it, ‘strangulation by regulation’?
No.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how global trade liberalisation will help Australian exporters and the developing world? What impediments are there to a new, fairer deal on world trade rules?
I thank the member for Page for his question. As a former sugar producer, the member for Page understands too well the importance of reform in the multilateral trading system that we are trying to achieve through the Doha Round of negotiations. It was interesting and pleasing to hear the comments of the British Prime Minister in this chamber earlier today on his commitment to reform in this area. It goes without saying that Australian farmers, manufacturers and service providers all stand to benefit enormously if we can further liberalise the multilateral global trading system.
It has certainly been the objective of our government for the entirety of our term in this place to continue to push that forward. We are getting to a critical stage in terms of what can be done, and we must do this not just on behalf of Australia’s exporters and Australian businesses but also for poverty stricken countries, which deserve a better go at accessing the markets of the world. So we are pursuing an ambitious outcome in the Doha Round not only for our exporters, particularly our farmers, in an attempt to keep our economy strong but also to help the poverty stricken people in developing countries across the world. The World Bank estimates that breaking down all the barriers to international merchandise trade would lift 32 million people out of poverty. We could help 32 million people just by liberalising further in the area of international merchandise trade, not to mention by removing the obscene support—which we certainly intend to try and remove—that is provided to agriculture in wealthy countries.
As I said, I welcome the statement by Prime Minister Blair just a few hours ago, in which he said, ‘The EU agriculture policy is born of another age and must end.’ We agree with him 100 per cent. That is the message that consecutive Australian trade ministers from both sides of politics have continued to deliver. Certainly we need to continue to push that point. As Mr Blair said, it is also important that large developing countries are prepared to make a contribution to opening up their markets as far as industrial goods are concerned. There needs to be movement by the European Union on market access for agricultural products. There needs to be movement by large industrialised developing countries such as Brazil, India, China and others to open up their markets as far as industrial goods and services are concerned. Ultimately that will benefit the entire multilateral system, but most importantly it will help millions of people who are poverty stricken today who could be lifted out of poverty in the future. The objective of the Australian government is to continue to pursue those goals in the interests of those poverty stricken countries and also to help keep the Australian economy strong.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. I refer to the statement by Mr Warren Truss, a cabinet minister, a former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Deputy Leader of the National Party, that there was ‘hardly anything odd’ about AWB’s kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein regime, that it was ‘quite normal to pay commissions for services, especially in the Middle East’ and that ‘When we sell our house we pay commissions to a real estate agent. We may think he charges us far too much but we do not say that it is corruption or a bribery payment. It is a fee for a service.’ Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with his deputy’s remarks?
In calling the Deputy Prime Minister, I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that, while the question can stand, a minister should not be asked to comment on another minister’s comments. But, given the relevance of the topic, I call the Deputy Prime Minister.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, because it gives us an opportunity to clarify a point here. I will just complete the quotes with the parts that the Leader of the Opposition failed to read out to the House. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services said in his speech: ‘I am not in any way seeking to condone activities that are not appropriate. We do have high business standards and ethics in Australia, and even if they are not shared in other parts of the world that does not mean that we should compromise our standards or in any way compromise things that are inappropriate.’ That is also what the minister said.
My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General update the House on the government’s role in the recovery effort in North Queensland following the severe Tropical Cyclone Larry?
First, may I just say to the member for Leichhardt how deeply I, and I know all of his colleagues, feel for him and his colleagues in adjoining seats whose constituents have suffered so disastrously as a result of Cyclone Larry. As it was a category 5 event, we knew to expect the worst of this tropical cyclone as it struck North Queensland exactly a week ago. We now know that our worst fears were very much realised when we saw the outcome. The scenes of devastation in places like Innisfail, Babinda and surrounding regions have been unimaginable to those of us who have not lived through or experienced a cyclone. The government’s response to this disaster, through Emergency Management Australia, has been immediate and comprehensive. Within hours of the cyclone crossing the coast, EMA had organised the Commonwealth Counter-Disaster Task Force to meet and to deal with requests for assistance from the Queensland government.
This reflects, of course, the major strength of our well-tried and tested cross-jurisdictional emergency management arrangements. It recognises that operational decisions are best made at a state level by state authorities who are in a position to assess priorities of need on the ground and then, through EMA, the Commonwealth can respond quickly and effectively to requests for assistance and coordination across all government agencies. To date, 35 formal requests have been received and acted upon, involving 11 government agencies. This cooperation has ensured that food and water, tarpaulins, showers, sanitation equipment, generators, satellite imagery and—members might be surprised—even milking machines have been provided to assist in the recovery effort. There are now over 400 defence personnel in North Queensland working closely with the state and federal agencies to help the devastated communities as they begin the process of rebuilding their homes, their businesses and their lives. I would like to thank my colleague the Minister for Defence for the cooperation of the troops. Perhaps he will convey our collective thanks to them for the tasks that they are undertaking.
All agencies involved have been exemplary in responding to this disaster and in helping the communities to get back on their feet in what are very difficult and trying circumstances. I know that with the leadership and the expertise of our former Chief of Defence, Peter Cosgrove, the people of Far North Queensland will benefit considerably. We stand ready to assist. We will continue to provide, where possible, whatever further assistance we can reasonably provide to assist the people of North Queensland.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen comments by respected defence analyst Neil James, who wrote in the latest edition of Defender, the journal of the Australian Defence Association:
The deeper moral question is what kind of person would have no apparent ethical qualms, or commonsense reservations, about contravening the very UN sanctions that fellow Australians were enforcing under difficult and at times even dangerous conditions.
... Never again must any Australian government risk the well-being, safety and loyalty of the men and women of the defence force in such a manner.
I ask the Prime Minister: why has the government failed its legal and moral responsibility to ensure that the dangerous work of our armed forces in enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq was not undermined?
Mr Speaker, may I say through you, in response to the member for Barton, that I have read those remarks made by Mr James. Mr James is a person I respect a lot. He is a person whose public comments, I think it can be fairly said, do not reflect a bias one way or the other as far as Australian politics are concerned. I think his proposition of lack of moral fibre in relation to people who deliberately set out to breach the sanctions imposed by the United Nations, or connived in that, is perfectly correct, and I support it. I do not agree for a moment that the government has been guilty of that conduct—absolutely not.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the latest developments in the case against an Afghan man accused of converting to Christianity?
I thank the honourable member for Pearce for her question. I know she is very concerned about human rights issues and I appreciate her asking the question. Not surprisingly, the Australian government regards it as repugnant for anybody to be punished for the religious beliefs that they hold. We have made that very clear to the government of Afghanistan. We have made it clear that our fundamental support is for the principle that all people should be free to practise their religions, regardless of what their religions are. Of course, our opposition to the death penalty is well known.
Last week I instructed my department to call in the Afghanistan ambassador to relay our strong concerns back to his government in Kabul that an Afghan citizen was apparently facing the death sentence over a change of his religious beliefs from Islam to Christianity. The Prime Minister subsequently wrote to President Karzai of Afghanistan to express the government’s view that it is offensive to our values and our way of life to prosecute Mr Rahman, particularly when Australian soldiers are in that country risking their lives in fighting the Taliban.
I must say that I warmly welcome the media reports today—which, let me hasten to add, have not been confirmed—that Mr Rahman’s case has been referred back to Afghanistan’s Attorney-General for further review, because of what are described as gaps in the evidence, and that Mr Rahman will be released from custody pending the review. I do hope that the charges against Mr Rahman will be dropped and that freedom of religion, in practice as well as in theory, will be respected in the newly democratic Afghanistan. We will continue to monitor the progress of the case and we will continue to press the government of Afghanistan on this issue.
This is not a question, for Australia’s part, of promoting Christianity at the expense of Islam, or about Islamic values versus non-Islamic values, or whatever it may be. Rather, as Prime Minister Blair said today in his speech right here in the House of Representatives, we believe there are some universal values that we should stand up for—and those values are the right of all global citizens, not just some. The freedom of individuals to practise whatever religion they choose is one of those values.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to his meeting with Paul Volcker in September 2005 and to reports today in which a Volcker inquiry official who participated in that meeting was quoted as saying:
“Downer’s attitude was, ‘Well, what else were they supposed to do? They really had no option if they—
the AWB—
want to do business in Iraq”
I quote further:
“When it was suggested to Downer that the Australian government might have advised the UN of its knowledge of breaches in UN sanctions, the Foreign Minister had remained silent.”
The report also says that the foreign minister behaved like ‘a pompous ass’. What did the minister actually say in this meeting? Is it not a fact that the minister has simply tried to cover up the government’s gross negligence in allowing AWB to pay $300 million to Saddam Hussein’s regime to buy guns, bombs and bullets for use against Australian troops?
In calling the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I would remind the member for Griffith that just because something is a quotation it does not automatically make it acceptable in the parliament. The Minister for Foreign Affairs can ignore that part of the question, but the rest of the question stands.
There was certainly a phrase in that question which was the pot calling the kettle black. I think the House knows exactly which phrase I am referring to. The government most certainly did not cover up any Australian company breaching sanctions. The simple point is that the Australian government has maintained and supported United Nations sanctions. At no time has the Australian government ever made a decision, ever announced a decision or signed a decision to suggest that we would weaken our commitment to United Nations sanctions. The proposition that somehow this government would have been in favour—
Mr Rudd interjecting
Order! The member for Griffith has asked his question.
of breaching sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime is a proposition that absolutely no-one in the Australian community would accept—and quite rightly so. It is a completely absurd proposition.
A lot of evidence has been put to the Cole inquiry. Officers from the department that is led by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and by me have been before the Cole commission. In none of that evidence—at none of those hearings—is there any evidence that those officers of my department have been trying to cover up.
What about you, Alex?
Order! The member for Swan!
The genius from Western Australia says, ‘What about me?’ as though somehow I am out there conducting some conspiracy separate from the officials in some series of secret meetings—which is obviously manifest nonsense as well.
Mr Wilkie interjecting
Order! I warn the member for Swan!
The fact is that the officials from my department have made it perfectly clear that there has been no attempt at a cover-up and no attempt to turn a blind eye, and there has been no evidence presented to the Cole commission to support that proposition. My meeting with Mr Volcker was very friendly and it was right at the end of the Volcker process. It was a meeting which I asked to have because I could see that the Volcker commission was likely to have critical things to say about AWB Ltd. The onus of that discussion was that AWB should be able to see a draft copy of the report and comment on it before the final report was produced. I can absolutely assure the House there was nothing dramatic or exciting in that meeting at all—no matter what, by the way, Tony Walker may claim.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House of the safeguards built into the government’s workplace relations reforms? Is the minister aware of any plans to wind back the reforms that have been introduced?
I thank the member for Boothby for his question. If one were to believe the rhetoric coming from the trade union movement and the Labor Party, then marauding groups of employers would be pillaging every right and protection of workers throughout Australia today. That is what their rhetoric says—which is quite a nonsense. There are a number of safeguards in this new legislation for employees. For example, the government has substantially beefed up the role of the Office of Workplace Services. Indeed, over the next four years we will expend some $140 million on the Office of Workplace Services. We will almost treble the number of workplace inspectors and, importantly, for the first time, where there is an alleged infringement of the legislation, the inspectorate itself will be able to prosecute an employer who has done the wrong thing—something which simply did not exist last week.
In addition to that, with Australian workplace agreements we have made some substantial changes to protect young people. For example, a young person below the age of 18 cannot enter into an Australian workplace agreement—that is, an individual agreement—without the consent and indeed the signature of their parent or guardian. There are a range of other safeguards in this legislation—for example, protection of people’s right to join or not to join a union, protection against discrimination and the right of an employee to have a bargaining agent appointed. Importantly, the unlawful dismissal provisions in the legislation remain in place. That means that if someone seeks to dismiss an employee because of their race, because of their religious beliefs, because of the colour of their skin, because they are pregnant or because they have family responsibilities not only is it unlawful but, if an employee makes a claim, the onus falls on the employer to disprove the claim brought by the employee. In addition to that, we have decided to provide $4,000 worth of financial assistance to eligible employees for legal advice on the merits of their case.
One other change that the honourable member for Boothby alluded to was the decision by the government, which is reflected in this legislation, to get rid of Labor’s legacy of crippling unfair dismissal laws. These are laws that have cost Australians jobs. They have been frequently abused and watered down, and they have led to a huge impost on small business.
Prove it!
The member for Lyons asks me to prove it. A recent survey showed that the average cost to a small or medium business in Australia of an unfair dismissal claim was some $15,000. So what we have had in the past is employers facing up to $15,000, on average, to pay ‘go-away money’ to get rid of a problem, which is simply bad policy. I note in this context that just recently the Leader of the Opposition said in a joint media release with his shadow spokesman the member for Perth:
We recognise this is not a debate about whether employers are good or bad. Most Australians act in good faith, whether they’re employers or employees.
But there are some rogue employers, just as there are rogue employees.
What the Leader of the Opposition wants is to reimpose the draconian system of unfair dismissals on small and medium businesses in Australia, and not only to retain one tribunal in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission but to add more red tape and bureaucracy for small and medium businesses in Australia by imposing yet another tribunal on small and medium businesses in Australia. We do not need another bureaucracy. We do not need more imposition of red tape on small and medium businesses. We want a change in the laws, which will come into effect today, which will give small and medium businesses in Australia the opportunity to employ more of our fellow Australians.
My question is again to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the minister’s statement last week regarding the many warnings the government received on the $300 million ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal. He said:
I—
that is, Mr Downer—
have demonstrated, if I may say so, characteristic diligence in ensuring that the department followed up the issue.
When the minister’s office received the 23 June 2003 cable warning him that all contracts—not some contracts but all contracts—had included a kickback of between 10 per cent and 19 per cent, why did the minister fail to act and allow the AWB to continue to fund this extraordinary corruption scandal through corrupt contracts with Iraq for a further 16 months? Isn’t it a fact that, through this scandal, the minister’s ‘characteristic diligence’ has instead been dedicated to a sustained effort at a cover-up?
Firstly, let me say in relation to the last part of the question that throughout all the hearings of the Cole inquiry—I do not mean the media reporting of it but the hearings of the Cole inquiry—there has been no evidence that the government has been involved in a cover-up.
Mr Beazley interjecting
The Leader of the Opposition interjects. The Leader of the Opposition two months ago was not saying that it was a cover-up. The Leader of the Opposition was saying that the government was corrupt—that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, other ministers and I were involved in corruption. ‘The government is corrupt’ has been abandoned and the new position is now that ‘the government is involved in a cover-up’. The simple fact of the matter is that officials from my department have been before the Cole commission and there has been no evidence from those officials that the government has been involved in a cover-up at all. No amount of assertion from the opposition will change the truth.
Here it talks about a cable that came in, and an officer of my department absolutely and quite diligently did follow up that cable—and I call on people who have but a passing interest in this issue to look at the transcript of the evidence of the Cole inquiry. Ms Zena Armstrong is a very able and very decent officer of my department—and I stand up for Zena Armstrong. She is a good woman and she is a decent woman.
Mr Rudd interjecting
Order! The member for Griffith has asked his question.
Mr Beazley interjecting
The Leader of the Opposition interjects. It shows how little you know about government officials any more. You have drifted away into the wilderness of opposition for a decade. You do not know these people and you do not know their modus operandi. You do not know the sort of people we are dealing with.
Order! The minister is well aware that he should address his remarks through the chair.
Mr Speaker, the point I make is that Zena Armstrong did follow this up, and I think she followed it up in an appropriate way. The point here is that if the Cole commission were to find that AWB Ltd knowingly paid kickbacks—and we will await the results of the Cole commission—they have done so in defiance of the government, in defiance of the United Nations and by all accounts—though this is yet to be fully tested in the Cole commission—in a way that was designed to obscure their actions from their very own board.
Mr Ripoll interjecting
Order! The member for Oxley will come to order.
It is as simple as that. These spurious and empty allegations of the opposition deserve to be rejected.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister advise the House of assistance being provided to residents of North Queensland affected by Cyclone Larry?
I thank the member for Herbert for his obvious interest in the people of North Queensland and also the member for Leichhardt, who clearly sits next to him. It has been a tragic time in Far North Queensland, as everybody is very much aware. There has been extensive damage throughout the north. As Prime Minister Blair indicated today, the great resilience of these people under great adversity needs to be warmly acknowledged and congratulated. The Commonwealth stood ready to immediately help get individual families and communities back on their feet. I would like to inform the House of some of the very significant assistance the federal government is offering to people of Far North Queensland at this difficult time.
We have announced ex-gratia payments to people whose family homes were destroyed or where, through loss of power or other amenities, they were unable to inhabit those homes for a minimum of two weeks—$1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child. The federal government made a million-dollar donation to the Cyclone Larry Relief Fund. I take this opportunity to congratulate the fans of Townsville who went along to the Cowboys game on the weekend for their great generosity—about $140,000, I believe, was donated on that one occasion, showing how they are supporting their country cousins in Far North Queensland.
And they’ve won!
Yes, they also won—a great outcome. For eligible farmers and small businesses there is a one-off income support program equivalent to Newstart allowance for six months and there will be no asset test applied in relation to the capital value of the farm or the business assets. There will also be one-off, tax-free grants of $10,000 for existing small and home based businesses, including farmers and tourism operators, adversely affected by the cyclone. Farmers have obviously been very heavily hit—and we have seen some of the coverage particularly of banana farmers and sugarcane farmers—and loans of up to $200,000 under the natural disaster relief arrangements will be made available to them. An initial advance of $40 million has been agreed with the Queensland government for this financial year under the natural disaster relief arrangements and there will also be a one-off reimbursement for diesel and petrol excise on the presentation of receipts. My colleague the Minister for Human Services has arranged for 60 of his staff in the Centrelink offices to work at the 13 community recovery centres that will be be operating, and he informs me that another 80 staff will arrive in the area tomorrow to further assist people, with face-to-face human contact, so they can get their lives back in order.
This has been a wonderful effort on behalf of the people of Far North Queensland, with the Queensland and federal governments working collaboratively in what have been incredibly trying times. The defence forces of Australia have again stood up, and I know the Minister for Defence has been up there and has already witnessed some of the fine work that they have undertaken, which just goes to prove that our defence forces do a great job onshore and offshore in times of need for this nation. This is a comprehensive package. The federal government will continue to monitor the situation and work with all concerned to ensure that North Queensland again gets back on its feet and becomes a productive part of Australia, as it always has been in the past and will continue to be into the future.
My question is again to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I refer to evidence presented today in the Cole inquiry. Is it a fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a meeting with Mr Lindberg of the AWB, said, ‘You can’t be responsible for that which happened to the money after it was paid to Alia’?
First, I do not recall the exact nature of the conversation, but it is true I did have a conversation with Mr Lindberg around that time; I had a brief meeting with him. I do not know if that is exactly what I said; that has been asserted by somebody in the Cole commission. Comments that were made were made on the premise that AWB was not responsible—that AWB had been behaving in a responsible way. My comments were made on the basis that we believed that AWB Ltd had endeavoured to adhere to Australian law and to the United Nations sanctions regime. As to whether they had used this trucking company, as we were of course increasingly finding out through the process of the Volcker inquiry, AWB continued to argue that any payments that went to the Iraqi regime through Alia were inadvertently made to the Iraqi regime. That is what they argued.
Mr Speaker, I can give you a later meeting I had with AWB Ltd, not just that meeting. I can give you a meeting I had with AWB Ltd in about October, which is, I think, the last time I met them. At that meeting, yet again AWB Ltd asserted with great vehemence that they had not knowingly paid any kickbacks to the Iraqi regime. We certainly were of the view—my department was certainly of the view; the government, more broadly speaking, was of the view—that that was the case.
Has the minister completed his answer?
Yes.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister inform the House of how Darwin’s new National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre will better prepare Australia to respond to terrorism, natural disasters and other health emergencies?
I thank the member for Solomon for his question. I know how excited he and the people of Darwin are about this important new development. This is a government which takes seriously its responsibilities to help citizens, wherever they are, and the friends of Australia, wherever they are. To that end the government has committed $66 million to establish a national trauma response centre at Royal Darwin Hospital. This will improve Royal Darwin Hospital’s ability to respond to terrorist acts and natural disasters in our region, as that hospital has done so magnificently in the past. This additional funding will provide a 10-bed burns unit, an additional 10 beds in the emergency unit, an additional five operating theatres, an emergency drugs stockpile and equipment including an MRI facility. There will be more permanent clinical staff and there will be more rapid deployment of staff. This is an important development in Australia’s readiness to respond to terrorist contingencies and natural disasters and it is further evidence of this government’s absolute determination to help our citizens and to help the friends of Australia, wherever they may be.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and follows the question he was just asked and his evasion of the implications in that question. Will the foreign minister accept any responsibility whatsoever for the government’s failure to uphold UN sanctions against Iraq? How will the foreign minister explain to our British friends why Australian money was used to fund the bullets that Saddam Hussein fired at British, Australian and allied troops while he and his government turned a blind eye?
We were talking earlier about the phrase ‘characteristic diligence’. No-one would accuse the Leader of the Opposition of characteristic diligence. For a start, the Leader of the Opposition might be interested to know that it was not Australian money; it was money from the Iraqi sale of oil which was paid into a United Nations escrow account. That is the first point. The second point is that I would have thought the government had absolutely done the right thing by setting up the Cole inquiry—
Mr Rudd interjecting
You don’t think so? Well, I do. I think the Cole inquiry is doing a very good job. It is obtaining a wide amount of information. The Prime Minister and I have provided the Cole inquiry with all of our relevant documentation, and Commissioner Cole will draw his own conclusions. When he draws his conclusions, we will be able to talk about those conclusions. Did AWB Ltd deliberately and knowingly—or unknowingly—end up paying kickbacks through this trucking company into Iraq? That is something that the Cole commission is establishing. We certainly believed that AWB Ltd was adhering to Australian law. When I say ‘we’, I include myself, the Minister for Trade, the Prime Minister and other ministers, such as the minister for agriculture. I include members of the Australian Public Service, including desk officers in my department who are working day by day on these issues. We always did believe it.
The one shock I got in all of this was when Mr Agius presented his initial findings in January this year, which suggested that AWB Ltd may have knowingly been paying kickbacks. That came as a great surprise to all of us. It simply illustrates the fact that we have done the right thing by setting up this inquiry. Material is coming out in the inquiry which is helpful to all of us. This is the message I would have for Mr Blair. Off the top of my head, a couple of hundred companies from other countries were—according to Volcker—involved in kickbacks to Iraq.
Mr Rudd interjecting
We, in our country, have set up a transparent process. I think other countries respect and appreciate—
Order! The member for Griffith is warned.
the transparency of our process.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That this House censure the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government for its gross hypocrisy in sending Australian armed forces to Iraq while turning a blind eye to 27 warnings that the Australian Wheat Board was giving $300 million of funds to the enemy for guns, bombs and bullets.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving immediately:That this House censure the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government for its gross hypocrisy in sending Australian armed forces to Iraq while turning a blind eye to 27 warnings that the Australian Wheat Board was giving $300 million of funds to the enemy for guns, bombs and bullets.
This is the sixth attempt by the opposition to censure this government for its gross neglect, for its turning of a blind eye and for its culpability in what has been the most substantial scandal in years in this country. It keeps defending itself by saying that it has a fully transparent process investigating it now. I want to say at the outset that, while I trust the commissioner and his assistant, they have not been given the terms of reference that would enable them to test the foreign minister’s statement that he is innocent of all of this, as indeed they cannot test the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements or the Prime Minister’s statements in that regard. They cannot.
There is an unequal burden being placed here on those in the AWB who are under investigation, and those who were complicit in permitting them to do the things they did. There is an unequal burden in this entire royal commission on the two of them. This royal commission is at risk of not being able to get to the bottom of the foreign minister’s behaviour, the Deputy Prime Minister’s behaviour and the Prime Minister’s behaviour. They are continuing, through this Cole process, to try to slip-slide out of the accountability that they owe the Australian people, that they owe Australian allies and that they owe the troops whom they sent to war to fight against personnel armed by them. It is no wonder—and this is why we have to be able to get a censure motion in here, after six attempts—that an individual as essentially conservative as Neil James, the editor of the Defender, the journal of the Australian Defence Association, says this:
The deeper moral question is what kind of person would have no apparent ethical qualms or commonsense reservations about contravening the very UN sanctions that fellow Australians were enforcing under difficult and, at times, even dangerous conditions. Never again must any Australian government risk the well-being, safety and loyalty of the men and women of the Defence Force in such a manner.
Mr Speaker, it is important that you understand and it is important that the Australian people understand that the sanctions regime against Saddam Hussein was upheld by Australian defence personnel, British defence personnel, American defence personnel and others. At substantial risk to themselves, they have been operating in waters at the head of the Persian Gulf for the last decade and a half—waters which it has never been entirely certain are clear of mines and where death inevitably would stare them in the face if anything went seriously wrong. In that period they were boarding boat after boat that was engaging in sanctions-busting activity in the Persian Gulf, at risk to themselves, to British sailors, to Australian sailors and to American sailors. We are not just talking about the war here—the war that was fought three years ago. We are talking about the enforcement of a sanctions regime that has been going on for the best part of a decade and a bit. These are the people whom this government traduced and whom, with a sleight of hand, it flicks away.
We have just seen again, now, in his answer to the question asked by our spokesperson on foreign affairs, yet another piece of ‘due diligence’ from the foreign minister opposite. His statement attempted—as no doubt he has attempted throughout this issue—firstly to turn a blind eye to and then to excuse the behaviour when confronted with it. He has the hide—after all the intelligence reports on the character of Alia, after all the reports coming in to this government about the character of Jordanian trucking companies—to say that you, meaning AWB, were not to be expected to know how Alia might use the funds. Not expected to know—of a company half-owned by Saddam Hussein’s regime—how those funds might be spent and that he might spend it on research into weapons of mass destruction, that he might spend it on arming his troops, that he might spend it doing any of the various things that the sanctions regime was put in place to deal with?
You are culpable here, Mr Foreign Minister, and I am not surprised that you would slip-slide away from a censure motion. If you really believed in your case, you would allow a censure motion to proceed and be properly debated. Your attitude and the attitude of your colleagues to censure motions are just another part of the cover-up, just another reflection of what your true diligence is and just another reflection of the utter pomposity with which you seek to defend yourself.
Order! The Leader of the Opposition will direct his remarks through the chair.
Yes, I will direct my remarks to you here, Mr Speaker, about why it is absolutely necessary that we now look at this clearly through a censure motion. We have our British allies here with us at the moment. We have our American allies here with us frequently. This government owes them an explanation as to how we permitted $300 million to fall into Saddam Hussein’s hands to buy the guns, bombs and bullets used against British and Australian troops.
We have subexplanations within that general explanation, but they should go to this: this government has to explain how it got a report—an authoritative report—out of the authorities in Iraq, immediately after the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, who warned that every contract entered into by AWB involved a 10 to 19 per cent kickback that went into the pockets of the Saddam Hussein regime; and how the ‘due diligence’—the ‘diligent’ attitude—of the foreign minister permitted that report to stand inside his department without any proper detailed investigation.
As a direct result of that, for another 18 months the scam continued—to what effect we do not know. But it is at least possible that those resources that were being paid in bribes for 18 months after that report, following the conclusion of hostilities, went to funding the insurgency. There is at least a substantial possibility that that is the case, and the government can give no guarantees—to us, or those British and American troops who now daily face threats to their lives, or those Iraqi people who face bombs and bullets from people who wish to terrorise them—that the funds that went into buying the equipment to do that were not funds that came through a process that the foreign minister’s lack of due diligence permitted to occur.
Every time the foreign minister and the Prime Minister get up and talk about this, they say that no evidence has been presented. Evidence has been presented in detail that ought to have alerted anybody with half a brain and half the necessary skill as a foreign minister that something was required of him. It ought to have alerted him to do something on behalf of the service personnel already engaged in the Gulf, as they have been for the last decade and a half. Those service personnel in most recent times went in to fight the war and are now there engaged, with very great difficulty, in trying to enforce a peace. You would have thought that a halfway-decent foreign minister would have done something about that.
The problem for this foreign minister, and why he ducks and weaves on these censure motion debate requests, is that there is an example of another government handling these sorts of matters. As pointed out by Mr Steketee over the weekend, the difference is that of chalk and cheese between Foreign Minister Gareth Evans’ handling of these matters and the hard attitude to AWB he adopted, and the worthless, wet, wimpish, pompous, asinine, incompetent ratbaggery that went on with the foreign minister—
Mr Downer interjecting
I will tell you why I am so personal, Foreign Minister. Most of the sailors who have operated in the Gulf over the last decade and a half happen to be my constituents. If you wonder why I get a bit personal, it is that we have to deal with their families and those who have to, as a result of that, confront the consequences of your lack of administrative competence and effectiveness—
Mr Downer interjecting
If you let us debate it, Mr Foreign Minister—if you had the guts to take the censure motion—we could deal with this in much greater detail. But as it is now we will deal with it in the detail that we can, in the few minutes that are available to us.
This House ought to allow a censure debate in this place because for it not to debate this matter of great national importance is a blot on us, as much as it is a blot on this government. This is where accountability starts for this government. I am afraid the accountability of this government with respect to the Cole royal commission is flawed and only we can put the pressure on this government to give them the terms of reference they need. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Let me begin with a couple of observations. First of all, the way the Leader of the Opposition is increasingly slipping into personal abuse and denigration rather than debating an issue on its merits is, I think, a sad reflection of the decline in his standards. When he was the Leader of the Opposition before, in the earlier period of his leadership, he used to pride himself on his decency. Since he has resumed the role of Leader of the Opposition—no doubt out of a sense of some desperation—he has abandoned that strategy. Somebody has told him to be offensive and rude to people and to reduce standards to the level that they used to be when the Labor Party was last in government. Apparently, the Labor Party strategists think that is going to work. My assessment of the Australian public is that it has not got a hope in hell of working.
The second observation I would make is that the only reason we are able to debate this issue is that, with our allies, the British, whose Prime Minister is here today, and the United States, we were able to get rid of Saddam Hussein’s regime and bring an end to the sanctions regime. That, I would have thought, was quite a relevant issue, bearing in mind that the Labor Party opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime.
Oh!
They do not like to be reminded of it, but the truth is that, if the Labor Party had had its way, the oil for food program would have gone on indefinitely. There would have been no discovery of the widespread rorting of the oil for food program, because that was made possible as a result of the investigations that took place in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. What the opposition professes to be the one piece of convincing evidence it has is a cable from June 2003 which reports an officer from the American army in the Coalition Provisional Authority. The opposition says, ‘Look, there you are. This scheme was being rorted.’ But hang on, I say. If Saddam Hussein’s regime had remained in place, that American officer would not have been in Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority would never have been established. The investigation would never have taken place. I would have thought that the fact that the Labor Party seems to think that this is an issue and is trying to land punches on the government before the Cole commission has concluded its work is little more than an effort to cover up its own embarrassment about its policy in relation to Iraq.
The Leader of the Opposition says that anybody who had half a brain would have cracked this—in other words, officers of my department, other government departments and the Office of National Assessments. As a minister, I accept that personal abuse is a big part of the political game for the Labor Party, but apparently no-one in my department even had half a brain. That is the assertion. Sure, I accept that it is an assertion made about me, because the Labor Party has never had a polite thing to say about me in my 21 years in parliament. I accept that and I do not mind that. But to say that about the officers of my department is deeply offensive. Those officers have been before the Cole commission. Let me tell the House something. They have been very nervous about it. They have worried about it. It has been very difficult for them. These are good people. These are honourable people. These are not people who have been tutored by the government to push a particular line or to perjure themselves under oath before the Cole commission. If the government had been involved in corruption, officers of the department would have been involved in that corruption. It is perfectly obvious from what they said that they were not.
Let me also say this. Since the House last sat, those officers have been before the Cole commission. There is not a scintilla of evidence that those officers have been involved in a cover-up. For the government—that is, the Prime Minister and ministers—to have been involved in a cover-up, officers of the department would have had to be complicit in that cover-up. It would not have been possible otherwise. All of the relevant material would have had to be buried somehow. Whatever would have been done to execute a cover-up, officers of the department would have had to do it.
No matter how hard the government’s opponents and critics try to prosecute it in this case, the problem for them is that the officers from the department who have appeared before the Cole commission have made it perfectly clear that, if AWB Ltd was deliberately and knowingly paying kickbacks, it was doing so in defiance of and in deceit of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian government and the United Nations itself. Let us not be conclusive about this, but according to the evidence that has been put to the Cole commission, officers of AWB Ltd endeavoured to deceive their own board—I do not know if that is true or not, but that is certainly the claim that is being made. If there were a conspiracy, corruption or a cover-up, that would be pretty obvious.
What about a blind eye?
The very determined member for Hotham interjects. By the way, he showed a lot of guts winning that preselection. I admire that.
What about the blind eye?
He interjects ‘a blind eye’. For the government to have turned a blind eye, either officers of government departments would have had to turn a blind eye, and it is perfectly obvious from their evidence that they did not, or the government—that is, ministers and the Prime Minister—would have had to instruct them to turn a blind eye. Of course, there is no evidence to that effect either.
The fact is that all of this is being played out in an extremely transparent way. If the government wanted to turn a blind eye, if it wanted to brush this issue under the carpet or pretend that something had happened that had not happened, or if it wanted to deceive and be dishonest, presumably it would not have set up a commission with the powers of a royal commission. If people reflect on it, it simply defies commonsense.
Let me make it perfectly clear. We are happy to have a discussion about this every single day of the week. From recollection, I think the opposition asked 110 questions about this issue. Today is the day when the new industrial relations system comes into force. Mr Combet went on television yesterday and said that the Labor Party should get into the government over this. The member for Perth made a great song and dance—I saw it on the news last night—about how ‘we in the Labor Party are going to beat up the government on industrial relations’. We had four lazy questions about the blindingly obvious on industrial relations. We had a heap of the usual hysterical accusations against the government on AWB Ltd, when the government has already set up a commission of inquiry into it. I would have thought that those opposite would want to be just ever so slightly cautious about making too many conclusive allegations against the government on this issue before the Cole commission reports.
Maybe the Cole commission will find that the government was involved in corruption, had known all about it and so on. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, I would have thought that ever so slightly unlikely, but I do not know; we will have to wait and see. If it does not come up with those sorts of conclusions, it is going to be a very embarrassing day for the Australian Labor Party and other critics of the government—a very embarrassing day. I would have thought that the government had done absolutely the right thing. Far from trying to hide or cover anything up, it set up a commission of inquiry so that all of the facts could be put out on the table.
Let me conclude with something—and from time to time I will come back to this in question time.
Mr Crean interjecting
The member for Hotham interjects. Apparently, in an interview on a television program—the 7.30 Report last week or the week before last, from recollection—Mr Ingruber, who was a staffer for the member for Hotham when he was the Leader of the Opposition, said that he had met with AWB Ltd in 2002 and had some discussions—I am not sure—about this issue and about Iraq. We would like to know about that. We would like to know what questions the opposition asked. At one stage the member for Griffith said in the media that he had had only one meeting with AWB Ltd. The next day he said, ‘Actually, I had several meetings.’ We would like to know what happened at those meetings. Did the opposition ask questions about the oil for food program? Mr Cole said that members of parliament should provide all information to the commission of inquiry. We know from the commission of inquiry that the office of the member for Griffith had material. We also know that it has not provided that material to the Cole inquiry. So I do not think that the opposition comes to this issue with clean hands. How preposterous would it be for me to accuse the opposition of being involved in a cover-up? (Time expired)
What we have in this chamber is a foreign minister who is in total and absolute denial of everything that is going on around him, of every piece of evidence that has been presented—and he scuttles, without courage, from the chamber. The government, of which he is the Minister for Foreign Affairs, were warned repeatedly about this ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal, and what did they do? They chose to do nothing. They are in denial of the fact that there were 27 separate warnings. They are in denial of the fact that the foreign minister had a legal responsibility under Australian domestic law to enforce sanctions against Iraq. They are in denial of the fact that, because of his failure to do so, $300 million was paid over to the enemy.
This foreign minister says that other companies were involved worldwide as well. He is right. There were 2,200 companies from 65 different countries involved in this, and guess who got the gold medal performance? The AWB—first out of 2,200, with $300 million. Guess who got the silver medal? A company from India, by kicking in $40 million to $50 million. There is a big gap between gold and silver, and I do not even know who got the bronze, but this minister is responsible for the ultimate gold medal performance in producing corrupt contracts with Saddam Hussein’s regime.
The reason for this motion being urgent is that this exercise in denial is entirely delusional because this minister refuses to face and acknowledge some basic facts. He described himself boldly, grandly, in the media as a minister exhibiting ‘characteristic diligence’. What level of delusion do you have to be suffering from to describe your performance in this $300 million ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal as ‘characteristic diligence’?
Let us look at some of the excuses masquerading as defences which the foreign minister put up today. The first half of his great defence was: ‘You’ve hurt my feelings.’ He felt that the Leader of the Opposition had not shown good manners. The foreign minister was feeling sad, hurt and upset by that, and as a result Alex left the chamber feeling very cross. That was the first half of his defence. Then we got to the second half of his defence, which I think is the ultimate perversion of foreign policy logic. It runs like this: ‘I, Alexander Downer, had to invade Iraq, which was under Saddam Hussein’s regime, in order to discover that I, Alexander Downer, had approved a company which was sending $300 million to Saddam Hussein’s regime.’ The logic is this: ‘We had to go and invade Iraq to find out that Iraq was receiving corrupt payments from Australia.’ This is monumental nonsense—and Mr Hunt is about to get up and speak to us—
Order! The member for Griffith will refer to people by their title or by their seat.
As a consequence, I think that defence is not worth any further time. His next defence was that the opposition had been nasty to officials. The opposition is serious about this: holding this government accountable for the biggest corruption scandal in Australia’s history. It was the biggest single source of foreign funds illegally delivered to Saddam Hussein’s regime, and this minister can sit here and simply smirk about it.
We do not have a particular case to make against officials; we have a case to make against the ministers who received the officials’ advice. This minister and his fellow ministers received 27 separate warnings, including eight separate intelligence warnings—including three specific intelligence warnings about a Jordanian company called Alia—three specific warnings from the UN about what the AWB was up to and two cable reports from Baghdad on kickbacks on oil for food contracts, not to mention the minister himself receiving a ministerial submission specifically on this subject concerned about what AWB was up to; and this minister chose to do nothing.
The reason this motion has to be dealt with with urgency is that these are serious matters. We have had gross negligence on the part of this minister, but that was up until the Iraq war. In the period following the Iraq war, gross negligence was followed by the grossest attempts at a cover-up, and that has been going on ever since—gross negligence and gross cover-up, with grave damage being delivered to Australia’s national interests. Our national security interests, our economic interests and our export interests have been fundamentally undermined by this minister’s failure to do his job. He stands condemned. (Time expired)
Question put:
That the motion (That the motion () be agreed to.
Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do.
Please proceed.
On Wednesday, 15 March the Minister for Health and Ageing held a press conference in my electorate, where a Channel 7 reporter, Samille Muirhead, asked the minister and me why the government had cut the funding for the Sunshine Coast Hear and Say Centre. The minister and I denied any knowledge of such funding cuts. The journalist obviously got the question wrong, because the Channel 7 news broadcast that evening fraudulently changed the question to read ‘the Sunshine Coast Children’s Therapy Centre’, not ‘the Hear and Say Centre’. There have been no funding cuts for either the Sunshine Coast Hear and Say Centre or the Sunshine Coast Children’s Therapy Centre. I intend to pursue this fraudulent behaviour by Channel 7 with the appropriate broadcasting regulator.
Bill presented by Mr Georganas.
I present the Airport Development and Aviation Noise Ombudsman Bill 2006 on behalf of thousands of residents living within the electorate of Hindmarsh, including the Netley Residents Association, the Lockley South residents association, the Adelaide Airport Action Group, the West Torrens Residents Association, the Glenelg Residents Association and the Henley and Grange Residents Association. I have been campaigning and liaising with fellow residents on airport issues from within Adelaide’s western suburbs for many years. At this point in our ongoing campaign, I am grateful to the electors of Hindmarsh for entrusting me with the role of introducing our private member’s bill here in the House of Representatives. These complaints comprise all manner of concerns of residents and workers within the proximity of large metropolitan and regional airports—flight paths, noise, development, the use of airport land and curfews.
We have in Australia an ombudsman for banking and financial services, an ombudsman for insurance, an ombudsman for telecommunications and others concerned with federal operations. We also have many ombudsmen operating on a state level, such as the private Energy Industry Ombudsman of South Australia. Australians now expect there to be an office, detached from both industry players and the official machinery of government, to which they can take their negative experiences and their complaints within almost any given area of activity and have them assessed fairly and impartially. It is a system that people obviously have faith in, as shown by their preparedness to engage it. So should it be with this area of federal responsibility.
Adelaide Airport is smack bang in the middle of the federal division of Hindmarsh. It is an island detached from the rest of the electorate. It is floating above and separated from the local and state government laws that apply to the rest of us. In this respect, it is separated from each and every person who lives in its vicinity and whose lives are affected by it on a daily basis—or, should I say, on an hourly basis.
Beyond the corporation which runs the airport, there are two noteworthy players within this industry: the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, and Airservices Australia. It is the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services who guides what happens on airport land through signing off on the five-year master plan. What elements of the plan are, or are not, critically assessed in its preparation and what weight these assessments are given is up to the individual company running the airport and, ultimately, the minister. With this system, locals—including their local councillors and state political representatives—are quite powerless as the pen used to tick off a draft master plan lies in the hand of the federal minister. Residents expect more than this. If they do not like what is proposed in a neighbour’s property, they can object through their local government and also through the state planning authorities. But this is not so with developments on federal airport land. This is an inconsistency that needs to be addressed.
The other entity to which people can make complaints is Airservices Australia—complaints regarding suspected variations of flight paths, noise and curfews. In dealing with a complaint, Airservices Australia plays the role of rule maker, investigator, defendant and judge—all behind doors through which your average citizen will never pass. This concentration of roles cannot encourage confidence.
As I have said, Australians are well used to the function and utility of the office of the Ombudsman. Unfortunately, many Australians are equally used to having apparent reasons to complain about matters relating to airports. The best way I can help my constituents is to promote the introduction of a system for the resolution of complaints that the residents of Hindmarsh will find sympathetic, helpful and above reproach—most importantly, impartial and above reproach. A little fairness goes a long way, and most Australians do not have a problem with it—even Adelaide Airport Ltd do not have a problem with fairness. I was pleased to read in one of the local newspapers in Hindmarsh recently that Adelaide Airport Ltd is in fact supportive of this bill. It supports the establishment of an Airport Development and Aviation Noise Ombudsman and supports me introducing this bill to parliament.
I have written to numerous MPs from around Australia whose electorates contain, are adjacent to, or are affected by major airports, asking that they support this private member’s bill. I have subsequently spoken with as many as I have been able and will continue to lobby these and other MPs to provide our constituents with what they want—fairness, impartiality and the resolution of complaints.
Bill read a first time.
In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Bill presented by Mr McMullan.
I know the Artist’s Resale Rights Bill 2006 will not pass through parliament. It does not have the government’s support and they will not allow it to pass. So why am I moving it? In the first instance, obviously I am moving it because I passionately believe that visual artists in Australia should share in the wealth they generate through their creative efforts. But this bill is also deliberately designed to be a challenge to the Howard government—a challenge to them to act; a challenge to the Howard government to do what at least some of their ministers know they should do; a challenge to them to implement the recommendations of the Myer report that recommended just such a scheme to the Howard government almost four years ago. But it appears that after all these years they will not act.
This bill, if it were to be implemented, would give to visual artists equivalent rights to those enjoyed by authors and musicians—the right to receive a small proportion, up to four per cent, of the wealth which their skill and imagination creates. In other words, it would reward creativity, which is what every modern economy needs to do. It would be fair, culturally rewarding and economically sound. The Minister for the Arts and Sport knows that this is the right thing to do, but he cannot get the Attorney-General, who is the minister responsible, to move.
Visual artists in almost every other Western country have the rights which this bill would give to Australian artists, but even this is not sufficient to convince the Attorney-General to act. Yet Attorney-General Ruddock promised he would make a decision on this matter last year, in 2005. When it became clear he would not meet this deadline, the Attorney-General said he would make a decision in January 2006. We all waited and still nothing happened, so I initiated the processes to introduce this bill which I had had drafted. What was the Attorney-General’s response? He now says he will do something—but we do not know what—by the end of this year. There is a famous Australian saying about the coming of Christmas. I am saying that I think Christmas will come before this Attorney-General acts.
Such an apparent drift in the timetable could be caused by sloth or incompetence. But in these sorts of circumstances when a timetable drifts like this it usually means one of two things: either the responsible minister, in this case the Attorney-General, does not intend to respond positively to the recommendation to introduce a resale royalty scheme or the relevant minister has been rolled by his cabinet colleagues. There have certainly been widespread fears amongst artists of the latter proposition since the active involvement of the Treasurer’s close friend Michael Kroger in lobbying against the proposal.
For whichever of those four possible reasons—sloth, incompetence, lack of intention or being rolled—it seems to me that the Attorney General has no current intention of introducing an Australian resale royalty scheme unless he is pressured to do so. That is the political case for this bill at this time. It is designed to put pressure on the Howard government to act. And there are sound economic, social and cultural reasons why they should.
The independent evidence shows that artists are on average amongst the poorest in our community. Indigenous artists, who are likely to be substantial beneficiaries of such a scheme, are among the poorest of the poor. Indigenous Australians are often urged to get off welfare, to get out and earn a living. Yet here we have a proposal under which artists—not just Indigenous artists but many beneficiaries, including the one highlighted in the Sydney Morning Herald today—will benefit not from grants, not from handouts, but from sharing in the wealth they create. But the government ignores it.
The bill I have introduced would create a workable scheme. It is unarguable that such a scheme can work because it is based very closely on a scheme currently operating in the United Kingdom—the very headquarters of the auction houses which are arguing that we should not have such a scheme here. Therefore, this bill would create rights which exist in almost every developed country. It would recognise and reward creativity and it would generate a legitimate income stream for some of the poorest Australians. I recommend the bill to the House.
Bill read a first time.
In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Bill presented by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop.
In rising to speak to the Protection of the Australian National Flag (Desecration of the Flag) Bill 2006, and to say why I believe it is necessary, I am conscious of the fact that I also need to argue why it will not place an unacceptable burden on the implied constitutional right to communication of government and political matters. I would like, first, to stress why I think indeed we do need our national flag to be protected. The general public, when they find that destroying our national flag is not against the law, are quite shocked. My bill is very targeted; it is not broad in the sense that it would capture a T-shirt or a cap made into a flag. I read precisely what it will do. It is an offence to wilfully destroy or otherwise mutilate the flag:
... in circumstances where a reasonable person would infer that the destruction or mutilation is intended publicly to express contempt or disrespect for the Flag or the Australian Nation ...
And it would be an amendment to the Criminal Code, carrying a penalty of 100 penalty points or six months imprisonment—100 penalty points being a fine, say, up to $11,000. So the bill is very targeted and, for that reason, I believe it will not constitute an unacceptable burden on that implied freedom of communication.
Langley’s case in the High Court established that two things have to be satisfied in order for legislation to be brought in to restrict an expression on political or government matters and the fact which has to be established is that the burden is not inconsistent with the political right to so express oneself.
I have had my attention drawn to a judgment given in Hong Kong. A member of that court was the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Sir Anthony Mason. That case, heard in 1999, is Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v Ng Kung Siu and Lee Kin Yun, which deals precisely with these issues. The judgment is delivered by Chief Justice Li but is totally concurred with by Sir Anthony Mason. It deals with the dilemma of restricting speech but still that being constitutional. I would like to quote from that judgment. It says:
When a matter of the present kind comes before the courts, the question is not which approach the judges personally prefer. It is whether the approach chosen by the legislature is one permitted by the constitution ...
The legislature having chosen the approach which protects the national and regional flags and emblems from desecration—having so chosen by enacting laws which provide such protection—the question in the present case is whether those laws are constitutional.
In his view, the judge says:
... our laws protecting the national and regional flags ... place no restriction at all on what people may express ... the only restriction placed is against the desecration of—
the flag itself. He continues:
No idea would be suppressed by the restriction. Neither political outspokenness nor any other form of outspokenness would be inhibited.
In other words, the question is: is that flag, which is the emblem and symbol of all this country stands for, a flag which our troops fight under and have given sacrifice for, worth the legislature saying, ‘We want to protect it’? The next question is: does that in any way impinge on that constitutional right? If you look at the precedents I have quoted, I think you will find the answer is no because there are so many other ways in which you can express it. It is only to protect the flag itself. I seek leave to tender the judgment in that Hong Kong case.
Leave granted.
I would ask this also. There have been previous attempts to bring this debate before the parliament. Today is merely an introduction. I say to the government: please let us debate this issue, let us have that second reading debate, so that all people may express the importance of and the passion they feel for the Australian national flag. That is what the people feel and, as representatives of the people, I believe we must in fact allow that debate to take place. I would also like to point out to the House that at the moment if we want to take action we have to resort to fiction. I table the explanatory memorandum.
Bill read a first time.
In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
I move this motion to again raise the plight of ageing carers of disabled children. In 2004, Kurrajong Waratah in my electorate conducted some research and a report was written. The results of the research indicate that there are many families suffering a crisis in care which would worsen in the next 10 years if planning and action were not to occur to better meet the needs of disabled people and their ageing parents and family carers. This study of carers by Kurrajong Waratah found that most parents with disabled sons or daughters have been in a caring role for the whole period of their children’s lives. Their period as carers is directly equated to the age of their sons or daughters. Many have been caring for over 50 years. The disability and aged care and community care sectors recognised within this report would be unable to take flexible, responsive and appropriate action to prevent a care crisis without the necessary cross-sector policies, procedures and funding to meet the changing needs of people with a longstanding disability who are ageing and their ageing carers.
This report made a number of recommendations. One was that case management be made available for families to help them with the task of futures planning and to provide advocacy and mentoring. Another was that there be increased flexible respite services, including in-home and out-of-home options when families and carers need them and for longer periods as required. A further recommendation was that forward planning be made available for sufficient accommodation places and/or support to meet the needs of all ageing people with a disability who require such a placement.
Further, the report recommended that the disability sector be funded and policies be put in place to allow for an increase in the number of older people with a longstanding disability who will need to access funded accommodation services for the first time in old age due to a loss of primary carers or an inability of primary carers to continue in their role due to their age. The report also indicated an immediate need for government funding for out-of-home respite to enable disability services to provide respite care for ageing people with a disability in group homes. Out-of-home respite will not only enable older parents and family carers to receive a break from caring but also enable these carers to remain in their family home for this break.
But above and beyond all those recommendations is the need for Commonwealth and state governments to urgently respond to and resolve the crisis of the shortage of suitable accommodation for disabled children of ageing carers. This suitable accommodation should not be in an aged care facility. Many carers in this crisis have no peace of mind and, as I have said before time and time again in this House, there are no answers for these people in life and there are certainly no answers for them in death.
The second part of my private members’ business motion is the desperate need to initiate a research proposal to explore the development in Australia of welfare syndicate structures for the sustainable financing of care for welfare dependent groups focusing on young people with lifelong disabilities. Australia lacks a reliable mechanism to effectively leverage private and community finances for welfare support. Mostly, people look to governments to provide welfare funds. Where such public funds are not available, the burden of all care generally falls to individual families or carers. Welfare syndicates could have a widespread application in Australian society. Not only could they encourage citizens to work cooperatively to meet agreed community needs through their own resources but they could dramatically change the demand for and the shape of recurrent direct public funding of welfare services. They also have the potential to improve the way people think about welfare, responsibility, relationships and accountability.
One ready application of a welfare syndicate concept is in family and community care of our disabled young people. There is an urgent need to find sustainable and affordable ways for local communities to care for those of their number who are disabled, particularly young people whose care requirements will continue beyond care by their families for decades into the future. I urge the House to recognise the plight of ageing carers of disabled children—those who are currently aged and those who will become aged in the future. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
People with disabilities often lack a voice in this parliament, let alone in the wider community, and I congratulate the member for Riverina on bringing this motion to the House and highlighting the difficulties people with disabilities have in accessing appropriate and affordable accommodation options. While the motion canvasses the broad issue of accommodation for people with disabilities, I want to again highlight the plight of young people in nursing homes. There are many heart-wrenching stories that underline the plight of young people in aged care facilities, and I want to mention two that I have previously discussed in the House.
Vicki Smith, after suffering a tragic car accident, has been in a nursing home since she was 17. She finds that she cannot play the music that she wants to play; she cannot have friends over; she cannot do the sorts of things that a young woman of 32 is normally able to do. Having been in a nursing home since she was 17, Vicki simply has not had the opportunity to truly experience her teenage or early adult years. Vicki has become a champion of this issue, recently appearing on 60 Minutes, and is a tireless campaigner.
Another plight is that of the family of Chris Nolan. Chris, a former St Patrick’s boy, has been living in an aged care home because the community accommodation he needs does not exist. He is in need of high-care continuous nursing. Tragically, Chris suffered an acquired brain injury when working as a solicitor in Hanoi in 1995. By all accounts, Chris Nolan was bright, funny and had a passion for life. However, because of his brain injury, Chris can no longer use his limbs and can neither speak nor see. Chris once lived in a world where he could communicate through an array of media, such as sport, academia and his work. Now he is trapped in a world where his only communication comes from being able to blink—one blink meaning ‘yes’ and two meaning ‘no’. Chris has spent the last eight years in an aged care facility with older people who are in need of high-care nursing.
These are but two cases; there are countless others in nursing homes across Australia. The numbers clearly demonstrate that the issue of young people in nursing homes is an area that needs ongoing action. The COAG agreement reached in February was a step forward and will go some way towards addressing the issue. At COAG it was agreed that $24 million over five years would be spent to ease the crisis of young people in nursing homes. It is a good step forward. Hopefully, this is a sign of further cooperation between the state and federal governments. For too long this issue had been batted back and forth between state and federal governments, each claiming the other was responsible for funding accommodation options for young disabled people with residential care needs.
The COAG process has broken that down a little. However, while there is some goodwill and some funds now available it will require sustained effort. While COAG represents the first step, there are many more that will have to be taken before all young people in nursing homes are receiving appropriate care. There are over 6,000 people under the age of 65 across Australia living in nursing homes. Eleven hundred of these people are under the age of 50, while a further 30 are under the age of 25. The recent Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee inquiry report, Quality and equity in aged care, identified this issue as requiring urgent attention. I highly recommend that people read that report.
While the money made available through COAG will provide much-needed alternatives for young people in nursing homes, it will by no means resolve the problem for everyone. On the day I put my name down to speak on this motion, I received an email from Mark in my electorate. It reads:
My name is Mark Bromley and I am a Ballarat resident. I confess that I never thought I would ever write to a politician! The reason for doing so is to express my disappointment at the lack of facilities for the disabled in Ballarat.
My wife (Margaret, aged 44) suffers from a disability called cerebellar ataxia (not dis-similiar to MS). This is a progressive illness for which there is no known cure.
Up until now, we have been able to manage with Margaret at home. I still work (and pay taxes!) and we access a carers allowance of approx $100 per month.
This is well and truely cut out with home help provided by the Ballarat City Council.
The issue for me is not the money but more the facilities, or lack of, that are available to support us. Ballarat Health services have been very helpful and accommodation but there is only so much that they can do.
We have accessed private overnight “respite” care on the few occasions that I am required to travel for work.
The difficulty is that Margaret’s condition is deteriorating and her needs are increasing.
The place where she has stayed previously will eventually be unable to cater for this. That’s fine, for they look after a particular part of the market.
The trouble is that the “high care” facilities do not offer overnight respite and even if they did a minimum booking of one week is required.
… … …
Sorry to have a winge but it is really frustrating. I sometimes think that I would be far better to give up work and become a full time carer.
Financially, I’m sure I wouldn’t be that much worse off. I realise and understand that you cannot fix this problem but please add my name to a growing band of people that are very disenchanted with the health system provided to the disabled and their carer’s.
Mark, your name is well and truly added to that list, alongside the many people with disabilities and their carers who deserve a much stronger voice in this parliament. (Time expired)
I am pleased to speak in support of this motion moved by the honourable member for Riverina. Before being elected to this place, I spent 15 years working for Multicap, the Queensland Spastic Welfare League and the handicapped association. In my work of co-ordinating fundraising efforts for these three worthy organisations, I often met and worked with families of disabled children and adults who attended and were assisted by the excellent programs these organisations ran then and continue to run today. By far one of the biggest concerns for these dedicated and caring families was the issue of who would care for their disabled son or daughter when they themselves were aged and frail.
There is not enough time for it in the debate today, but I could tell some truly heartbreaking stories of families stretched to the limit, of elderly parents putting their own health and safety at risk and of the sad situation they ultimately find themselves in if they are physically unable to continue caring for their adult disabled son or daughter. While we as a society have taken some very big steps forward to assist many people with disabilities to become more independent, the reality is that many will need a lifetime of care and support in some form. It is a problem that will continue for many years to come. There are currently 320,000 children aged from birth to 14 years with a disability.
For most of the last century, children with a disability were segregated in institutional settings. Happily that is no longer the case—in fact, the number of children living in institutions almost halved between 1981 and 1996. It must be recognised that, while very positive, this trend puts increasing pressure on many families. As the National Industry Association for Disability Services said:
Children with disabilities belong with their families, not in institutions, but families often require extra financial assistance and services to care for a son or daughter with a disability. Without such support, the impact of disability can impose significant pressure on parents and siblings and can lead to family breakdown.
Over the past 10 years the Howard government has introduced a raft of positive policies for families of people living with a disability, particularly in the area of more financial support and providing more respite care for full-time carers.
I welcome the $200 million package announced last October aimed at assisting parents to establish private trusts for the future care of their disabled children. It is a positive step forward that trusts established solely for this purpose will be exempt from social security and veterans affairs means tests. This will give many ageing parents peace of mind and allow them to more confidently plan for the future care of their children.
I also note that in February this year the Council of Australian Governments agreed, as part of the health care reforms, that a new program would be initiated to reduce the numbers of young people with disabilities living in nursing homes. Any review of the accommodation needs of our young adults with a disability should be welcomed and applauded. The sad situation of young people living daily with frail and aged in our nursing homes is not acceptable. However, as ACROD have said:
It is essential that governments view this measure as only the first step in the reform of—
the aged care and disability services sector. I take the view that, while much has been achieved over the past 10 years, there is certainly a lot more that can be done. I note the second part of this motion calls on state and federal governments to work together to address accommodation and care issues.
The spirit of the COAG decision in February is certainly a very positive step forward. This is a problem we have to work at, and we have to work together to solve it. We simply must ease the burden on parents of children with a disability, especially ageing parents of adult children who may develop care needs of their own. What aged parents of disabled adults in my electorate are telling me is that their priority is to see the government establish independent living and residential care complexes. Parents of disabled adults want peace of mind, and they want to be assured that their adult children are not going to be placed in nursing homes with the sick and old. When parents find themselves no longer able to care for them because of age or ill health, they want to have the peace of mind that their children will have lease or ownership of these units and can live there for the duration of their disabled lives—and that severely disabled people, especially young people, live in supportive accommodation where they do not have to live with the aged and frail but with people with like minds. As the member for Ballarat said only a few minutes ago, these people are very intelligent young people but their body motor systems are not coordinated.
I urge governments at all levels to continue working towards improved services. I recognise the best way to ensure we can fund these programs in the future is to manage and grow our economy. I thank the member for Riverina for bringing this important issue to the House today. (Time expired)
I, too, thank the member for Riverina for moving the motion and the member for Forde for seconding it. It is a very important matter. It affects many people in this country and I would doubt if it did not affect every member in this place. There are constituents in every electorate who have to confront the difficulties in finding proper accommodation for their disabled children. Only last month I think the member for Melbourne moved a similar motion just subsequent to the COAG meeting. It was debated in this place. He, along with five other members of the House, debated the needs of approximately 1,000 Australians under the age of 50—who are currently living in nursing homes because they have a severe disability—and looked at finding ways to ensure that they are able to find proper accommodation.
From my point of view, there is an absolute need to focus upon the needs of ageing parents or carers who are worried witless about what will happen to their children in the event of their death. They are worried that there are not suitable service provisions of government or other organisations in order to attend to the needs of their children. Indeed, the disabled people themselves who have for many years been reliant upon their parents, family members and friends are only wanting to be treated decently in what is a relatively wealthy society.
As a result of the COAG agreement on 10 February this year, $244 million was in fact put aside to jointly establish a program managed by the states and territories, but also funded by the Commonwealth, in order to attend to this blight on our social services. That is a wonderful instalment, but it falls far short of the requirements needed to, firstly, find proper accommodation for those disabled people under the age of 50. In fact, it is the case that one in six of those people currently in what I would term inappropriate care may find better arrangements as a result of such funding. That is, as I say, an improvement but it falls a long way short.
Only last month I was involved in a debate of a similar nature. It certainly focused on some of the matters that have been raised by the member for Riverina. I think it is absolutely fitting that we in this place raise these matters time and time again until governments, at both federal and state levels, realise that it is absolutely critical and that families who have had to endure such challenges and difficulties as a result of children, in many instances, being severely disabled are looking to government. In many ways they are the most vulnerable in our society. Indeed, anyone who knows a parent or a primary carer who has looked after a disabled child knows how life changing that is. Whilst it can be very fulfilling, it is a very difficult task and it would only be fitting that governments of this nation attend to the needs of people with severe disabilities and put the minds of the carers—indeed, their parents—at rest so that they know that, whatever happens, those children who obviously have had enough difficulties to confront will be adequately looked after and properly accommodated for their entire lives. I am very happy to support this motion moved by the member for Riverina. I think it is a very good response and, hopefully, the government will attend to it.
I rise today in support of the motion moved by my colleague the member for Riverina on the appalling state of adequate accommodation available for disabled children. I call on the Labor state governments—as the Prime Minister recently did at the February COAG meeting—to pull their weight in this area. In particular, I call on the South Australian state government to substantially increase the funding, services and infrastructure significantly lacking in my state. This motion notes the problems of ageing carers who are unable to find accommodation for the disabled child for whom they care and who, at the same time, are often faced with the need to move into supportive or aged care facilities themselves.
I have met with constituents in my electorate of Kingston who are faced with that heartbreaking problem. Quite often, it is grandparents who come to my office about this situation. They come as the primary carer of a disabled child. Invariably, they have struggled internally to accept the fact that they themselves need to move into an aged care facility. But imagine their torment when they discover that, despite making that decision, it is not possible because they are unable to find accommodation for the disabled child or disabled adult they care for. This leaves many ageing carers in a situation where they are forced to remain in their homes, without the support they so desperately need and in the precarious situation where they are vulnerable to accident and/or injury.
This motion recognises the $200 million package announced by the Prime Minister to assist parents to establish private trusts for the future care of disabled children as well as the role of the expert advisory panel in advising on the implementation of the package. I support the member for Riverina in her call for the minister to instruct the panel to investigate the merits of establishing a new financial and insurance product to assist all parents of disabled children in planning for the future care of their children and/or adults. This issue must be addressed. The disabled are some of the most vulnerable in our community. They lack the ability to conduct their daily lives without the assistance of their dedicated and tireless carers. We cannot simply ignore the plight of carers and the disabled children to whose lives they bring meaning. We must address the very real problem which exists when it comes to finding them appropriate accommodation.
The final part of this motion calls on both the state and federal governments to work together to urgently resolve the accommodation and care crisis which is facing not only the disabled but their carers as well. When it comes to important issues such as this, we must put politics aside and work together to provide for this group which has so often been forgotten in the past by governments of all colours and at all levels. In South Australia we face a crisis when it comes to disability services, not only in relation to accommodation options but in relation to services across the board. The only way that crisis is going to be adequately solved is through cooperation between all levels of government, not just state and federal but also local. I support this motion because it is a very practical step towards assisting the families of people caring for children with disabilities. We must raise awareness about the needs and plight of the disabled as well as those who undertake the often thankless job of looking after them. They are inspirational people who deserve the support of government.
It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity today to speak to the motion brought forward to the House by the member for Riverina. I congratulate her on doing that today and I join with her in what I understand to be a very strong passion of hers in relation to the representation of people with disabilities in our country. I recognise the work that the member for Riverina has put into making many members of the government and of this House more aware of the issues facing people with disabilities, their carers and their families. I think she may have had something to do with the backgrounding of the government in relation to the announcement made in October last year of the $200 million towards the establishment hopefully of some private trusts to help out in the future.
Can I very quickly say two things I wish to recognise of the government. The first is the $200 million that they made available from last October and the work that I understand is going on to establish that particular process. I also recognise the $244 million over five years that was announced through the COAG process to address the issue of young people in nursing homes. These issues are related, and I recognise and thank the government for those two initiatives. Any step forward is a step forward that we must recognise and acknowledge.
In relation to the $244 million for the young people in nursing homes campaign, can I say that I truly believe that that will only be effective if we see another $200 million or $300 million next year and another $200 million or $300 million the next year and the next year so that we have a cumulative effect. I am hoping very desperately that that $244 million over five years does not mean that we do not hear anything for another five years. My emphasis would be that the only way we could ever begin to approach that issue is to have that sort of government policy and that sort of government announcement.
In relation to accommodation for people with disabilities generally, there are a couple of things I really need to say. First of all, I would like the government to make available the numbers that exist around Australia of adults living with a disability in the care of an ageing parent or an ageing couple of parents. My suspicion is that there are many, many thousands of them—and this is just one category alone. Not all of them will be able to afford to set up trusts. There will be many who can, and they will be encouraged to save for the future needs of their children through this process, but there will be many who will not be able to.
We really need to understand the dimension of these numbers. I fear the high number and I am very concerned as to exactly what we as a society—I am not talking about governments here—are in a position to offer to assist these people into the future, because that is what we are talking about. There can be nothing more discouraging for an ageing or aged parent, particularly and generally a woman on her own. Her husband may have passed away, she is in her 70s or 80s and she has a 40- or 50-year-old son or daughter with a disability living in the household with her with no idea of what is going to happen in the future.
Several things need to occur. First of all, we need to be able to offer those families options. They may be options they can afford; they may be options they cannot afford and that we need to assist with. We cannot encourage these people to even consider that unless we have those options in front of them. One of the most difficult things is to encourage these families to believe that their child does in fact have the hope of an independent life outside that family. I know that many members in this place will be very aware of people who clutch their children into the bosom of their family because they believe that nobody else can care for them as they do. Why should we blame them for that when we have not given them anybody to care for them, when we have not provided that adequately in first place?
We really need to have a two-pronged approach to this. One approach is, yes, certainly, to set up these trusts—future savings for children of the future. If a child is born with a disability, why on earth do we run around like mad people 25 years later wondering how to house them when we have known they have been coming for 25 years? So the trust establishment is a very good idea, but it will only work if there are alternatives as well for those who do not have the financial ability or where there are other considerations, where society and government at all levels step in and help.
The previous speaker, the member for Kingston, had a bit of a go at the South Australian government. With the greatest of respect, we have to stop doing that. It is not any singular government’s fault; it is the society in which we live, the community that we represent and how we care for these people collectively that really matters. Pressure from people in this place is a very good start. I put my support behind what has been done so far, but I implore all of us to continue to support any initiative and to put the pressure wherever it is needed to improve this whole situation into the future. (Time expired)
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
Members may remember towards the end of last year when the vegetable growers from Tasmania took to the road in their tractors and farm machinery and wended their way through the southern states to Canberra to point out the plight of vegetable farmers around Australia because of the terrible effects that some of the free trade agreements are having on Australian farmers. The ones of most concern are those with China and the US. They have been negotiated without decent labelling legislation that identifies to local buyers which fresh and frozen vegetables are grown in Australia and which are only packaged here. We could have solved this many years ago when the matter was raised before, but it has languished, gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. As the collection of farm vehicles drove to Canberra, support was given by all the various shades of politics, all of which promised to do a number of things. Our state government in Tasmania had a look at the Food Standards ANZ recommendations in October last year and found them really lacking.
Much of this new interest was due to Tasmania’s industry developing a paper on the current situation and future of this industry. The Tasmanian vegetable industry situation paper covers issues of competitiveness, branding and labelling, trade, energy, quality assurance, regional factors, corporate buying policies of both supermarkets and quick service restaurants, transport, skills, water usage and structural matters—among others. It revealed some startling facts. For instance, Tasmania produces about eight per cent of Australia’s vegetables—at farm gate values. The vegetable sector represents 20 per cent of the value of the state’s agriculture, or $160 million at the farm gate and about $360 million when packed or processed.
Australian vegetables account for less than three per cent of the world’s vegetable trade and the industry faces declining competitiveness compared to other producing countries. Australia has been a net vegetable exporter but this is likely to be reversed within three to five years, placing supply pressure on the domestic Australian market. This market accounts for 70 per cent of all Tasmanian vegetable sales. Downturn in vegetable sector activity in Tasmania in 2005-06 is likely to reduce gross farm income by about $18.6 million. The wholesale value of lost production in processed vegetables and potatoes is likely to be more than $90 million. The economic impact will be most severe across northern Tasmania, especially the Cradle Coast region.
Based on industry figures, the gap between Australian and overseas competitors’ prices for some key commodities, such as potatoes, peas and corn, ranges from 19 per cent to 116 per cent. Key competitive differentials cited were input costs, including the costs of labour, occupational health and safety, quality assurance and environmental protection, current exchange rates and subsidies enjoyed by some major competitors. The high production costs and small scale of production units in Tasmania are cited by both processing companies as affecting the state’s competitiveness. McCain Foods’ average contract size in New Zealand is believed to be 7,000 tonnes, compared with a 700-tonne average in Tasmania. Similar situations exist in other crops and commodities.
Generally, there is an absence of Tasmanian branded produce in the marketplace, so it is impossible for local people to see what is ours—clean and green—and what is being imported. For example, I have been told that someone has been importing lettuces from China and selling them into McDonald’s, but it is hard to identify them when one is purchasing food from such a group. Supermarkets dominate the retail sector, which sells 65 per cent of all vegetables sold within Australia. Supermarkets are decreasing, and in some cases have entirely removed, suppliers’ brands from shelves. The local seasonal competitive advantage enjoyed by producers at certain times of the year is becoming less relevant as supermarkets and quick service food chains opt for global supply strategies. Existing country of origin labelling is inconsistently interpreted and applied and this is a situation that has existed for some time.
I was really pleased when this situation was highlighted by the farmers, because for too long we have not valued the produce grown in one of the most disease free areas of the world. We have something that other nations pay good money for, yet we are being targeted for produce dumping at the worst and, at the best, filling the pockets of the big supermarket chains. Labelling is one way of allowing the consumer to choose. If they want to pay a little more and buy jobs for Tasmanians, better products and the freshest around while also supporting the farmers develop new lines and ideas, then I think the labelling should reflect that.
I think my motion is pretty clear. The farmers and primary producers need some assistance, and that assistance should emphasise that when their product goes to market everyone knows it is fine Australian product and therefore consumers can make an informed choice. I hope the motion will be supported by all members. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
When I first read the motion moved by the member for Lyons I was somewhat bemused and astonished because all the action and direction on this issue has come from this side of the House. Subsequently, I found myself asking: what efforts has the Australian Labor Party and the member for Lyons made to support Tasmanian farmers? The honourable member says that we on this side of the House are failing to support Tasmanian farmers, that we are not achieving enough gains for farmers, and that we have not acted on the issue of country of origin labelling. So I ask the member for Lyons and his federal colleagues: where were they when we left on the Spirit of Tasmania and held a rally that went across to Melbourne and on to Shepparton, Ballarat, Mildura, Sydney and the steps of this building?
I was at many of the Fair Dinkum Food campaign rallies and I have to say that I never heard the name of the member for Lyons mentioned. Just today I inquired with the federal minister for agriculture and his department whether the Australian Labor Party or the member for Lyons had approached the minister about his concerns as outlined in the motion. I have to inform the House that the answer to both questions was no. There is a lot of rhetoric but not a lot of substance. In his motion the member for Lyons congratulates the Premier of Tasmania on supporting Tasmanian farmers. I can confirm that the Premier was at a number of the rallies. I met with the Premier and sat with him as we crossed Bass Strait with the Fair Dinkum Food campaign. I stood by him at the rally in Melbourne, but, very sadly, I did not see the member for Lyons or any of his federal colleagues.
But should we be surprised? We know that the Australian Labor Party has no credibility whatsoever on this issue. Only recently, through factional brawling, the Labor Party successfully moved to oust the only member of the Australian Labor Party who has any experience in this industry—the member for Corio and shadow minister for agriculture.
This motion calls on the House to condemn the federal government for the lack of labelling laws and to allow the community to make their own decisions on the purchase of fresh food. I have to ask the member for Lyons where he has been these past 10 months. Let me inform him that, in October last year, the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council agreed to a new country of origin labelling standard, which was gazetted into state and territory law in December 2005. The standard requires a distinct statement of origin on all fresh fruit, vegetables, seafoods and nuts. It will no longer be sufficient just to say that it is imported. Australian consumers now have a genuine choice; they can identify where their fresh food was grown.
To address outstanding concerns on frozen and packaged food products expressed by a number of stakeholders, including the Fair Dinkum Food Campaign organisers, the Australian government directed Food Standards Australia New Zealand to consider the feasibility and a cost benefit analysis of extending the country of origin labelling to products with two or fewer whole food ingredients. A report on this work, including a regulatory impact statement and the outcomes of public consultation, will be finalised at the end of the month. Let me remind the member for Lyons that it was this side of the House that had to lobby his own state’s Labor ministers of agriculture and health who sit on the FSANZ board. The Australian government has only one vote on the board.
Following the Canberra rally in August last year, the Australian government announced a $3 million industry partnership agreement. In delivering on its $3 million commitment, the Australian government has established the Australian Industry Development Group, which comprises a number of senior figures in the Australian vegetable industry. This group will be chaired by the leader of the Fair Dinkum Food Campaign. Sitting alongside him will be the senior manager of fresh produce in Coles supermarkets, the CEO of Simplot Australia, the chair of Horticulture Australia Ltd, the chair of the horticultural branch of the Victorian Farmers Federation and independent industry representation from the largest vegetable nursery in the Southern Hemisphere. The purpose of this group is to implement foundation projects which through an exhaustive process have been determined as the most effective means of creating positive change in the Australian vegetable industry.
By comparison, the alternative government—your party, Member for Lyons—has seen fit to dump its shadow agriculture minister and, at the same time that the Australian government has announced a $3 million commitment, the state government has announced a $4 million commitment. But all we have seen from the state government in Tasmania is three clowns dressed in vegetable outfits going around the shows. I presume we call them ‘Mr Bean’, ‘Mr Carrot’ and ‘Mr Parsnip’! (Time expired)
I remind the House that, in August last year, some 130 farm tractors descended on Parliament House after travelling the Tasmanian, Victorian and New South Wales countryside at the snail’s pace of 30 kilometres per hour. The journey of the Tasmanian potato growers, with the support of the member for Lyons, sparked national interest in a campaign on food labelling laws aimed at helping farmers and their communities to promote their products to Australian consumers. This year, the leader of those farmers, Richard Bovill, was recognised with an Order of Australia award. This highlighted his more than 20-year fight for rural communities. It also underlines the importance of the food labelling campaign he has led on behalf of these farmers and their communities.
But this issue is not just for Tasmanian farmers and their communities but for all Australians. It is about what is in Australia’s national best interests. I think I speak for most Australians in saying that none of us want to wake up one day, in five or 10 years time, and discover that our country, which is known for its agriculture, has suddenly become a net importer of vegetables. But that is exactly where we are headed as a nation at the moment. It is time we stopped playing politics as the member for Braddon has done in his contribution in the House today. This is in the best interests of all Australians.
I am sure that most Australians, were they more aware of the impact of their supermarket decisions, would take a stand and buy their own locally grown produce, given the choice. But, to make these decisions, they need to know which produce is Australian. The debate about better food labelling is not new, but we are reaching a critical juncture for the impact of such laws on farmers and local communities. This is why I fully support the motion by my colleague the member for Lyons, Dick Adams, calling on the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran, to introduce legislation that ensures the labelling of farm products is unambiguous and works for the benefit of all primary producers. It is simply about choice.
I contend that it is hard enough, in a fiercely competitive international marketplace, for Australian farmers to compete with produce from other countries. Australian vegetables account for less than three per cent of the world vegetable trade. The industry is facing declining competitiveness, which could reverse our position as a net vegetable exporter within three to five years. This in turn places supply pressure on the domestic Australian front, which makes up 70 per cent of all Tasmanian vegetable sales—a large chunk of that state’s agricultural produce.
The international position of our farmers in the world market is made all the more difficult because of the unlevel playing field in agriculture due to the massive subsidies in the EU, the US and Japan. I am pleased that the British Prime Minister raised some of these issues in his address to the parliament today. A more concerted effort by the Australian government, through its leadership of the Cairns Group, might have assisted the G20 developing countries in their fight against these tariffs in last year’s world trade negotiations. Again, the government was missing in action.
However, Australians can play a role in influencing outcomes for these farmers and our national economy, and that is to try wherever possible to buy Australian produce. The existing country of origin labelling laws are inconsistently interpreted and applied, making it difficult for consumers to make the choice of buying Australian produce. It is time the Australian government made it easier for all Australians to make these choices, to the benefit both of Tasmanian farmers and of the country as a whole.
I believe this fits in with past strategies pursued by Labor in government, under the Agrifood Council, which were about not only improving farm practices alone but also positioning Australian food manufacturing industries to capitalise on the growth in the middle class in the Asian economy for the purposes of buying high-quality manufactured Australian food products. The country of origin campaign is about Australian consumers having the right to know what they purchase. I very much believe, as does the member for Lyons, that, given that choice, they will err on the side of supporting not only Tasmanian farmers but Australian farmers generally, and in doing so will support local communities who are doing it very tough on the international stage.
I commend the motion to the House, and I congratulate not only the Premier of Tasmania, Paul Lennon, who was rewarded with a very handsome majority at the recent state election, but also the member for Lyons, Dick Adams. They have shown collective leadership, in association with some members on the other side of the chamber and some members in the state parliament, to educate the Australian community on this issue. (Time expired)
I would like to begin by congratulating my parliamentary colleague from Tasmania Mr Adams, the member for Lyons, on at least part of his private member’s motion—that is, his offer to congratulate that fine group of Tasmanians on their bid to bring the plight of all Australian farmers to the attention of the community.
I too was proud to stand on the lawns of Parliament House with those men and women from rural Tasmania and from all over rural Australia who brought their message to Canberra with their Fair Dinkum Food campaign. Indeed I stood there with Liberal and Labor colleagues, which was refreshing. May I take this opportunity to also congratulate my colleague the member for Braddon, who has demonstrated outstanding leadership in this regard.
The convergence on Canberra was the final part of a long journey by the campaigners, who had travelled through rural and city Australia, calling for better food labelling laws for fruit and vegetables. Leading 130 tractors and thousands of campaigners was Tasmanian farmer Richard Bovill, who deserves special mention for his drive and initiative.
The Fair Dinkum Food campaign was so successful and attracted so much community attention because people in Australia do care about where their food comes from, and they deserve to be given an informed choice. Last year I raised the issue of food labelling relating to country of origin with the parliamentary secretary for health, and may I say that this was prior to it becoming a media issue at all. I wanted the government to give more practical action to this issue.
Food labelling is a pressing issue in Tasmania, particularly in important primary production areas such as the north-east, which is in my fine electorate of Bass, and the north-west. It is about consumer choice: people do want to know if their potatoes are coming from Scottsdale or Slovakia. To me this seems to be increasingly important given the potential for an influx of primary produce from developing nations as a consequence of free trade agreements. I do not propose that in principle we ought to argue with that. As a nation whose economy relies in large part on the export of minerals and primary produce, we do not prevent other countries from selling their goods abroad. However, our consumers, our community, deserve to be able to make their choice at the supermarket in the full knowledge that food is safe and in the full knowledge of the country it was grown and processed in. I am very supportive of moves to improve the level of information made available to consumers so that the name of the country of origin is obvious.
But where I must now disagree with the motion from the member for Lyons is on his attempt to condemn the federal government for not doing enough on the food labelling issue. The previous speaker, the member for Batman, did make a very salient point: this ought to be a bipartisan issue. I put to the House that the member for Lyons, in his attempt to condemn the government, is just playing politics. He says that consumers are not able to make their own decisions on the purchase of fresh food, and he is calling for legislation. On these points I today stand quite happily to defend the Australian government and the minister responsible in this regard. The Australian government is continuing to consult and has made substantial developments in the food labelling area, which have also involved the cooperation, to different degrees, of the states and New Zealand. The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code contains a standard requiring all packaged food and unpackaged fruit, vegetables, seafood and pork to display specific origin information, not just that the product is imported.
This came about when state and Commonwealth ministers agreed to the country of origin labelling standard at a meeting in October last year. This was gazetted into law around the country last December and will become legally enforceable in June this year. In further recognition that additional support is needed the Australian government has committed $3 million to help industry tackle the serious challenges that the horticultural industry faces.
I would say that we have made significant progress. Fair enough, perhaps more is needed. But I would say that I am personally very proud of the progress we have made. The motion of the member for Lyons is based on a sensible premise, but his criticisms are very much misdirected, ill-informed and running well late of his opportunity to have been a constructive player in addressing this issue of importance to rural communities like mine and that of my colleague the member for Braddon.
Let me start by firstly congratulating Tasmanian farmers on their initiative and their campaign, together with their support for the member for Lyons, to pursue clearer country of origin labelling for foods and agricultural products. I suppose the decision by McDonald’s to source potatoes from an overseas supplier brought all this to a head, particularly in looking at the economy of Tasmania, where agriculture clearly rates very highly in the contribution to its economic position.
Clearly companies such as McDonald’s can easily rationalise decisions to source the supply of essential agricultural products and foodstuffs, potatoes in this case, simply by referring us back to the basic and immediate aspects of economic viability at any particular point in time. Sadly, McDonald’s at that stage did not have regard for its own position in the marketplace, and it did not have much regard for the livelihood of farmers in Tasmania or those who work for farmers in Tasmania.
Last year we had a rather bizarre situation where farmers in Tasmania were being encouraged to plough their cauliflower into the ground rather than to try to take it to market, simply because supermarkets were able to access overseas cauliflower at an almost dumped price into the Australian market, debasing the essential economics of farming in Tasmania. Companies do not necessarily deserve to have a life raft thrown to them every time that there is an economic imperative confronting industry but, quite frankly, a country that fails to be able to feed itself by not being able to grow its own food and to sustain itself agriculturally is a country in decline. I would actually submit that what the member for Lyons has done with his colleagues in support of the people of Tasmania, and what the farmers themselves have done, is draw the attention of the Australian population at large to the fact that, unless we do scrutinise the sourcing of our food products, quite clearly we will become a country in decline because we will actually lose the ability to feed ourselves. That is not simply deleterious to our economy; that is deleterious to our own strategic security. A country that cannot feed itself will suffer the fate of others that have gone before it and find itself in decline. Having said that, that is not dissimilar from a country that fails to be able to manufacture for itself. For instance, if we lose the ability to be able to manufacture and produce our goods in this country through simply relying on the skills, ability and cheaper costs of some overseas subsidised suppliers, we will lose our strategic ability as a country to be able to compete not only in an immediate economic sense but also well into the future.
I hope that, as a result of country of origin labelling, consumers will scrutinise what is in their shopping trolleys from here on in and give first preference to an Australian product. Similarly, I hope that Australian farmers, as a result of this campaign, will also scrutinise their plant and consumables and see that what is capable of being manufactured in Australia is manufactured in Australia. For instance, I trust that people, including the farmers responsible for this campaign, will understand the concerns of Qantas employees who recently tried to ensure that the airline would retain Australian labour in servicing Australian aircraft. They are moving to protect not only Australian jobs but also the strategic ability of this country to service itself. Simply turning away 300,000 kids from TAFE over the last 10 years, so jeopardising the skills base of this country, has an extreme and deleterious effect on the further economic security of this country. I support the motion that has been put forward, I congratulate the farmers of Tasmania on the stand that they have taken and I congratulate the member for Lyons for bringing this to our attention. (Time expired)
I advise the member for Fisher that the time for this debate will expire in three minutes and 40 seconds.
Mr Deputy Speaker, at your insistence I had better make this a quality three minute and now maybe 20 second contribution to this debate on farmers. Let me say at the outset that I strongly support the principle behind the motion moved by my good friend the honourable member for Lyons. It is vital to recognise that Tasmanian farmers ought to be supported. It is also very important to have proper labelling laws and so on. I do think, though, it inappropriate for the member for Lyons to seek in some way, shape or form to criticise the current government for its failure to have appropriate labelling laws. As a member of a party supporting the government, I have very great admiration for not only the farmers of Tasmania but also the farmers of Australia, including the farmers of the federal electorate of Fisher situated on the Sunshine Coast. Australian farmers, including Tasmanian farmers, have succeeded in promoting their produce as some of the freshest and tastiest in the world, and that is certainly very important. The member for Lyons is no doubt a keen advocate of his electorate, and we are very pleased these days to have the member for Bass and the member for Braddon as members of the Liberal Party of Australia because they also are able to verify how effective the Tasmanian farming community is in producing and selling products of very great quality.
The member opposite representing the Australian Labor Party has falsely criticised the government over an issue that I think really ought to have a bipartisan approach. The labelling of foods has attracted considerable interest over a very long time and the Australian government under its current manifestation is amongst those who have had a longstanding interest in this topic. It is good to know that consumers around Australia will soon be able to better determine the origin of the foods which they buy, thanks to the introduction by the Australian government, in December 2005, of a new country of origin food-labelling standard for Australia. This issue of having accurate and readable labelling on all of our foods has been the focus of government attention for some time. In October last year, the public was further informed that the government wanted clear labelling of foods to reduce the chance of confusion on the part of the consumer. It was made clear then that the states should shoulder a great proportion of the blame that has arisen as a result of that confusion. There has also been evidence that some of the governments of the states and territories have not made the effort they should have with respect to enforcing country of origin labelling. This is unacceptable, and I understand that the Australian government has had words with the recalcitrant states on this issue. I hope the honourable member for Lyons, who is now in the chair, has contacted the re-elected Labor government of Tasmania to ask that it pull its socks up and show some improvements to its own performance in that area.
The new food standards came about as a result of negotiations among officials in both Australia and New Zealand. For unpackaged fruit, vegetables, nuts and seafood, the standard will come into effect within three months, while the standard will come into force in December for unpackaged pork products and in December 2007 for packaged goods. The Australian government, in its Liberal manifestation, has long recognised the benefits of clearer, better labelling. There have also been considerable requests from the general public, because they want to know that what they buy is Australian. This is an important issue, and I thank the House for the opportunity to make a contribution.
Order! The time for this debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
In the House today the prime ministers of Australia and the United Kingdom spoke of the common bond between our countries based on our shared values. Although these values ranged across a number of areas, Mr Blair specifically talked about how both our countries were open—we welcomed people and we were open to looking at change, to embracing diversity and to seeing the value that could be derived from that.
Here in Australia we so often take for granted the legacy that our democratic Westminster parliamentary system, coupled with a strong Judeo-Christian heritage, has bequeathed to us: equality for men and women, access to and accountability of government, respect for the rule of law, the freedom to receive reward for work and the freedom to choose our faith without fear of persecution or oppression. Despite the fact that in a utopian world everyone would enjoy this, clearly not all people do enjoy this legacy. There are countries where these sentiments are voiced and are perhaps even included in the legal framework underpinning their system of government, but the reality for people on the ground can be quite different.
Without going back to the subject of this motion, we can refer to the current situation in Afghanistan where Mr Abdul Rahman has been apprehended and is facing trial and possible execution for his choice to live out his faith in Jesus Christ as a Christian. According to media reports, it may be that international pressure has moved the government of President Karzai to engineer a reprieve. The response, however, of other leaders in that country, such as Abdul Raulf—who is considered a moderate and who was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban regime—has been to highlight that, even if the government bows to ‘Western pressure’, they will incite the people to rise up and ‘pull him to pieces’, as apostasy is a crime punishable by death under their law.
The incident which prompted this motion today was the dreadful event of 29 October 2005 in Poso, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, where three people were brutally murdered by beheading. They were not criminals, militants or hostages; they were schoolgirls, whose only crime was their choice to live as Christians in a country where freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution. The long history of violence in Central Sulawesi has caused the deaths of thousands of people and the displacement of tens of thousands of refugees who are fleeing religious persecution. The response of the Indonesian government—which has been to condemn the attacks, to send additional police to investigate the murders and to give their commitment to bringing the perpetrators to account—is most welcome. Welcome also is the possibility of a judicial review by the Indonesian Supreme Court into the effect of the recent ministerial decree concerning the construction of houses of worship, which both moderate Muslim and Christian groups fear will discriminate against minorities, disregard human rights and contravene the Indonesian constitution.
In drawing the attention of the House to these issues, I wish not only to highlight what has happened to these people, to pass on our sympathies to the families concerned and to note to the Indonesian government that we welcome their actions but also to highlight the response of the Australian media to these incidents. The beheading of hostages in Iraq or the arrest of Mr Rahman in Afghanistan have become front-page news. This contrasts greatly with the beheading of these three girls, which it appears was barely newsworthy, only making it to page 16 of the newspaper. Indeed, following that tragedy, two more young women, Ivon and Siti, both 17, have been murdered. They were shot in the head near a church in Poso and, to the best of my knowledge, their murders have not been reported in mainstream Australian media. Why? Are their lives worth less? Have we just started to accept that things like this happen in other places?
The danger for Australia is taking for granted the freedoms, the security and the values that we enjoy, not realising that by ignoring the plight of others, whether here or overseas, we undermine the strength of our own society. It can start by tolerating abuse because ‘it happened overseas’. It can start by tolerating the intolerant in our own country, because to confront them may cause offence. As Mr Blair said, Australia is a great, open country. We welcome people from many nations. As we welcome them and look to uphold our values, we must also speak out against violations, whether overseas or in Australia, to make sure that the values that we hold dear as a country continue to underpin the inclusive and tolerant society that we have.
I would like to join with my colleague the member for Wakefield in expressing my profound horror and sadness at the brutal killing of three young Indonesian girls in October 2005. The beheading of these innocent—and indeed that is what they were, innocent—young schoolgirls because of their Christian faith is barbaric. It is an act of unadulterated evil and a senseless consequence of misguided religious fanaticism.
When confronted with such a callous disregard for human life, we need to pause and reflect on the fact that, despite the existence of laws, conventions, bills of rights and constitutions around the world which are meant to protect fundamental human rights and religious freedoms, sadly, abuses and violations still occur. That is why this motion today is so important. To remain silent about atrocities taking place in our own neighbourhood or in our own backyard would be irresponsible on our part and a dereliction of our duty as a democratic society that says it upholds and preserves the rights of individuals, among which is the right of individuals to pursue whatever religious faith they wish to practise.
It is our duty to condemn the brutal killing of these young girls and, in doing so, we hope that we can play a small part in preventing such atrocities from recurring—although, sadly, that has not been the case since the beheading of the three girls in Indonesia in October last year.
I am speaking to this motion today to express not only my horror at these events but also my interest in nurturing Australia’s relationship with Indonesia and in promoting dialogue between the different faiths and cultures of our global community in order to promote peaceful coexistence amongst people.
I represent one of the largest Muslim minorities in Australia in this place and I have been very active in my electorate in promoting dialogue, including participating in our very successful local interfaith network. Since its establishment in early 2001, this network has had a remarkable response from our local religious communities, which have welcomed the opportunity to come together and seek to understand and learn from each other. Forums such as this prove that we can overcome our diversity and differences and live together peacefully and productively. But we can only do this if all groups and individuals involved are prepared to treat each other with equal value and respect and, indeed, we can only do this if the political and religious leaders of a community lead by example. The success of the dialogue and partnerships can be seen in my electorate of Calwell, which has remained calm and harmonious despite the racial and religious unrest found elsewhere, both internationally and even here at home in Australia.
I agree with the call of the member for Wakefield to the Indonesian government to investigate this matter and to bring the perpetrators to justice. I have no doubt that the government of Indonesia, which is a democracy based on the rule of law, will do exactly that. But beyond that I want to strongly support the call of the member for Wakefield for both Indonesia and Australia to remain, despite this, committed to peace and enhancing mutual understanding and cooperation between our people. The Labor opposition is firmly committed to this purpose and I am sure that every member in this parliament is also committed to this purpose.
We are all aware that Indonesia has experienced many racial and religious difficulties over the years. Indeed, Central Sulawesi and Poso, where the atrocities took place, were the scene of bitter fighting between Muslims and Christians between 1998 and 2002 in particular. In fact, over 1,000 people were killed before a government brokered truce managed to subdue the violence. Tension, however, remains high. In May last year, a bomb exploded in the nearby predominantly Christian town of Tentana, killing 22 people and injuring over 30. It is believed that the fighting, which took place four years ago, drew Islamic militants from all over Indonesia who have targeted Central Sulawesi as a region that can be turned into a foundation stone for an Islamic state.
Today we need to condemn militancy and religious fanaticism not only in Indonesia but also around the world. Fanaticism is one of the root causes of hatred and violence. Its tragic legacy can be seen around the world. I need only refer to the bombings in New York, Bali, London, Baghdad and Madrid, to name but a few. It is important to say to those who commit violence in the name of religion, whether it be Christianity or Islam, that their actions are totally inconsistent with the teachings of their respective religious doctrines. Both Islam and Christianity condemn violence and cruelty and uphold the sanctity and dignity of human life. It is important that we condemn all forms of fanaticism, in particular religious fanaticism, because they impose a significant threat to our world community. It is important that we take collective responsibility to ameliorate the circumstances and factors that create tensions and drive fanaticism. There is goodwill in Indonesia towards Australia as there is goodwill in Australia towards Indonesia and we must protect and build on this goodwill.
I rise to speak this afternoon in very strong support of the motion moved by the member for Wakefield. I would like to congratulate him on his sensitivity in raising this within the government’s party room and in this place during question time. I also congratulate him on his forthrightness but also sensitivity, having regard to all of the issues, in bringing this private member’s motion forward to the parliament.
I think his motion very appropriately makes the point strongly and delicately that the brutal executions of three Indonesian girls in October last year are a deeply serious matter which should concern every Indonesian, every Australian and every world citizen. I welcome my colleagues on both sides of this House expressing their sorrow in this parliament and I join them in that. The motion expresses our deep sorrow to both the government and the people of Indonesia but, in particular, to the families who were directly affected by the killings of these three dear girls. It also condemns the beheadings, as there was a culprit or group of culprits here. The motion regards this as an act of brutality and terror and a very serious abuse of human rights. It welcomes steps by the government of Indonesia to investigate this incident and to ensure that justice is administered, if indeed it is possible. The motion also conveys to the government and the people of Indonesia that the Australian government remains committed to peace and reconciliation in Indonesia and to enhancing our mutual understanding and cooperation as good neighbours in our region.
It may perhaps disappoint some, as they listen to the broadcast or read this in Hansard, that I will not be going into the detail of the motion, but I do want to bring to the attention of the House some words from a television program which I watched on SBS as long ago as 2002. In the 30 January 2002 episode of Dateline on SBS there was a report from David O’Shea called ‘Sulawesi Christmas’. It was a stunning report which gave an overview of the challenges and the history which have confronted the people of Central Sulawesi. In it, David O’Shea talked about the loss of at least 1,000 and perhaps as many as 2,000 lives beginning in around 1998. A vibrant community in Poso, once home to 40,000 people, both Christian and Muslim, is now a Muslim town of around 5,000. David O’Shea talked about an incident in December 1998 when a drunken boy entered a mosque. In the finish, two young men, one Muslim and one Christian, had a drunken fight and the Muslim boy was stabbed. What happened after that is still disputed, but we know that trouble broke out.
It is also fair to say that, in that part of the world, most civil unrest is stirred up by other elements, allegedly by the military or Jakarta’s corrupt elite and, importantly, by Laksar Jihad, which is a very well entrenched organisation in the region and which has a sophisticated propaganda wing. They do stir up trouble and portray the Christians as the aggressors. Just as they did in November 2001, they have found it is not hard to rouse the Muslim masses.
The children, in this instance, were singing before a community of Christians in their burnt-down church. There was no roof and there were barely any walls. The girls were singing:
Oh dear Lord, how much longer are your children to endure this oppression as a result of the unrest? Christmas is upon us once more. We find ourselves in the ruins of your kindness. We hope and pray your peace will be everlasting. Though storms may break over us, though we are forced to suffer, we will always worship You.
I commend this motion to the House.
I commend the motion and very briefly note the horrific murders that have been specified. However, I will use this debate for a broader comment on Indonesian human rights. No doubt there have been a number of advances in recent years as Indonesia moves towards a more democratic regime. Indonesia’s constitutional court has shown its independence, and Indonesia has become the first Asian country to endorse all eight ILO conventions. There are no restrictions on women’s political activities in the nation. There have been direct elections at provincial levels, at county levels and at city levels, and, of course, in the last few years there has been a more open media.
That is not to detract from the significant challenges and the real human rights issues that the government faces. I commend the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for the swift decision in recent weeks on the 43 refugee claimants from Papua. It contrasts with the deliberate delaying of decisions in respect of large numbers of Timorese, whose claims were of varying credibility but were all given credibility by the department’s failure over many years to face up to its responsibility to say something about the occupation of Timor for fear it might have posed difficulties for our relationship with Indonesia. Indonesia has made marked advances, and we should recognise them. We should recognise the current government’s strivings to improve.
It is interesting to note that, whilst we are mainly concerned with Islamic fundamentalism, the US State Department, as a fairly credible source, cite problems such as Hindu restrictions on the practice of Friday prayers by Muslims in Bali. So it is sometimes a very complex, localised situation. However, a US State Department’s document on Indonesia has put the country in some perspective. They noted a more noticeable trend over the past few years towards using broadly worded criminal laws that limit the freedom of expression. They also noted that journalists ‘face violence and intimidation from police, soldiers, government officials and rebels’. There are instances such as the persecution of the Ahmadi sect of Islam on 15 July and, in September, attacks on their religious institutions in West Java. There have been dozens of disappearances, and there has been the use of torture. The US State Department has said that torture has sometimes been used to obtain confessions, to punish suspects and to seek information that intimidates others.
I talked briefly about Indonesia becoming the first country in Asia to endorse all eight ILO conventions. On a positive front, the Indonesian police force has worked with the ILO to change practices in regard to demonstrations and industrial action. However, on the other front, the imposition of export processing zones has meant that there are exceptions to Indonesian laws in labour matters, which mean that there are still difficulties for union organisation in the country.
On ethnic matters, in 2004 the Attorney-General found that 60 articles of law discriminated against the Chinese minority. Whilst noting that, and having concerns about that, we should not shy away from the fact that the Indonesian regime is actually doing something about it and is tackling it. In May 2004 Sidney Jones, a renowned human rights activist whom I had the pleasure to meet in New York a decade or so ago over Timor, was refused a work visa and stay rights in Indonesia because of her criticism of the regime. We see a continued colonial presence in Papua based upon rather dubious legal foundations of a so-called ‘vote of free choice’. Indonesia is determined to hold onto that because of the vital mining deposits in the country, as is most clearly shown in Freeport.
In conclusion, I commend the member for Wakefield for bringing forward this motion. It does cite a very graphic, horrible instance, and we would hope that the Indonesian authorities press home investigations and reprimand the culprits. We should recognise the very real advances in Indonesia in the last few years but at the same time the complexity of the situation and sometimes reversions.
I rise to support this motion in respect of human rights and religious tolerance because it gives me an opportunity to outline the very good work of Australia, in cooperation with Indonesia, in this area. I also rise to temper some of the attempts to censure our northern neighbour through comments about individual incidents, which I fear is no more constructive than the Indonesian parliament censuring Australia for events in Cronulla. After all, both nations, along with all of our near Asian neighbours, with Australia, have challenges in human rights and religious and cultural freedoms. Make no mistake.
When we look back—perhaps a decade from now—on the events of the last 12 months, our achievements will be measured by our ability at a community level with our near Asian neighbours to foster community strengthening and conflict resolution strategies and by the technical and training aid that we provide to our near Asian neighbours. We will be measured at a national level by our interfaith dialogue and at an international level by the conventions to which we and our near Asian neighbours are signatories.
I begin by pointing out that we are both signatories to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every year, dating back to 1981, Australia has been a co-sponsor of a motion on the declaration on the elimination of intolerance and discrimination in both religion and belief. Indonesia has taken very important steps just recently in respect of the international covenant on civil and political freedoms and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural freedoms.
At the most basic level in a community, our achievements will be judged not by what we say in this place about individual events, for I believe that is quite unconstructive. That is not to say, of course, that we sanction them. Far more important, and what we will be measured on 10 years from today, is what we do at community level, what we can achieve at family level in the battle of ideas. As I alluded to in my maiden speech, our urgent appointment is right now with our near Asian neighbours to make sure that when youths—be they from a disadvantaged background or a privileged one—are inevitably confronted with a choice between intolerance and taking that path of moderation, understanding and prudence, we win that battle of ideas to which we contribute with our near Asian neighbours, and they choose the latter.
I think Australia is doing an excellent job with trade, with aid, with technical assistance and of course, at a national level, with the interfaith dialogue. That began in November 2004 and was repeated again this month in Cebu. It reached out to moderate Islamic leaders and empowered them and their voices. It said, ‘How are we going to empower you to have a coalition with governments, because you have a vital role in speaking to your supporters, and to help make those choices at village level?’ Be it around a fire, under a tree or around a kitchen table, it is happening here and it is happening with our near Asian neighbours. I want to emphasise that that is an international collaboration, fundamentally against terrorism.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs was right to say that this is not a battle between Islam and Christianity; it is between tolerance and intolerance—it is between those who support those fundamental freedoms held by our near Asian neighbours as well as in Australia and those who attempt to break them down. Australia’s role has been substantial at the UN level. We have worked exceptionally hard at regional level. Finally, we have worked with assistance and aid at the local level. At the level of interfaith dialogue, the chance is to take moderate religious beliefs, be they those of people right here in Australia or our near Asian neighbours, and work to ensure that their voices are being heard in government and that those in government, reciprocally, are actually listening.
So, to this motion today, I simply say that in highlighting individual acts, barbarous as they are, we need look no further than the response of the President of Indonesia, who said:
I condemn this barbarous killing, whoever the perpetrators are and whatever their motives.
Nothing could be clearer. Nothing is clearer in sharia law: it is obviously absolutely intolerable to kill innocent civilians. And that strong rhetoric was backed up with action. It was backed up by moving the chief of police and 800 security staff straight to Poso to restore the situation there. So we have evidence that there is a deep commitment in Indonesia, as there is here. Finally, we have seen reform locally with their 1969 regulations on construction of places of worship and with Indonesia’s recent signing of a number of international covenants to empower this. I think they should be acknowledged.
I let the House know that the debate will expire at 6 pm.
Might I first acknowledge that all the contributors I have listened to in this debate have approached what is a terrible tragedy with great understanding of both its importance and the complexities that face Indonesia in dealing effectively with a multicultural and multifaith community forged together out of a variety of different islands previously under Dutch dominion. I think that tone of debate does this parliament great credit.
In relation to religious extremism, it is certainly possible to point to events such as the beheading of those three Christian girls—a terrible tragedy. It is possible to point to Afghanistan, where their courts are considering the death penalty for an apostate who has converted to Christianity. But we look only in one direction if we look towards extremism when it is manifested by persons of Islamic background. Look to India, where a Christian missionary was burnt hideously to death by Hindu extremists. Look to acts even in our recent times of extremists following odd and quite unacceptable brands of Christian faith—the ‘Lord’s soldiers’, I think they are called, in Africa, who have committed unspeakable atrocities using kids as young as seven and eight to carry guns, to kill their parents and to impose a reign of terror in that part of Africa where they have temporary dominion.
Look, too, to our not so distant past, where those carrying the cross brought to South America unimaginable horrors—enslavement and tragedy to the native South Americans. More recently and with less tragic consequences for the people of Papua was the very fact that Christian missions there were responsible for enormous cultural destruction—the destruction of longhouses and cultural evidence of any belief other than Christianity—as they arrived, which has contributed to the difficulties of that emerging nation as it struggles to deal with its own complexities.
Of course, Indonesia, as the member for Reid has quite properly mentioned, has made enormous strides, some with the assistance and cooperation of the Australian government. I know that Brian Burdekin, a former Commissioner for Human Rights in Australia, has had good and effective dialogue with his Indonesian counterparts. There are many in Australia and Indonesia who would share the kind of tone of discussion that is occurring today, notwithstanding the temptation to inflame debate that events such as the grant of asylum to those who left West Irian and came to Australia might give rise to in that other country.
I join with the member for Reid in his comments about the circumstances of that country. Our own behaviour in Papua was less than exemplary. Although in the end independence was granted, it came in circumstances of which Australia really cannot be proud. It was delayed for far too long and then pushed forward in haste. And since independence little attention has been paid to that country’s long-ongoing national integrity. There are real difficulties about the manner in which West Papua was incorporated into the Indonesian state—what many call ‘a so-called act of free choice’.
Nonetheless, both the government and Labor have made plain that they accept Indonesian sovereignty over that country. But that does not mean that we should not calmly, sensibly and with great dignity make a case for the internationalisation of human rights. If human rights matter, they must be universal and they must extend to all religions, to all persons and to all peoples. Of course, that means we do not turn blind eyes to circumstances where people come to this country in genuine fear of persecution, irrespective of the fact that we regard their country as indissoluble.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
by leave—On behalf of the member for Kennedy, I move:
That this House resolves to accept the principle that the primary qualifying criteria for the Australian Defence Medal specify two years effective service, instead of six years, in line with the recommendation of the Returned and Services League of Australia.
I have moved this motion on behalf of the member for Kennedy, the much revered member of this House the Hon. Bob Katter MP, who is unable to attend today as he is attending to matters in his electorate, which bore the brunt of Cyclone Larry. I am sure the House joins me in wishing him and his constituents a speedy return to their lives. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all.
The member for Kennedy’s motion is based on a motion that has been on the RSL’s books since September 1999 calling on the federal government to institute a new award for service in the Australian Defence Force to be called the Australian Defence Medal, with the following conditions for the granting of the award: (a) service in the Australian Defence Force in any category after World War II and (b) completion of a minimum qualifying period of two years full-time elective service or part-time equivalent service or (c) completion of any lesser period for which he or she was engaged to serve, (d) being discharged medically unfit for further service prior to the completion of a period of two years service or its part-time equivalent due to injury, disease or death which occurred as a result of service or whilst on duty and (e) having gained an honourable discharge.
Whilst the ADF medal was announced by the government in 2004, conditions for eligibility have still not been finalised. This motion calls on the government to finalise the criteria for this medal accepting two years effective service so that those great Australians who have hitherto gone unrecognised for their efforts for our country can be duly recognised. The motion by the member for Kennedy is supported by the RSL, and I will add a couple of comments from other individuals who also support the two years of effective service as the criterion. Dave Morgan, a Vietnam veteran said:
There were thousands of dedicated servicemen and servicewomen doing their bit for this country back home to support the war in Vietnam with less than six years service. Many never left the country and have NO service medal, even though they were essential back up for us.
Mrs Shirley McLaren said:
Ex-Servicewomen from the Women’s Royal Australian Navy Service, Women’s Royal Australian Armed Corps and Women’s Royal Australian Air Force who completed their four year enlistment under Defence Force and Enlistment Policies of the time between 1951 and 1977 have also been denied the Australian Defence Medal.
These people are not current serving personnel but are servicewomen who served 55 years ago and have never been recognised as having served their nation. Also in her contribution to the debate, Mrs McLaren said—and I think this encapsulates why we should accept the two-year criterion:
Let us remember all who were called by their Nation to serve Australia with pride and dedication. Each one is part of our heritage and remember them all.
In conclusion, this leads me to ask for support within this House for the criteria that the member for Kennedy has outlined.
In the few moments left to me, I would like to raise another issue that is ancillary to this issue—that is, forgotten veterans of World War II who are currently fighting for recognition for access to the veterans’ gold card. Mr Ken Coultan, a constituent of mine in his 90s, is not well and in hospital but still fighting for the recognition for what he and other forgotten veteran mates should have access to to assist them with their health care in their twilight years.
Is the motion seconded?
Given the circumstances of the member for Kennedy, I am happy to second the motion.
I rise this evening to speak about the private member’s motion relating to the primary qualifying criteria for Defence Force personnel to be eligible for the Australian Defence Medal. Presently, to be eligible for the medal, a serviceman or woman must have six years of continuous service. This motion is set to change this requirement to only two years in line with recommendations from the national body representing ex-service men and women, the Returned and Services League of Australia.
I would like to put on the record that I support this motion. Australia’s service personnel make a dedicated and strong commitment to the security of our nation. Whether it is service for six years or for two years is irrelevant to the contribution that these young everyday Australians make to our country. Our Defence Force members deserve recognition. This medal is one way of showing the appreciation not only of the members of this House but of all Australians whose rights and values they are prepared to defend.
The medal itself recognises the significant commitment and contribution that our service personnel have made both in overseas operations and in support roles while on deployment in Australia. Regular and reserve service is recognised and the medal can be backdated for service from the end of World War II on 3 September 1945. Many service personnel do not make the 15-year qualifying period for a long service medal. However, during their time serving Australia, they have made a significant contribution, which should and must be recognised.
Many roles in the military are performed in the background prior to operational service, such as preparation, planning and intelligence tasks. The men and women of the Australian Defence Force who undertake these support roles remain in Australia supporting overseas operations both prior to official deployment and while troops are on active duty. All roles in the Army, Air Force and Navy work together for a single outcome—to protect Australia and our interests. Without the support of each of these men and women in the jobs within each of the three services, people on overseas operations would not succeed. There are no specific medals for these essential roles and this medal will surely fill that gap.
I have received many phone calls and letters from the RSL sub-branches in my electorate who disagree with the six-year qualifying criteria. The single argument for reducing the six-year criteria is that most service personnel are fully deployable inside of six years; in fact, many are fully deployable within one year. For example, a soldier joining the infantry or an armoured corps undertakes 45-day basic initial training at Kapooka, which is followed by 12 weeks on a course for their respective job in the Defence Force. Furthermore, soldiers are training and updating their skills continually. New technology and equipment means retraining. This all indicates that there will never be an appropriate time frame within which one will complete training. Soldiers are always training and refining their skills; hence, the current six-year criterion makes no sense and it should be changed to two years.
It is a fact that Australia’s Defence Force is one of the best equipped and skilled in the world. The Australian government provides state-of-the-art equipment, superb training facilities and instructors and excellent working conditions, entitlements and access to medical services. However, it is fitting also that these hardworking soldiers and officers be provided with a medal that recognises the efforts and personal sacrifices they make for our country. There is nothing more rewarding for a member of the Defence Force than to be honoured with a medal. Their service is unique and it is fitting that the enlistment eligibility of six years be lowered to two years.
I am certain that every Australian values the dedication of our service men and women and the critical role they play in defending Australia, our security and our interests. This medal is a small way of saying thank you and, as such, I commend this motion to the House.
It is evident that this government has made a mess of Australia’s military medals’ policy. Firstly, we saw the introduction of a national service medal, which this government designated a commemorative medal. National servicemen who have lobbied long and hard for recognition are far from happy with this situation and have mounted a strong campaign to be eligible for the yet to be released Defence medal; consequently, they want the criteria for this Defence medal to be two years. In support of this claim, they often cite an RSL resolution, which was moved some years ago, that called for the criteria for such a medal to be two years. Senior members of the RSL tell me that this criterion was put in place prior to the announcement of the nasho medal to ensure that the two-year nashos would not be left out should an ADF medal eventuate. Many argue that national servicemen have now been recognised and that the proposed Defence medal should be to recognise voluntary service within the ADF. This government, despite announcing that the new medal is to recognise voluntary service within the ADF, has not come up with the medal within the promised time and it has also failed to finalise and announce its criteria for this medal.
In 2004, the then minister, Mal Brough, put out a press release, which stated:
The Howard Government has today announced the intention to establish a new medal that recognises volunteer service in the Australian Defence Force.
I want to know whether the member for Maranoa, the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, has today announced a new policy. You would not know, because this government has cut and run on our members of the ADFR. It announced a policy for a new Defence medal before the last election and ever since has gone missing in action. It has refused to tell members of the ADF community what the criteria for that medal is—whether it is still the six years announced by then Minister Brough or whether that criteria has changed. At the same time he put out this release, the minister said:
... the Government was on track to call for applications by eligible serving and ex-service men and women by the end of the year.
That was in 2004. Where is this medal and why has this government turned its back on our members of the ADF? Why did it have one policy before the election and then go cold and missing in action after the election?
I call on the government to stop playing politics with our members of the ADF and to tell the Defence community what the situation is. I have some specific questions I want the government to answer. Will the government meet its commitment and strike a Defence medal? When will this delayed medal be available? What will be the criteria for this medal? Will the government recognise those women who signed up for four years? Certainly the ALP will. Will the government recognise those members of the ADF who were forced to take discharge, therefore not completing their term of service, due to being injured or wounded on duty? Certainly the ALP will. Will this government recognise those women who were forced to take discharge short of completing their term of service because of marriage or pregnancy? Certainly the ALP will. Will the government recognise those members of the ADF who signed up for three years and completed their term of enlistment? Certainly the ALP will. Will the government recognise those members of the ADF whose term of voluntary enlistment immediately post World War II was two years? Certainly, once again, the ALP will.
These matters have been dealt with in ALP policy, and they came about after long consultation with the defence community. Our shadow minister for defence, Robert McClelland, has also said that he now wants us to have another look, to make sure that the two-year argument has been properly addressed and is properly reflected in our policy, and to make sure that our policy covers all in the ADF who should be recognised. This is currently being done. As I said, I call on this government to get its act together and to honour its commitment to members of the ADF.
In June 2004, prior to the last election, the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mal Brough, put out a press release. He said that the government was introducing a volunteer medal, the criterion would be six years service and the medal would be ready by the middle of last year. We have heard nothing since. This government has cut and run on its responsibilities to members of the ADF, both current and past. It has gone missing in action at a time when members of the ADF community are looking to find out what the criteria are and when the promised medal will be available. (Time expired)
I am pleased to speak in the parliament today and I put on the record as the federal member for Ryan that I do support this motion by my colleague Mr Katter, the member for Kennedy, on the Australian Defence Medal. I also thank my colleague in the parliament the member for New England, Mr Windsor, for his very elegant representation of Mr Katter, who is not able to be here in the parliament today because of the cyclone that has devastated parts of Queensland and of course his own electorate. I say again on the record that I do support the thrust of this motion:
… that the primary qualifying criteria for the Australian Defence Medal specify two years effective service, instead of six years, in line with the recommendation of the Returned and Services League of Australia.
I have had the opportunity of speaking to various senior members of the RSL sub-branches in the Ryan electorate and to many returned veterans who are not themselves members of RSL sub-branches, and the overwhelming view is that they are very supportive of this criterion being reduced from six years to two years.
I also want to call upon the Howard government to expedite and finalise the criterion, because this is an important issue to many of our fellow Australians who fall within the ambit of this motion. It is certainly very important to a good number of my constituents in the Ryan electorate. Those who are eligible want to know that they are eligible, and I think they deserve our fullest support and cooperation in the finalisation of this policy. No veteran should be forgotten by this country and no serving personnel of the Australian Defence Force should be forgotten either.
Some 900,000 new medal entitlements have been created since the Howard government was elected in 1996, through the introduction of 11 new medals. The Howard government can stand very tall and be very proud of its record on recognising the service of our fighting men and women. We have troops around the world. We are particularly active in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and our troops are doing good work—important work. As the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr Tony Blair, said today in his historic address to this parliament, Australian and British forces together are doing work that is important for the protection of the values and the freedoms that both countries hold very dear.
As my colleagues have said, in June 2004 the government announced the establishment of the Australian Defence Medal for six years service since World War II in either the regular or the reserve arm of the Australian Defence Force. This medal recognises the significant commitment and contribution that our service men and women have made, whether they have served our country on overseas operations or remained in Australia in a very supportive role in uniform. The medal may be awarded posthumously to those who died in service and may also be awarded to those who were permanently injured and therefore unable to reach the prescribed qualifying period.
At the time this medal of recognition was announced in 2004, it was estimated some 400,000 personnel would be eligible for it. I support very much the comment of the RSL National President, Major-General Bill Crews, in June 2004 when he very strongly congratulated the government for ‘taking this most significant step in advancing personal recognition of the efforts of our defence forces’. He also said:
While the League had suggested that the minimum period for eligibility be two years, service for a period of six years is appropriate, recognising the need for servicemen and women to complete what can be prolonged periods of training to be operationally deployable. Further, it maintains the integrity of the awards system …
Six years is not something that is absolutely inappropriate; these are questions of judgment. But I think, given that the overwhelming view of those who are eligible for this medal is that the qualifying service criterion should be two years and given the important recognition by this parliament that it should be very special to receive this medal, I do personally support the criterion being reduced from six years to two years.
As I said, many in my constituency of Ryan are very supportive of this position. They have asked me to speak on their behalf, and as the federal member for Ryan I do so very strongly. I put on the record again my call on the government and on the new minister to expedite this matter. It is quite inappropriate that something like this should take two years, and I am happy to be quoted on that as a member of the party in government. (Time expired)
I welcome the opportunity to add my thoughts and comments to the member for Kennedy’s motion relating to the Australian Defence Medal. As we approach the 91st anniversary of the landings at Anzac Cove on 25 April, it is timely that we take this opportunity to remember with pride and honour those men and women who have served in our armed forces throughout our history. I know that many citizens in my electorate of Swan served in the Second World War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War and in the Gulf War since then. Many have also been involved in Australia’s peacekeeping forces in many parts of the world, including Rwanda, East Timor and the Middle East.
Today it is particularly important that we echo the comments made in this place today by the British Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, our own Prime Minister and our Leader of the Opposition that, no matter what our views of the present conflict in Iraq, our total and unequivocal support be given to our troops and those of the US, the UK and other coalition forces serving in Iraq.
I was privileged to join other members and senators last October in visiting our service men and women in Iraq. I can assure the House that they are meeting the difficult challenges of their service with effectiveness and vigour and that we can be proud of each and every one of them. Indeed, I have been lucky enough to participate in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program and I am a member of the Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. In these capacities I have taken as many opportunities as possible to meet with members of our defence forces on-site at their facilities and to participate in some of their training exercises. If ever I were in a vulnerable or precarious situation, these are the people I would want to have standing next to me.
Towards the end of next month, I will look forward to the active commemorations for Anzac Day held by the Returned Servicemen’s Leagues across Australia and in my electorate to commemorate the service and sacrifice of our service men and women. I note the efforts of the member for Cowan on behalf of all Australian veterans to promote their interests and to protect the record of their selfless service to us all.
The federal Labor Party has long supported the striking of an Australian Defence Medal to recognise those Australians who have served as members of the regular or reserve forces since World War II. There is a clear acknowledgment on both sides of this chamber of the debt we owe to the men and women who served—and continue to serve—to protect our nation’s freedom and values. While we are all keen to ensure a degree of bipartisanship when dealing with matters relating to our service men and women, the point needs to be made that the government’s delay in formally announcing the qualifications for the Australian Defence Medal is unacceptable. It is, to my mind, coming perilously close to turning the entire exercise into one of those cynical ‘it seemed like a good idea at the time’ election ploys.
The concept of the medal was announced almost two years ago by the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. At the time, Minister Brough announced the medal would, quite rightly, recognise individuals who have made a contribution to our national interest either in operations or on the home front in a support role. He correctly acknowledged that the rise in terrorism had ‘redefined the notions of a frontline or even an easily definable area of operations’ and that many tasks undertaken by Defence personnel ‘remained invisible to the community at large’. The Australian Defence Medal, he said, would also recognise these circumstances of service. How unfortunate it is that Anzac Day 2005 went by, and now Anzac Day 2006 will slip by, without thousands of ex-service men and women, and current Defence Force personnel, being given the opportunity to wear their medals when they march with their comrades.
Now I turn to the issue of qualifying periods. The government’s stipulation that there should be a six-year service requirement before eligibility for the Australian Defence Medal is unacceptable. Those who served as national conscripts are rightly recognised for the National Service Medal after two years service. It is clear that the service requirement for the Australian Defence Medal should not be six years but rather, in general, less, as explained by the member for Cowan. There are those, for example, who voluntarily enlisted for two years service after the Second World War and who should be eligible for the Australian Defence Force Medal after two years, given that was the time of their service. In my view, two years as a general qualifying period seems to be fair, equitable and sensible.
It is always difficult to set qualifying periods for such recognition. On this issue I know that the member for Cowan, the member for Bruce and the member for Barton are currently reviewing the Australian Labor Party’s specific position to ensure that the qualifying period set is the most appropriate and fair. This review process sensibly involves further discussions with the RSL and other Defence Force personnel representative bodies. I applaud the initiative of the member for Kennedy in proposing this motion and urge the federal government to stop sitting on its hands and to move as a matter of urgency to address this important matter for Defence Force personnel and their families. Members opposite say they support this motion. Actions speak louder than words. I urge them to get off their backsides and urge the minister to do something about this matter urgently. (Time expired)
In response to members opposite, I rise to support this motion. In 1998, ex-service associations called for recognition of voluntary service in the Australian Defence Force. Australia has a terrific awards system that recognises valour, campaigns and long service. These awards are well established and well recognised as having great significance, but they do not recognise voluntary service within Australia for periods less than the long service provisions—currently 15 years. The creation of the Australian Defence Medal was a measure designed to address this gap without devaluing the criteria for any existing award. Widespread consultation resulted in the support of ex-service groups, including the RSL, for this award.
However, as a significant stakeholder, the ADF was also consulted. This consultation resulted in feedback from CDF which had two significant changes. Firstly, there was a contextual statement, as follows:
The six-year eligibility criterion was chosen to recognise the changing nature of ADF service. It is a medal for contemporary times, recognising a commitment to the nation that has been demonstrated through service over and above initial enlistment periods.
The other change was a consequential increase in the minimum qualifying period from two to six years. I contend that this substantially changes the nature of the Australian Defence Medal from that which was requested—that is, a recognition of service during the period 1946 to 2005. The request was not intended to cover long service, operational service or valiant service but was for recognition of the fact that a person had made a commitment to serve their nation and to be available for the full range of tasks to which the government of the day might wish to commit them.
The ADF position that contemporary service requires a minimum period of six years to be recognised is contested by many and, I would argue, justifiably so. It may well be that this is implemented for future service men and women. Whilst I would not support that, I recognise that at least they will know where that threshold is set and can make decisions about their career based on that. For those who have been discharged before this date, the implementation of the ADM with a six-year criterion I believe is profoundly unjust. For those people, where their service was honourable and effective, there is no option for them to extend to meet that six-year criterion. So we have a situation where the draft criteria for this award do not reflect the original request of the ex-service community and it excludes many ex-service men and women who voluntarily served their country on a full-time basis in accordance with the defence requirements of the day.
The current requirements are for six years but they have some caveats such as those who have honourably served but have been discharged due to policies of the time—for example, a woman who was pregnant or people who have been severely disabled or who have died in the course of duty. I would argue that we should also be recognising those people who have served and been honourably discharged in accordance with the mores of the day. For example, women in the Women’s Royal Australian Navy were enlisted to serve for four years and, in light of the contemporary policy of their day, this was considered a reasonable and satisfactory time to offer effective service. By limiting the award with this caveat of six years it means that these people who voluntarily served their country with honour—and often with distinction— get no recognition for that service. I believe that is profoundly unjust and must be addressed.
Established leadership and management theory recognises the value of celebrating the contribution of staff at all levels. If the ADF wishes to attract and retain people into the future, it needs to be prepared to recognise and celebrate the voluntary service that meets the expectations of the service of that day. On Anzac Day, medals are a tangible symbol which identify somebody as having been an ex-serviceman, and are highly prized. By denying those who are not deployed overseas recognition on such occasions, we are disenfranchising them and devaluing the contribution of people without whom those who served overseas could not have achieved their mission. I call on the government to expedite the conclusion of this issue to make sure that we recognise those service men and women who have volunteered and served their country with distinction. (Time expired).
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Question proposed:
That grievances be noted.
Question agreed to.
I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Tuesday, 28 March, at 4 pm, as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.
by leave—I move:
That unless otherwise ordered, for the Main Committee meeting on Tuesday, 28 March 2006, the order of business be as follows:
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for consideration.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee’s report entitled Maintenance of the standing and sessional orders: first report, subtitled ‘Debate on the election of Speaker; presentation of explanatory memorandums’, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the first report of the committee’s inquiry into the maintenance of the standing and sessional orders, subtitled ‘Debate on the election of Speaker; presentation of explanatory memorandums’. This is the first report of a wide-ranging ongoing inquiry under which the committee will report from time to time on specific matters. The inquiry will encompass all sessional orders which the House has adopted for a trial period and also proposals for minor adjustments to the standing orders which arise from time to time. Any more substantial matter will be subject to separate inquiry and report. Over the course of each parliament, the Procedure Committee’s attention is drawn to various, often relatively minor, procedural issues arising from proceedings in the House. This ongoing inquiry provides a formal mechanism for us to consider these issues.
The report being presented today addresses two matters: debate on the election of Speaker and presentation of explanatory memorandums. Both arose from events in the House which caused the Procedure Committee to reflect on the related standing orders. In relation to the first topic, we recommend that standing order 11 be amended to permit movers and seconders to speak in support of their nominated candidate for Speaker in all cases, even when there is only one nominee. Currently, if there is only one nominee for Speaker there is no debate permitted by the standing orders, not even an introductory statement by the member nominating the candidate.
When Mr Speaker was elected at the start of this parliament, the mover and seconder of the motion nominating him did indeed speak in his support. However, this was strictly outside the provisions of the standing order, and the clerk––who, of course, chairs the meeting until there is a Speaker––had the uncomfortable duty of intervening to point this out. While the committee commends the clerk for attempting to apply the standing order, we see no necessity for the restriction in the standing order. The reason for the restriction is presumably that the time of the House does not need to be taken up with debate if no decision is to be made.
However, the committee sees no harm and some benefit in the mover and seconder introducing their candidate to the House. Most elections for Speaker take place at the start of a parliament, when newly elected members are likely not to be familiar with the member being nominated. This also applies to visitors in the galleries and to members of the television or radio audience. A short opportunity for proposers to introduce their candidate would also suit the ceremonial aspect of proceedings at the opening of a parliament. If no-one speaks in support, the election is over in the blink of an eye.
In relation to the second topic covered in this report, the committee recommends that standing orders 141 and 142 be amended to provide that the explanatory memorandum to a bill be presented when the bill is presented, rather than—as occurs now—at the conclusion of the minister’s second reading speech. Ever since explanatory memorandums have been produced, it seems to have been the standard practice for them to be released to members and to the public at the same time as the bill is released—that is, when the bill is presented. However, bills and committee reports are held under embargo until presented to the House. By analogy it could be argued that an EM should be kept under embargo until it, the EM, is itself presented. The committee thinks that such an analogy would probably be mistaken. However, it is highly desirable to remove any cause for uncertainty and this is the purpose of our recommendation—to align the standing orders with a sound and longstanding administrative practice.
Later in the year, as part of this ongoing inquiry, the Procedure Committee will report on its review of the operation of the sessional orders that the House adopted on 9 February. These cover arrangements for debates of committee and delegation reports in the Main Committee, as recommended by our report on this matter in November; the duration of members’ statements in the Main Committee; debate times for dissent motions; and provisions relating to the maintenance of order in the Main Committee. We have written to all members to alert them to this inquiry and will write again later in the year seeking input on these sessional orders before the Procedure Committee finalises its views. We encourage all members to give us their views on the operation of these sessional orders to assist us in our assessment of them. I commend the report to the House. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Message received from the Senate informing the House that Senators Brandis, Nash and Trood have been appointed members of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library.
Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Adams, Mr Hatton, and Mr BP O’Connor be appointed members of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 16 February, on motion by Mr Abbott:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The amendments in the Health Legislation Amendment (Pharmacy Location Arrangements) Bill 2006 are the result of the fourth community pharmacy agreement between the Commonwealth and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are familiar with the arrangements that the Commonwealth makes with the Pharmacy Guild whereby it enters into an agreement for five-yearly periods.
The most recent agreement commenced on 1 December 2005 and will terminate on 30 June 2010. The agreement provides for new pharmacy location arrangements, to commence on 1 July 2006. This bill gives effect to some of the issues around those arrangements. Specifically, this bill will do the following.
Firstly, it will extend the operation of the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority until 30 June 2010. The authority’s role is to consider applications made by pharmacists for approval to supply benefits under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, to determine if such applications comply with the pharmacy location rules and to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing as to whether such applications should be approved.
Secondly, this bill increases the membership of the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority from five to six members by including a consumer representative appointed by the minister. As I am sure the House is aware, obviously there are increasing demands for consumer representatives in various bodies in the health sector and on this occasion the demands of those representatives have been agreed to, with a consumer representative being included on the authority.
Thirdly, the bill provides the minister with a new discretionary power to overrule a decision of the secretary made in accordance with the pharmacy location rules if that decision will have the unintended or unforeseen consequence of leaving a community without reasonable access to pharmacy services. Affected parties may seek a review of any decision made by the minister under this power, under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.
Fourthly, the bill provides for the processes associated with this discretionary power, such as how an applicant may make a request to the minister for consideration of the secretary’s decision.
Fifthly, the bill deals with clarifying the ability of the secretary to approve more than one pharmacist to supply PBS benefits from a particular premise.
Finally, the bill provides that the secretary can approve a pharmacist’s application to expand or contract their premises without prior recommendation by the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority.
The actual changes in the pharmacy location rules will ensure that the following can occur. The new rules will permit co-location of pharmacies with large medical centres that operate extended hours. The new rules will allow the location of pharmacies in small shopping centres. The new rules will allow the relocation of an additional pharmacy to one-pharmacy rural towns and one-pharmacy high-growth areas without regard to the usual distance criteria. The new rules will remove the requirement that a specified number of commercial establishments are open and trading before an approved pharmacy can relocate to a shopping centre. And the new rules will provide greater flexibility for pharmacies located in private hospitals by allowing the establishment of satellite dispensaries for hospital in-patients. It should be noted that these changes do not require legislative change, but will be put into effect by being exercised through a set of regulations authorised by ministerial determinations under section 99L of the National Health Act 1953.
The changes to the rules will have a number of benefits, especially in rural and remote areas and growing suburban communities. Obviously, it makes sense to permit the co-location of pharmacies with large medical centres that operate extended hours. I think each of us receive many complaints in our local electorates and more broadly and would be aware that the Howard government inspired crisis in the medical workforce, particularly the government’s 1996 cutback in the number of GP training places, is now showing in our communities, with many communities not having anywhere near enough GPs. That situation shows at all times of the day and night, but tends to particularly show after hours, when accessing a GP can be very difficult. If it is possible for a large medical centre to provide extended hours of operation, that clearly is a benefit to local community members and enables them to at least access a GP after hours.
However, such an arrangement is no substitute for having the right number of doctors across the country or for doing what the Howard government should be doing, which is properly investing in after-hours care. Around the country we have some very successful models for how to do that, particularly the Hunter division model of after-hours care, which has been a leader. None of the arrangements in this bill and none of the more general arrangements the government has made to date are in any way substitutes for doing the proper job, which is about that kind of investment.
As we know, the Howard government has no intention of doing the proper job. The vision of the minister for health in this area is confined to picking up from the United Kingdom a National Health Service model—NHS Direct. The minister, who in the past has railed against the National Health Service, and indeed against the British health model, is not ashamed to pick up NHS Direct entirely and put it somewhere in Australia. But, as we know, NHS Direct is just a big call centre. You can ring and get some preliminary health advice but, because it is not connected with local services, it cannot actually find you a GP. That is why it is an inadequate model and why it is no substitute for making the proper investment right round the country.
Nevertheless, with the Howard government here and largely ignoring the need for after-hours care, obviously, for those communities that do get some after-hours coverage with large medical centres that operate extended hours, it makes sense to have co-located pharmacies so that people can not only access a GP but also, effectively in the same visit, after hours, access the medications that they need.
The change to permit the location of pharmacies within small shopping centres recognises the retailing trend for smaller centres with large supermarkets. Currently the requirement for large shopping centres with at least 30 commercial establishments gives limited access to pharmacy services in many retail developments. This is a sensible change. Each of us would be aware from our experience and our own locations that there are many suburban shopping centres now that have very large supermarket developments but not necessarily many associated shops—certainly not 30 or more. Yet the shopping centre may attract considerable patronage because of the supermarket, and it makes sense for pharmacy to be available in such locations.
Then there is the change to allow the relocation of an additional pharmacy to one-pharmacy rural towns and one-pharmacy high-growth areas without regard to the usual distance criteria. That is a sensible measure to make sure that we are not left in a situation where Australians in such areas miss out on fair access to pharmacy because the usual distance criteria preclude them from having a second pharmacy in the area.
The removal of the requirement that there be a specified number of commercial establishments open and trading before an approved pharmacy can relocate to a shopping centre is once again a recognition of reality. Not all commercial establishments in a shopping centre need to be open and trading at the time of an application approval. We do note that this restriction in the past has in fact delayed access to pharmacy services in new shopping centres where shops are being progressively leased and taken up but the shopping centre as a whole is not opened, with every shop trading on a given start date. So it makes sense to have such flexibility in the arrangements. Finally, it does make some sense to have greater flexibilities for pharmacies located in private hospitals.
Given the nature of these requirements, I doubt that it will surprise you that Labor will support this bill. I do note—and I think it is a very important omission—that there is nothing in this bill that will ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have better access to Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines and pharmacy services, despite the fact that PBS spending per capita on Indigenous people is only one-third of that spent on the non-Indigenous population.
I know, for example, the member for Lingiari, who is in the House, would be only too familiar with the fact that many of his Indigenous constituents do not get fair access to pharmacy services or to the PBS. The fact that this matter is being omitted yet again from this bill gives us cause for concern about the ongoing pattern of disadvantage and despair that surrounds the issue of Indigenous health in this nation. It is another lost opportunity to perhaps have made some difference in that regard. I think that that is an unfortunate oversight with this bill.
More broadly, Labor is very concerned that the Howard government is generally failing to properly manage the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and I foreshadow that at the conclusion of my speech I will move a second reading amendment that deals with some of the areas of greatest concern. However, we are here to deal with this very bill because of the fourth pharmacy agreement and the new pharmacy location rules. We should note that, in this whole process of striking the fourth pharmacy agreement and the new pharmacy location rules, the Howard government and the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, have not in any way, shape or form covered themselves in glory.
As we know, pharmacy services are important to all Australians. They are important to all of us. They are a vital part of our access to primary care and to medicines that not only assist us when we are unwell but help us maintain our health. The pharmacy agreement is not an insubstantial document. The pharmacy agreement covers some 22 per cent of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme spending. When negotiations about the pharmacy agreement go badly, that spells bad news for the PBS. Of course, what we know about the negotiations for the fourth pharmacy agreement is that the negotiations were protracted, they were sometimes acrimonious and they were always hidden behind closed doors.
The minister for health was on some days belligerent and on some days cowed during the course of these negotiations. One can track from his media statements the days on which he was belligerent and the days on which he was cowed. On a belligerent day he would say that he was intending to undermine community pharmacy by opening up the rules allowing pharmacy to go into supermarkets. This was the sort of threat that he would hold over the heads of the Pharmacy Guild and pharmacists when in a belligerent mode. But then on other days he was completely cowed, completely giving in and certainly making every sympathetic noise to pharmacists that he properly could.
I have had occasion to speak on this matter in the House before, and in a very unseemly short period one could track completely contradictory ministerial statements on the question of whether or not pharmacy should be in supermarkets. On one day the minister for health would say something entirely different from what he would say on another day. I have had occasion in the past to go through that matter in quite some detail in Hansard. That is no way to conduct a set of negotiations, when the people with whom you are negotiating cannot even tell what your position is because apparently you do not know yourself. That was the position that the Pharmacy Guild was in when dealing with the minister for health, who would have wildly different positions on different days.
The problem here is that, because of the way the minister for health dealt with this matter, it took a great deal of time to strike the new pharmacy agreement. It might surprise you to know, Mr Deputy Speaker Barresi—and I believe you should be quite shocked at this—that this is the third time in less than 12 months that the parliament has been required to deal in this House with a bill that relates to these pharmacy location rules. The negotiations were so protracted because the minister for health had so little idea of what he was doing that on three occasions he had to rush into this parliament saying: ‘I need more time. I need help with an extension of time on these pharmacy location rules. They are going to be out of date. There are going to be sunset clauses. Can you give me an extension? Can you help me out?’
This is the third time it has happened. On the two other occasions, because the Labor Party are interested in making sure people have fair access to pharmacy services, we did bail out the minister for health and we did deal with this legislation—one, by supporting it; and, two, by dealing with it in an expeditious way—but it is no way to run the health sector of this country. It reeks of incompetence. The problem for the minister for health is that he is not a competent minister on the details, and something that is about 22 per cent of PBS spending is a pretty big detail. Those other bills were dealt with in May 2005, when we extended the pharmacy location rules to 31 December 2005 through the Health Legislation Amendment (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority) Bill 2005. Then in October 2005 we had to do it all again, and the provisions were further extended until 30 June 2006 through the passage of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill.
I should note that, whilst the minister for health was dithering back and forth, rushing into this parliament to get pharmacy location rules extended and not knowing what to do next, Labor, apart from bailing him out by dealing with his legislation in a supportive and expeditious way, had a consistent position on the question of pharmacies and supermarkets. Unlike the Howard government, which did not know whether it was coming or going, whether it was Arthur or Martha on the issue, Labor had a consistent position. We consistently said that we gave an undertaking to community pharmacists before the last election and we were honouring that undertaking.
Given that the Prime Minister wrote a letter to community pharmacists across the country, giving an undertaking before the last election, one wonders why the Howard government could not be as simple and true as the word its Prime Minister had given and had a consistent position on this. I think it should be noted that, on a day on which we have had cause to debate issues about the honesty and credibility of this government, this was another issue going to honesty and credibility. What better form of promise could one have than a personally signed letter from the Prime Minister? The community pharmacists of Australia were in possession of such a letter. Even being in possession of such a letter did not matter, because that does not stop the Howard government breaking its word. It is a salutary lesson for anybody who relies on a representation from the Howard government about any area of policy during this parliament and particularly in the run-up to the next election.
We are also concerned, on the question of management and incompetence, that there is a clear incompetence in the way in which the Howard government is managing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. All of the rhetoric of the Howard government about the PBS, forever and a day, has been that the costs of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are out of control, that they are sky rocketing, that this is going to be an imposition on the community in the future and that it is particularly going to be an imposition when we deal with the challenges of an ageing society. When the Treasurer did his much vaunted—by him—Intergenerational report, the single biggest thing he said he was concerned about and going to act on was the escalating costs, the growth rates, in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. So all of the imagery was of a crisis. I believe there are real challenges in having a sustainable PBS over the longer term, but I also think there is a need for real honesty about where we are with the PBS and growth rates today. I suspect that the statistics I am going to give people now will shock them a little bit, because they are so contrary to the imagery that the Howard government seeks to create of a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme out of control.
Since the Howard government increased the PBS copayments by 21 per cent last January, and since it introduced its 12.5 per cent cuts in the price of generics in the middle of the year, the growth rate for PBS spending has now fallen on our calculations—and they are calculations supported by others—to around one per cent, and it is expected to drop even lower. The growth in prescription numbers, which is a good measure of whether or not people can afford to get their prescriptions filled, is already in negative territory. So, far from the crisis imagery of the Treasurer, the one year that he was dealing with all of these issues in his Intergenerational report and was shocked by a 22 per cent growth rate in PBS spending, he never actually identified the various things that the Howard government had done that contributed to that special one-off effect of a 22 per cent growth rate. There was an atmosphere of crisis, but now the Howard government has cut back and cut back and we are seeing extraordinarily low rates of growth—in fact, a reduction in the number of prescriptions.
I would like to think that that is because there has been some outbreak of wellness in our community, and fewer people need prescription medicine, but that is not the case in my estimation. The government’s own figures show clearly that fewer prescriptions are being filled in some crucial categories. In particular, fewer prescriptions are being filled for medicines that deal with cardiovascular conditions; for anaemia and blood clotting problems; for hormone replacement therapy needed because of thyroid, pituitary or pancreatic problems; and for mental illness, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. You do not need to be a doctor—and I am most certainly not—to realise when you go through that list that we are talking about chronic conditions for which people take their medicines for a lifetime. They are not the sorts of conditions where you have an episodic illness, you go and get a course of antibiotics or whatever, you finish the course and that is the end of your need for prescription medicine. They are chronic conditions which people manage over a lifetime with the assistance of prescription medicine. If we know that fewer prescriptions are being filled in these crucial categories, that does not mean that those people have got better; that means that those people are going without their medication. Just to make sure that people understand: that means people with chronic ailments like cardiovascular conditions; anaemia and blood clotting problems; hormone replacement therapy needed because of thyroid, pituitary or pancreatic problems; and mental illness, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease are taking less medicine not because they do not need it but because they cannot afford it.
If you were confining your world view only to the columns of the federal budget you might say, ‘That’s okay; I’ve saved some money in columns in my federal budget, which makes the budget papers look nicer.’ As I have said before, sustainability in the PBS is a real issue, but you do not fix sustainability in the PBS by ending up with a situation where people with chronic and complex conditions go off their medication—because their health problems have not gone away. What will happen is that their health problems will turn up in some other part of the health system. Those people were taking their prescription medications for a reason. If they do not take them, their conditions will become more acute and they are very likely to end up in our hospital system or having some other sort of acute health episode.
If you were really looking at this as a sensible economist—not the Treasurer, but a sensible economist—taking a view across our health system about what is good for costs and what is bad for costs, you would see that it is crazy to deny people access to medication only to have them end up paying for much more expensive acute hospital care somewhere down the track. To take a simple example, it is much better for all of us if someone continues to take their cardiovascular medication rather than have a heart attack. It is much better for the person involved—there is no doubt about that—but also much better for the health system, because acute coronary care is expensive, and we do not want people in acute care hospitals if they do not need to be there.
The officers of the Minister for Health and Ageing have tried to say that the fall in prescriptions is not serious because it does not include drugs dispensed through the highly specialised and high-cost schemes. But an analysis of the data shows that this explanation is wrong. That is, there were some special factors coming out of the highly specialised and high-cost schemes which would explain this result. Then the Department of Health and Ageing, knowing that its first explanation was a stupid one, tried to come up with a second explanation and said that it was something to do with Vioxx being taken off the PBS. But this is again wrong. There is a clear and unambiguous decline in PBS growth rates regardless of the Vioxx effect.
Furthermore, what Health has tried to say—which is that it is all okay: ‘Don’t worry about it; it doesn’t matter’—is directly contradicted by the Treasury papers, particularly the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, MYEFO. That paper now states that the growth rate in PBS expenditure in 2005-06 will be 2.2 per cent less than the budget projection of 7.4 per cent. MYEFO states that that will see a windfall for the government of $283 million. That is money that would have been spent on the PBS that is no longer going to be spent on the PBS.
There is a big issue here about affordability. It is an issue that has occurred whilst the government has made it harder to reach the PBS safety net, and it is an issue that is going to be made worse with the new 20-day rule, which is yet to kick in. With the new 20-day rule, it is much more difficult for people to get the cost of their prescription medicine counted towards the safety net. So we have got a pincer movement here: costs are going up, the PBS safety net is not as good as it used to be, and the 20-day rule is going to make that even more the case. There will be artificial counting of which of your medications ought to be counted for your safety net costs. That means that there will be people who should be taking their medications who are not taking them.
This is a serious issue. It is an issue that the government cannot even be bothered analysing, let alone addressing. We have suggested to the minister for health that he actually take a look at this, that he have some sort of study, some sort of investigation, to ascertain whether or not there is an issue with affordability that is preventing people from taking their medications. He has just brushed these concerns aside. They are too serious to be brushed aside. Again today I call on the minister for health and the Treasurer to look at the full impact of their short-sighted and short-term policies to cut the PBS.
With that, may I conclude by moving the second reading amendment standing in my name:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
I rise today to speak in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Pharmacy Location Arrangements) Bill 2006. This bill proposes the amendments made as a result of the fourth community pharmacy agreement negotiated between the government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, aimed at ensuring Australians, particularly in rural and remote areas, have access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. The bill will include more flexible location rules, which will preserve the traditional community pharmacy and enable pharmacists to move to areas of high unmet demand for PBS drugs.
In the Riverina I have found community pharmacies are vital in providing a service to residents and that customers value the commitment and dedication of the pharmacists. As I have said in this House many times in this same debate, in many areas the pharmacist is the only real medical attention that members of my communities have. They may go to a doctor in another town, but they come back to fill their prescriptions, and they rely on their pharmacist for a host of advice in the way in which they use the drugs available on the market. So it is really most important that pharmacists are valued, particularly in those smaller community areas.
This pharmacy location rule has had some unintended consequences, though, in the application of the current location rules. One such unintended consequence has been that an area not in my electorate but just outside of it has seen a particular pharmacist purchase both pharmacies in that community. Then of course the community members were not given a choice and there was concern that there were many overpriced goods. However, the pharmacy location rule prevented any other pharmacist from moving into that area to dispense.
Whilst I support the location rule, it does have some unintended consequences. It makes sense for a discretionary power to be made available to address on an individual basis any area where there is an unintended consequence of the location rule. One such situation occurred within my electorate. Recently in Wagga Wagga there was an issue with a new suburban shopping centre, because the pharmacy location laws created some confusion about the dispensation of medicines. The existing legislation and location rules came into play because a pharmacy was located too close to the new location. Because of the location rule, there was an issue about where the dispensary was going to be located within the shopping centre.
The angst came about in August last year with the inception of a mobile dispensary in a portable building in the middle of a paddock just 100 metres away from the shopping centre—a portable building was sitting there in the middle of a paddock because there was another suburb just 100 metres outside of the distance factor of a pharmacy location rule. People were having to drive away from this new shopping centre location in order to access their pharmacy requirements in another pharmacy. It was quite ridiculous.
It was reported in the Daily Advertiser that customers found out about the legislation when a sign was put at the front of the temporary location. It read:
Under the current New South Wales laws, a chemist cannot open within two kilometres of an existing chemist. The shop inside the mall is too close to an existing chemist at Ashmont, so we had to position it 100 metres away.
So a pharmacy, a mobile dispensary, was set up in a padock. This situation shows the need for some sort of discretion to intervene when there is a brand-new shopping centre to service an entire suburb—the entire suburb was going to do their shopping there—but, because of the location rule, the customers would have to travel to a pharmacy elsewhere for their very essential pharmaceuticals.
The minister has indeed acted on some of those anomalies and given himself some room to move. Basically people were travelling two kilometres to another pharmacist when there was one available to them. As I said, somebody set up a mobile dispensary in the middle of a paddock. The management of South City at Glenfield said that the portable dispensary was closer for customers. They would have had to drive two kilometres to the nearest alternative, which for customers and staff was completely inappropriate.
The fourth pharmacy agreement was introduced in November last year and has meant some changes to location rules. New provisions allow pharmacies to relocate to large medical centres with eight or more doctors that operate extended hours, which is a fantastic move; to small shopping centres such as the one that I have just spoken about, with 15 shops and a large supermarket; and to large, single-pharmacy rural towns. The provision of a pharmacist at a shopping centre with 15 shops and a large supermarket will see the resolution of the problem at the Glenfield shopping centre, South City Shopping Centre. It will also enable pharmacists to move to a large, single-pharmacy rural town with 8,000 or more people and to urban areas with high population growth.
The agreement also ensures that pharmacies are prevented from opening in, or having public access to, supermarkets. I absolutely welcome this. I welcome the minister’s advice that this agreement will continue the prohibition on pharmacies within supermarkets. It is no secret that I sincerely oppose the attempts by Woolworths, Coles and other large multinationals to take pharmacies into their operations. I again reaffirm my opposition and thank the minister, in his wise judgment, for precluding pharmacists from being able to set up in supermarkets. I am deeply opposed to the idea of companies like Woolworths, Coles and others being given an opportunity to set up concise and limited pharmacy applications within their supermarkets. It is something that I will always be deeply opposed to, moreover because I rely particularly on community pharmacists providing valuable medical advice, support and contact to the people I represent in towns throughout the Riverina.
Our pharmacists work extremely long hours in rural and regional areas and they are perhaps not recognised for the amount of work that they do. Many of them work to cover the shortfall in the numbers of general practitioners in many of my rural areas. Pharmacists ease the burden of many people. Residents can have access to educated, reliable advice and assistance to help them through troubling times, particularly if they have to go off to another town to attend a GP or a specialist and they come back with a prescription to be filled.
Often in rural areas the pharmacist knows the customer, who is his client, and he certainly knows their problems. Community pharmacies have an amazing commitment. It is not just an employment option but a choice of lifestyle in regional areas where they can serve the community with the best advice and assistance. I know that this type of care would not be made available to customers if profit for shareholders was first and foremost.
Pharmacies provide many services free of charge. Pharmacists are generally always available. They generally provide home deliveries for the elderly. Many provide a subsidised Webster packing service, which is a major issue. Once you put in a packing service for a Webster pack, you might provide a treatment for a few months. If the doctor changes that treatment then the pharmacist gets all the packs back. They have to take them apart and repack them. It is a very time-consuming option, but pharmacists still provide that service. Would we see that happening in supermarkets? I think not. The majority would just be dispensing a schedule of drugs with the least time possible put into serving the clients’ needs.
Pharmacists can also be subagents for Diabetes Australia. We all know about the major problem we are experiencing worldwide through the onset of diabetes type 2 and juvenile diabetes. We have a management program which is assisting us in being able to manage our diabetes across the board in rural areas. Community pharmacies should not be diminished by letting multinational supermarkets just cherry-pick a small number of items and completely knock out the system that is operating in rural and regional areas—and, more particularly, one that I am very proud of that operates in the Riverina. This is the greatest threat to my communities from a health perspective. Pharmacists offer programs for asthma management and certainly diabetes assistance—an enormous amount of advice on a host of illnesses that are treated by GPs. As I said, they really are in many cases the lifeline link for many communities that do not have a GP.
The government has been committed to ensuring that people living in rural and regional Australia have access to pharmacy services. It has increased its funding support for rural pharmacy programs by $40 million to $111 million with the new agreement. This amendment bill is another step forward in reducing the location issues of pharmacies and allowing the inception of a chemist, including dispensary, in shopping centres with 15 shops and a large supermarket, which has been and is currently an issue within the Riverina.
I support this amendment bill. I congratulate the Minister for Health and Ageing on his work towards making sure that community pharmacists can continue to serve their communities in the most effective manner. I applaud the minister for recognising the concerns that have been presented to him time and time again on this fourth pharmacy agreement, particularly with the issue of looking at changing the location rules so that pharmacies can operate in supermarkets. I applaud the minister for the sensible decisions he has made in this Health Legislation Amendment (Pharmacy Location Arrangements) Bill, which does give some ability to address unintended consequences of the application of the location rule. I commend the bill to the House.
It is about time that this legislation appeared in this place. I welcome the provisions of the amendments that appear in the Health Legislation Amendment (Pharmacy Location Arrangements) Bill 2006. I think it is a win for consumers, not only those in rural and remote areas of Australia but also those in the fast-growing outer metropolitan areas and suburbs, including those in my own electorate of Werriwa. I have no doubt that the prospect of more pharmacists, with increases in competition as such pharmacists seek to differentiate themselves from one another on the basis of service, will be a good thing for consumers.
The fourth community pharmacy agreement will allow the relaxation of the location rules—the subject of this bill—and allow pharmacists to set up in large medical centres and indeed in some shopping centres. But the relaxation of the rules will not go to allowing pharmacies to be set up in supermarkets, which is a concept that I personally remain opposed to. I think relaxation in that respect would simply allow supermarkets to cherry-pick locations with a view to maximising services within a particular supermarket chain, which would very clearly be at the expense of regional and some outer metropolitan areas.
Getting back to the matter at hand: the National President of the Pharmacy Guild, John Bronger, said on 8 November last year:
Neither side has got everything it wanted, but at the same time I believe on the whole this Agreement will underpin access and equity of the PBS and pharmacy care to all Australians ...
He went on to say:
Pharmacists serve the community in many ways with passion and commitment.
This is an important point. As you know, I represent the electorate of Werriwa, which embraces areas of Liverpool and Campbelltown. In that area we have about 50 pharmacists. These pharmacists play an important role in communities like mine. This statement made by Mr Bronger reminds me of the work of pharmacists like Paul Sinclair in Ingleburn, who is very active in his local community.
Paul Sinclair owns the local pharmacy, but he also has a healthy interest in the improvement of our local community. He is an executive member of the Pharmacy Guild. Paul also has the time to be heavily involved in the work of Kids of Macarthur. He is actually chair of Kids of Macarthur, which is a group made up of locals who wish to make a real difference in children’s health services. Indeed, Paul is also the chair of Myrtle Cottage, which provides services for the frail, the disabled and those needing respite. Without labouring this issue, Kids for Macarthur does a fantastic job in my area. It purchases equipment for the paediatrics department in our local hospital.
My family was a direct beneficiary of the work of Kids of Macarthur when my recently born grandson, Noah, developed sleep apnoea. As a local resident, I have to say that, when a child turns blue around the mouth and suffers the effects of not breathing, to know that you have specialists like Dr Freelander and the staff of Campbelltown’s paediatric department on hand is, quite frankly, very much something to be proud of. Their degree of commitment will remain with me, and I praise the work of the people of the Campbelltown Hospital. It is a hospital that has been much maligned in the press. Quite frankly, it is a hospital that has a lot of dedicated people. On behalf of my grandson, Bernadette and I and my family are very indebted to the professionalism shown by the people of that hospital.
I welcome the contribution of many pharmacists to the community that I live in and recognition of the ongoing benefits that pharmacists like Paul Sinclair play in their community. It is not the focus of this bill, but it should at least be acknowledged.
An improvement to the access to pharmacies is only one part of the fourth community pharmacy agreement. The other issues that are dealt with in these changes are the way that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing is able to approve more than one pharmacist to supply pharmaceutical benefits. There is no doubt about the importance of pharmaceutical services to Australians, and there is no doubt about the importance of the PBS to people. It is virtually impossible to consider changes to the operations of more than 5,000 pharmacies throughout Australia without taking some time to reflect on the operations of the PBS.
There is absolutely no doubt that the PBS must be kept sustainable. Australians have come to expect, and rightly so, that they will be able to have affordable access to the medicines they need. With some having just celebrated a decade of the Howard government, it is timely to reflect on the impact that this government has had on affordable access to medicines and on the PBS. To put it simply, this government has not been the best friend that Medicare has ever had. For 10 long years it has consistently acted to undermine our system of universal health care. It has attacked Medicare, underfunded hospitals, systematically dismantled the PBS, ignored mental health and abandoned all commitment to public dental health. It has also cut training places for GPs, which has resulted in patient to GP ratios of more than 1,700 to one in my electorate. I bring to your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, that one GP to 1,000 is the preferred level of the federal Department of Health and Ageing. Even this government considers that anything above one GP to 1,400 is an area of serious need and yet my area of Werriwa has one general practitioner to 1,700 within our electorate. That is the record of this government when it comes to health care. Despite promises made in the heat of the last election campaign—and I think the words ‘ironclad guarantees’ were used, if I remember correctly—this government continues to chop and change the rules when it comes to our medical system. This government keeps changing the rules, and sick Australians, the people who rely on the great system we once had, are paying the price for these changes.
The changes to the PBS introduced last year have meant a diminution in access to affordable medicines. The government has justified this on the basis of cost and long-term sustainability of the system. This government’s concern with cost cutting has overridden any concern that it may have once had for health outcomes. The medical implications of continued cuts to the PBS have taken a back seat to budgetary implications under this government. The facts speak for themselves. Last year the government introduced changes that, simply put, reduced access to the PBS. Since the 21 per cent increase in the PBS copayments and the 12.5 per cent cut in the generics, PBS growth has fallen by 2.5 per cent and is expected to fall further. As I understand it, based on the most recently available Medicare Australia data, savings to the PBS for the next financial year could amount to $1.38 billion, with 11.4 million fewer prescriptions. This is nothing more than cost cutting.
The government figures also indicate that people’s health is being put at risk. Fewer prescriptions are being filled in categories such as cardiovascular conditions, hormone replacement therapy, mental health, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. These reductions point only to one thing—and that is not a decline in the incidence of those conditions. What they indicate is that people are making a choice between putting food on the table and filling their prescriptions. It is a sad day for all of us when people are making purely financial decisions about their health.
These results are prior to the impact of the PBS safety net and the introduction of the 20-year rule. There is considerable anger in the community about these most recent changes to the PBS. People are confused by the operations of the new 20-day rule. More and more people will be forced to make health decisions from a financial perspective rather than from a health and safety perspective, yet the relentless march to the Americanisation of our health care system continues under this government.
This march has manifested itself not only in the ongoing and almost habitual cuts to the PBS but also in increases in private health insurance premiums. Recently Australian families copped it again when the Minister for Health and Ageing could not help but approve yet another increase to private health insurance premiums. This time it was 5.7 per cent, and the minister was pleased because this was the lowest increase since 2001. It was only 5.7 per cent this time, but there has been an overall increase of 39 per cent since 2001. For an average working Australian, that is a shameful figure. In the simplest terms, this 5.7 per cent increase in private health insurance premiums means that families in south-west Sydney—in fact, families across Australia—will now be expected to pay up to $150 more for their private health insurance. Of course, every single taxpayer gets to share in this joy through the $3 billion a year subsidy that goes to the private health insurance industry!
The government needs to shift its focus from cutting costs in one area of health care in order to prop up another area within the health care budget. When it comes to the health care system, this government needs to shift its focus from the health budget to health services. Australians should not be forced to choose between putting food on the table and filling their prescriptions. The gradual erosion of things in the Australian system that people hold dear has to stop—and, for the welfare of the vast majority of Australian families, I believe it has to stop sooner rather than later.
I welcome the changes to the location rules that take into account the need for people to have good access to their pharmacist. I support this bill and I support the work of the great many pharmacists in this country in what they do for our community. Consumers will benefit from the changes contained in this bill but, at the same time, this legislation will allow pharmacists and pharmacies to continue to play an important role in their local communities.
However, while I support the changes contained in this bill, I believe that this government needs to take a serious look at its management of the health care system and reconsider its priorities in that regard. Health care is about care for the sick—it is not about care for the bottom line of the budget.
I am pleased to speak in the parliament today in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Pharmacy Location Arrangements) Bill 2006. As the federal member for Ryan I want to say at the outset that I very strongly support all the pharmacies and pharmacy owners in my Ryan electorate. They do a wonderful job in providing a community service as well as in providing a service in the nature of their small businesses. That is one of the key things I want to get across in this debate on this important piece of legislation—that pharmacists across the country are small businesses also and they deserve the full support of the Australian government.
I am a strong supporter of small business in the Ryan electorate and, as someone who has a great degree of admiration for the health minister, I would compliment him at the outset for his negotiation of the community pharmacy agreement. It was no doubt a difficult and challenging set of negotiations, but I think this legislation strikes the right balance between the government’s overall responsibilities, its national interest responsibilities and, of course, the protection of pharmacists in the country, who provide a very special and unique service in the overall architecture of a health service to the people of this country.
There are some 5,000 pharmacy owners across Australia—in my electorate of Ryan there are almost 1,000 pharmacists—who provide a very important service. In the 2005 Morgan gallop poll, pharmacists came second on the list of those regarded by the Australian community as the most ethical and as being in the most honest profession. I am sure that is a position that they guard very jealously. It is a position which they rightly deserve and one which many others can aspire to.
As I said, I want to commend this bill very strongly. It amends the National Health Act 1953 to implement aspects of the fourth community pharmacy agreement. As part of the agreement, the bill sets out changes to the pharmacy location rules and the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority. Since 1990, the Commonwealth of Australia, through the government of the day and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, has entered into five-year agreements known as community pharmacy agreements. Primarily, the agreements set out the remuneration that pharmacists will receive for dispensing Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme medicines—PBS medicines. Over time, these agreements have increased in scope to include other relevant provisions, such as location arrangements and professional pharmacy programs and services.
This is the first opportunity, since negotiations were completed in November last year, that members have had to speak in the House about these agreements. As I alluded to earlier, I recognise that these were very challenging negotiations because of the nature of the sector that all stakeholders were dealing in. I have already congratulated the health minister, but I also want to pay tribute to the Pharmacy Guild for its commitment to come to an outcome that is in the interests of the government, the guild’s stakeholders and, more importantly, the Australian people.
The fourth community pharmacy agreement will provide in excess of $11 billion in payments for the dispensing and supply of PBS medicines. This represents a substantial increase to the $7.9 billion paid under the third agreement. It equates to an average payment of some $11.38 per prescription dispensed. This represents a normal increase of 14.5 per cent on the average payment under the third agreement, which was $9.93. Most importantly, the agreement will achieve $306.8 million in savings over the life of the agreement primarily through a reduction in the wholesale mark-up. This will improve the sustainability of the PBS and help to ensure that new medicines can continue to be listed in the future.
I think it is important for members of parliament to frequently emphasise the importance of policy and initiatives that will address or redress the increasing call upon the PBS budget. We are an ageing population; it is important also to stress that. It is important therefore that government policies take into account our ageing population and the increasing stress being placed on the health budget and specifically on the PBS budget. This is an important aspect of the Australian health policy under the Howard government and it is important that it be maintained, preserved and sustained because it provides a very important benefit to the Australian public.
The new agreement that I am referring to retains the current pharmacists payment structure with payments covering the cost of the medicine, the cost to have the medicine delivered to the pharmacy by a wholesaler, a retail mark-up, a fee to cover the pharmacist’s costs for the handling and storage of medicines and a fee for the pharmacist’s professional advice and service in dispensing the medicine to the patient. One of the important aims that the government wants to achieve through the community pharmacy agreement is, as I have touched on, to ensure the sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits System. This is an important system and it is therefore important that government policies take into account as much as possible the PBS structure. To this end the fourth community pharmacy agreement will establish the community service obligation pool. This funding pool will be used to make direct payments to pharmaceutical wholesalers, to make sure that they deliver the full range of PBS medicines to all pharmacies, irrespective of location, usually within 24 hours. The fourth community pharmacy agreement will also deliver increased funding for rural pharmacy programs and programs which support and improve access to pharmacy services by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. This is a further reflection of the government’s commitment to our Indigenous Australian and also our rural and regional Australians. In total, the fourth community pharmacy agreement will provide some $500 million in funding for professional pharmacy programs and services. This reflects an increase of some $100 million on the allocation under the third community pharmacy agreement.
Changes to the pharmacy location arrangements will aim to deliver pharmacy services to where there is most community need and to provide as well an increased level of competition between pharmacies. It is widely known that the pharmacy location rules state that any pharmacist who wishes to relocate their pharmacy or any pharmacist who wishes to establish a new pharmacy must apply to the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority. The ACPA considers all applications according to location based criteria before approval is given to dispense medications under the PBS program. This can be granted by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing. During the negotiations on the fourth community pharmacy agreement, certain groups—most notably our large, well-known retailer, Woolworths, through its CEO, Mr Roger Corbett, and the Australian Medical Association, through its then president, Dr Bill Glasson of Queensland—were of the opinion that the current pharmacy location arrangements were too protective of the pharmacy industry and that this was competition policy in reverse. Both called for reform which would allow Woolworths to operate in-store pharmacies. Mr Corbett commented on the ABC’s 7.30 Report in April 2004:
For this Government, which is a free enterprise Government, to be taking such action is quite extraordinary.
Other commentators have been less diplomatic, saying that the government has effectively been impotent for not deregulating the pharmacy market. I have given speeches in the parliament previously expressing my strong disagreement with Mr Corbett. With all due regard to his undoubted talents as a very senior and highly respected CEO in this country and to his very successful stewardship of Woolworths, in the parliament today I again put on record my strong disagreement with his views. This government has been very amenable in its policies in allowing greater competition and fostering greater deregulation across the Australian economy. As I have said, I have commented in this House previously on my position. Mr Corbett’s views that the government’s policy on pharmacies is quite extraordinary are quite unwarranted. This government can stand very proud of its record of opening up the economy in its 10 years in office. No doubt it will continue to do so, and I would encourage it to continue to do so.
I know that Ms Janet Albrechtsen, writing in an Australian article on 22 June 2005, also called for the government to act expeditiously to redress this alleged wrong. I offer all due respect to Ms Albrechtsen, who I know has very high respect for Australian government policies. I salute the work that she does as a member of the ABC board. She is doing a fine job in that capacity, and I know that all members of this parliament will acknowledge her contribution to the national political debate through in her articles in the Australian. But on this particular issue I have no hesitation in saying that Ms Albrechtsen is entirely wrong. She is paddling a canoe up the river the wrong way and her paddles are not functioning effectively.
One of the reasons why I very strongly support local pharmacies, not only in my electorate of Ryan but throughout the country, having some degree of support through these community pharmacy agreements is this: not only are they, given the nature of their work, a small business but also they provide a unique service. They provide a very specialised service as part of the allied health group. They are a part of the architecture of the health structure of this country. They are not just another corner shop. They are not just another Boost Juice franchise. They are not just a shop on a shopping strip. You can have a handful of them on the same shopping strip and they can compete. This is not a situation whereby we want pharmacies littered throughout the shopping malls of Australia. They are small businesses first and foremost that provide service of a very professional nature in the health architecture. I reject entirely the comments of commentators who say that the government’s position of standing side-by-side with the pharmacy community in Australia is incorrect. I have strongly supported the Minister for Health and Ageing in his negotiations and I commend him for taking the stand that he has.
The pharmaceutical market in this country is some $9 billion a year. It is little wonder, therefore, that the likes of Woolworths want a piece of that pie. I do not think that anyone would resent Mr Corbett or senior executives of Woolworths for making the representations they are making to have a slice of that $9 billion pie. No doubt if I were a CEO of Woolworths or Coles I would want to have a pharmacy located in my stores. But the responsibility of this government is to protect the overall Australian community and the national interest; it is not to ensure that Woolworths’s share price goes up because all of a sudden it has a big chunk of that $9 billion a year industry.
I know that many of my fellow Australians are shareholders in Woolworths. As an aside, members of the parliament who are shareholders of Woolworths will have that declared on their register of pecuniary interests, and it will be interesting to see who they are. More importantly, this government’s responsibility is to govern in the national interest. Governing in the national interest ensures that the likes of Woolworths are not able to expand their empires without having to take into account the pharmacies in their midst. I want to put on the record very strongly my support of the almost 1,000 pharmacists in the Ryan electorate. I visit their stores frequently and I have a very high regard for their professional expertise. Again, I strongly repudiate calls by any sector of the Australian business community to erode the pharmacy agreements and to entertain the notion that big retail chains include pharmacy stores.
In 2003 an independent study by Curtin University estimated that, if you take into account the value-added service that pharmacies provide to customers when they come into their stores to buy prescription drugs, pharmacists provide over 78 million free consultations annually. When I go to my local pharmacist as a consumer to purchase an item, I invariably end up speaking to him for some five, six or seven minutes. If that were multiplied by the many people who go into his store, and if a price were to be put on it, a very valuable service is being provided.
Studies commissioned by the Pharmacy Guild also show that pharmacies are more than just drug-dispensing counters. Not only do they provide these free consultations but they also provide a degree of care and compassion to their customers that, I would be so bold as to say, someone in a Woolworths pharmacy would not provide. Supervised administration of individual doses occurs in community pharmacies for many thousands of Australians and for patients of doctors who go to their pharmacy and collect their prescribed drugs after a consultation. This is important to note. Counselling occurs in these private locations in the pharmacy on many occasions. It has been estimated that counselling occurs in pharmacies across the country on almost 14½ million occasions annually.
It has been calculated that 385,000-plus screening tests for undiagnosed chronic conditions and 25,000 pregnancy tests were conducted annually in pharmacies. More than 40 per cent of pharmacies are very active in methadone or buprenorphine dosing and needle exchange. While it is true that Woolworths, were it to be granted access to pharmacies, intends to staff its in-store pharmacies with registered pharmacists, I still subscribe to the view that, under the cost-cutting and profit driven environment of these major retail chains, invariably there would come a point where the community would suffer and these valuable services provided by pharmacies would cease. Not only do community pharmacies provide these services but they act as an important check for doctors. It is important to acknowledge that they provide an important complementary service to doctors.
Pharmacy location rules are important not just because they prevent operators like Woolworths from owning pharmacies or because they prevent pharmacies from being located within, adjacent to or connected to a supermarket; they also help to ensure widespread community access to pharmaceutical services and the continued viability of existing pharmacies. This gives much needed security to pharmacists, to consumers and, of course, to the PBS—a structure which this government is striving very hard to keep in check. This bill will extend the operation of the pharmacy location rules to the conclusion of the fourth community pharmacy agreement in June 2010 and also make some other minor changes agreed to under that agreement.
As the federal member for Ryan, which I have had the great honour of representing since 2001 in this parliament, I am a very strong supporter of the some 1.2 million small businesses in Australia. Pharmacies are also small businesses. They are dotted throughout the Ryan electorate and form the small business architecture of this country. It is incumbent upon all of us in this parliament on both sides to strongly support small businesses. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has previously said—he is famous for this remark—that Labor is not part of small business—(Time expired)
I rise to address changes to the Health Legislation Amendment (Pharmacy Location Arrangements) Bill 2006. At the outset I express to the House that the introduction of greater flexibility in the location of pharmacies under this bill is a welcome move. Hopefully this flexibility should act to increase the accessibility of drugs to those in need, particularly in rural areas. In that context, I note with dismay the fact that the members for Hinkler and Maranoa have withdrawn from the speakers’ list this evening because I think the amendments in this bill are exceptionally important to rural and remote Australians. That does not augur well for the National Party’s commitment to representing those areas.
Australians deserve far better than the protracted and heated negotiations that have prefaced this final outcome. The amendments are the result of the fourth pharmacy agreement between the Commonwealth and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia which commenced on 1 December 2005 and will terminate on 30 June 2010. The agreement appropriately provides for new pharmacy location arrangements to commence on 1 July 2006, and this bill appropriately gives effect to some of the issues around those arrangements. The opposition welcomes the changes including the co-location of pharmacies with large medical centres that operate extended hours, the location of pharmacies in small shopping centres and in particular the relocation of an additional pharmacy to one-pharmacy rural towns and high growth areas. It is essentially about trying to make sure that the services are available where they are needed.
On the issue of location I am pleased to remind members of the House of the importance of the fact that supermarkets have been knocked back in their attempts to have in-house pharmacies. I also remind the House of the motion that I moved in the House on 5 September 2005 concerning this issue, which clearly expressed the opposition’s opposition to the major retail chains such as Woolworths and Coles being able to open pharmacies in supermarkets. I am pleased to say that the campaign by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, with the support of the opposition as expressed by that motion which was debated in the House of Representatives on 5 September 2005, has actually won the ear of government.
Whilst the opposition welcomes the changes under this bill, the final pharmacy agreement is hardly something about which the Howard government and the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Abbott, can be proud.
Rubbish!
Perhaps the member for Ryan should listen to this: it is the result of secret and difficult negotiations that reflect poorly on how this government does business and how it regards pharmacy services to Australians. The incompetence of the health minister throughout these negotiations can be illustrated by the fact that this is the third time in less than 12 months that the parliament has been required to act on these rules. It is important for the House to acknowledge and welcome the changes but it is also important that we highlight and hold the government accountable for the drawn-out tortuous process that created uncertainty in the pharmacy industry and uncertainty in the minds of many Australian consumers.
Those negotiations did not do justice, in terms of the performance of the minister for health, to the needs of the frail and elderly who do not have ready access to pharmacies. It also created uncertainties in their minds about whether or not supermarkets such as Coles and Woollies would be able to win the ear of government and take away from their local community shopping strips the pharmacist that they so much depend on, because those pharmacists—unlike the major retail chains such as Coles and Woollies—are part of the local community. All too often these people cannot afford to go to doctors because of the decline in bulk-billing, so they go down to the local pharmacy. They have often known the pharmacist for many years. The pharmacist has known the family and has been able to give medical assistance over and above filling prescriptions. The handling of this bill by the Howard government was an utter disgrace, because it created uncertainty and insecurity in the minds of many frail and elderly people who rely on their local pharmacists on a regular basis.
Moreover, the legislation neglects the fact that the agreement covers some 22 per cent of PBS spending. The real concern is that these beneficial changes are being seriously undermined by the Howard government’s attack on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Next to Medicare, the PBS is a vital part of our health care system. We should not forget that it has now been in operation for 50 years. The scheme means that potentially life-saving drugs are accessible to all through a critical government subsidy system which has been among the best in the world—something we as a nation have always prided ourselves on and something that other nations such as the United States of America are envious of.
In the early days of the PBS, this meant that parliament legislated to supply free medicines to immunise against diphtheria and whooping cough. In the 1970s, the emergency supply of medicines after the devastation of Cyclone Tracey in Darwin was critical to minimising the risk of a public health disaster through immunisation against cholera, typhoid and tetanus. These are some examples of the success of this scheme and its great benefit to Australia. These examples further illustrate the crucial role that a government plays through publicly supported access to vital medicines through a scheme known as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and its importance to public health. Since those days it has broadened to include access to more than 590 generic drugs.
Around 80 per cent of medicines are funded under the PBS, and around 170 million prescriptions were covered by the scheme in the year to June 2005. These are important medicines that we all depend on and that help us all to lead healthier lives. This effectively means that the PBS is a great investment in terms of taxpayers’ scarce dollars. I therefore argue that, given the value of this program and its history, it is disturbing to witness the way in which the government is undermining the PBS.
Yes, providing subsidised medicines is not a cheap exercise for governments but the reality is that prescriptions are falling. Moreover, the data generally indicates that the proportion of funding Australia devotes to pharmaceutical subsidies is lower than that of other OECD countries. Despite this, there has been a 21 per cent increase on PBS copayments—that is, the amount that patients have to pay for accessing medicines. Since the increase was introduced last January, the PBS growth rate has now fallen to 2.5 per cent and is expected, unfortunately, to drop even lower. According to recent Medicare Australia data, the potential savings to the PBS could amount to $1.38 billion for the next financial year, with 11.4 million fewer prescriptions. I wonder whether that is a good investment in the overall wellbeing and health of the Australian community.
The reduction in prescriptions follows the increase faced by patients and reflects the government’s willingness to cut costs at any expense, including the health of Australians. Like other areas of policy, this government is content to allow the Americanisation of health care and medicines. We all know what that means—a sick and desperate underclass, penalised simply for the fact that medicines are extraordinarily expensive.
The PBS, I contend, goes to the heart of the difference between the opposition, represented by the Labor Party, and the coalition government. Increased PBS copayments are increasingly raising out-of-pocket health care costs and hitting the sickest and neediest Australians. Some 80 per cent of PBS beneficiaries are patients already receiving concessions. They depend on the system. Moreover—and we should never forget this—Indigenous Australians get dramatically less access to the PBS than any other Australians—and just look at the problems of health care confronting the Indigenous community.
The government has also deliberately undermined the PBS safety net through the introduction of the 20-day rule. Under this rule, a repeat supply of the same medicine within 20 days on certain medicines will not be covered by the safety net. So, under this government, access to the PBS is being restricted, drugs are being delisted and copayments are rising—facts which are pushing Australians to make critical decisions about how they spend their money.
How can we as a nation, in the 21st century, force Australians to choose between buying their medicines or the other necessities of life? Yet the figures clearly show beyond any doubt that fewer prescriptions are being filled for serious health conditions such as cardiovascular conditions, anaemia, blood clotting problems and mental illness—all fundamental, critical health care issues that need government assistance and leadership.
Let us take the issue of mental illness, a major and growing problem in Australia. It is hard to believe that drugs for this major health problem are being restricted when, only recently, mental health was right at the centre of the COAG announcements. The government simply cannot have its cake and eat it too. It is either committed to doing something about mental health, including assistance through the PBS system, or it is not making that fundamental commitment. It is a problem that we, as a community, have correctly realised that we have to front up to. We have to invest in trying to assist these people—often very desperate families trying to manage the problems of mental health.
This contradiction, I believe, reflects the difference between government rhetoric and policy. The bottom line, especially when it is in the black, should not be pursued as an end in itself and certainly not at the expense of the health of Australians in need of medicines. This is a fundamental right of all Australians and something that we expect in any decent society, especially in a nation such as Australia which prides itself on its capacity to play above its weight, not only in assisting people at home but also in appropriate overseas aid for more needy nations beyond Australia’s shores.
To top it off, the health minister, Mr Abbott, takes it upon himself to remove, for example, calcium tablets, without any expert advice. He saved $9 million. But will this result in the deterioration of health outcomes as a result of that short-sighted decision? I would also point out to the House that people left without access to PBS calcium tablets are people with osteoporosis—a disease that costs Australia $1.9 billion per annum in health care costs. One can only say that that decision by the minister for health was not a good investment because enabling people to try and care for themselves, if properly done, represents a long-term saving to the Australian taxpayer by avoiding far more difficult personal health challenges. The minister for health therefore simply would not know, I suggest to the House, because he did not bother to get that advice. He, as always, took it upon himself, without proper advice, to basically impose his opinion on the Australian community. In essence, it was about simply cutting costs today at the expense of better health tomorrow, in complete disregard for expert opinion and good policy. Yet, as a minister, he is expected to be committed to proper public policy rather than short-term savings decisions which, in the long term, are to the detriment of a lot of individuals’ health, their families, their communities and the nation at large.
This means that the cost, for example, to concession card holders who are accessing calcium from the PBS has gone from $4.60 to around $13 a bottle. For those people that is a big personal hit. They live from week to week. They are finding it very difficult to make ends meet at the moment. To go from $4.60 to around $13 a bottle might not appear much to a minister on an especially generous salary, if he or she had the same problem, but for the ordinary pensioner that is a huge slug which many of them just cannot meet financially. But I am pleased to say that, after this knee-jerk cost cutting by the minister for health, he had to back off and to back-flip. That effectively meant that calcium was put back on the PBS for people with kidney conditions—the result of failing to seek sound advice before making a hasty decision.
The question must therefore be asked: just how is the government’s PBS policy reducing access to much needed medicines? How, in turn, is this policy acting to increase costs in other areas of health care? The reality is that this policy neglects the importance of the role of medicines in preventative health care. Yet that has got to be the No. 1 objective of government policy: how do we lift our game in terms of preventative health care?
Ultimately, the issue is not simply about capping costs; it is about ensuring that money is well spent towards producing good health outcomes and good public policy. If the health minister spent more time understanding the long-term preventative benefits of the PBS rather than slashing costs—if he took better advice—Australian health would be better now and for future generations.
As I said at the outset, the opposition supports the bill before the House. The bill is, appropriately, about the introduction of greater flexibility in the location of pharmacies, which is especially important for regional Australia and growing suburbs.
I stress once again that the decision by the Howard government to back away from its intention to extend pharmacies to major retail chains such as Woolies and Coles is the right decision. I am pleased that the Prime Minister was forced to acknowledge the commitment given to the Pharmacy Guild during the last election in the form of an exchange of letters which committed to that policy position but which the minister for health and others on the other side of the House sought to undermine.
We should never forget that these community pharmacies are part of the fabric of the community. Out in the suburbs and in rural, remote and regional Australia, pharmacies are part of the leadership of our local community. We all depend on the community pharmacist. We should never forget that they are essential in our local metropolitan and regional communities. They give crucial advice. They often make sure that people properly attend to safe medical and medicinal practice. This is about the better health of all Australians. As far as I am concerned, the professional services provided by pharmacists are vital to a decent Australia in the 21st century.
In conclusion, I make one point. We have major skilling problems in every other sphere of Australian life at the moment. The Australian government also has to do more with the Pharmacy Guild and associated entities to train more pharmacists. Our neglect of training for Australians, be they in traditional trades or the professions, effectively means that we are in serious trouble as a nation. I know that from my own responsibilities as shadow minister for resources, energy, forestry and tourism.
We are now losing investment because we do not have the skills base to enable capital decisions to be delivered on time and on budget in Australia. When you ask the major resource companies and hospitality providers to identify the key issue or challenge that they confront at the moment, they speak of a shortage of trained Australians to actually do the work. Skilled migration might be of assistance in the short term, but it is not the long-term solution. In the same way as we have had to rely on overseas doctors, we are now relying on overseas pharmacists.
I simply make a plea to the government. Having got in place a new pharmacy location arrangements bill that has the support of both sides of the House, please start paying more attention to the issue of how we train Australians to succeed the current generation of pharmacists that we depend on as a community. If you do not, we will not only see pharmacy shops close in the local community shopping strips in the suburbs and in rural, remote and regional Australia, but also see associated neglect and a decline in the health of the Australian community.
I commend the bill to the House but also say to the government: please start getting your head around what is probably the biggest priority in Australia at the moment—how we invest in the skilling of Australians, be it in a trade or a profession. If we do not do that, we are going to effectively reduce the size of Australia’s economic cake for future generations.
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Pharmacy Location Arrangements) Bill 2006 and put on the record the views and interests of the people of Hindmarsh. The bill is just one aspect, but a very important one, of the greater fourth community pharmacy agreement, originally due for implementation in July last year. The five-year community pharmacy agreements were created by the federal Labor government in 1991 as a result of dissatisfaction with remuneration arrangements and decisions of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal. The Labor government’s second community pharmacy agreement of 1995 continued to set out remuneration arrangements for pharmacies, but also began to establish mechanisms for recognising and compensating pharmacists for their expanding health care role, and worked toward a broader distribution of pharmacies throughout the community. The third agreement saw this focus on the distribution of pharmacies codified in the establishment of ‘pharmacy location rules’. This focus was intensified in 2004 with the supplementary rule that pharmaceuticals could not be dispensed from supermarkets.
The purpose of the location rules is twofold: first, to provide widespread community access to pharmaceutical services, and second to ensure the continued viability of existing pharmacies. In this fourth agreement, additional flexibility was given to the rules so as to allow for the possibility of pharmacies co-locating with after-hours medical centres or relocating into certain types of shopping centres, single-pharmacy towns and urban areas with high population growth. There is also a reduction in the minimum distance between pharmacies supplying pharmaceuticals under the PBS—from 1,500 metres to 500 metres by straight line measurement.
As with most things, perceptions of the appropriateness of the rules are varied. A few people have said that to interfere with market forces can only lead to abuse, with some people making more money than they should and with customers being ripped off, being unserviced and the like. I think everyone else in the country, including this government, the Pharmacy Guild and the Australian Labor Party, which started this process, recognises that, without interfering in the distribution of medicines covered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, at least one of these negative outcomes is much more likely to become a certainty in areas across metropolitan and regional Australia. I am speaking of the geographic availability of medicines and the service Australians receive under the PBS.
The Australian population is ageing substantially. The electorate of Hindmarsh, which I represent, has 25 per cent of electors aged 65 or over. And people are living longer in the community. That is a good thing. By community, I mean a long-term or family home or, if not that, a newer and more manageable home unit or apartment. This means that people are continuing to be—perhaps increasingly being—out in the middle of a suburb somewhere, without nursing or caring staff to look after things for them.
Many pensioners without savings cannot afford private transport. They are too frail to use the public transport system, which would probably require quite a hike, and the prospect of PBS medicines being dispensed in blocks of chemists within regional supermarket and shopping centre complexes about five to 10 kilometres away would make life that much tougher.
The introduction of the rule banning supermarkets from dispensing pharmaceuticals deserves special attention. A concern I have with supermarkets is their capacity for unequal competition with small, often family run businesses, including community chemists. By virtue of their enormous multi- and single-store capacity, they have the substantial ability to cross-subsidise many more products than a local pharmacy. How would pharmacies be able to continue to remain viable in a deregulated environment? In the case of the local deli or butcher, many people honestly do not care, but the availability of medicines to maintain life, either in essence or at some reasonable level of quality, is a very different matter.
I have been told of the 80-20 rule which generally applies to pharmaceuticals. A pharmacist will get approximately 80 per cent of the turnover from 20 per cent of the lines. It is the remaining lines—over three-quarters—which account for only 20 per cent of the turnover that are problematic. Pharmacists keep an extensive range of drugs in stock and nothing is cheap, and these slow sellers—the over three-quarters of stock that is not in high demand—still need to be kept and replenished in a timely manner in case of demand. Pharmacists work outside the normal supply and demand market dynamic. They need to, and all governments need them to, for the good of the public’s health. Supermarkets, I believe, will lead to the withering of local access to PBS products.
A representative of the Australian Consumers Association argued on Adelaide radio station 5AA last October against community pharmacists and in support of supermarket dispensaries, with the assertion that pharmacists place a 70 per cent automatic mark-up above the government approved price for pharmaceuticals. They actually complained to the ACCC, a complaint that was, I am told, dismissed as nonsense. It appears that many consumers agree with this dismissal and do not believe their hip pockets are being sacrificed in order to financially prop up the local pharmacist’s business.
Last year I circulated a petition within the electorate of Hindmarsh calling on the federal government to negotiate an agreement which recognises the real value of community pharmacies. This sparked some correspondence from within the industry, which one would expect. I will read some of the comments I received. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia’s executive director gave his acknowledgment of the fourth agreement, stating:
We agree with your view that these measures, and more broadly the Fourth Agreement, are very much in the public interest.
Another letter said:
I am aware of your stance and have been particularly impressed with your understanding of the issues ... thank you again for your interest ... on behalf of our customers.
Another letter spoke of the fourth agreement’s community service obligation. Symbion Pharmacy, well outside of my electorate, wrote:
Reaching an agreement on the community service obligation ... will ensure community pharmacies, particularly those in rural and regional Australia, will continue to receive the full range of PBS medicines in a timely manner. We believe this is the most fiscally and socially responsible outcome that could have been negotiated. Symbion Pharmacy (formerly Mayne Pharmacy) can continue with more certainty to deliver the full range of PBS medicines across Australia.
As for the customers, it was not long before the completed petitions began flooding in. It has been the second largest response to a petition or survey that I have run since becoming the member for Hindmarsh. I have received approximately 4,000 signatures from members of the community who want the level of service they get through their community pharmacist continued and not compromised.
The level of service they want continued includes the professional advice they receive from the pharmacist, including through home medicine reviews—of which I spoke in this place last year—whereby, if a GP suspects that a patient might be finding it difficult to correctly use all of their medications, a pharmacist can go to that patient’s home and check that everything is working as it should. It may be that there are too many medications to keep up with or that prescription medicines are interacting with over-the-counter medicines that the GP was not told the patient was taking. It could be that the equipment used to administer medicines, such as a nebuliser, is old or broken. These consultations can take quite some time, but the results for the patient are excellent and often lead to the prescribed medications being more effective.
What have other people in this place said about PBS medications being dispensed from supermarkets? The member for Hinkler spoke in this place in May 2004 of the special needs of customers that would not be met within a supermarket. He said:
... pharmacies are a place where the frail, aged and chronically ill can find a little peace while trying to get clear advice on their medications.
… … …
That advice should not be compromised by the vagaries of the retail market or by a supermarket group’s buying arrangement with an individual supplier, or, dare I say, an individual drug manufacturer.
The member for Franklin stated:
If Coles and Woolworths were allowed to place a pharmacy within their supermarkets, there would be pressure on what products were stocked, how restricted stock could be marketed and what services could be provided. It is a clear warning to each and every one of us in this House, and through us to our communities, that the service and standards the community enjoys with its community pharmacists would change dramatically under the Coles and Woolworths corporate pharmacist regime.
And I respect the clarity of the member for Herbert’s statement when he simply stated:
... supermarkets and health do not mix. It is as simple as that.
I am relieved, as I am sure members of the community will be, to know that community pharmacies will not be driven out by supermarkets at this time. Thousands of jobs, hundreds of local pharmacies and millions of free consultations provided by pharmacists will be under threat if any new agreement fails to recognise the importance and the valuable role of community pharmacies.
What sets community pharmacies apart is that they provide careful advice to their customers on the side effects of prescribed medicines and on combinations of medicines. Community pharmacists take the time that is needed to care for their customers. As a result, Australia has half the rate of hospital admissions from medicine misuse when compared to the United States. I am glad that the federal government appears to have listened to the community’s wishes on this occasion and recognised the fundamental role that community pharmacists play in maintaining the day-to-day health of so many Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
Community pharmacies play a vital role within our community. I find it very disturbing that it has taken this government so long to reach that conclusion. It has taken this government up until now to acknowledge the fine role that our community pharmacies play within our communities throughout Australia. Whilst I will support the Health Legislation Amendment (Pharmacy Location Arrangements) Bill 2006, I do think it very important that I place on the record that I support the second reading amendment that the shadow minister for health has presented to the House tonight. That amendment condemns the government for its failure to investigate the impact of the PBS copayment increase on patients’ access to needed medicines; for the recent changes to the PBS safety net; and for the confusion and difficulties caused by the new 20-day rule. These are all issues that constituents within my electorate have raised with me and all issues that I think go to the safety of the way medications are used and supplied throughout Australia.
The changes to the pharmacy location rules introduced by this legislation have the potential to improve access to pharmacies and pharmaceutical services through the PBS for people who live in rural and remote areas and in developing suburbs. I feel that that is a very good thing. It is important that people can get the advice that they need from their local pharmacies when they are sick and when there is no doctor available. People also need to know that the advice they get is accurate. If there is no pharmacy within the area that a person lives in, they are severely disadvantaged.
I was speaking to an elderly resident recently who lives in the Shortland electorate. She has been housebound. The only way that she was able to get her medication was by her local community pharmacy delivering that medicine to her home. That is so important for her wellbeing, for her recovery. It shows the types of services that our community pharmacies provide. If there were no community pharmacy within that area then this elderly woman would have to go without the medication that she so vitally needs.
I think it is fairly important that I go through what the actual changes to the pharmacy location rules will mean. They will permit the co-location of pharmacies with large medical centres that operate extended hours. Obviously, that is of vital importance because, if you can see a doctor after hours, you need to be able to have the prescription that that doctor provides you with made up. Quite frequently, at the moment those pharmacies are not located anywhere near the medical centres and the person may have to wait until the next day to be able to have that prescription filled. If they can co-locate on the premises, that will obviously advantage those people who see their doctor.
The changes will allow for the location of pharmacies in small shopping centres, which I think speaks for itself. They will also allow for the relocation of an additional pharmacy to one-pharmacy rural towns and one-pharmacy high-growth areas without regard to the usual distance criteria. This has been a bone of contention for many years and I think this is a sensible change.
The changes to the pharmacy location rules will also remove the requirement that a specified number of commercial establishments are open and trading before an approved pharmacy can relocate to a shopping centre. For developing areas, that is obviously an important change. It is also an important change for very small communities. The changes also provide greater flexibility for pharmacies located in private hospitals by allowing the establishment of satellite dispensaries for hospital in-patients.
I thoroughly concur with those changes. Unfortunately, I think that this government has failed the pharmacy operators, pharmacists and the Australian people with the long, drawn-out process that was undertaken in signing the latest agreement. I was approached by pharmacists because they were really concerned about the government’s failure to say once and for all that they would not support the location of pharmacies in Woolworths and Coles. They were most concerned that this would erode the quality information that the Australian people were used to receiving from their pharmacists.
I was speaking to one pharmacist within the Shortland electorate last year. He had worked in Scotland. He had been a pharmacist in various places in the UK. He had worked under a system where pharmacies were allowed to operate within supermarkets. He told me that the government was deluding itself if it thought that it would maintain the same quality of service that is provided to people at the moment by their local community pharmacy.
I think the fact that the CEO of Woolworths, Roger Corbett, had the ear of the minister for health played a very large part in the delays in reaching that agreement. We all know in this parliament that the government is a slave to big business. If big business wants a change then the government will jump. The government was prepared to accept the argument that the changes were about flexibility, making it easier for people to obtain their medication and making the medication cheaper. But overseas experience has shown that exactly the opposite result is achieved. So I think that the government stands condemned for its inaction in reaching that agreement. It is very important that that is placed on the record and that the people of Australia are aware of how this government allowed this to drag on and on. We came back into this parliament, I think on two occasions, extending the time of the last agreement.
If the government had really been acting in the interests of the Australian people, they would have recognised, as I said earlier, the valuable role of community pharmacies. They would be very aware that it is our pharmacists who provide people with the advice they need when they are taking medication. Pharmacists, when they fill a prescription, give advice on how to use the medication. On one occasion I was taking medication and my doctor had not told me that I should not eat a particular product and that eating that product had the potential to make me very ill. It was the pharmacist who said, ‘When you take this medication you should not eat that particular food.’ That is the kind of advice that pharmacists are giving people each and every day—and that is prescription medication.
When my children were young I visited the pharmacist when they had a cold, an earache or some minor complaint. Before going to the doctor I would seek the advice of the pharmacist. You could rely on that advice. If the pharmacist thought you should take your child to the doctor, they would give you that advice. That is why pharmacies play such a valuable role in our community. It is not the Australian way to place pharmacies in supermarkets and have the level of advice and service that would be provided there. It is not the kind of service that Australian families and Australian people deserve.
In reaching this fourth pharmacy agreement and the new pharmacy location rule, the Howard government have tried to paint a very pretty picture, stating that they have achieved a very positive outcome for the Australian people. This is despite the fact that they took so long to negotiate this agreement. It is also important to put on the record that the government have really undermined our PBS. These protracted negotiations have gone along with this general undermining of pharmacies and the PBS. Since the introduction of the 21 per cent increase on PBS copayments last January and the 12.5 per cent cut in generic medicines in the middle of the year, there has been a massive decline in the number of prescriptions being filled. I say ‘massive’, but it is when you consider it in the context of the provision of prescriptions that maintain the health of the Australian people. There has been a 2.5 per cent decline in the growth rate of the PBS, and that is expected to drop even lower. Based on the most recent Medicare Australia data, savings to the PBS for the next financial year could amount to $1.38 billion, with 11.4 million fewer prescriptions being filled.
What that means is that Australians are no longer taking vital medications that they need to maintain their health. It is argued very strongly by this government that the increase in the use of the PBS is a financial burden to Australia, that there should be fewer prescriptions filled and that Australian people should pay more for those prescriptions. But I would say to the government: there is a cost associated with that also. Those prescriptions prevent people from getting ill and prevent increased health costs in other areas. The government should think very seriously about that. Not only does it lead to a greater severity in illness and increased hospitalisation; it also leads to an increase in unemployment and more people needing to receive income support. The areas that it pervades are enormous.
As I mentioned, the only good news in the decrease in the use of medication is in the budget bottom line. It does not do anything for health outcomes. The government constantly confuses PBS sustainability with cost cutting, and it never looks at the impact on the overall health system and the abilities of patients to afford their medications. I have had constituents come into my office and tell me that they cannot afford to purchase their medication. I have had other constituents come in and tell me that they share their medications because of the increase in costs. That is not good enough. These are patients that suffer from quite critical conditions that really need medications, such as cardiovascular conditions, blood conditions, mental illness and epilepsy, just to name a few.
It is obvious that the rising out-of-pocket costs due to increased co-payments, special patient co-payments and therapeutic and brand premiums are hitting the sickest and the neediest Australians, which means that too often they must choose between buying their medication and putting food on the table, buying their medication and putting petrol in their car or buying their medication and giving their children books for school. I do not think that is the Australian way, and I do not think that is the kind of society that we want.
The impact of the change to the PBS safety net and the new 20-day rule is yet to kick in. Many people do not understand the implication of the 20-day rule. Many people will find that, because of the 20-day rule, the safety net will not kick in when they expect it to. The thing that makes me really sad as I stand in this House tonight and talk about these changes is that on one hand we have changes that will improve access to community pharmacies but on the other hand the government is increasing the costs of health in every way. Pharmaceutical benefits are no exception to that rule.
This government has a philosophy that the user should pay—and pay through the nose—for all the services that they receive. I have a different philosophy. My philosophy is that if you are sick you should be able to get the medication that you need. My philosophy is that if you do not have a lot of money—because you are not as well off as members on the other side of this House—you should be entitled to the medication and the medical treatment that you need. Your needs are as great as those on the other side of this House and their friends. Although I will support this bill, I reiterate that the government stands condemned for its failure to investigate the impact of the PBS copayment increases on patients’ access to medication and the recent changes to the pharmaceutical benefits safety net and for creating the confusions and the difficulties associated with the 20-day rule.
The shadow minister has moved amendments in this House to the Health Legislation Amendment (Pharmacy Location Arrangements) Bill 2006 and drawn attention to the government’s failure to investigate the impact of the PBS copayment increases on patients’ access to needed medicines; the recent changes to the PBS safety net, which mean that patients must pay more out of pocket; and the confusion and difficulties presented to patients, doctors and pharmacists by the new 20-day rule on repeat prescriptions.
Certainly I would join with the shadow minister in emphasising that the neediest and sickest of Australians will now be forced to choose between buying their medicines and other necessities of life, and there is no doubt that the 20-day rule will make it increasingly difficult for some patients to get their PBS costs to count towards the safety net. The shadow minister drew attention to the fact that this is not just confusing and troublesome for patients; it is making life difficult for busy doctors and pharmacists. There are many legitimate reasons why patients will require access to their medications within 20 days of the dispensing of their previous script.
Whilst all those general points are extraordinarily important in this debate, tonight I want to highlight a particular circumstance that has come to me through one of my constituents, Mr Jack Clear, because it draws a particular issue to the fore. I put it before the House that this is an issue that fully justifies the shadow minister’s concerns about the 20-day rule but I also propose it to the government by way of some requirement for it to take attention of the way in which this policy is being implemented.
Mr Jack Clear is a man who requires a number of medications and is of course deeply troubled by the increased costs that the changes to the PBS will impose upon him. But, more particularly, he is a person who from time to time seeks repeats of prescriptions that have been issued. Some little while ago he came to me—and I was certainly not mindful of this debate; this is a matter which arose quite independently of it—because he had tried to have a script dispensed 21 days after the last dispensing. He was told by the pharmacist that this fell within the 20-day rule, so he could not count the cost of the script towards the PBS safety net. It would appear that, whilst it was the intention of the legislation to ensure that the 20-day rule permits a script to be dispensed after that period expires, on the 21st day, a number of pharmacies are using a dispensing program called ‘Winifred’, which interprets the 20-day rule as meaning that there must be 20 days in between each dispensing date—that is, it starts counting the days on the day after the script is dispensed. So, in effect, it is adding an extra day to what I believe was the intention of the parliament. In that instance, Mr Clear was presented with a quite expensive account for the drugs which were dispensed, which cannot count towards the safety net.
I do not doubt that, given that this is a computerised system that is operating across a number of pharmacies, similar circumstances will apply to a number of people. Those people, properly being aware of the nature of the rule, will present themselves to their pharmacy in order to get a particular drug dispensed, believing that they will be automatically entitled to the benefit of the safety net. They will discover that in fact the set-up that the pharmacy operates to implement the government’s decision precludes them from being able to access the safety net payment. That of course will mean that those persons cannot make the scripts that they have had dispensed count towards the safety net.
The pharmacist that my office spoke to said that the government’s intention was not unambiguous, that the meaning of the legislation was unclear. Plainly, the pharmacist and those who are part of the network of pharmacies that are using the prescription system that operates in this instance understood the government’s legislation in the manner which caught Mr Clear unawares, to his great cost.
I would like it made plain by the government that the intention is such that, if a person applies on the 21st day after the dispensing of a drug, they are not excluded by the operation of the rule. That would seem to be a commonsense understanding of the intention of the parliament—although, in defence of the pharmacists who are themselves, I am certain, trying to make the best of a complex and highly unsatisfactory legislative rule, section 84AAA is, on its face, not so simple in its interpretation as to preclude the interpretation that the pharmacists have put into operation through their computerised system, to the detriment of those who come forward on the 21st day to seek the dispensing of drugs and coverage under the PBS. I believe the government should act immediately to clarify this section of the legislation and to ensure that dispensing programs that are being operated across Australia by pharmacies are made consistent with the understanding that I would hope this parliament has embraced in this legislation.
It is one thing to note that the 20-day rule itself is capable of causing considerable difficulty. It does not recognise that there will be perfectly legitimate reasons why some patients wish to acquire their medications in a shorter period after the dispensing of a previous prescription. For example, they may be travelling interstate or they may have particular requirements that limit their capacity to travel. Some are handicapped. Some are not as mobile as others. They may rely on friends to make occasional visits. In particular, those living in rural and regional areas do find it difficult to make arrangements to travel to pharmacies as easily as those living in metropolitan Sydney, Melbourne or even Hobart. It is one thing to acknowledge that. It is another to then have this catch-22 situation apply that, where somebody acknowledges and acts in good faith on the expectation, having allowed 20 days to expire since the dispensing of their script, they will still fall foul of these new rules. The government should make it plain that those who have been caught by this problem are sought out, reimbursed and reincluded in the safety net, because I imagine that the circumstance of my constituent Jack Clear would not be unique.
Those are the specific points that I wish to add to this debate, and I commend them to the minister at the table to convey to the Minister for Health and Ageing. They are specific concerns that emerge irrespective of the passage of this legislation, but they only go to emphasise the cavalier way in which this government is treating those sick and neediest Australians who are dependent on the PBS safety net to enable them to have their medicines at a reasonable price.
I am certain that the difficulties I refer to are not ones of malice. The rules that have been brought in are confusing and troublesome, not only for patients. They will be making life difficult for busy doctors and pharmacists. They confront doctors and pharmacists with considerable difficulty in providing the services that they would wish to their patients in the manner which they believe is in the best interests of patients. It is certainly not my intention to engage in any pharmacy-bashing speech but rather to say that this is an issue that requires resolution. It requires goodwill on behalf of the government. Irrespective of the overall intention of the legislation, it needs to be clarified to ensure that dispensing programs that are utilised by pharmacies across Australia to give effect to the government’s intention are uniform, correct and do not result in persons who would be properly and lawfully entitled to receive benefits under the PBS safety net being excluded from them.
Given the time—I think there is only a minute to go—I will conclude my remarks at that point. The Labor opposition hopes that the concerns it has expressed by way of the proposed amendment moved by the shadow minister do have some reflection in the actions of government and are not simply ignored, because these issues are important. They impact directly on those who are needy and sick in our community.
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being approximately 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
I rise to draw to the attention of the House a special ceremony that was held on 19 March this year, which was the dedication of Maroubra as a National Surfing Reserve. This dedication followed meetings by a national reference group comprising officials of the New South Wales state government, Surf Life Saving New South Wales, tracks magazine, the National Parks Association of New South Wales and, in particular, Professor Andy Short from the University of Sydney and Brad Farmer, convener of the group whose work in progressing the nomination—I commend his work to the House—is outstanding. National Surfing Reserves recognise sites of cultural and historic significance in Australian surf culture. The subsequent support of Randwick council, the local community and Surfing NSW, of which I am proud to say I am a patron, meant that the nomination of Maroubra, which identified Maroubra Beach as the traditional home of the Bidjigal people integral to the historic environmental spiritual and cultural heritage of Australian surfing, was able to proceed. Maroubra Beach was eminently qualified to be nominated in this way and to receive the nomination and be dedicated.
People have been surfing in the Maroubra area and on the beach since the early 1900s, which is after the people from the Dharwahal nation would have surfed there. One of the first surf lifesaving clubs in Australia, it was formed in 1907, and we believe it was also the site of the first Australian surf carnival, which of course has gone on to become not only a great spectacle but a repository of the skill and dedication of the volunteers of the surf lifesaving movement. Some 20,000 rescues have been performed in and around the Maroubra Beach since then.
In 1963, Australia’s first surfboard riding club was formed. At Maroubra, the beach and community are intertwined. Maroubra has produced a number of champions over the years; others surf for the fun of it. At the dedication ceremony a Maroubra Beach Surfing Walk of Fame was also launched. Those recognised were CJ Snowy McAlister, Bernard ‘Midget’ Farrelly, Robert ‘Nat’ Young and local and legendary waterman and iron-man champion Barry Rodgers.
Surf lifesaving clubs and the various board riding clubs are an extremely important part of the Maroubra community. This includes the Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club, the South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club, the nippers and, from their early inceptions, the Maroubra Surf Riders Club, the Maroubra Surfers Association and associated board-riders clubs. Those activities and those organisations continue their activities to this day.
Whether we may or may not be surf champions or occasional visitors to the beach, most Australians live within spitting distance of the mighty ocean. Our coastline stretches as a zone of beauty, community and productivity, and the surfing experience, sometimes referred to as ‘going up north again’ or ‘going south again’, is as much a part of the growing up of young Australians and of our culture as is any other activity. As the sport of surfing has grown into a multimillion dollar business so too has the need to acknowledge the connection, the history and the culture of this activity of surfing. It is an integral part of the Australian way of life.
The dedication of Maroubra Beach as a National Surfing Reserve is the first dedication of its kind for a beach in New South Wales and only the second in Australia to Bells Beach. I take great pleasure and delight in recording for the House today the dedication of Maroubra Beach as a National Surfing Reserve.
In Australia cancer affects one in three men and one in four women before the age of 75. Given those odds, 47 members of this House will suffer from cancer before their 75th birthday. If you look at how the figures translate to the general community, you will see that they are alarming. Cancer is the single most common cause of death today. In two-thirds of cases, the cancer is still localised when diagnosis is made. Recovery can be made for about 45 per cent of cancers using the current therapies of surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Once the cancer has spread, however, the chance of recovery is correspondingly lower. Chemotherapy is used with the intent to eliminate the diffused cancer cells. Radiotherapy is used in combination with surgery or when the tumour is localised to one area of the body which is inoperable; it is recommended for 52 per cent of cancers.
With continued advances in the medical field of new surgery techniques, vaccines and stronger chemo, it is time we also focus on improving radiotherapy. The next major technical advancement in radiotherapy is proton beam therapy. Proton beam therapy is a painless non-invasive form of radiation used to treat cancer and other benign conditions. Proton therapy has been used to treat nearly 42,000 patients since it was first trialled. This government already recognises the technology. It provides assistance for children diagnosed with brain tumours to travel to America for this treatment.
The proton’s dose of radiation can be controlled to an exact shape and depth within the body. The proton’s penetration through tissue is a function of the proton beam’s energy and the tissue density through which it passes. Selecting the beam’s energy controls the penetration. Protons slow down as they interact with matter. When protons slow down enough, they release the bulk of their energy in a sharp burst followed by a rapid decline in their dose energy. Virtually no radiation is expended beyond this point. There are currently 41 facilities either established or being developed around the world. Unfortunately, none is in Australia.
Proton therapy provides superior clinical outcomes for most cancers where conventional radiotherapy is commonly used. It has also been found to produce highly favourable results in the treatment of certain tumours that are not effectively controlled by conventional radiation. Overseas, proton therapy is used in the early treatment of tumours in most parts of the body. There are instances where people have travelled of their own accord to seek treatment in the US.
The member for Moore, another keen supporter of proton beam therapy, had occasion to speak to one of his patients who sought treatment for prostate cancer: this patient no longer suffers from the disease, nor does he have any side effects from the treatment. As with conventional radiotherapy, treatment with protons requires between 20 and 25 sessions, during which the tumour is blasted by the proton beam for one minute. The cost of a course of treatment is approximately $25,000. This is cost effective when compared to the high cost of surgical treatment, even without factoring in associated costs such as the hospital stay, pain management, physiotherapy and other ongoing measures.
Since 1998, planning has been under way to establish an Australian proton therapy facility. It is envisaged that such a facility would cost $160 million to build and have the capacity to treat 3,000 patients per annum. The assistance sought from government is the granting of a Medicare treatment licence and treatment number. This will give the people of Australia an alternative that not only is efficient, effective and cheap but also has the added bonus of freeing up our hospital wards for people with cancer whose recovery relies on other medical remedies.
I understand that those who are working towards establishing an Australian proton therapy facility will shortly be making a submission to the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. I strongly encourage the members of that committee to take the time to better understand proton therapy. (Time expired)
I was struck by a few of the things that Tony Blair had to say during his address to the parliament today. I was particularly interested when he spoke of a speech he once wrote about Britain having to become a young country again—and it was a country like Australia that he had in mind. As we all know, Australia has a brief but proud history of continuing to strive for greater advancement in becoming an ever increasingly wonderful nation. It is with this in mind that I believe we should continue the struggle to become a republic.
Just two weeks ago, the Minister for Finance and Administration, Nick Minchin, and I had the opportunity to speak at Flinders University during a first-year politics lecture. We addressed the issue of whether or not Australia should become a republic; I addressed the merits and Nick put the opposing point of view. I would thank the organisers and students at Flinders University for allowing us to attend, but I would also thank the finance minister. I think it is wonderful that somebody as busy as he is would make time available to continue what I believe is such an important debate in this country. It is great to see that this debate is still going strong. The 1999 referendum certainly was not the end of the story. There is much interest among many young people and I hope that we will see some proud republicans continuing the struggle into the future.
I am a strong believer that not only the policies but also the structures of the Australian government must be reflective of the views of the Australian people. For this reason, I will continue to argue that Australians need a fair go in the industrial relations sector; but also for this reason I believe that a monarchy is not reflective at all of the values that Australians hold dear. As Australians, we pride ourselves on striving for an egalitarian nation—and I do not think that is reflected at all in the monarchy and in our head of state being decided by birth right as opposed to merit.
I also believe that one of the most disappointing things about this House is the lack of time that we devote to talking about Australia’s long-term future—about our vision for the nation going forward and how we will set this vision out to the Australian people and then unite them in working towards it. This is a great shame. Understandably, we are caught up in day-to-day matters, but I think it is very important—particularly at a time when we are focusing so much on what divides us as Australians and what is un-Australian in our society—that we talk about what unites us, such as our national identity and structures, and about ways that we can foster a united future going forward. It is my firm belief that having an Australian head of state is an albeit symbolic but very important way for Australia to go forward as a united country.
With the Commonwealth Games, I think it is also timely that we talk about the things we would not be giving up if Australia were to become a republic. I found it interesting in watching the games—which I enjoyed, like millions of other Australians—to see that, of 53 countries who are members of the Commonwealth, 31 are now republics and have their own head of state. There is absolutely no reason why Australia would have to give up any of our links or very close relationships with these countries in order to go forward with our own head of state.
I must also confess at this point that a number of weeks ago I went to see the Queen and I thoroughly enjoyed the occasion—although not quite as much as my mother, who was my date for the evening. Like many republicans, I do not have any problems with the Queen; she seems to be a very nice lady. But I do not necessarily see the monarchy’s role in our nation going forward.
Australia is a strong and independent nation and every member of this House is happy that is the case. However, I think that also means we need to look at its structures and make sure that they reflect this fact—not only to ourselves as a nation but also to the rest of the world—and that we make sure that, going forward, Australians all work towards continuing that proud tradition of striving for greater achievement and making sure that history students in times to come can look back on our generation and say that we continued to keep the ball rolling on Australia’s development into the future.
On Friday last week, I met with some stone fruit growers from a beautiful little rural community called Thirlmere, which is situated in the northern part of my electorate; a number of fruit growers from around the Sydney Basin also came to that meeting. These fruit growers have a very significant problem. Their problem is centred on fruit bats and their ever increasing number, caused by urban development along the coastlines, particularly in Queensland and northern New South Wales. These bats are creating havoc in this particular industry. Keep in mind that this industry used to grow cherries; it still grows apples, peaches and nectarines for the export trade. However, these bats affect this community by reducing this industry’s production to about 60 per cent of its capacity.
The cherry industry part of this region’s stone fruit growers is long gone, because cherries were the first crop that the bats attacked and the growers found that they could not sustain the loss of losing 100 per cent of the fruit on their trees. These fruit bats, which urban development has forced out of their natural habitat, strip the fruit trees down to about 1.3 metres above ground level. The annual crop loss for the export market is pretty significant. Not only do these animals strip the trees, creating a problem through the reduction in production, but also they contaminate what they do not eat. Sometimes, before the fruit is ripe, the bats come down and bite into the fruit, leaving their teeth marks on them. Those fruit then have to be rejected because they have been contaminated. As many of us know, these animals carry diseases which are contagious to human beings, which in itself is a significant problem as far as the flow-on health aspect of these protected animals is concerned.
The problem is that the growers themselves cannot afford the expensive netting which is needed to protect their crops. As members would know, the responsibility for these bat populations lies in the hands of the state governments. Whilst the growers recognise that, they understand that because of the intransigent attitude of the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Macdonald, there is absolutely no way in the world that they can expect to get any financial assistance to help them with their netting. They wanted to talk to me about whether I would ask the federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, who has a bit more of a compassionate approach to people in dire trouble in the agricultural industry, whether the Commonwealth would talk to the state ministers at COAG meetings in regard to both levels of government making a contribution—in company with a contribution from the growers themselves—towards a one-up grant to allow these growers to put this expensive netting over their trees in order to protect their fruit. The growers believe that, because they will be able to save 30 per cent to 40 per cent of their production loss—which is their profit level—that will enable them to put some money aside in every ensuing year and be able to renew the netting as it is required. I will be talking to the federal minister about that issue.
The point I want to make is this: the community has to take some responsibility for the problems that it is creating for our farmers out there in rural and regional Australia who are trying to make a living out of crops such as these stone fruit crops that I am talking about. We as a community have to understand that, if we are going to allow urban development to occur to the point where we are pushing these animals into the rural areas, we have to be responsible for the outcome, which is a negative impact on the profitability of farmers who are growing produce like stone fruit. I have undertaken to take the issue up with our minister. I hope the agricultural minister in New South Wales has the commonsense and decency to understand that the decisions by both his government and local government to allow development to occur are contributing to this massive problem. (Time expired).
According to aSun Herald report published on 26 March 2006 entitled ‘Cancer expert demands new wonder drug for all’, the head of Australia’s largest breast cancer treatment centre, Professor Richard West, rightfully slammed the Howard government for dragging its feet on making available to all Australian women what is widely acclaimed to be the new breast cancer life-saving drug, Herceptin. The virtues of Herceptin for women with an early onset of HER2 breast cancer have been sung far and wide by all manner of professionals: specialists, breast cancer networks, support groups and, most importantly, Australian women. Yet such enthusiasm for the drug does not extend to the Howard government, which has steadfastly refused to list Herceptin on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
According to Professor Don Iverson, Dean of Health and Behavioural Sciences at the University of Wollongong, Herceptin is an ‘extraordinary new drug’ which specifically targets the cancer while having very few damaging side effects. While Herceptin remains missing from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, women will be forced to pay approximately $60,000 per year, putting it out of reach of most women. In a country as prosperous and lucky as ours, every woman deserves to be afforded access to a treatment which will give them their best hope of survival. Many women have demonstrated the lengths that they have shamefully been forced to in order to pursue their own will to live.
I am fortunate to have been approached by many constituents in my electorate of Lowe who have been, and still are, fighting valiantly to obtain PBS listing for Herceptin. I am especially grateful to have been approached by the many brave women who have truthfully bared the depths to which they feel they have sunk to obtain access to Herceptin. I have been told of women who have been forced to lose weight in order to reduce the cost of Herceptin. It is reported that by being wafer thin a woman would require less Herceptin in each dose, saving her tens of thousands of dollars. This is unconscionable.
In 2001, a successful national campaign was led by many tireless groups and individuals to ensure Herceptin was available free to women with advanced breast cancer—this after Herceptin was rejected three times by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee as not being cost-effective. It is a national disgrace that hundreds, if not thousands, of women with advanced breast cancer were required in 2001 to put their scarce energy into fighting for medical services that should have been unquestionably provided by their government.
Whilst it is refreshing to hear the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, belatedly proclaim that he would like to see Herceptin considered for listing ‘as soon as possible’, he has given absolutely no commitment to the women of Australia that Herceptin for early breast cancer sufferers will be listed. Indeed, the spectre of cost-effectiveness ratios was raised by the Chairman of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee as recently as October 2005. I resent the failure of the minister and the PBAC to pay sufficient regard to the human element in such considerations, including the observation that the cost of Herceptin is a small price to pay when its capacity to save many women’s lives has been proven beyond doubt.
I can only imagine that Minister Abbott’s ‘invisible hand’ is indirectly forcing the committee to pay closer attention to the cost-effectiveness of drugs rather than their propensity to save lives. What price can the minister put on a woman’s life? It is a disgrace that women with breast cancer have to put energy into fighting these types of battles with the government at the very time when they are most vulnerable. These women are our grandmothers, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunties and cousins. Surely they deserve better. What all of them have in common when inflicted with the disease is that they are not ready to die. Our health care system should be doing more for them—much more.
Some weeks ago I articulated my fears that Australia’s health care system was increasingly being moulded by the Howard government into one that can only cater for those who can bear the astronomical costs of treatment. I mentioned that it was time for the government to bring back ‘care’ into the health care system. The government is running a record budget surplus and clearly can afford to fund Herceptin. I stand up for my constituents tonight and demand that the Howard government make Herceptin affordable and accessible by immediately listing this life-saving drug on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
I rise tonight to place on record my strong personal support for the ongoing efforts of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the honourable member for Sturt, in bringing attention to the dangers of cannabis use, particularly in relation to mental health. I wholeheartedly support his calls for state governments to recriminalise the possession and consumption of cannabis. I have long believed that one of the most foolish things we have done as a society is to refer to cannabis or marijuana as a ‘harmless’ or ‘recreational’ drug. For too long the notion has been put out there that this drug is not really like other drugs—that it is more benign in nature, that it cannot really hurt you, that it is ‘okay’. That is certainly the message that decriminalisation sends.
The truth is that cannabis does not deserve the benign tag. Cannabis does enormous damage to those who regularly use it—both physically and socially. New evidence is emerging every day of the irreversible effect it can have on the brain, especially as a trigger to serious mental illness. We have had a lot of press in recent times about the need to deal more effectively with the growing prevalence of mental illness—in particular, schizophrenia. Yet very few headlines are given to the mounting evidence that cannabis use can lead to serious mental health problems. Surely one way of helping ease the pressure on our mental health system is to send a clear message about the potential health impact of smoking marijuana, to try to decrease the incidence of drug induced mental illness.
A recent study conducted in the UK found that one in four people may have a genetic profile that makes it more likely that cannabis use will trigger psychiatric disorders. That is 25 per cent of the population; and that is not to say that the other 75 per cent are immune from developing disorders of this nature—far from it. The very clear fact is that cannabis use can lead to mood swings, panic attacks, delusions, hallucinations, paranoid thinking, schizophrenia and psychotic illness.
There is not enough time in tonight’s debate to fully detail the impact this can have on the families of those who fall prey to this drug. While people may not die of a cannabis overdose—it is less dramatic, in a sense, than heroin or cocaine—its social effects are just as hard on the families of users. Families are being torn apart by the illness, the delusions, the lies and, in many cases, the criminal behaviour that taking this drug can create. An Australian Institute of Criminology report last year found that 94 per cent of juvenile offenders had used cannabis, and a huge 64 per cent were regular users. So the effect stretches beyond families and to victims of crime and the wider society. Perhaps most sadly of all, cannabis use has rendered sons and daughters virtually unrecognisable to their parents. Make no mistake about it, as a nation we are losing our young people to this drug every day. I am talking only about the dangers of the drug itself at this stage. Of course, there are other dangers. It is clearly a ‘gateway’ drug, the use of which often leads to the use of other illicit drugs.
It is a very sad indictment of our nation that, in 2004, 15 per cent of our population over the age of 15 used cannabis. In fact, in a list of 24 comparable countries, including the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and New Zealand, Australia ranked the highest in cannabis use. This indicates a serious public health issue. While the Tough on Drugs campaign has gone some way towards warning young people of the drug’s dangerous effects, clearly more needs to be done.
I want to take this opportunity tonight to call on the national media and on state governments around Australia to help us dispel the myth that cannabis is a harmless drug. We need to work together to educate our young people on the potentially serious mental health problems associated with the use of this drug. Finally, I want to sincerely thank the member for Sturt for his ongoing work. He can be assured that he is supported in this campaign by the concerned constituents of Forde and of people across this nation.
Question agreed to.
asked the Speaker.
The following notices were given:
to move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for works in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 27 March 2006, namely: Construction of the National Portrait Gallery.
to move:
That this House:
to move:
That this House:
to move:
That this House: