Bill, explanatory memorandum and—by leave—Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety presented by Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce a bill to establish Safe Work Australia as an independent national body whose role will be to improve occupational health and safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements across Australia.
The government has set itself the task of creating a seamless national economy unhampered by unnecessary state duplications, overlaps and differences. Occupational health and safety is a prime candidate for this sort of reform. More than 300 Australians are killed each year at work. Many more die as a result of work related disease. Each year over 140,000 Australians are seriously injured at work. The cost to our economy has been estimated at $34 billion per year. The cost to those injured and to their families, workmates and friends is inestimable.
Our health, safety and compensation systems are in a sorry state—unnecessarily complex and costly. Inconsistencies between jurisdictions mean that some workers are at risk of poorer safety standards than their counterparts in other states. At the same time, these inconsistencies increase the complexity, paperwork and costs for the 39,000 Australian businesses that operate across state boundaries.
The establishment of Safe Work Australia is an essential part of the government’s strategy to improve safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements across Australia. Since coming to office we have:
This bill, together with the intergovernmental agreement, ushers in a new era of cooperation and collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in this important area: a collaboration which will improve the health and safety of workers across Australia and reduce the complexity of regulation for businesses.
Safe Work Australia will replace the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, established by the Howard government as an advisory council whose functions were confined to coordinating, monitoring and promoting national efforts on health and safety and workers compensation.
This bill establishes Safe Work Australia as an independent reform-focused body, with the power to make recommendations directly to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, WRMC.
As we promised in the lead-up to the election, Safe Work Australia will be an inclusive, tripartite body. It will be comprised of 15 members, including an independent chair, nine members representing the Commonwealth and each state and territory, two members representing the interests of workers, two representing the interests of employers and the chief executive officer. The members will be supported by the chief executive officer and staff who together, will form a statutory agency under the Public Service Act. The body will be subject to Commonwealth governance regimes and will be a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act.
Safe Work Australia will:
The bill establishes the operational arrangements to support Safe Work Australia, including provisions relating to the nomination, appointment and terms and conditions of members, conflict of interest issues, procedures relating to the conduct of meetings and decision-making processes, and the development of plans and reporting requirements to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council. It enables the chair to constitute committees to draw upon a wide range of expertise for the performance of its functions.
Safe Work Australia will play a pivotal role in realising the government’s commitment and the commitment of all state and territory governments to work together to achieve harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws. It will have the important task of developing the model Occupational Health and Safety Act, model regulations and model codes of practice for approval by workplace relations ministers.
I have established an independent occupational health and safety review panel to advise the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council on the optimal structure and content of a model Occupational Health and Safety Act. The work of the panel is now well underway. The panel is currently examining public submissions and will present its first report to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council on 31 October, with the second report due at the end of January 2009.
For the first time in the history of our Federation, governments from each state and territory and the Commonwealth have formally committed to the harmonisation of occupational health and safety legislation through an intergovernmental agreement.
The Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety commits the Commonwealth and all states and territories to the adoption of the approved model legislation and, in a demonstration of the new spirit of cooperation, the agreement also provides that Safe Work Australia will be jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the states and territories.
Safe Work Australia will also take forward the initiatives of the Commonwealth and the states and territories to streamline and harmonise workers compensation arrangements.
Occupational health and safety and workers compensation are too important to be neglected any longer. Workers’ lives and health are at stake, and so too is the efficiency of our economy. Occupational health and safety and workers compensation reform will increase profitability and productivity and better protect the lives and health of Australians. Safe Work Australia will play a pivotal role in this reform. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Markus) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I also introduce this morning into the parliament the Safe Work Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill. The bill will repeal the Australian Workplace Safety Standards Act 2005. This will abolish the current framework provided by that act for the declaration of occupational health and safety national standards and codes of practice by the Australian Safety and Compensation Council (ASCC). However, the bill will preserve existing national standards and codes of practice. The bill will also enable Safe Work Australia to declare national standards and codes of practice relating to occupational health and safety on an interim basis until 1 January 2011, unless regulations prescribe an earlier or later date.
It is anticipated that, over time, national standards and codes of practice will be replaced by model regulations and model codes of practice that will be approved by the Workplace Relations Ministers Council.
The bill will also provide for a number of other consequential amendments arising from the repeal of the Australian Workplace Safety Standards Act and from the enactment of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Markus) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian Research Council Amendment Bill amends the Australian Research Council Act to increase the funding limits in the special appropriation and insert a new funding cap for the last year of the forward budget estimates.
This bill provides approximately an extra $950 million over the forward estimates for the Australian Research Council to implement the Future Fellowships funding scheme and for indexation and continued funding of the Australian Research Council’s existing research funding schemes.
The government values the important contribution made by our researchers to Australia’s short- and long-term prosperity and is committed to fostering our research talent at all levels.
The new Future Fellowships will encourage, support and nurture future generations of potentially exceptional Australian and international researchers and make available to them real opportunities to build a career here.
At present, the career path for researchers can be uncertain with many highly qualified mid-career researchers required to work overseas to further their careers due to lack of opportunities in Australia.
This new scheme addresses the problem by making funding available for 1,000 four-year fellowships over the next five years.
This new funding scheme for the Australian Research Council will act as an additional incentive to attract high-calibre, early-career researchers in all disciplines across the spectrum of pure basic, strategic basic and applied research to undertake their work in Australia. This initiative is an important investment in our research talent to enable us to grow Australia’s research capacity and capabilities. I commend the bill to the House and the work done on it by my ministerial colleague Senator Carr.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Markus) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McClelland.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008.
This bill introduces the second part of the Rudd government’s historic reform to amend a range of Commonwealth laws that discriminate against same-sex couples and their children.
I introduced the first bill, the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008, in the House on 28 May 2008.
Today we undertake major reforms which will effectively remove same-sex discrimination from many areas of Commonwealth activity.
This bill will amend 68 Commonwealth laws. Nineteen government departments were involved in the drafting of the bill.
It will not only remove discrimination against same-sex couples but also remove discrimination against their families and, most specifically, their children.
Shameful delay in removing discrimination
I am sure many in this House would agree that these reforms are long overdue.
The delay in removing this discrimination is a matter of shame for both sides of the House.
It is almost 20 years since ‘sexual preference’ was added as an additional ground of discrimination under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Regulations.
In 1997 the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee identified discrimination in Commonwealth laws and programs that deal with tax and superannuation benefits.
In 2004, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that Australia was in breach of the prohibition on discrimination in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because the Veterans’ Entitlements Act denied a person a pension on the basis of their sexual orientation.
And, of course, in May last year the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released its report Same-sex: same entitlementsthe outcome of a significant national inquiry and consultation on that issue. It personalised many examples of discrimination and the impact of discriminatory laws on Australians.
The commission found that:
On coming to office, I instructed my department to carry out a whole-of-government audit of Commonwealth legislation building on the commission’s excellent work.
The audit confirmed the commission’s findings.
It further identified that discrimination also occurs in a range of non-financial areas, such as administrative and evidence laws.
What the Bill will do
This bill removes discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in many of the laws that were identified by the commission and the audit.
The bill will ensure in each law it amends that same-sex couples and their families are recognised.
The amendments in the bill recognise a same-sex partner and adopt a similar approach to that taken in the first bill to recognise a child in a same-sex family.
The general approach taken by the bill is that ‘a child’ will include a child that is the product of a relationship, where one partner is linked biologically to the child or where one partner is the birth mother of the child.
By applying this definition, opposite-sex and same-sex families are treated equally.
I am aware of some criticism of the bill.
However, without it there is a risk that we will not recognise all children in same-sex families. Whatever people’s views are, I am sure they will agree that children should be treated equally wherever they may be in Australia and irrespective of the relationship of their parents.
The approach also avoids relying on inconsistent state and territory parenting presumptions that are contained in a variety of laws around Australia.
We must take a national approach to addressing these issues to ensure that all children, wherever they may be in Australia, are treated equally.
Many in this House would agree that it would be inappropriate for Commonwealth benefits to recognise children on the basis of which state or territory they happen to have been born in.
Definition of a ‘de facto partner’
The bill includes a new definition of de facto partnerships which will be included in the Acts Interpretation Act.
This definition will become the standard definition for most Commonwealth laws, and the laws that will be amended will, in most cases, pick up that definition.
It will provide a more consistent and uniform approach to defining who is a de facto partner across a range of Commonwealth laws.
It will apply to de facto partnerships whether the parties to the relationship are of the same sex or different sexes.
This definition will recognise two different types of relationships.
The couple will be taken to be in a de facto relationship if they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis having regard to a number of circumstances included within the definition.
Registered relationships
The definition will also specifically and clearly recognise relationships that have been registered under prescribed state and territory relationship registration schemes.
What this will mean is that couples who have registered their relationships under a state or territory law will not have to demonstrate the circumstances to satisfy the definition of de facto partner under most Commonwealth laws.
They will be taken to be a de facto partner on the basis that they have satisfied the requirements for registration under the relevant state or territory law.
This will provide a significant incentive for couples to register their relationships under state or territory schemes.
They can be confident in those circumstances that their registration under a state or territory scheme will, for most purposes, be recognised automatically by the Commonwealth. Currently, such schemes exist in Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory.
It is also, of course, an incentive for other states and territories that do not have such schemes to develop and implement their own. The federal government’s position is that, should they do so, they should be consistent with the general principles that exist in the schemes in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT.
Acts that take a different approach
The definition in the Acts Interpretation Act will not be used in all the acts being amended by the bill.
Some acts, such as the Social Security Act and the Migration Act and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, currently have their own approach to defining who is a member of a couple or de facto partner or a child of a person.
Given the specific issues that are dealt with by these acts, a slightly different approach to the definition of de facto partner or child is adopted.
The factors are generally similar but they do not refer to the new definition of de facto partner to be inserted in the Acts Interpretation Act that I outlined a little earlier.
Nonetheless, in relation to those acts, the bill amends the relevant provisions to ensure that same-sex couples and their families are recognised.
Interdependency
The bill does not recognise interdependent relationships. I recognise that this is an issue of some controversy.
Recognising interdependent relationships, however, raises many complex issues, and interdependent relationships would not necessarily benefit from such recognition.
For a start, the relationships can be difficult to define.
There is no consistency in how they are defined or applied across Commonwealth laws or programs.
And there is also a lack of reliable data on the likely numbers of relationships—which makes it difficult to calculate the financial implications of any recognition.
Interdependency can include, for instance, a wide range of relationships, from flatmates to adult children living at home to siblings who care for one another and who are emotionally and financially dependent on each other.
Recognising interdependent relationships, as I have indicated, may not be appropriate or fair in all situations. For example, in the social security or pension context it could mean that two sisters who live together would be treated as a couple and receive a lower amount in pension because of their interdependent relationship. On our calculations, such a couple would potentially receive a significant amount lower than they would otherwise receive if they were treated as single people for the purpose of their entitlements.
While the position of some interdependent relationships (such as carers) may need to be closely considered by the government, this bill (which seeks to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their families) is not the vehicle to address those concerns. In particular, as I have indicated, those members opposite who have advocated recognition of interdependent relationships should really look into this issue and ascertain for themselves the number of people in interdependent relationships who would actually be significantly worse of if they were to succeed in covering interdependent relationships in the context of these reforms.
Marriage and marital status discrimination
This bill also removes some laws that treat people in the same circumstances differently depending on whether they are married or not.
For example, the opposite-sex de facto partner is not considered the associate of a person for the purposes of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, and there are obviously a number of other similar circumstances.
It seems incredible that for almost 24 years it has been unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis that they are or are not married.
And yet Commonwealth laws still exist that only provide a benefit to a person on the basis that they are married to another person, while a person who is in exactly the same situation but not married would be denied that benefit. That applies, I might say, whether that relationship be de facto or same sex.
The bill addresses these areas by recognising both opposite-sex couples and same-sex de facto couples.
Stepchildren, step-parents, widowers
Another area of marital status discrimination is in relation to stepchildren, step-parents, widowers and widows.
Currently, the ordinary meaning of these terms requires that a person be married.
This problem must be addressed if we are to remove discrimination, as children in same-sex relationships would never qualify as stepchildren because same-sex couples cannot marry their partners.
The problem not only affects same-sex de facto couples but also affects opposite-sex couples who are not married. Again, I think that all people would recognise the undesirability of discriminating in particular in those instances against stepchildren.
The bill expands the definitions of ‘stepchild’ and ‘step-parent’ to include a child of an opposite-sex or same-sex de facto partner by a former relationship and to include a same-sex or opposite-sex de facto partner of a parent of a child by a former relationship. That obviously is intended to address the injustice.
Another example of marital status discrimination is where entitlements are payable only to a ‘widow’ or ‘widower’.
Again, the ordinary meaning of these terms requires a person to have been married to another person.
Without amendment a de facto partner (whether of the same or different sex) would not be entitled to the benefit as they were never married to that person.
The bill’s general approach to these issues is to replace the terms by referring to a surviving spouse or de facto partner.
Tracing rule
The bill also introduces a tracing rule to identify family relationships.
Where family relationships such as ‘brother’, ‘aunt’, and ‘grandparents’ are provided for in an act, the tracing rule will allow relationships referred to in the act to include relationships that are traced through the child-parent relationship.
This will ensure that family relationships will be recognised in same-sex couple families in the same way as they are recognised in opposite-sex couple families.
Transitional issues
For some of the acts amended by the bill, transitional saving and application provisions have been drafted to ensure the smooth implementation of the amendments.
A provision has also been added to the bill allowing the Governor-General to make regulations prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to amendments and repeals made by the bill.
Most of the amendments will commence on the day after the bill receives the royal assent.
Other amendments have a delayed commencement date.
This will provide time for agencies to train their staff or to amend forms or procedures, or introduce new software and other technologies.
Delayed commencement will also allow time for individuals who may be affected by the changes to adjust.
All of the amendments are expected to come into effect by the middle of 2009.
Diminishing Marriage
It is unfortunate that this debate sometimes gets sidetracked into a debate about allegations of undermining the institution of marriage. Removing discrimination against same-sex couples does not undermine marriage.
The Rudd government’s policy on marriage is very clear.
Indeed, the policy of both sides of parliament on marriage is very clear. It reflects the widely held view in the community that marriage is between a man and a woman. And it is defined as such in Commonwealth legislation.
This in turn reflects the traditional view of marriage that has been built up over many centuries. This legislation in no way, shape or form diminishes, alters or undermines the institution of marriage.
Conclusion
Removing discrimination is about making sure that same-sex couples and their families are recognised for all practical purposes and have the same entitlements as opposite-sex de facto couples.
The bill provides equality of treatment for children who are brought up in same-sex families in a range of Commonwealth programs and laws.
It provides functional recognition of these families in a way which will make a real practical difference to their lives as well as removing discrimination.
It is time to stop treating people differently under Commonwealth laws or programs as a result of who they are in a relationship with or indeed who they love.
It is also time to stop treating children differently under Commonwealth laws or programs because of the sexual orientation of their parents.
This bill is long overdue and will remove discrimination to ensure that same-sex couples and their children will be able to receive the same treatment as opposite-sex de facto couples and their children in the same circumstances.
In conclusion, I would also like to acknowledge the tremendous work that was undertaken by my department, the Attorney-General’s Department, on this legislation. As I indicated, some 19 government departments have been involved in assisting in this measure. There has been enormous cooperation across the Commonwealth Public Service. I think it is recognised that it is high time that these amendments were made to remove the last vestiges of discrimination from Australian laws in respect of people living in de facto relationships or same-sex relationships.
It represents a major step to ensuring full equality before the law for all Australians, regardless of their sexuality or the status of their relationship.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Haase) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Rising house prices and higher interest rates over the last three years have increased financial pressures on households and made it harder to save for a first home.
Home ownership is important to the wellbeing of Australians. In recognition of this, in the 2007 federal election campaign, Labor announced that, if elected, we would introduce first home saver accounts.
First home saver accounts are the first of their kind in Australia and will provide a tax effective way for Australians to save for a first home in which to live through a combination of government contributions and low taxes.
For example, a couple each earning average incomes and both putting aside 10 per cent of their income into individual first home saver accounts would be able to save more than $88,000 after five years.
Today, the government is introducing bills to implement some final parts of the scheme already passed in this place in June 2008.
The two bills are the First Home Saver Accounts (Further Provisions) Amendment Bill 2008 and the First Home Saver Account Providers Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 2008.
The First Home Saver Accounts (Further Provisions) Amendment Bill 2008 includes various provisions to make the scheme operational. These include:
Other amendments are also being made to ensure the accounts work as intended.
The changes also introduce a framework for imposing a levy on first home providers to provide funding for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to carry out its supervision of financial institutions which offer these accounts. The levy is consistent with the existing financial sector levy framework that funds APRA’s supervisory activities on a user-pays basis, and is modelled on the retirement savings accounts supervisory levy.
Consistent with the existing financial sector levy framework, these bills do not prescribe the amount of levies that will be imposed, as this is assessed each year and made by a ministerial determination. The government is investing around $1.2 billion over four years in the first home saver account policy, including administrative costs. This is part of a package of measures costing $2.2 billion over four years to boost housing supply and assist those most in need—namely, first home buyers and renters on low and moderate incomes. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate (on motion by Mr Haase) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The First Home Saver Account Providers Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 2008 is the second bill in the package to finalise the government’s First Home Saver Accounts scheme.
As described in the second reading speech to the main bill, this bill imposes the levy to provide funding for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to carry out its supervision of financial institutions which offer FHSAs.
Full details of this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum already presented.
Debate (on motion by Mr Haase) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Laurie Ferguson.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Migration Amendment (Notification Review) Bill 2008 amends the Migration Act 1958 by introducing a series of changes that will operate to clarify the way the Department of Immigration, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal communicate with their clients. These amendments are the initial steps in a broader series of measures that are being contemplated by the government.
The Migration Act 1958 (the act) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (the regulations) contain complex provisions dealing with the requirements for notifying clients about important matters such as decisions on visa applications and visa cancellations.
These provisions cover the content of the notice, identify who must be notified and where the notice must be sent, when the notice is taken to have been received and by what method the notice may be dispatched.
These requirements can be difficult for staff to apply and provide fertile ground for the courts to find notification defects. Court challenges based on technical errors in the notification process are regularly pursued by clients seeking to find a way to delay the resolution of their cases.
There have been a series of cases over the past several years where the courts have identified technical defects in notification that have created large legacy case loads which have proved difficult, if not impossible to address through litigation or administrative reforms. For example, the case of VEAN of 2002 v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 311 found that the envelope containing a notification letter had to be addressed to the applicant’s ‘Authorised Recipient’, not to the applicant ‘C/O the Authorised Recipient’. This decision in late 2003 potentially affected thousands of cases going back to 2001.
These adverse notification decisions can create a situation where subsequent action taken in good faith by officers in respect of a client may actually be unlawful because the client was not properly notified of a departmental or tribunal decision and therefore their bridging visa (or a cancelled substantive visa) may remain in effect.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman, in his report Notification of Decisions and Review Rights for Unsuccessful Visa Applicants of December 2007 drew attention to the difficulties with the notification provisions and their potential to result in the unlawful detention of clients.
The bill has three overarching sets of amendments:
1. Provide, in cases where other notification provisions would not apply to a minor, that where the minister (or MRT/RRT) forms a reasonable belief that an individual has care and responsibility for a minor, then the minister (for primary decisions) or the tribunal (for MRT/RRT decisions) may communicate with that person (instead of the minor) to notify that individual of a decision of the minister or tribunal about the minor.
2. Provide that substantial compliance with the required contents of a notification document is sufficient unless the visa applicant is able to show the error or omission in the document causes them substantial prejudice; and
3. Provide that the deemed time of notification provisions will operate despite noncompliance with a procedural requirement for giving a document to an individual, where the individual has actually received the document, unless the individual is able to show they received the document at a later date, in which case they will be taken to have received the document at that date.
These three sets of amendments will ensure that notification will be legally effective and provide certainty regarding future action based on notification, while still maintaining fair and reasonable dealings with the department’s and the tribunals’ clients.
The first set of amendments relate to communication with minors through a person or an organisation that has care and responsibility for the minor. Unless certain specific provisions apply, which deal with a client appointing an authorised recipient, or notification of clients that make combined applications, the act currently requires correspondence or notices be sent to the individual client for the notification to be effective, even where the client would be too young to understand what the notification is about. This amendment will enable notification to be effected on a minor, defined as someone under 18, where the minister or his delegate or the relevant merits review tribunal has a reasonable belief that the recipient of the notification has the day-to-day care and responsibility for the minor.
The recipient in this instance could be an individual, 18 years of age or over, who has the day-to-day care and responsibility for the minor. The recipient could also be an individual who works for or in an organisation and has day-to-day care for the minor. The proposed amendment produces the outcome that is most likely to result in the person who receives the notice about the minor also acting on it.
This is preferable to sending a notice to, say, a parent who is estranged from the minor or who is not present in Australia and who may not be willing or able to act in the interests of the minor. In the event that no-one with care and responsibility for the minor can be clearly identified, it will still be possible to send the notification directly to the minor.
The second set of amendments relates to substantial compliance with the required contents of a notification document. Strict compliance with arguably insignificant details regarding the content of notification required by the courts has caused the department to concede or lose a number of court cases on minor technicalities. The VEAN case, as previously mentioned, is an example and there are other similar cases. In SZKGF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCAFC 84 a question arose from the inclusion of an incorrect postcode on two letters sent to a visa applicant by the Refugee Review Tribunal which were received and acted on by the visa applicant. The tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision to refuse the protection visa, considering that there had been no practical injustice and the applicant had lost no opportunity to advance his case. There were also cogent reasons for concluding that a postcode is not part of an address and therefore the use of the incorrect postcode did not result in noncompliance with the relevant section in the act.
This is a case where the court was satisfied that the oversight could have had no effect upon the tribunal’s decision: no hearing was missed, no invitation to comment left unanswered, no delay caused, no prejudice suffered. The court noted that to set aside the tribunal’s decision and require reconsideration of the applicant’s claims would be to allow the triumph of mere technicality over substance.
While in this instance the case law is of assistance in determining that a minor error, such as an incorrect postcode, may not render notification ineffective, the bill seeks to clarify this issue and put beyond doubt the possibility of further, related, appeals on similar factual scenarios.
This amendment will ensure that substantial compliance with the required content of a notice will be sufficient to effect notification. Minor technical errors in the content of the notice will not render the notification ineffective unless the applicant can show that the error or omission substantially prejudices him or her.
The third set of amendments deal with deemed and actual notification and relate to the methods that the department and the relevant tribunals use when communicating with clients. Currently, the courts require strict compliance with the statutory notification procedures in order to rely on the deemed notification provisions. Where there is an error in the notification procedures, clients may argue that the deemed receipt provisions do not apply, even when there is evidence that they have actually received the correspondence or notice.
This amendment will provide that where there has been an error in notification such that the deeming provision will not apply, but there is evidence that the client actually received the document—for example, they responded to the notice—then notification will be taken to have occurred in accordance with the deeming provisions or at a later date if the client can show the notice was actually received at that later date.
This will overcome difficulties created through the requirement for strict compliance with technical notification procedures but also ensure clients are treated fairly and reasonably.
In conclusion can I reiterate that these amendments will achieve a notification regime that is simpler, provides greater clarity and consistency, and is sufficiently flexible to respond to individual circumstances. This streamlining of notification requirements will reduce complexity, and deliver more consistent, fair and reasonable outcomes to clients.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Haase) adjourned.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of the Australian Pavilion at the Shanghai World Expo 2010, China.
On 29 June 2006 the then Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard MP, announced that Australia would participate in the Shanghai World Expo 2010. This will be the first major world exposition since Aichi, Japan in 2005 and will take place between 1 May and 31 October 2010.
In addition to the $61 million being provided through the budget, the government will seek an estimated $22 million in funding through corporate sponsorships and partnerships with the states and territories. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has portfolio responsibility for this project and will manage Australia’s presence at the expo. In terms of potential to assist Australian business and raise Australia’s profile in a strategic market, this expo represents a unique opportunity, eclipsing in scale any previous expo, including Aichi. It is therefore essential that Australia’s presence at the expo be commensurate with our economic and strategic interests in China.
The proposal is to construct a new temporary pavilion with appropriate public exhibition areas and capacity to host VIP, business and cultural programs that make up the Australian participation at the expo. The design process created a concept for a well-designed purpose built pavilion that will showcase Australia to the Chinese public, compares favourably to our market countries and provides a platform for helping Australian business succeed in the China market.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, a single contract will be awarded for the construction, exhibition, production and technical operation of the pavilion. A contract will need to be signed by mid-September 2008 to maximise prospects for commencing Chinese design approval processes and construction this calendar year. The construction program requires the base building to be complete and dustproof in the technical areas by mid-September 2009. Practical completion and occupation is scheduled for 1 March 2007, with commencement of the expo on 1 May 2001.
The estimated cost of the proposed works, inclusive of GST, is $49.38 million and includes construction and other related elements such as architecture, consultant fees, project management, supervision, exhibition, furniture, artworks, whitegoods and site office expenses. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations at Block 9, Section 31, Canberra City.
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations proposes to undertake a fit-out, at a cost of $66.6 million plus GST, of new leased premises at block 9, section 31, Canberra City in the Australian Capital Territory. The national office of the department is located in the Canberra CBD and at the Canberra airport in leases across 21 separate buildings, with a total lettable area of approximately 97,000 square metres. With the exception of the airport properties, most of the accommodation is in buildings which are over 15 years old and require major refurbishment to meet Commonwealth standards. The new building will be constructed on the 4,801 square metre site of the former QEII nursing mothers’ hospital and is part of the rapidly changing City West area. The development will provide approximately 40,000 square metres of high-quality office space, 500 square metres of storage space, 418 secure basement car parks and ground level bicycle parking for 175 bikes.
Subject to parliamentary approval and the satisfactory pricing of the tender trade packages, the integration of the fit-out is the department’s preferred option. Under this arrangement, the fit-out will be undertaken concurrently with the base building construction, which commenced in February 2008 and is scheduled for practical completion in June 2010. Occupancy is expected to occur in mid-2010. Current leases have been structured to expire no earlier than mid-2010, to avoid the risk of penalties associated with short-term holding leases. In its report, the Public Works Committee recommended that these works proceed. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Bridging of Kings Avenue over Parkes Way at the Russell roundabout, Canberra.
The National Capital Authority, NCA, has been appropriated funding of $26.6 million over four years to undertake the bridging of Kings Avenue over Parkes Way at the Russell roundabout, Canberra, ACT. Parkes Way will be lowered and a new bridge will carry Kings Avenue traffic over Parkes Way to the Russell Defence precinct. This work will also reinforce Kings Avenue as one side of Walter Burley Griffin’s national triangle. This project will remove one of the worst traffic bottlenecks in Canberra. The new intersection where Kings Avenue passes over Parkes Way will allow traffic movements in all directions and provide safe pedestrian access from the Russell Defence precinct to Kings Park and the shores of Lake Burley Griffin. The bridging of Kings Avenue over Parkes Way will provide improved, more reliable and more readily-secured transport links between Canberra City, Parliament House and the airport.
The estimated cost of the proposal is $26.6 million plus GST. In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence late this year, with completion in 2010. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of new warehousing facilities at Wadsworth Barracks, East Bandiana.
The Department of Defence proposes to undertake the construction of new warehousing facilities, at an estimated out-turned cost of $36.369 million plus GST, at Wadsworth Barracks, East Bandiana, Victoria. The project will provide modern, purpose built facilities to enhance operational capability and will provide efficient logistical and warehousing support to Defence. The project consists of the construction of a new purpose built support warehouse, a dedicated area for freight distribution and the demolition of redundant buildings. The project will also include upgrade works to address occupational health and safety issues and operational inefficiencies associated with the existing facilities.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed subject to the recommendations of the committee. The Department of Defence accepts and will implement those recommendations. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works will commence early next year and be completed in 2010. On behalf of the government, I thank committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian War Memorial Eastern Precinct Development and National Service Memorial, Canberra.
The Australian War Memorial is a unique national institution. In the last decade the memorial precinct has been extensively transformed, including the development of the western precinct sculpture garden, Anzac Hall, the parade ground and the CEW Bean building. The current proposal to develop the eastern precinct represents the next stage in a program of planned site development and will deliver a new formal memorial courtyard, much improved and safer coach and car parking, improved outdoor areas and toilet facilities, and replacement of the existing cafe with an accessible facility more suited to the requirements and significance of the site.
The development is necessary to improve visitor safety, access and amenity in the eastern precinct and to bring the substandard eastern precinct up to the high standard of the remainder of the site. The new memorial courtyard also provides a site for the national service memorial. The estimated cost of the eastern precinct development, inclusive of escalation costs, contingencies, GST and all professional fees and disbursements, is $19.54 million. The cost of the national service memorial will be funded by the National Servicemen’s Association of Australia.
Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence after Anzac Day in 2009, with scheduled completion prior to Anzac Day 2010. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I present the report from the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests concerning an application from Professor David Flint for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives, and I ask leave of the House to move that the report be agreed to.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the report be agreed to.
The report I have presented relates to a request from Professor David Flint for a right of reply in relation to references to him made by the now Minister for Finance and Deregulation in the House on 13 February 2006. The committee has considered Professor Flint’s submission and has recommended that a response in the terms included in the report I have just presented be incorporated in Hansard. In recommending the response be incorporated in Hansard, the committee emphasises that, as required by the right of reply resolution, it has not considered or judged the truth of any statements made by the member in the House or by the person seeking a response.
Question agreed to.
The document read as follows—
On 13 February 2006, Mr Lindsay Tanner MP, the Member for Melbourne, alleged that Australian’s for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) had “engaged in a brazen tax scam” and that the association between ACM and the Constitution Education Fund Australia (CEF-A) was a “fraud on Australian taxpayers”. He offered no evidence nor had he contacted either ACM or CEF-A beforehand. However he urged ACM “to make use of their right of reply in parliament” to provide an explanation of the circumstances.
In referring to me as the national convenor of ACM, there was an implication that the allegations Mr Tanner made applied to me in a way that adversely affected my reputation.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) conducted a comprehensive and lengthy audit of CEF-A, and substantial costs were involved in satisfying the requests of the ATO. The audit resulted in no finding of any breach of the tax laws. Although requested, Mr Tanner has not withdrawn his allegation.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee’s report entitled Report 93: Treaties tabled on 12 March and 14 May 2008.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—Report No. 93 contains the committee’s findings on four treaty actions tabled on 12 March 2008 and 14 May 2008. The committee found all four treaties reviewed to be in Australia’s national interest. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, known as CITES, provides for international cooperation to protect and conserve species of fauna and flora from overexploitation due to international trade. The committee considered amendments to appendices 1 and 2 of CITES which will alter the level of control imposed upon trade in a number of species that are either endangered or at risk of becoming endangered. The committee was particularly interested in the implications of these amendments for Australian sawfish species, which are now afforded protection under this convention for the first time.
The committee has raised a number of concerns in its report about the process adopted in relation to the listing of this species. In particular, the committee has recommended that the Australian government review its policies relating to the assessment of applications to trade in CITES listed species to provide for a more formalised process of independent scientific assessment and a greater degree of public consultation. It has also recommended that policies relating to the composition of Australian delegations to CITES negotiations be reconsidered to minimise conflicts of interest. It has done so because the committee is concerned about the inclusion of parties with an obvious commercial interest in the outcome of negotiations in an Australian delegation. In the case of Cairns Marine, it has given rise to perceptions of a conflict of interest, and the committee would like the government to have a look at this issue. The committee is particularly concerned that trade in a critically endangered species internationally is permitted at all and has recommended ongoing monitoring and assessment of the impact of trade in freshwater sawfish by the Australian government.
The International Tropical Timber Agreement, 2006 succeeds similar agreements dating back to 1983. Its objective is to promote the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber from sustainably managed and legally harvested forests. Sixty countries are members of the International Tropical Timber Organisation established by the agreement, representing around 80 per cent of the world’s tropical timbers and 90 per cent of the global timber trade. The agreement is consistent with Australia’s sustainable forest management and overseas aid objectives, including reducing illegal logging, mitigating and adapting to climate change and assisting developing countries to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development. While the committee recognises the importance of international cooperation to promote sustainable management and address illegal logging, it does question the extent to which this agreement will actually contribute to reducing the devastating deforestation occurring in some countries.
The world’s tropical rainforests are under great pressure. Clearing and logging, substantial parts of it illegal or unsupervised, is causing substantial losses to our rainforests at the very time when the emerging science about global warming tells us we need them most. We need to protect our rainforests, which are the lungs of the planet. They are essential carbon sinks, they attract rain and keep our planet cool and moist and they provide an essential habitat for countless species of birds, plants, animals and other wildlife. Given their environmental significance the committee has recommended that the consultation process undertaken for any future agreement on sustainable trade in tropical timber specifically includes consultation with environmental groups.
The Protocol Amending the Agreement between Australia and South Africa for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to taxes on income will alter Australia’s existing agreement with South Africa to meet Australia’s most favoured nation obligations with South Africa, promote closer economic cooperation between the two countries and upgrade the framework through which the tax administrations of Australia and South Africa can prevent international fiscal evasion. The amendments are expected to reduce barriers to bilateral trade and investment. Reduced withholding tax rates on dividends, interest and royalties will also provide benefits to Australian businesses obtaining business loans and intellectual property from South Africa.
The committee also considered a category 3 treaty—Amendment to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk. Category 3 treaties are identifiably minor treaty actions which do not impact significantly upon the national interest. The committee resolved not to hold a formal inquiry in relation to this treaty.
The committee supports all four agreements and has recommended that binding treaty action be taken.
I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
Debate resumed from 1 September.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008 is an omnibus bill that will make amendments across the Migration Act 1958, the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007 and the Customs Act 1901.
This will clarify and improve the effectiveness of the Migration and Citizenship legislation by addressing and rectifying a range of problems that have been identified in the legislation over the years. It will also ensure that the citizenship legislation is consistent with Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961 and the United Nations convention relating to stateless people 1954.
The amendments in this bill are important and necessary and, in the case of the Migration Act, are long overdue.
The amendments to the Citizenship Act, which has now been in operation for over 12 months, rectify a number of issues that have been identified over that period. Rather than allow these issues to accumulate this government will deal with them now.
Since the introduction of the bill, some urgency has now arisen in relation to the amendments in schedule 4 that I will address as I am going through the bill.
As the bill will make over 100 amendments, spanning four acts, I will confine this speech to the more notable amendments in each schedule.
Schedule 1 of the bill will, amongst other things, amend the Migration Act to streamline the procedures for notifying parties of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal, MRT, and the Refugee Review Tribunal, RRT, by removing the requirement for the tribunals to ‘hand down’ their decisions.
The handing down and current notification procedures have doubtful practical value and have been the source of considerable litigation over the years, often with far-reaching effects including, on occasion, the potentially unlawful detention of non-citizens. The amendments in schedule 1 will make the notification and merits review process simpler and reduce the risk of administrative error by removing the handing down requirement and providing that the tribunals’ review decisions, other than oral decisions, are taken to be made on the date of the tribunals’ written statement of the decision.
The amendments also provide that where two or more persons apply for review of a decision together, documents given by the tribunals to any of the applicants are deemed to have been given to all of them. This will avoid uncertainty regarding notification of review applicants who have made or sought to make a combined application, and is also consistent with subsection 52(3C) of the Migration Act, which applies to notification of visa decisions made by the minister or his delegate in the case of combined applicants.
Schedule 1 also includes amendments that will create a new position of deputy principal member for the MRT. Currently the RRT includes the position of deputy principal member but the MRT does not. As the tribunals operate administratively as a single agency, and the principal member and other members are cross-appointed to both the RRT and the MRT, it is anomalous for the position of deputy principal member to exist in one tribunal but not the other.
Schedule 2 of the bill contains measures to strengthen the provisions in the Migration Act and the Customs Act relating to border protection to ensure that the Commonwealth can take appropriate and unified action across departments when Australia’s border protection laws are contravened.
An important new measure in schedule 2 of the bill relates to the requirement for operators of aircraft and ships to report on passengers and crew prior to entering Australia. The amendments make it clear that an operator must report on each passenger and crew member individually. This is to ensure that operators take greater care in ensuring that every person on board the aircraft or ship is properly accounted for. The amendments also align reporting time frames in the migration legislation with those prescribed in the Customs legislation.
To ensure the government has in place practical methods for enforcing compliance with these reporting requirements, schedule 2 also establishes an infringement notice regime. This new regime is an alternative sanction to prosecution for failure to meet advance passenger and crew reporting requirements. This regime is expected to be less costly to administer and easier to implement, with the flow-on effect of increased compliance with reporting obligations.
Schedule 3 of the bill will make a number of minor amendments to the act to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to visas, including amendments to give greater certainty to the immigration status of non-citizen children born in Australia; amendments to ensure that a security may be imposed for compliance with visa conditions before grant; and a range of other amendments to clarify the operation of certain provisions relating to bridging visas.
Schedule 3 also includes amendments to clarify certain offence provisions in divisions 12 and 14A of part 2 of the act and clarify the operation of certain provisions after they were amended as part of the Criminal Code harmonisation changes with the Criminal Code.
As I flagged earlier, amendments in schedule 4 have now taken on some urgency. The amendments were initially included to address obiter comments in the May 2007 full Federal Court decision in Moore v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 626. The obiter comments cast doubt on whether the minister’s powers under section 501 of the Migration Act to cancel a visa on character grounds would apply to transitional visas.
Where a visa applicant or visa holder does not pass the character test, the minister has been given the discretion to refuse or cancel a visa. In exercising this power, the minister has a responsibility to the parliament and to the Australian community to protect the community from criminal or other reprehensible conduct and to refuse to grant visas, or cancel visas held by noncitizens whose actions are so abhorrent to the community that they should not be allowed to enter or remain within Australia.
As part of what was a highly technical judgement, the full Federal Court in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCAFC 132 on 17 July 2008 found that a transitional (permanent) visa cannot be cancelled on character grounds because it is a visa that is ‘held’ rather than ‘granted’. These transitional visas are held by operation of law post reforms to the Migration Act in 1994.
As a result of the court’s decision in Sales, 23 people, including Mr Sales, were released from immigration detention.
The department decided, on legal advice, not to appeal the judgement in the Sales case.
The amendments in schedule 4 to the bill address the Moore decision (and now the Sales decision) to ensure that the character cancellation provisions in the Migration Act apply to all temporary and permanent transitional visas, and provide validation of all past character cancellation decisions in relation to such visas. This maintains the minister’s ability to protect the Australian community.
Another measure in schedule 4 to the bill aims to increase protection for clients of the department who engage offshore migration agents. There is currently a comprehensive scheme in the Migration Act administered by the Migration Agents Registration Authority, MARA, for the registration and disciplining of migration agents operating in Australia, but it is impracticable and contrary to international law principles to extend this regulatory framework offshore and provide coercive powers to the authority to investigate actions taken overseas.
The amendments in schedule 4 therefore use the authorised recipient provisions to regulate the activities of offshore migration agents, by providing that, where an authorised recipient is giving immigration assistance and is not a registered migration agent, the minister or his delegate will not be compelled to communicate with them. This new power will provide the department with the power to refuse to communicate with offshore migration agents, most of whom are unregistered, when there are concerns about their professionalism, competence, conduct or character. The measures will also provide a disincentive for clients to use such agents when there are these concerns.
This new statutory power which provides a form of sanction for unacceptable behaviour is also designed to reinforce an administrative accreditation scheme that will be established to recognise offshore operators who deal professionally with clients of the department.
Schedule 4 also clarifies section 193 of the Migration Act to ensure that an illegal foreign fisher or environmental offender can be removed from Australia if they have previously been granted a criminal justice visa or bridging visa while in remand or serving a custodial sentence. This minor amendment ensures this provision is consistent with its original policy intention, that an illegal foreign fisher and more recently an environmental offender should be removed from Australia as soon as possible after they become an unlawful noncitizen.
The amendments in schedule 5 seek to clarify the meaning of certain provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007 and remove inconsistencies across the acts. The amendments also aim to ensure that Australian citizenship law is consistent with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961 and the United Nations convention relating to stateless people 1954.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008. The coalition supports this legislation. The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008 is a non-controversial omnibus bill that makes a range of amendments to the Migration Act 1958, the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007 and the Customs Act 1901. These miscellaneous minor amendments provide consistency with other legislation, streamlining procedures, providing clarifications and so on.
I note that the bill was intended to include provisions to reinstate effective time limits for applying for judicial review of migration decisions. The current time limits in the Migration Act have been rendered redundant as a result of the April 2007 decision in the High Court in Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the July 2007 full Federal Court decision in the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZKKC. The government has removed these provisions from the bill on advice that the bill as drafted would not have worked appropriately. We understand that further consideration will be given to determine how best to reinstate these time limits. The opposition looks forward to the opportunity to review and consider what the government puts forward.
Senator Ellison, the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, has outlined the opposition’s position in relation to this bill very clearly in the Senate, so I will now only speak briefly in relation to each of the specific schedules. Schedule 1 of the bill will streamline procedures for notifying parties of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. The current notification procedures have been the source of considerable litigation over the years. Schedule 1 was also originally the section that would have dealt with time limits for applying for judicial review. As I said earlier, these are now being redrafted. Schedule 2 of the bill makes some clarifications in relation to the requirements of the Advance Passenger Processing System and establishes an infringement notice regime. The Advance Passenger Processing System was made compulsory after the September 11 terrorist attacks and requires each of the airlines and cruise lines on their way to Australia to provide information on their passengers to DIMA. Upon check-in at the country of origin, the passenger’s details are submitted to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. If there is a problem that would prevent their entry to Australia, they are not allowed to board. The government’s amendments will insert a new subsection at the end of sections 64ACD of the Customs Act 1901 and 245N of the act to make it clear that an operator of an aircraft or ship is liable to separate prosecution under these offence provisions in relation to each individual passenger and crew rather than in relation to each journey.
As an aside, I should tell the House that recently I was in Washington, Boston and Denver in the United States and, as the shadow minister for justice and border protection and assisting in immigration, I did have cause to go to Washington Dulles International Airport and meet with the customs and immigration officials there. I can say with some pride that the Australian system was regarded as the state of the art in the world, and they wished that, in many respects, they could emulate—and they are trying to move towards emulating—what Australia has already introduced. So, while America has made leaps and bounds since September 11 in the way it manages the movement of people both in and around the country, Australia is certainly at the forefront of that regime—or was under the previous government certainly. I assume, and so far it seems, that the current government is continuing the same response and the same attitude towards the migration of people and the entrance of people through passenger movements on cruise ships and airlines.
Schedule 3 of the bill makes minor amendments to the act to clarify immigration clearance of non-citizen children born in Australia, in compliance with visa conditions and the operation of certain provisions relating to bridging visas. Schedule 4 aims to increase protection for clients of offshore migration agents. DIAC will be able to refuse to communicate with offshore migration agents in cases where there are concerns about their professionalism, competence, conduct or character. The opposition appreciates that this schedule must be passed in a timely fashion due to the full Federal Court’s decision of 17 July in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. This decision gave effect to the obiter comments in Moore v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in 2007. Schedule 4 anticipated difficulties such as those arising from these recent decisions, and will ensure that the character cancellation provisions apply to all temporary and permanent transitional visas and provide validation of all past character cancellation decisions in relation to such visas. As a result of the full Federal Court’s decision in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, 23 people, including Mr Sales, were released from immigration detention. The coalition, while cautious in supporting such legislation, agrees with the government that this legislation must be passed quickly to address this situation caused by the full Federal Court’s decision.
Schedule 5 seeks to clarify certain provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007. The amendments also aim to ensure that Australian citizenship law is consistent with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961. I am pleased to again confirm the opposition’s support for this bill, and I commend it to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008 and the amendments put forward by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, and I acknowledge the support from the opposition as outlined by the member for Sturt. This bill makes a range of amendments to various migration and citizenship acts to clarify and improve the effectiveness of the legislation.
I represent an electorate where one in three residents was born overseas—nothing like your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, where I grew up. Instead, it is a completely different mix. The electorate of Moreton is an open, vibrant, multicultural community and, for the most part, we are tolerant and understanding of one another. However, not a day goes by in my electorate office that I am not contacted by somebody seeking help and support with an immigration matter for themselves or a family member. Immigration and the reality of having family members scattered throughout the world is something I am constantly reminded of in my job.
Setting aside the Indigenous population of Australia, obviously the other 97 per cent of Australians would have roots overseas. I myself am of Irish, Italian and French background, married to someone of English—although her family stress that it is Cornish—Germanic and Indian background. So, like most Australians, our roots are overseas. The decisions that members make relating to the legislation and policies that govern immigration should not be taken lightly, as these decisions, more than any other area of law, have the power to drastically impact on individuals and their families, especially the people in my electorate, because so many are from overseas.
The electorate of Moreton has a significant number of people who are Sudanese and from other places in Africa, including a lot of people from South Africa and Zimbabwe. It also has a large Indian population. There are many New Zealanders and people from the UK and Korea. But the most significant group in my electorate represents the Chinese diaspora—people who have come not only from China but also, significantly, from Taiwan, and also there are Papua New Guinean Chinese, Hong Kong Chinese and Malaysian Chinese.
I want to turn to that particular group, the Chinese diaspora, to tease out how important this idea of immigration and race is. Let us look at the history of Australia since Federation and the Australian view of China. When the Federation started, both sides of the House, or all three sides of the House, as it would have then been—there were three major parties—would have seen China as the land of the yellow peril. That was very much one of the motivating factors for Federation. That view evolved over the next 50 years into China becoming the land of the red menace. I guess now, 50 years on, we would see China as being the land of the golden opportunity. It has gone from yellow to red to gold—so much has changed in our understanding of China’s role in the world. This then reflects on Australians’ view of ourselves and what defines an Australian, and what immigration is about. Back when immigration decisions were first being made—some of the major decisions were made in 1908—basically what defined an Australian was that you were a British citizen; or, if you were not a British citizen, immigration law determined that you were not an Australian.
It is interesting that, 100 years on, in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship we are still making decisions about what constitutes an Australian, what defines an Australian and who decides what an Australian is. Race has been a significant factor in many elections in Australia—questions about who decides who stays here and what sort of person stays here. While doing some research related to the legislation before the House, I looked up John Christian Watson, the first Labor Prime Minister of Australia, and I was interested to read this in Wikipedia:
Watson maintained that his father was a British seaman called George Watson.
Being a British citizen was a prerequisite for being a parliamentarian. It goes on:
Records dispute this, however; they indicate that Watson’s father was a Chilean citizen of German descent, Johan Christian Tanck, and that Watson was born in Valparaiso, Chile. Records also show that his mother was a New Zealander … who had married Tanck in New Zealand.
So that was the very first Labor Prime Minister, and it is suggested in Wikipedia that he is the only Australian Prime Minister who was not either born in Britain or of Anglo-Celtic descent. I am not sure about the descent of Mr Rudd. I would suggest it is Anglo-Celtic but I have not discussed that with the Prime Minister. But Watson is the only Prime Minister in the 107-year history of our Federation who was not British or Anglo-Celtic. Interestingly, it is suggested that one of the other early MPs, King O’Malley, lied about his descent, but that is a story for another day. I think he has Tasmanian connections, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, so I will leave that to someone with more knowledge of the history of Tasmania.
Race has obviously been a very powerful factor in Australian history and Australian politics. It was a factor in the 1996 election, when the Howard-Costello government was elected, unfortunately. It became a big factor in the Queensland state election soon after, when 11 One Nation MPs were elected. Race is certainly something that is significant in Australian history, and it was very significant in my election, because every now and then there are still troubles between races or religions or various groups. Thankfully we have an immigration minister who has a huge heart and a great mind and we have a Prime Minister who has always had that visionary view of Australia that we are a country that needs to keep fighting above its weight in leading the world as to how cultures, religions and races can live together harmoniously.
Unfortunately we can look at the policies of the previous government relating to the mandatory detention of illegal asylum seekers—and I acknowledge that there are Labor roots in those policies—to see how immigration laws can horribly disrupt people’s lives. That is why I welcome the reforms to Australia’s immigration detention system announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans. Under the Rudd Labor government, detention in immigration detention centres will only be used as a last resort and for the shortest practicable time. The department will have to justify why a person should be detained. Once in detention, a detainee will have their case reviewed every three months to ensure that the further detention of the individual is justified.
Most importantly, children will not be detained in an immigration detention centre. Surely that is a great outcome for common sense. Irrespective of what laws a parent might have bent, it is ridiculous to think that young children should be put in detention centres. We should never have those situations again where we have young children thinking that the only way out is to sew up their lips. I say that particularly because my partner has worked in child protection for nearly 20 years, and when I hear of the abuse of children it is certainly something that motivates me a lot, especially with Child Protection Week coming up next week.
The bill before the House initially sought to reinstate effective time limits for applying to the courts for judicial review of migration decisions. However, subsequent amendments moved by the minister removed these changes as it is important that we nut out a comprehensive solution to ensure that time limits apply to all decisions reviewable by the courts, including decisions made offshore to refuse to grant a visa to an applicant who has applied for a visa outside the migration zone. This is the case for many of the African residents in my electorate. The overarching notion that will guide the minister will be that justice delayed is justice denied.
The minister has indicated that these time limits will be introduced in the parliament later. I think that most people will be pretty relaxed about that because we all want to ensure that we get the provisions right. The measures in schedule 2 of the bill are about strengthening Australia’s border controls. These amendments seek to provide for airline and shipping carriers to be liable for separate prosecution for each and every individual not reported prior to arriving in Australia. This is about bringing the shipping industry in line with the airline industry and ensuring that the government is aware of all people entering our country. It is obviously a very commonsense approach. The further amendments introduced by the minister provide greater clarity on this matter and ensure that the reporting obligations on aircraft and shipping carriers under migration and customs legislation apply in relation to each individual passenger and crew member and not the voyage or flight generally. They will also provide for operators to be liable to separate prosecution for each passenger or crew member not reported. We can have strong border controls without depriving people of their dignity and humanity.
This bill also seeks to bring Australia into line with our international obligations under the 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. It amends the Australian Citizenship Act to ensure that the good character requirement applies to applicants for citizenship by descent who do not fall within the definition of a stateless person. Further amendments proposed by the minister ensure that applicants for citizenship who are not a stateless person, such as war criminals, are subject to the good character requirement. This will allow the minister to refuse an application for citizenship by descent if satisfied that the applicant is not of good character because of crimes against humanity or war crimes.
The recent Federal Court decision in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship found that a transitional permanent visa cannot be cancelled on character grounds because it is a visa that is held rather than granted. As a result of that decision, some 23 people, including convicted murderer Mr Sales, were released from immigration detention. It is obviously important that we get the character grounds definitions right so that we know where and when to draw the line in terms of the sort of Australia we want to take forward into the future. The amendments in schedule 4 anticipated this difficulty and ensure that the character grounds cancellation provisions apply to all temporary and permanent transitional visas and provide validation of all past character ground cancellation decisions in relation to such visas. Obviously this is an important area of law. We are talking about the very heart of this country and what we are as a nation. The legislation before the House today goes some way to sorting out these concerns. I commend the bill to the House.
When I looked at the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008 I decided to concentrate on aspects of the Migration Review Tribunal and the visa provisions. The thrust of what I was going to say—and I will say it later—relates to a case I intend to raise and the judgement of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship about a visa application based on the 2008 rules as opposed to the conditions, rules, forms and applications that applied in 2007. It is very interesting that the member for Moreton should talk about mandatory detention from what I perceive is a very 2008 perspective. There was a time in our history when people in some parts of the world would decide to leave their home country and cross a border, hop on a plane and fly to Kuala Lumpur or maybe Jakarta. From there they would go to a place where they could pay, perhaps hundreds or thousands of dollars, to jump on a leaky boat. In so doing, they put their children in circumstances of such danger that their lives were at risk. I do not think anyone would say that that was a great situation. It is now 2008 and we do not have a stack of boats carrying such people arriving on our doorstep from other parts of the world. For whatever reason, we do not have people taking those sorts of risks with their lives and the lives of their children.
It is important to realise why we no longer have that situation. It is a result of the strong and unequivocal message that former Prime Minister John Howard sent to the world. I will never back away from that past and those decisions. They were hard and unpopular, but sometimes these things just need to be done. I pay tribute to former Prime Minister John Howard for his leadership and for the efforts that he and the former coalition government made to stop people-trafficking, this boat trade, by sending clear messages. They may have saved the lives of people who eventually realised there was no point in taking those risks with their lives or the lives of their children. We are going through a historical revisionist period in which certain persons in this place are applying 2008 circumstances to more difficult times and are judging the former government on that basis.
It is important to move on and I would like to speak about this bill as it relates to a migration application that I am aware of. There are often quite great periods between an appeal being lodged with the Migration Review Tribunal and the matter being heard. Given the significant workload of the MRT, I think it is desirable that cases not go there unless they truly need to. I am concerned that there are times when flexibility and a full consideration of the facts and circumstances of an immigration matter may come second to a rigid and narrow application of the migration regulations. I would never advocate that the law should ever be put aside or that the rules should be bent, but the facts and circumstances should be considered against the situation at the time of the application, not just against the situation at the time of the hearing.
I will offer an example of this and the sort of problem that impacts on the areas dealt with by the MRT. I have recently become aware, through a constituent of mine, of a case where a South African family appear to have been unfairly treated by the department with their visa application. This is the case of Mr Steven Patrick, an electrical engineer in Durban. His wife, Lisa, has a Bachelor of Arts which actually includes three top subjects in English. They have three daughters: Hannah, 9; Robyn, 13; and Kerry, 17. I have read their skilled independent migrant visa subclass 175 application and I believe all the information is there. It is an outstanding application. The family have skills. They have qualifications. They definitely have the English language. The couple have children—always good for the future of this great country—and, ultimately, a very clear commitment to Australia, should they be allowed to come here. I have no doubt that this is a family who would add great value to this country.
Unfortunately, their application was rejected. I have written to the State Director of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on this specific issue and I hope to have a reply soon. The Patrick family’s visa application was rejected basically because the goalposts were moved after their application was submitted and because the departmental official did not take that into consideration. I will get into the detail of the reason they were rejected. The date that they lodged their visa application was 9 October 2007, but at that time they had not submitted evidence of their English language ability. They had indicated on their visa application that they had a test booked for 1 December 2007, about two months after the application was lodged. Once Mr Patrick had undertaken that test on 1 December, the result was forwarded. The result was an 8.5 on the overall band score, which I understand is pretty good and more than satisfies the requirement. Unfortunately, in a letter dated 8 July 2008 from an official at the General Skilled Migration Processing Centre, their application was rejected. A portion of the letter reads:
... you must submit evidence of your English ability at the time you apply. As the results of your IELTS test dated 1 December 2007 indicates that you do not have the IELTS test result before the day on which your application was lodged on 9 October 2007.
So they are saying: ‘You did not prove that you can speak English to the required level at the time you applied on 9 October and your test dated 1 December is proof that you did not apply and that you did not have the ability tested at that point.’ They go on to say:
As you did not provide evidence of your English ability at time of application as specified in Migration Regulation 175.213 and 1.15C you consequently do not satisfy the requirements of clause 175.213 ...
Some would say that such a decision was inflexible, yet if the rules are there, if these clauses say that, maybe there is no room for flexibility and common sense. Maybe we do not actually need electrical engineers, just for the sake of maintaining the strict parameters of these regulation clauses.
I will make no further comment on the inflexibility of the department in this case. The important point is that the application forms for these visas have actually changed in the last 11 months. When the Patrick family filled in the form in October 2007, the question regarding language requirements was question 30; now it is question 29. That is no big deal unless the words and layout of the question also changed with the number. This then becomes the point: the skilled migration centre knocked back the Patrick family based on the rules now, not on the rules that applied when they filled out the visa application. I call that unfair.
The difference in the questions is very important. The original form required you to have booked a test and to provide evidence of that booking, and the results then had to be sent on later. That, of course, was all done by the Patrick family; it was all complied with. I have seen the forms. They say that the family had booked the test; there is a printout with the date of the booking. It is all there. Unfortunately, the 2008 form, upon which the department has judged this application, has a note on it which says, ‘If you are applying for a subclass’—including 175—‘you must provide evidence of your English ability at the time you apply.’ That is what I call goalpost shifting. A 2007 application was submitted and complied with to the letter of the law. In 2008, this family, and this opportunity for our future and theirs, has been judged on a new set of rules. To just reject the application is pretty inflexible.
The point here is that the goalposts have shifted. The rules have changed and no flexibility was employed to delineate between the two different sets of rules. This seems a very bureaucratic decision, and I would hate to think that this country will miss out on the contribution of the Patrick family because of the ridiculous application of 2008 rules to a 2007 application.
Today I have provided just one example of inflexible and counterproductive decision making. It is my hope that the state director of the department of immigration will remedy the situation, that he will see reason and that he will help out. However, what this situation shows us is that when the rules change there can be great disadvantage for real people. I wonder, then, how much of the MRT’s time is taken up with cases where regulation changes may have been applied in such a way. It is in our national interest to seek to improve this country by allowing skilled migration. The rules are not there just to be blindly followed without due regard for such highly relevant information, as the Patrick case shows. Indeed, perhaps the MRT would have fewer cases to work through and could move through them more quickly if the department’s officials were more careful with such cases as the Patricks’ visa application and, no doubt, other cases that directly involve the MRT.
I welcome this bill to fix up the problems identified in the Migration Act, the two citizenship acts and the Customs Act. But I urge the department to be very careful in the manner in which it prosecutes the legislative and regulatory changes. Attention to detail is required, as is a consideration of the circumstances at the time of the application being lodged. They need to be fair and balanced—that should always be a consideration when dealing with the lives and futures of people. I look forward to the response from the WA state director of the department, the reconsideration of this matter and the right and appropriate response that will see the Patrick family granted their visas.
I would like to finish by going back to an aspect raised by the previous speaker, the member for Moreton. I am sure that all members of parliament are familiar with going door to door pre- or post election. Sometimes you encounter people who want to tell you their views on immigration policy. It is one of those things that, let’s face it, everyone has a view on in various ways. Sometimes people can make disparaging comments or can air their views with regard to the race or religion of people that they would particularly like to see not come to this country. Picking up from what the member for Moreton said, race should never be a part of politics. I do not really see the things that happened in the last six or seven years as being a matter of race. The good thing about this country is that, if someone wants to come here, make a positive contribution and work for a living, then they are welcome. But they must do those things and they must have respect for the traditions and the institutions of this society. The good thing about Australia is that the colour of your skin or the religion that you do or do not practice does not matter. If you want to come here, work hard and respect the institutions and traditions of our society then you are welcome. That is a great thing about Australia. I do not think it is anything to do with race; I think it is something to do with attitude. I support this bill and I look forward to its implementation. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak today.
The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008 seeks to clarify and improve the effectiveness of the Migration Act, the Australian Citizenship Act, the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act and the Customs Act. There are a range of amendments proposed by the bill; I want to speak to only a few aspects of those amendments.
Before I do, I would note the major changes that the government has made towards a fairer and more just immigration system. Amongst these are changes to the detention system recently announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans. The Rudd Labor government has made reforms to ensure that detention will be the last resort and will be for the shortest practicable time. Other changes have included the ending of the so-called Pacific solution, the abolition of the temporary protection visa regime, increasing the minimum salary levels for 457 visa holders and increasing the humanitarian and refugee intakes.
I was sorry to hear the member for Cowan this morning persisting in the defence of the brutal immigration regime of the former government. I was sorry also to hear the member for Cowan persisting in the demonisation of those seeking refuge in this country. The Rudd Labor government has put the immigration regime of the former government behind us. We are no longer going to imprison children of those seeking refuge. We are no longer going to remove people seeking refuge to the middle of the Pacific at huge cost to this nation—even before one considers the emotional and physical cost to the people concerned. We are going to use a just and humane approach to immigration matters—one that Australians can be proud of rather than ashamed of, as so many Australians were of the approach of the former government to immigration questions.
I want to specifically deal with one of the reforms introduced by this legislation, and it is the abolition of the handing down procedure that has been used by the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal until now. This is something that is dealt with in items 6 to 9 and items 19 to 22 of schedule 1 of the bill, by which those handing down procedures are going to be abolished. The abolition of these handing down procedures in both the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal makes good practical sense. They reflect the current processes found within the Administrative Appeals Tribunal at the Commonwealth level, the Veterans Review Board, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, and, in my home state, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
I should refer to a letter that was written by Jillian Segal, who has done tremendous work in the service of the Commonwealth as President of the Administrative Review Council. What Jillian Segal wrote about the handing down process was that it was ‘administratively costly with no apparent benefit to the applicant’. With only 22 per cent of review applicants attending the handing down of their decisions, it was also a very artificial procedure.
What these amendments will do is to allow the tribunal to simply give the applicant and the secretary of the department a copy of the decision within 14 days of the decision being made. This reflects the current processes found for those in immigration detention and also unifies the notification procedures. This simplification will reduce the risk of administrative error and prevent additional needless expense. It will also limit the source of a significant amount of litigation which the department has faced due to uncertainties in the notification and handing down procedures. The abolition will also expedite the notification processes by ensuring that decisions can be speedily delivered and, hence, any potential appeal or additional submission of materials can only occur after a certain date.
I want to mention briefly the question of time limits because these were originally dealt with when this bill was introduced to the Senate in June. In the form in which this bill was introduced in the Senate, it contained amendments to reinstate appropriate and effective time limits for judicial review, and those provisions were found in schedule 1 in the form introduced. The existing sections 477 for the Federal Magistrates Court, 477A for the Federal Court and 468A for the High Court provide extra time limits on the time frames required for applications in immigration matters to be lodged with those courts.
In the decision in Bodrudazza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the High Court held that such provisions were inconsistent with the powers provided by section 75(v) of the Constitution. In a joint judgement made by Chief Justice Gleeson sitting with Justices Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan, the court stated that section 468A could not be read down or severed to preserve its validity. The later decision of the High Court in Plaintiff S157 confirmed that any time limits must be truly regulatory in nature and not remove the constitutional right to recourse to the court. In that decision, Justice Callinan suggested that a 35-day time limit accompanied by a power to extend time would be acceptable.
After the introduction of this bill to the parliament, a concern was raised that the amendments might not cover all decisions that are judicially reviewable and which should be subject to time limits. This included decisions made offshore to refuse to grant a visa to an applicant who has applied for a visa outside the migration zone and is not sponsored by an Australian permanent resident or citizen, and decisions to cancel a visa held by such a person while outside the migration zone.
Due to the urgency in passing the amendments found elsewhere in the bill in schedule 4—and this relates to the decision of the full Federal Court in Sales, which I will come to in a moment—and as more detailed consideration is required to ensure that the amendments to reinstate effective time limits for judicial review will operate in the way intended, the government withdrew the amendments relating to time limits in government sponsored amendments in the House. I understand that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has indicated that he will seek to introduce amendments dealing with time limits in a separate bill later in the spring or autumn legislative program.
As I have already mentioned, this bill has been given very considerable urgency by the decision on 17 July 2008 of the full Federal Court in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. That decision in effect built on comments that had been made by Justice Weinberg in an earlier decision, Moore v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. What these decisions deal with, particularly what the decision in Sales deals with, is section 501(2) of the Migration Act, which reads:
The Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
Under the subsection, ministerial discretion exists for a visa that has been granted to be cancelled on character grounds.
In the Sales decision, the Federal Court found that visas that are ‘held’ by operation of law rather than ‘granted’ cannot be cancelled under the character cancellation provisions of the Migration Act. As a result of that judgement on 17 July in which Mr Charles Sales’s appeal against a decision of the former minister to cancel his transitional permanent visa on character grounds was upheld, Mr Sales was released from immigration detention. I should point out that Mr Sales was convicted of a particularly brutal murder in 1989 and had been serving a term of imprisonment until 2006.
As a further result of the judgement some 22 other people were released from immigration detention: 14 were released from detention on 21 July 2008, six were released on 24 July 2008, one was released on 28 July and another was released on 30 July. Sixteen were released from Villawood, four from Perth and three from Maribyrnong in Melbourne. These people are all noncitizens who had served terms of imprisonment for their convictions for a variety of crimes. Those crimes cannot be detailed for privacy reasons, but the convictions include armed robbery, serious drug trafficking, sexual assault—including of minors—manslaughter and murder. It is of course the case that had they been Australian citizens each of these people would have been released into the community at the conclusion of their sentences. As noncitizens they had all been assessed as not passing the character test.
The Migration Act provision to which I have already referred contains a ministerial discretion to refuse or cancel a visa where a visa applicant or visa holder does not pass the character test. In exercising this power, there is a responsibility to the parliament and to the Australian community to protect the community from criminal or other reprehensible conduct and to refuse to grant visas to or cancel visas held by noncitizens whose actions are so abhorrent to the community that they should not be allowed to enter or remain within Australia. Their visas having been cancelled under section 501, the group of people who were released had been detained upon their release from prison and were awaiting removal from our country. As a result of the court’s decision in Sales, there were no grounds on which to continue to detain them and they were released from immigration detention.
Turning to the specific amendments that are designed to deal with this problem that has arisen, it needs to be made clear that there can be no suggestion that it was ever intended that the holders of transitional permanent visas would be exempt from having their visas cancelled on character grounds—like other noncitizens. What schedule 4 to this bill does is amend the Migration Act so that the character cancellation provisions apply to all temporary and permanent transitional visas and provide validation of all past character cancellation decisions in relation to such visas. There is no reason at all why this group of visas should have been exempted as a group.
The amendment makes clear what could only have been parliament’s original intention—that the holders of permanent and temporary transitional visas would be subject to the same character cancellation provisions as any other visa holder. The bill validates the cancellation power in relation to previous cancellations of transitional visas—that is, it is not a wholesale validation of the cancellation decisions in all respects; it deals with the critical technical issue of whether the visa was granted.
The amendments as drafted will effectively and automatically reinstate the cancellation decisions under which many of these people were detained. Following the commencement of these amendments, the majority of the people who have been released from immigration detention as a result of the Sales decision may then be liable for re-detention, depending on their circumstances. For those not automatically covered by the legislation, the department will be considering their individual circumstances to decide what further action may be appropriate. This legislation will deal promptly and effectively with the consequences of the Federal Court’s decision in the Sales case. I commend the bill to the House.
It is always a pleasure to join the debate in the Parliament of Australia. In particular, it is a pleasure today to be able to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008. This bill amends, as an omnibus bill, a number of pieces of legislation, including the Migration Act 1958, the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007 and the Customs Act 1901.
This bill seeks to ensure that Australia can do all that it can to meet its responsibilities and obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961. These modifications could be regarded as housekeeping, but that would diminish the importance of the legislation impacted by this bill and would also diminish the importance placed on the vigilance required to ensure that our migration laws are protective of Australia while also meeting internationally accepted standards.
Like many other pieces of legislation, it is supported by both sides of the House. The bill is noncontroversial. The community is often not aware that most pieces of legislation introduced to the parliament—regardless of which side of the House is in government—are supported by both sides. The only things we read about parliament are about when the parties vigorously disagree.
It is important that our migration laws are updated and reviewed from time to time, because it is an important sector of government responsibility. It was one of those areas passed to the new Australian government when Federation occurred in 1901. It is vital that, while making sure that we have internationally accepted standards, the government of the day continues to protect our borders and our way of life. It is important to recognise our own citizens and it is important, of course, always to recognise that there are people who want to cross Australian borders for many legitimate reasons.
The bill streamlines the process by which those most impacted by decisions of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal are able to access those decisions. In the past, parties often had to wait until the decision had been formally handed down, but, with the passage of this bill, this requirement will be removed. This streamlining ensures that those whose lives may be placed in limbo as a result of the usual length of time taken to process immigration issues are potentially given somewhat of a reprieve. It does not represent a reduction or a softening of the security measures, but it does enable a reduction in the time taken in the normal processes of judicial review and analysis of immigration cases.
Schedule 2 of the bill introduces measures relating to better monitoring of passengers on ships and aircraft, including the introduction of infringement notices that take the place of more lengthy prosecution for those operators who fail to meet their obligations of providing passenger and crew reports in advance of their arrival in Australia. Currently there are set time frames and specific deadlines for the provision of these passenger and crew information reports. The passage of this bill will see the introduction of provisions that allow the prescribing of time frames that are deemed suitable for individual cases. As you would appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, this enables improved flexibility in this aspect of border protection. Supplementary amendments clarify that the operators of these ships and aircraft are liable for prosecution for each individual passenger who is not properly reported on in line with the requirements rather than facing one charge per journey as is currently the case. It means operators must place greater emphasis on actually supplying the passenger and crew reports; otherwise they will face greatly increased penalties. Where in the past an operator would have faced a maximum amount no matter if there were one or 50 passengers not properly reported on, the passage of this bill will make it in their best interests to diligently attempt to provide reports for every single passenger. This means that the penalty that will be imposed on them is commensurate with the level of their dereliction of duty.
Schedule 3 of the bill deals with changes to legislation that deal with non-citizen children born in Australia and also introduces a condition that a security may be imposed to ensure compliance with visa conditions before the visa is granted. The amendment aims to give greater certainty to immigration status. It also clarifies the requirement that reports must include certain details of each individual passenger and crew member. The bill also affords the establishment of a new position of deputy principal member for the Migration Review Tribunal. This position currently exists only within the Refugee Review Tribunal so this bill will introduce a similar officeholder to the migration tribunal. As I said at the outset, this bill is supported by the Liberal and National Party opposition. I am very pleased therefore to be able to commend it to the chamber.
I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008. The coalition is supporting this legislation. The bill is an omnibus bill that makes a range of amendments to several acts, including the Migration Act 1958, the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007 and the Customs Act 1901. Schedule 1 of the bill will streamline and simplify the procedures of notifying parties with regard to a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. The current notification procedures have been the source of litigation and lengthy time before courts for families and individuals affected by this for many years, and, in many cases, decades. As has already been mentioned, this has been a concern for both sides of the House for several years, particularly when families and individuals have had to put their lives on hold. Children of parents who are applicants have had to wait decades to actually plan for their future. One would hope that these amendments will actually improve that situation.
The coalition notes that schedule 1 of the bill was also intended to reinstate effective time limits for applying to courts for judicial review of migration decisions. The current time limits in the act have been made largely ineffective, particularly following the April 2007 High Court decision of Bodruddaza v the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the July 2007 full Federal Court decision of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The government’s new amendments will effectively remove a schedule 1 of the bill as it has come to light that the bill as drafted would not have worked appropriately with regard to decisions to which no merits review rights attach. The coalition understands that further consideration is required to determine how best to reinstate effective time limits for all judicially reviewable cases.
Items 7 and 20 provide that tribunals will be required to notify an applicant of a decision other than an oral decision by giving the applicant and the secretary a copy of the decision within 14 days after the day on which the decision is taken to have been made. Items 6 and 19 provide that a decision other than an oral decision is taken to have been made on the date of the decision. This new formulation largely reflects the notification procedure that currently applies to persons in immigration detention.
According to the second reading speech, the proposed new method for notifying parties of the tribunal’s decision will be a lot simpler, thereby reducing the risk of error, particularly administrative errors. This suggests that handing down procedure that was introduced in 1999 to create certainty of dispatch has not, in retrospect, achieved its purpose.
Schedule 2 of the bill clarifies the requirement for operators of aircraft and ships to report on passengers and crew prior to entering Australia—the Advance Passenger Processing system—and also establishes an infringement notice regime. The government’s amendments make it clear that aircraft and ship operators are liable to separate prosecution under these offence provisions in relation to each individual passenger and crew rather than with regard to each journey not reported on prior to arrival in Australia.
Schedule 3 of the bill makes a number of minor amendments to the act to again make it clearer with regard to immigration clearance of non-citizen children born in Australia, compliance with visa conditions and the operation of certain provisions relating to bridging visas. Immigration clearance is vitally important for a number of reasons. It affects a noncitizen’s access to visas, especially bridging visas, under the Migration Regulations. It affects immigration detention. An unlawful noncitizen—that is, a noncitizen in the migration zone without a visa—must be detained and a lawful noncitizen may be detained if they hold a visa that may be cancelled. An immigration cleared noncitizen may only be detained if they are likely to attempt to evade or otherwise not cooperate with Immigration officers. It also affects access to visas in relation to safe third-country rules. If a noncitizen is covered by an agreement between Australia and a safe third country, their access to visas will be essentially diminished. It also affects the cancellation of visas and the review rights. Generally, the MRT may not review a decision to refuse to grant or to cancel an offshore visa if that decision was made before the person was immigration cleared.
The purpose of the measures in schedule 4 is to increase protections, particularly for clients who engage offshore migration agents. This gives DIAC the capacity to refuse to communicate with offshore migration agents, particularly when there are concerns about their professionalism, competence, conduct or character. Many of us on both sides of the chamber have seen many of our constituents come to us regarding this. As a result of poor advice or excess charging by migration agents—the list goes on—their future capacity to actually migrate or obtain a visa is limited. Often these individual applicants are unable to obtain a visa for decades because of the impact of this advice and the way that migration agents overseas have, in some cases, handled their case.
Schedule 4 of the bill was not initially considered to be urgent, particularly when the bill was introduced. However, the legislation must be passed quite quickly due to the decision on 17 July of the full Federal Court in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. This decision gave effect to the obiter comments in Moore v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The amendments contained in schedule 4 of the bill already anticipated such problems and difficulties, but these amendments will help to ensure that the character cancellation provisions will apply to all temporary and permanent transitional visas and provide validation of all past character cancellation decisions in relation to such visas.
Throughout the history of immigration in this nation, Australians have felt strongly about Australia deciding who is to come to this country. One of the foundation principles has been the importance of character and how that impacts on the decision to grant someone’s application for a visa. As a result of the Federal Court’s decision in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, some 23 people, including Mr Sales, were released from immigration detention. The coalition, while careful and cautious in supporting such legislation, agrees with the government that this must be passed quickly to address the situation caused by the decision of the full Federal Court.
Schedule 5 seeks to clarify the meaning of certain provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that Australian citizenship law is consistent with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 1961. This bill aims to address and rectify challenges in the areas of judicial and merits review, border protection, visa integrity, Australian citizenship and other miscellaneous matters. I commend the bill to the House.
in reply—As indicated earlier in the debate, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008 is an omnibus bill that makes amendments across the Migration Act 1958, the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007 and the Customs Act 1901. This will clarify and improve the effectiveness of the migration and citizenship legislation by addressing and rectifying a range of problems that have been identified in the legislation over the years. It will also ensure that the citizenship legislation is consistent with two United Nations conventions: the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961 and the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons 1954.
The amendments in this bill are important, necessary and, in the case of the Migration Act, long overdue. As was highlighted in my second reading speech, the bill has some urgency in relation to amendments in schedule 4. Some of the amendments in this schedule were included initially to address obiter comments in the May 2007 full Federal Court decision of Moore v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) FCA 626 and the full Federal Court decision in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) FCAFC 132 on 17 July 2008. They affirmed the obiter reasoning in Moore and further found that a transitional permanent visa cannot be cancelled on character grounds, because that visa is held rather than granted. The amendments in schedule 4 of the bill address the Moore decision, and now the Sales decision, to ensure that the character cancellation provisions in the Migration Act apply to all temporary and permanent transitional visas and they provide validation of all past character cancellation decisions in relation to such visas. This maintains the minister’s ability to protect the Australian community.
I now turn to matters raised in the debate and thank those who have contributed. I refer to comments by the member for Sturt. They were generally supportive of the legislation; however, it is very ironic that, on the morning after the night on which the opposition thanked the previous Prime Minister for his contribution to this country’s politics, the member for Sturt has come in here and, in a way, slighted the contribution of the previous Prime Minister. Prime Minister Howard, historically, showed himself to be a major critic and opponent of multiculturalism, but the member for Sturt has come in here today and referred to the department as DIMA; that department’s name was changed in January 2007. Changing the name of the department was a major accomplishment of the previous Prime Minister, but the member for Sturt has come in here today and, perhaps accidentally or perhaps deliberately, referred to a department by a name that has long gone.
I take note of the comments that were made by the member for Cowan in relation to the Patrick family. We are certainly happy to look at that case and try to resolve the problems referred to. That member made some additional comments, unfortunately, regarding the history of migration detention in this country. Clearly, the Australian electorate recognised the need for overdue significant changes regarding the long-festering issue of temporary protection visas—the fact that people were in limbo land, unclear about where they were going. That has been rectified and, as I said earlier, welcomed by a broad constituency well beyond the conventional refugee advocacy movement. We have the situation where offshore detention sites have been ended and what has been termed the ‘Pacific solution’ has been terminated.
It is perhaps unfortunate, given the crusade by a small number of members of the previous government against that government’s legislation and activities on detention, that we have this member today still harking back—in a sense, in the way they do regarding Australian workplace agreements—to a now rejected history of detention of individuals for long periods. I conclude by commending the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 3 September, on motion by Ms Gillard:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I want to speak on the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 because, while I will vote for it, I do not think it is going to be effective and achieve the outcomes desired from it. I want the parliament and the people of Australia to know what my concerns are in relation to this particular piece of legislation.
There is no doubt that everybody wants to see kids go to school, and do so regularly, and have a good education, because that is what will stand them in good stead for the rest of their lives. There is also no doubt that there is a fair bit of truancy out there and that in certain communities kids do not go to school regularly. It is happening more and more in mainstream communities. In my electorate is Palm Island, which I think, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you have been to. It is a beautiful island with an Indigenous community, but both the government school and the Catholic school have difficulty in getting many of their students to attend school regularly. It is such a shame, and Indigenous leaders recognise this. Certainly, Reverend Shane Blackman at Shalom Christian College on the mainland in my electorate is ferocious in telling parents, ‘You must get your kids to go to school because it is how Indigenous Australia is going to get ahead.’
There is no doubt that Indigenous Australians are just as capable as any other Australians of achieving. We have proved this at James Cook University in my electorate in Townsville, where each year we enrol Indigenous students in the medical school program; those students graduate as doctors. But, across the economy, you will find Indigenous people who are doing just as well as any other Australians.
So I come back to Palm Island. I come back to the need to get the students to attend school. It is just such a shame that, for whatever reason, students will just decide, ‘Well, we won’t go to school today; we’ll just go horse riding.’ In other communities you find that there are cultural reasons why young men decide not to continue at school, because once they reach manhood in Indigenous culture it is considered kind of beneath their dignity to go to school. That attitude has to change.
The bill before the parliament today basically says there will be penalties for children on welfare payments who do not go to school. My concern is how you actually, in practice, make this work. The bill requires schools to report nonattendance to Centrelink. Centrelink then looks at that and says, ‘Well, we’ll dock welfare payments.’ But do we really think that schools have the time to report students who do not attend to Centrelink? Do we really think that is going to happen? You know how school officers are so busy trying to keep up with the administration that is needed in a school of this modern era. Do we really think that schools will say, ‘Well, okay, we’ll take on this extra load’? The answer is no. The problem for the Commonwealth is that schools are under state jurisdiction and we cannot order a public school to report to Centrelink. Indeed, some states have said, ‘We can’t report anyway, because it is a privacy issue.’ That is particularly so with Tasmania.
So the legislation is doomed to failure, but the philosophy is right—and that is why I will support it. But it is a shame that legislation goes through the parliament that in practice will not work. Nobody will be reported to Centrelink. There is a bit of cynicism here, I guess, where the government takes the credit for doing something that everybody wants to see happen but in fact the wool is being pulled over their eyes because it is not going to happen. I find that very unfortunate indeed.
We have to get kids to school. The Liberal Party for its part believes in mutual obligation. It believes that, if government support is provided to Australians, there should be an obligation to return something in response to that support. We think that it is reasonable to request that children attend school, but this is not going to happen. I think we all struggle to find ways that enable us to get our students to stay at school, that we can convince the mums and dads that they have to get their kids to attend and that we can convince the students that it is in the interests of their future lives to attend school. I will conclude there by indicating my support for the bill and my disappointment that this bill is not in fact going to do what the people of Australia expect it to do.
Before I enter into the body of my speech on the second reading of the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008, I will correct for the benefit of the member for Herbert some of the information that he has provided. Having worked in schools for a long time, 11 years as a teacher and five years as a union organiser, in both state and private schools, I am very well aware that attendance records at schools, the rolls, are actually public documents. Anyone who has organised a school reunion would know that. They are public documents that must be kept as a record, as can be seen in the Queensland archives—you can go and track down the attendance record of anyone who has received public money. It is already a process that is in train in terms of people recording the attendance of students at school, as it rightly should be. It would only be a small task for a school officer—and I have a lot more faith in the school officers and the education sector than the member for Herbert—to pass that information on administratively to Centrelink. It would be a click of a mouse, because the data is recorded every day anyway.
I think this initiative, the legislation before the House, is a great piece of legislation because it will go some way to achieving that great Labor goal that the member for Herbert did touch on—that all children have the right to high-quality education. It is a basic tenet of the Labor Party that we support good education. Every parent, every community and every MP in the House, I am sure, would support the proposition that every student has the right to a high-quality education. That is especially so for the Rudd government. Our Prime Minister has had success in life because he was given an opportunity through education. For so many of the people on this side of the House that has been the case. Bright minds—I am not talking about myself—have been given an opportunity to do well.
Parents, teachers and school communities all play a crucial role in providing a good-quality education, but ultimately it is the role of governments to raise the standard, increase investment, guard against inequality, boost attendance and ensure that all children can achieve to their full potential. That is why the government that I serve is so serious about delivering an education revolution to this country. The Rudd government’s education revolution includes a half-billion-dollar investment in early childhood pre-literacy and pre-numeracy, halving HECS for those studying maths and science at university and then halving HECS again if they choose to pursue a career teaching or working in maths and science. These are great initiatives that will produce real results—real, life-changing decisions—for people who are out there considering an education career.
The Rudd government is committed to a new national curriculum in the core subjects of maths, science, English and history. Many Australians do not see the state borders anymore. They move regularly following work, following sunshine and following lots of things, so it makes sense now, in 2008, to have a national curriculum rather than the old horse-and-buggy approach of the states looking after it. We are also committed to a new national action plan on literacy and numeracy and a $2.4 billion education tax refund, which will help out so many parents and, more importantly, sends the key message that education is to be valued.
We are also committed to a $1.2 billion digital education revolution to give every student in years 9 to 12 access to a computer. I have seen this in my electorate, where I was able to proudly hand over the certificate to the principal of one of my non-government schools and where they were able to put more computers into the school. Ironically, in the only school in my electorate that received computer funding in the first round, the principal was a paid-up member of the Liberal Party. That is just the irony of it, I suppose, but it goes to show that the Rudd government is, without fear or favour, committed to ensuring that every student in years 9 to 12 has access to a computer.
We are also investing $30 million to boost education for remote Indigenous children, including a trial linking family and welfare payments to school attendance. This is the plan the Australian people voted for. If we are to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children, school attendance rates in remote Indigenous communities must be improved. I come from a country town in Queensland with a significant Indigenous population. I know too well the difference between wandering away from school and staying at school and going on with a career. Too many of my friends dropped out early. This policy would have changed lives. Perhaps it would even have saved lives.
There are about 2,000 Indigenous children of compulsory school age in the Northern Territory who are not enrolled in school—2,000 people. That is the size of the town I grew up in. That is 2,000 people, 2,000 lives and 2,000 opportunities wasted. That means that one in five Aboriginal children in remote communities in the Northern Territory is not even enrolled in school. A further 2½ thousand are not attending regularly, and about 8,000 Indigenous children attend school only 60 per cent of the time on average. Without continuity, obviously the chances of getting a high-school certificate or a tertiary qualification are very, very limited. If we truly believe that all children have a right to a quality education, then a child growing up in the remote community of Katherine should have the same chance to get an education as a child in Brisbane. That is why I am proud to speak in support of the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (School-ing Requirements) Bill 2008.
Children not enrolled in and regularly attending school miss out on an education and are severely disadvantaged later in life when it comes to seeking employment and gaining financial independence. This bill introduces greater support for parents to help ensure that their children are enrolled and, more importantly, that they are regularly attending school. It also introduces conditions, tied to school attendance, on income support payments. These measures will be trialled in six Northern Territory communities, one site in Western Australia and another metropolitan site to be determined.
Parents who fail to enrol their children or take reasonable measures to get their children to go to school may have their income support payments suspended until their children are enrolled or they begin attending school. Parents will be required to provide Centrelink with information about their child’s school enrolment. Parents who fail to do so without a reasonable excuse—and that is most important—may have their income support payments suspended until they enrol their child. Centrelink will also work with those parents to help them meet this requirement.
This bill also authorises schools to report poor attendance to Centrelink. Once again, Centrelink will then work with the parents to help them improve their child’s school attendance. Education authorities, local schools and Centrelink will work together with parents to improve school attendance. They will work together to improve their children’s lives.
A decision to temporarily withhold a parent’s income support will be a last resort—only a last resort. The first thought that came to my mind was: when would the trigger event happen? It is reassuring to know that it will be the last resort, where it can be shown the parent has failed, despite help from the school and Centrelink, to exercise parental responsibility and regularly get their child along to school. Full back pay will be provided when parents have met their responsibilities within a 13-week period or longer. Basically, they have a quarter of the year, 13 weeks—a season, I suppose—to get it right. Much has been said about the measures in this bill which give Centrelink authority to suspend welfare payments, but this bill is not about punishing disadvantaged families. It is not an attack on the poor and the vulnerable. Instead, it is about putting in place a system to support parents and help them give their kids the education they deserve.
If I could just touch on my own experience, I came from a family with 10 children. My mother was not receiving Centrelink payments so there was no lever for the government to pull in terms of school attendance. My mother was a single mum and she worked as a registered nurse at the hospital. When she left in the morning, it was up to us to get ourselves to school, basically. There were six of us at high school and primary school at the one time. I know that one of my brothers—who I will not name—had a shocking attendance record; it was absolutely shocking. Unfortunately, we do not have a social lever to pull to get someone like my brother off to school, so this will only affect those people who are receiving Centrelink payments. Hopefully, there will be other mechanisms in place to try and ensure that people not receiving Centrelink payments do send all their children to school. I stress again that income support payments will be cancelled only in the most extreme cases, where parents refuse to cooperate with the school and Centrelink.
I am hopeful that the trial areas will experience a surge in school enrolments and attendance as a result of this bill before the House. This in turn will dramatically boost the lifelong potential of many children in these trial communities, because there is so much evidence indicating that more education means more chance of having a job that pays more and that is not part-time, casual or based on seasonal factors. I am also pleased that an evaluation process will be undertaken and that the results of this trial will be monitored before the program is expanded to other areas.
This approach, of linking welfare payments to social outcomes, is a proven and effective way to change community behaviours. And, as I said, when community behaviours are changed, lives are changed. A good comparison would be to look at immunisation. Obviously, immunisation is actually about life and death, not just the sort of job you might have, so one would think that even a parent with the poorest parenting skills would still take their child off to be immunised. But, since the childcare benefit and the immunisation payment were linked to children completing a vaccination program, we have seen immunisation rates rise from around 50 per cent in the 1990s to more than 90 per cent today—and that is with something as important as a life or death thing like vaccination. Obviously, immunisation funds are not inconsequential but they are not that significant. But, by making that simple connection and simply tweaking, we were able to change the vaccination rates very significantly. Obviously, money talks.
The legislation before the House supports a program that is not being done in isolation. Instead, it is part of a range of Rudd government measures to improve education and health outcomes for Indigenous children. We have already committed 200 extra teachers for the Northern Territory. These additional teachers will help meet the increased enrolments that this bill will deliver. As a former teacher, I am especially proud of this commitment. It is a real calling to be a teacher. Not many people are in it to retire rich! Teachers’ wages are adequate; they obviously could be much more. But it is good to see the cultural shift that is occurring under the Rudd government through this education revolution.
Unfortunately, I am a little bit confused about the opposition’s position on this bill. We heard from the member for Herbert. As he said, he doubts the efficacy of the legislation but was able to support it. If we go back a bit further, in 2006, the then Treasurer, the member for Higgins, announced a similar plan, and he told Tony Jones on Lateline:
… new proposals to make welfare conditional on school attendance … is a real breakthrough.
Of course, despite announcing this plan, the coalition never actually introduced it. So now, in 2008, the opposition leader, Dr Brendan Nelson, described the plan as:
… some sort of media-driven stunt.
I stress to the House that this is not a stunt. This is legislation that will change lives. And, going on my experience in a country town with a very significant Indigenous population, it will also save lives.
Unfortunately, the opposition Indigenous affairs spokesman refused to support the plan. Old habits die hard for the member for Warringah who, on Radio National last week, blamed the states for not enforcing current truancy laws. I have not caught up with the member for Warringah, but he informed the House that he had spent a few weeks in the bush in a remote Indigenous community. I wonder what the parents of the Indigenous children not attending school told him. I wonder if their plea was the same as that of every parent—that they want their children to have a chance in life. Unfortunately, that blame game that we hear referred to still exists on the other side of the House. But, thankfully, one of the people who we often hear from in question time, the member for Canning, was much more open in his support of the plan before the House. What did he say? He said:
This is taxpayers’ money … and we want it to be used properly for the benefit of children.
I should point out that, I think, the member for Canning was a teacher, so he does understand the importance of education and he is obviously, on occasion, able to leave the politics out.
There is no confusion on this side of the House about the merits of this bill. The bill before the House balances appropriate support with financial incentives to encourage parents in the trial areas to get their kids enrolled and along to school. Labor understands how important this is. As I said, the Prime Minister, who was given a chance in life through education, values it, as does the Deputy Prime Minister, and as do so many other people on this side of the House who got here through education.
The Labor Party is committed to building a nation. That has been our history. We have made visionary programs and we have made visionary decisions that have been the bedrock for much of the nation. Unfortunately, those opposite, the Liberals, are happy merely to bill the nation that Labor built. I commend the bill to the House.
In making his comments, the member for Moreton said that there was some doubt amongst Liberals about their support for the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008. It is my clear understanding that we not only support the legislation; we support its principle. But, on the other hand, had the member for Moreton read the explanatory memorandum, as I have, and had he searched for evidence that there is some obligation on the state entities, private entities or religious entities running schools to make the reports to Centrelink, which are fundamental to the issuance of notices on parents, he would have found that it is not there. I am not sure if constitutionally it could be there. All I can find in the explanatory memorandum is the following:
... a person responsible for the operation of the school gives the Secretary—
that is, Centrelink—
written notice that the child is failing to comply with the school attendance requirements to the satisfaction of the person responsible for the operation of the school and the person is failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the child attends school to the responsible person’s satisfaction.
That is all very easy for some hardworking single mother to understand, I am sure. It goes on in that regard. But it is voluntary.
Let me draw the member for Moreton’s attention to the beginnings of this idea. Privately, without any legislative backing, without anything, a school principal in either Halls Creek or Fitzroy Crossing in the northern area of my state, in the electorate of Kalgoorlie, did a deal with the local Centrelink bloke that if the kids were not coming to school Centrelink would take some action. It worked, virtually overnight. Large numbers of kids who were not there before started attending school. The figures, in fact, were a matter of public record. But what was the result of that? There was a hell of a fuss from the state Labor education minister about the fact that this rotten principal had actually acted to get kids to school—to the extent, as I recollect, that the principal eventually resigned his position as a teacher. He is no longer available to teach kids, and he was one who had obviously volunteered to go into that area. That is what happened.
This is what we get and why we are cynical. We accepted that, when we were the Liberal government, state Labor governments were not going to do anything to help Aboriginals for which we might get the credit. That is how stupid the political system is. But the reality is that the Liberal government, in proposing to implement these arrangements, got no cooperation from the state governments at all. The member for Moreton mentions the blame game. Let me tell him that his Prime Minister has been absolutely successful in playing the blame game. He no longer blames the states and they no longer blame him. The sorts of wars that used to exist between Labor premiers and the Liberal government—and, I might add, in the days of past premiers in WA such as Sir Charles Court, between Liberal state governments and Liberal federal governments—have ceased to exist. But in the cancellation of those wars, the community no longer has any idea what you are up to.
I would have thought that this legislation would have had substance, that there would be something in it. I have read the second reading speech. I think there could have been some obligation for the minister to make a statement to this House, under the discipline of not misleading it, about the fact that the arrangements were already in place with COAG and that he had written commitments from state education ministers that they would conform with the requirements of this legislation. That would have given meaning to an otherwise excellent measure.
But the reality is that, wherever we turn, and particularly in education, it is all about ‘gonna’. The Deputy Prime Minister is up every day measuring her success, her excellence, by expenditure. She has spent the money or she has transferred it somewhere—and, I understand, primarily to state government agencies. She ought to read Paul Keating’s comments on that after we introduced the GST and made it a grant for unspecified use. He told us we were stupid. There are many examples of similar quotes about the fact that we are sending so many millions to state education agencies and expecting that the money will actually materialise at a school.
The member for Moreton talked about a school having some association with the Liberal Party and getting some computers. A lot of schools in my electorate got their computers before the election because the Howard government introduced the Investing in Our Schools Program, or IOSP, as we got to know it. That gave every school in Australia—the smallest numbering 10 pupils in some cases in my electorate—the opportunity to spend, with appropriate approval, $150,000 on upgrading the infrastructure or the equipment of their school. To my recollection, a lot purchased computers. They used the money for that purpose. It is magnificent to go into some of those schools.
I might add a comment about one school for disadvantaged kids—and I mean disadvantaged kids, one of whom had practically no motor skills. If you really want to get a lump in your throat, go and see those kids actually using a computer when they can virtually not move any part of their body. There are computers they can use, and they get the benefit. Those computers came out of IOSP, not from the claims of the Deputy Prime Minister. From what she said yesterday, one would think that there are kids today using sophisticated tools and equipment in schools because she has allocated the money. I am happy to go with her—as I said at the doorstop this morning—to some of those schools when the computers are actually in operation. I would like to run the book on that.
This is the same thing. The government would have credibility for a great initiative if they demonstrated to us that they had any arrangements in place to require that person, as the explanatory memorandum says, to send those notices whenever truancy came to their notice. Of course, it would not be a bad idea if other methods were used in terms of knowing where these people are. Yes, privacy is a right, but not when you are denying your kids an education or a future. That is an outrage, and there can be no privacy associated with that failing.
It is a fact of life that 50 per cent of the cost of running every government school in Australia is funded from the budget of this parliament. That is constantly overlooked. We have these silly campaigns by the school teachers union identifying specific grants. I hope one day the revenge that is taken upon them in that regard is that this parliament shifts to parental vouchers, where there can be no question mark whatsoever. We have all this fooling with numbers, where one takes the specific grants but ignores, for instance, the GST revenue that flows to a state government. They run those silly specific grant comparisons when no GST revenue goes to non-government schools.
What?
For the member for Moreton’s information, because he might not understand: 100 per cent of GST revenue is distributed to state governments. We went to the Australian people with the fact that if they re-elected us we would introduce this tax—and it cost us a lot of seats. For years thereafter, the opposition said that they were going to have a rollback. They opposed it even after it was established and in existence. Our leader, John Howard, said, ‘You the people of Australia have to absorb this tax for the purpose of ensuring state governments can look after their schools, their hospitals and their law and order responsibilities.’ They got the money but they do not have any truancy officers. And here we are in the federal parliament legislating to get stuck into individuals for the purpose of replacing the inadequacy and, in fact, the obstructionism of state education agencies to this point in time.
That’s incorrect.
I remind the member for Moreton that it was a state minister that persecuted a school teacher who first did this, to the point where he resigned on mental anguish grounds—the man was so heartbroken.
Are you sure about that?
I will stand corrected if the member for Moreton wants to go and research those circumstances, but in my recollection—and my memory is pretty good on these things—I read in the media that the fellow eventually resigned. There is absolutely no doubt that he was personally attacked by, I think, Michelle Roberts, the then minister—but I will stand corrected on that. But I advise anyone in this House to be very careful about denying my memory without having the written documents.
What I am saying is that this is a good scheme but we have doubts about why it is introduced at a time when GDP growth is falling to 0.3 per cent et cetera, et cetera, and there is nothing in the legislation that tells us how it is going to work. I well remember the minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs speaking in this place in opposition, and even on the assumption of government, to cast grave doubt over the concept of hypothecating people’s Centrelink payments for food for their children. When eventually convinced—I think as much by public opinion as anything else—she decided to do something about it, and what have we got? We have got a trial. I think there are three localities—in Western Australia and possibly Australia—where we are trialling the patently obvious.
But let me tell the member for Moreton one place where there is not a trial. It is a town called Narrogin, which for most of my career I represented. At the moment that town and district is in the electorate of Pearce. I received a frantic call from the district superintendent—a policeman whom I admire greatly—telling me that there is a family of seven in the area and they have one of those kids in court, as they are obliged to do, for his umpteenth break and enter. And what was his purpose? To get food and somewhere to sleep. He is one of seven children. The welfare payment to his parents exceeds $700 a week, and on a visit to the house it was found to be devoid of food. There are seven kids—and an eighth is on the way—and there was no food in the house and they receive $700 a week.
I wrote to the minister about that situation and said, ‘For goodness sake; I have the pleadings of a district superintendent to extend your scheme. He does not want to be grabbing this kid and dragging him into court; it is heartbreaking. The kid is a trained home invader—out of hunger.’ But I got the usual form letter from the minister. I did five years as a minister and I read every letter someone else wrote for me—a standing joke in the department was, ‘Never send him fewer than 50 letters at a time or he will change the lot of them’—and the first reference I ever made was to the content of the letter we received. Ministers here might tell the member for Moreton that I put my constituents first—and I do. I have been enraged in the past to see people stand up on these opposition benches and use the hardship of an individual to attack the government. As their representative, I will plead with a Labor minister for help, as I think ministers would know—without any pack drill, media releases et cetera.
There is an agricultural school run by the Catholic church in the northern sectors of my electorate. It has been there for 100 years and it takes, amongst others, a heap of Aboriginal kids who come down from as far away as Broome. The Catholic agencies want to close it—partly, I think, because they are not getting enough revenue out of the farm anymore because there has been a drought. That will be changed a lot this year, I am pleased to say. I rang the office and asked if I could speak to the minister and give a heads-up in the hope that she, bringing credit to the government, would make some announcement because some financial help was needed.
It was the federal minister.
Yes. I even got a call asking for my phone details. I thought, ‘That’s good of her, she’s going to ring.’ I did not go to the media, as others did in due course, but what did I get? No call. That is silly. The first issue there was to say: ‘You’d better have a look at this. It needs some special assistance. It’s got history, it’s got heritage and it does a good job. I think its financial difficulties are more to do with a couple of failed crops than the fact that only 100 or so kids turn up there.’
You can have all the legislation in the world, you can have all the talk at that desk about the money you are going to allocate, but if it does not turn up in results it is a tragedy, particularly when it comes to giving basic education to all children. I do not think Literacy and Numeracy Week is an occasion to blackguard someone over here. I am pretty good at that—I do not mind—but I do not think you need that as an excuse. Julia Gillard thinks she is Mick Young. I was here when Mick Young was here. Mick Young was genuinely funny. I have walked up and down this side of the place pleading with my own side not to laugh. They were being caused to laugh at one of us. She is not of that status. She should stick to going around seeing that the state governments are not ripping her money off under IOSP.
What happened? We dictated that it was the school principal and the school P&C—or whatever it might be called—who made the decisions. But the minute they went anywhere near repairs to the building or anything the Department of Housing and Works in Perth said, ‘We have to be involved.’ What did the school do? It had to go through the department for all the work involved. They have their chosen contractors. One job went from $2½ thousand to $7½ thousand when the local contractor could not do the work. They escalated the values and then took 17½ per cent for their help. Nobody who went down the road of having to use their services—and there were some options to get out of it—got $150,000. The best they could get was $150,000 less 17 per cent, which is about $120,000.
Why would a state government do that when this parliament decided—I am sure it had the support of the opposition at the time—to send them money? It all comes down to this same arrangement. The first and required step—call it the blame game, if you like—is for state education agencies to employ sufficient truancy inspectors for the purpose, but that then should be in agreement with Centrelink to use the effective proposed reduction in Centrelink payments. At the same time, and even more importantly, it is not a bad idea to see that some of those Centrelink payments are paid so a kid gets breakfast before they go to school and that the reason for their truancy is not that they are running around trying to steal food. These are the fundamental issues and this is where this legislation fails. It gives no guarantee that it will be implemented. That is the position. (Time expired)
I support, as do my coalition colleagues, any actions which are just, practical and effectively result in achieving greater school attendance for all Australian children throughout the country. What we are concerned about with this Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 is that the Rudd Labor government has a very poor record of following through good intentions with adequate resources and proper process. We tend to get the grand statement and the photo opportunity, but there is nothing beyond and nothing that will really make a difference. Often the cynicism that those who are to receive the service feel when expectations are built and then dashed leaves them even worse off than before.
Let me give the House a few examples—none of them is nearly as important as education for children. Fuelwatch was supposed to bring down the price of fuel. Petrol is one of the very serious inputs to business but is also necessary for community members to go about their daily family life. Fuelwatch was going to make a difference, we were told. It was going to bring down petrol prices. In fact, what we got was a website. The Fuelwatch process is a nonsense and has the opposite effect of dampening competition in selling fuel across the country.
Then we had the business of ‘grocery watch’, or GROCERYchoice as Labor initially called it. It is another serious issue. The cost of living for households has gone up so much since this government was elected that families want relief. There are already families in my electorate on food parcels due to the drought. Even with salaries, the cost of fresh and manufactured food has gone through the roof. People expected something to happen when this government said, ‘We will bring down grocery prices.’ What did we get? We got ‘grocery watch’, another website that is so stupid, so flawed, that it has become the target of every comedian in the country. It was so badly designed it could never bring down grocery prices, and it cost taxpayers $13 million.
As I said at the beginning, the sound education of our children is of critical importance. No nation can expect to have a just and civil society with social inclusion, full employment or even decent workforce participation rates if children do not go to school and stay as long as it takes to have a sound, basic education that will maximise their opportunities in life. But we cannot expect to deal with non school attendance with a single instrument. We know that school attendance is very much a part of the states’ work, and there are a lot of complexities around who keeps data—especially at the secondary level—about school attendance, in particular when a child is already over the legal age of compulsory education in a state. I want to applaud this government for at least—like the coalition—articulating the problem, but I am extremely concerned that, as I have mentioned already, this will be a one-day wonder with success measured in newspaper column centimetres for the day and maybe a few bits of TV. The Australian community deserves to have much more and much better. All Australians deserve more, but particularly our minority groups—like our Indigenous Australians and also our recently arrived refugees—and our country communities. They are suffering extremes of depopulation and internal migration, not only because of drought and climate change but also because of poor government policy—for example, taking their water and leaving them without the means of production.
Members will note that I am not calling these students who do not attend school ‘truants’. That term implies that students knowingly and wilfully choose not to be enrolled or not to go to school, preferring to spend their day in the sun. That seems to be the implication when you talk about these children as truants. It is estimated that up to 20,000 children of school age are not enrolled in schools and, of course, many, many more are not going to school. Why aren’t children being enrolled in school? We have to ask that question in order to understand what to do about it. The intention of this legislation is that parents will be made to enrol their children by understanding that, if they do not, they will have their income support payments cut off for a period of up to 13 weeks or perhaps permanently. This implies that there are parents—either two parents or even one parent in control of the child. The legislation says that if a child is not attending school then the parents will have up to 13 weeks—over three months—to have that child back in school and then their payments will be re-established. If they cannot pull that off, their payments will be permanently withdrawn.
I have to say that I am concerned that we do not know enough about why children are not enrolled in school, but we can speculate. That speculation, backed by some good research and communication with the states, should have better informed this policy. Is a child not enrolled because the parent does not speak English? Because they have recently arrived in this country? Because they are not literate? Perhaps the parent never went to school. Perhaps the child does not even have a birth certificate. Perhaps the child was not born in the hospital system. Perhaps there is not a school at the outstation or near where a child lives, so the parent did not understand the expectation—even though a school was not available. And this is the situation in a lot of Northern Australia. Even though there is not a school, that child should be enrolled somehow or have their income support withdrawn.
If a child is refusing to attend or does not attend school, is it because they are too hungry? Is it because they are embarrassed about the fact that they do not have a uniform, or that they have not been able to wash? Perhaps they have a chronic undiagnosed illness or disease. Perhaps their hearing is so poor that they cannot hear and so they fail in school. Or perhaps their eyesight is damaged or too poor and it has not been diagnosed or treated. Or perhaps they were born with foetal alcohol syndrome that has not been diagnosed and the child cannot cope at school. Perhaps they have been bullied, or perhaps, the night before, they watched their parent become a victim of domestic violence—or perhaps they have been a victim of violence themselves. Sadly, we know only too well the extent to which that happens in our most dysfunctional and impoverished Indigenous communities in the emergency response area. Perhaps the child does not have a parent nearby. Perhaps the grandmother is raising the child and she has too many to feed and keep safe to ensure that the children of school age not only go to school but stay there all day. Perhaps the child has not had a bed to lie down in and they do not have decent housing. As I have said, they may be so hungry that their object is to get some food, not to go into school and stay there all day.
Perhaps a child has no-one in their family who is employed—nor has there been anyone employed for generations. So when someone says, ‘If you don’t go to school you won’t get a job,’ that is not a meaningful statement for them. If they have no understanding, knowledge of or expectation that they will be employed in this country, the lure of staying at school to get a qualification and a job is not in their family’s life experience and it makes no sense to them.
These are just some of the reasons why we have school attendance problems and issues. These issues, it would seem to me, require a much more comprehensive state-Commonwealth partnership. This policy highlights the total failure of child protection systems in the states and territories. Every now and then the media reports some horrific story of a child reported to DoCS, for example, who has not been removed from a desperately dangerous situation and the child dies. We know that, sadly, there is abuse in families. We know that a lot of children are not safe. Often a symptom of failure of protection is that a child does not go to school. Perhaps the child is shifted around too often by a parent trying to get out of a very violent situation and it is impossible for that child to go to school. I want to read from today’s Australian a report which highlights this problem. I quote:
In its submission to the federal Government’s intervention review team, chaired by indigenous leader Peter Yu, the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, said the Territory’s child-protection system remained seriously flawed with “a chronic lack of capacity” to deal with the issue.
Failure to go to school is often an indication of a child protection need. The chairwoman of the SNAICC, Muriel Bamblett:
... yesterday told The Australian she believed there was a culture within under-resourced child care agencies in the Territory that “if a child is living on the land, they won't go in and remove that child”.
She is referring to a situation where a child’s safety is not being given absolute priority consideration.
In its submission, SNAICC, which represents Aboriginal child care agencies nationwide, said there had been no significant increase in notifications of abuse or removal of children despite an extensive focus on child abuse and neglect over the past year.
“This is cause for grave concern and suggests that systems firstly for ensuring children’s wellbeing and secondly for protecting them from harm are still seriously flawed and lacking capacity across the Northern Territory,” the agency says.
Child protection is very important work and this report stresses that the very first areas to experience the full brunt of this legislation, six of the eight sites, are going to be in the emergency response area—in the Northern Territory, where there is a total failure of the Northern Territory government to do the right thing, to resource better and to have better systems of child protection. So by itself, just going in there and having the schools report that children A, B and C have not gone to school again, and taking the parents’ welfare, does nothing to address the complex and longstanding problems of these children needing protection—and children who need protection often do not have good school attendance or may not even be enrolled in school.
I am concerned that this legislation is just another bit of window-dressing which does not go to the heart of or deal with the complex set of problems. It does not demonstrate that the states or territories are going to do anything different other than provide data from the school principal which says, ‘Yes, we had 13 not at school again today.’ A lot more work, a lot more understanding and a lot more community and parental support—or grandparental support—has to go into ensuring that all of our children reach their full potential, all of our children are safe and all of our children live a life of choice and deep meaning in our country. That cannot happen with a strategy which simply says: ‘Your child was not at school. Parent, get your act together. Why wasn’t your child at school? You don’t know? We will give you three months to get your child back in school.’ That strategy is just not good enough.
The Northern Territory is going to be the location for six of the initial sites where the so-called truancy will be dealt with. There are eight sites in all. One is possibly going to be in Cannington in Western Australia, and we do not know the site of the final trial. In the Northern Territory in particular, the coalition understood only too well the interconnectedness within the cycle of poverty, despair, and dysfunction that affected the lives of children and adults in remote communities. We understood that unemployment was at the core of the sense of alienation and boredom which can lead to pornography, drug and alcohol abuse and finally the terrible child abuse that was reported so profoundly and distressingly in the Little children are sacred report. We looked at what has caused that chronic unemployment over generations, when there is employment—in fact, jobs going begging—in the Northern Territory. Of course we immediately focused upon CDEP, the Community Development Employment Program. What we found was that the Northern Territory government had been cost shifting the payment of teachers’ assistants in schools for years by simply reimbursing these women—it was and remains mostly women—through CDEP, rather than having them employed by the Northern Territory education department and properly trained and supported so they became literate, numerate English-language speakers, who could then help to give a more meaningful school experience to their students.
If the school is a poorly resourced place, if it does not teach adequate English, if it does not teach literacy and numeracy, if it looks like any other run-down shack in that community, if it is hot, dusty and dry, if teachers are overworked and if they depend on the welfare-paid teachers’ aides to do most of the heavy lifting, why would a child be excited by the prospect of learning in that place? So we said to the Northern Territory government: ‘Get your act together. Here’s at least $30 million to go to those schools with those Indigenous teachers’ aides so you can put them on a proper salary. Give them a proper job. Give them the professional development that they need. Give them a sense of pride in a career—it could be permanent part-time; that is up to the individuals—and in that way we can help build the experience of school as a good place for boys and girls in the Northern Territory.’
I am saddened and sickened to say that the Northern Territory government has not used those millions of dollars to transfer the Indigenous teachers’ aides onto Northern Territory payrolls. I think that is a disgrace. So here we go: we are now going to ask those hard-working, overtaxed school principals to dob in the kids not going to school, track down the parents, if they can, take them off their income support for up to three months and tell them they have got three months to get the kids into school—and then presume the job is done. Well, it may not be. The coalition would never have put this on the plate as a stand-alone, simplistic, silver bullet solution to a complex, longstanding, difficult situation. We also would not further enforce the notion that this is a problem just for Indigenous families. We would have had a number of sites trialled across Australia, not just in Indigenous communities, because failure to attend school occurs across Australia, in particular in areas under great financial distress and with low socioeconomic status.
While of course I support anything that is going to help give children a decent education in this country, that starts from families being sufficiently resourced, sufficiently secure and functional, so they understand the importance of the child attending school and they can supply that child with the physical and emotional support they need to go to school. That includes a good night’s sleep, a decent meal, hearing them read—and if the parents are not literate, that is also a problem needing attention. I want parents to be very much a part of this movement to help kids stay in school. Under this legislation, parents are simply going to be the ones with their incomes removed.
I do not think this is good stand-alone policy. I think it should be part of a total package or strategy. Certainly, in Halls Creek in Western Australia, where a similar process was trialled, it worked. But, with the process that occurred in Halls Creek, there was a whole range of other measures in place and in parallel. I ask this Rudd Labor government not to go again for the quick headline or the quick TV show appearance. Let us be serious about this. This is a chronic and serious problem for a developed nation. It is a problem which, if not properly addressed, condemns a child to another generation of unemployment, alienation, poor health and lower life expectancy. So, while I support the principle of improving school attendance, I say, ‘You have got to do much better.’
The concept of mutual obligation is one that the Liberal and National parties are proud to take credit for. We pioneered mutual obligation in the area of employment services—the Job Network—over the opposition of the Labor Party in every case. The introduction of activity requirements and the dole diaries—all of these were measures which were opposed by the Labor Party.
Last year, we, the former Howard government, introduced legislation to quarantine the welfare payments of parents who did not ensure their children regularly attended school. So the concept of welfare quarantining is not one we are opposed to; it is one that we introduced—it is one that we support. There is a remarkable lack of consistency in the approach which is taken by the Labor Party on this issue.
When we were in government, the Labor Party was quick to criticise our Welfare to Work reforms, which were implemented by the former Howard government. It must be stressed that the measures we put in place were not designed to punish people. Rather, we believed very strongly that people should accept personal responsibility. We believe that, if you are supported by the welfare system, you can and should contribute back whatever your level of capacity.
When we look at the approach that the Labor Party have taken on this and look at the approach they take to the suspension of welfare payments, there is a double standard. As soon as the government were in, one of the very first actions they took was that the Minister for Employment Participation rushed to write to all employment service providers—all the providers of Job Network and the other employment services—and urged them to go easy on job seekers who did not meet their mutual obligation requirements. So they were urged not to breach people who did not turn up for job interviews, who did not turn up for meetings with their employment service providers or who did not turn up for their work for the dole activities. Before the new government had even completed their review of employment services, before they had even shaped the new employment services that they wanted to operate from 2009 onwards, the Minister for Employment Participation had already signalled that he did not want to see anyone breached, he did not want to see anyone reported and he did not want to see anyone penalised for not meeting their activity requirements. This letter was followed up by a letter from Malisa Golightly from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. It reiterated taking a more lenient approach on those who failed to attend appointments with their employment service provider, failed to attend interviews with potential employers or failed to attend Work for the Dole activities.
What this lack of consistency demonstrates is a much wider truth. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Kevin Rudd is very fond of the small picture. Paul Keating was someone who liked to paint on a big canvas. He was the Tom Roberts of the Australian Labor Party. He liked to paint on a big canvas. He had the big vision. Kevin Rudd reminds me much more of the guy who gets in the Guinness Book of Records writing the Lord’s Prayer 25 times on the back of a postage stamp. This is one of the problems that you have when you just pick up some thought bubbles and try to merge them together. We have the extraordinary thing after nine months where what we see with the Rudd government is that the sum of the parts is less than the whole. We have the left hand of the government not knowing what the right hand is doing. After nine months it is very clear that the government has run out of ideas and has run out of steam.
In the area of employment, the suspension of welfare payments for those who fail to meet any of their work obligations has in essence been abolished. But now Labor are saying that they want to adopt this system for parents if their children wag school. The logic of this escapes me. On one hand an adult job seeker who fails to attend an appointment, an interview or a mutual obligation activity on more than three occasions without a reasonable excuse will no longer be penalised; yet, if a child skips school, the parents may incur a non-payment period. We believe that parents are role models for their children. But we also believe that Labor should have a consistent approach to the quarantining or suspending of welfare payments. For whatever reason, the Labor Party are sending different messages to different constituencies. It is a very mixed message.
In concluding this speech, I want to make a couple of points about something that very few members of the government have mentioned: we do have, in every state and territory, truancy laws. These laws are not effective but, more importantly, they have not been enforced by the state and territory departments of education. We have information from the Bureau of Statistics that suggests that nationally there are 20,000 children of school age who are not in school. While we support the principle of this legislation, we have to question how effective, how practical, it will be. We are looking at just one set of payments going to the parent rather than looking at things like the truancy laws and the enforcement of them that is done at a state and territory level.
I would say not to expect too much from this legislation. The Minister for Education in her second reading speech, said:
It is anticipated that a very small number of parents will have their income support payments suspended and even less, if any, will have their payments cancelled.
So we are asked to believe that we will see big changes of behaviour without much of a stick being offered in terms of the welfare payments. The expectation is that we may actually see no-one having their welfare payments cancelled from this. If the legislation does operate in this way, it will be very similar to the state and territory truancy laws that are there. The laws are there and you can see them. They are good laws; they just do not work. They are not effective and they are not enforced.
Finally I would just like to say how clear it is that this is one of the problems of running a government by thought bubbles and just waking up one morning and deciding, with the hollow men, what you will come up with for the next media cycle. It does not offer much of a theme for the Rudd government. There is a remarkable lack of consistency in the way they deal with welfare payments and the quarantining and suspension of them.
I rise to talk about the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 and its effect on the people of my electorate of Swan. I rise not to oppose the bill but to speak about some of the areas that I have grave doubts about with this legislation. Today the member for Moreton spoke about his union time involved with schools and recognised the member for Canning for his time as a teacher. He seemed to intimate that their involvement with schools gave him and the member for Canning some exclusive rights to talk on this bill. I would let the member for Moreton know that, as a humble parent, I think I also have a right to speak on this bill. The member for Moreton spoke about his brother’s truancy record. I advise the House that I too have a truancy record. It is not something I am proud of but it gives me a life experience and an ability to comment on this bill.
Yesterday in the House the member for Parramatta made a speech about this bill, and I happen to agree with her—I do not favour punitive approaches except as a last resort. But the real issue, as also referred to by the member for Parramatta, is that this is a state issue and the states have sat on their hands and done nothing about this problem for years. In her speech the member for Parramatta said there is already a last resort at state level which is called prosecution. The member went on to state that historically this has not been used. Wouldn’t it be simple enough for the COAG to get their collective ‘no blame game’ hats on and solve the truancy problem at a state level, as it should be? My colleague the member for Cook remarked in his speech yesterday that this bill is a further measure in the Rudd government’s bid to cover the incompetence of the state governments.
As honourable members will know, the immediate effect of the bill is the implementation of the school attendance and enrolment pilot. The pilot, commencing from January 2009, will operate in six Northern Territory communities and two metropolitan locations, one of which will be Cannington in Western Australia, part of my electorate of Swan. Under the pilot, all parents who are also income support recipients will be required to notify Centrelink of their child’s enrolment at school. State education authorities will be able to notify Centrelink of a child’s nonattendance at school. Centrelink will then be able to advise the parent that taking steps to ensure school attendance is a condition of receiving income support.
Having not been consulted by the government on this important issue concerning my electorate, my electorate office contacted the Cannington branch of Centrelink for more details on the proposed measure. These hardworking Centrelink people, who as a result of Rudd’s razor gangs faced significant job cuts this year, helpfully informed my staff that the Cannington scheme will involve Centrelink customers of the Cannington, Victoria Park, Gosnells and Midland branches.
Among the schools that could be expected to administer this scheme is Bentley Primary School. Bentley Primary School opened on its current site in 1953. It was once a school of 900 students, with demountable classrooms dominating the landscape. In 1973 the current open area classrooms were built and the administration block established. It was the first school to participate in the school renewal program, and it was decided in 1991 to amalgamate the junior primary and senior primary schools. As a result, the resource centre was built to provide a state-of-the-art computerised library with accompanying art and music rooms. This resource centre, the Shelagh Shannon Resource Centre, acknowledges the outstanding services of Mrs Shannon, who was registrar from 1969 to her retirement in 1991. The original Bentley Junior School buildings were leased to the Islamic community in January 1994.
I provide the House with this information not to digress but to demonstrate the importance and the fragility of the services local schools provide. I had the pleasure recently of being invited to Carlisle Primary School to take part in their ‘Kick Around Australia’ celebrations. A diverse group of children took part in an extravaganza of kicking, handballing and banner-making fun. In my role as the Director of Junior Development for Perth Demons Football Club in the Western Australian Football League, I appreciate the efforts of the Carlisle Primary School and commend Sports Director Clint McNerny for his efforts in organising a great day.
When I read through Ms Gillard’s legislation, I asked myself one simple question: how will this affect the invaluable services that schools provide to the people in my electorate? In the case of Carlisle Primary School, how would the government’s legislation specifically affect their capacity to organise such events as I just spoke about? This is a question I shall come back to.
Before examining the bill before the House in detail it is important to consider the Western Australian state government’s response to truancy. The Carpenter government’s response to this issue extends to funds being provided to each district education office to develop a retention and participation plan. The plans must include processes for identifying and profiling the district’s alienated student population, prevention strategies for each phase of schooling, intervention strategies for those students identified as alienated, strategies to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for these students, and interagency collaboration.
SMS technology has been introduced to enable schools to alert parents about their children’s absence from school. However, there are reports that the technology is not working and that only a few schools are using it. I refer honourable members to an article by Y Phillips and J Strut ‘Schools wag SMS’ in the West Australian of 14 June 2008. There have not been any prosecutions for nonenrolment or nonattendance since the School Education Act 1999 came into effect in 2000.
This hands-off approach by the state Labor government is inexcusable. As always, when a state government fails—which is a frequent occurrence in Western Australia—it is up to the federal government to make up for the shortfall. In this context, it is appropriate to make my first point on the bill. I restate the fact that the states have always had responsibility for school attendance. The principle of compulsory education and the requirement that schoolchildren be enrolled in and attend school, registered for home schooling or eligible for exception is ensconced in state and territory education legislation.
What have the states been doing? I have recently made speeches in this House about the homelessness crisis in my electorate and about the growing violence around public transport nodes. These are both state issues looked after by HomesWest and the police department. Will the Rudd government step in and take over these state issues as well? When will the federal government in the new environment of supposed COAG cooperation ensure that the states are accountable for education and its integrity? How long must the people of Western Australia and Swan continue to suffer while we wait for some responsibility to be taken?
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this policy seems to ignore the recommendations of widely accepted research. According to US analysis of the research into effective truancy prevention and intervention, those approaches that have ‘solid research evidence for their effectiveness’ are intensive ongoing interventions involving well-defined attendance policies, parental engagement, family counselling, individualised plans, a team approach, trained school staff and ongoing evaluation. There is no mention here of extreme policies that take money away from vulnerable families. Indeed, the same analysis actually singles out financial sanctions against families and tying benefits to children’s school attendance programs as ‘not having an impact on truancy’. Evaluations of US school attendance programs found that case management, not sanctions, was the most important attribute of successful programs. Given the convincing nature of this research, I find it remarkable that this Rudd Labor government has chosen a big-stick option. Additionally, I am not convinced that in putting this legislation before the House the government has thought through the implications of the Privacy Act. To place such a burden on schools such as Carlisle Primary School would inevitably lead to resources being diverted away from events like Kick Around Australia Day and towards Rudd red tape.
I note the member for Warringah’s important contribution to this debate yesterday. The vital question he posed on privacy, which was summarily dismissed with carefree abandon by the member for Bennelong, has yet to be properly addressed. I repeat his question: will Centrelink have to provide all schools with details of those living on welfare? I also ask: will the principal of each school want to provide information on his students and their parents to Centrelink not only as a privacy issue but also as a social issue? Families have to be able to trust their teachers and principals and this legislation will drive a wedge into that trust. The feedback I get from teachers and principals in my electorate is that they do not want to be responsible for running a government stunt.
The government knows the legislation proposed is unworkable. The Tasmanian government has already indicated that. This boils down to another example of government grandstanding to catch media headlines. Given the points I have made, I object to the district of Cannington in my electorate being used as a trial site. Why does the minister not run this pilot program in her own electorate? That way she could keep a close eye on it.
Given all these problems and unanswered questions, it was not surprising to read a report in the Age on 26 August that federal Labor backbenchers were angry about the welfare policy announcement. Apparently most of the 18 members who spoke either opposed or expressed concern about the bill. The Deputy Prime Minister noted recently in her second reading speech on the bill that up to 20,000 Australian children of compulsory school age may not be enrolled in school. Something should be done to address this issue, but the flawed nature of the bill as it currently stands means that it needs the closer scrutiny of a Senate committee.
I agree that all children have a right to an education and it is the prime responsibility of their parents to avail themselves of the opportunities provided by the states and their education systems, no matter how run down they are. This is an on-ground issue which cannot be controlled from Canberra but which needs the lazy Labor states to ensure there is a cooperative attitude amongst parents of children and the education system in each state. In my role as the Director of Junior Development at the Perth Football Club I see what it takes for children in my district to improve their levels of competency in sport. There is no tricky scientific solution. The children who develop the quickest are the ones who have parents who are involved in their lives and who take seriously the responsibility of bringing up their children. It certainly is not punitive, last-resort stunts.
I will support this bill because its intent is honourable and correct, but I believe the process is wrong. When the lazy state governments pick the ball up and encourage people to take their children to school under any circumstances with programs that make it easy for the parents who struggle with the concept of educating their children, then we will see some real results. In my electorate a group of self-motivated volunteers have started a breakfast program at a primary school and, as a result, attendance at the school has increased. I applaud this simple and pragmatic program. Where was the state government when the program started? It was nowhere to be seen. It was done by the community and the champions of our society—volunteers. It was achieved by the efforts of people who really want to see the children of our communities at school where they should be with a non-punitive program. In closing, I urge the government to look closely at the effects and results of this pilot scheme and ensure it has the will and flexibility to implement necessary changes that will surely arise.
I rise this afternoon to say that the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 before the parliament seems like a good idea because it is a good idea that has been discussed in this parliament before. For that reason, I am not opposing the bill. I am querying, though, the bona fides of the government in bringing this bill to the parliament. It does represent a leopard changing its spots and I think the Australian public have a right to be, at best, curious but, at worst, deeply suspicious about this legislation. This initiative—if I can call it an initiative—seems to have had many announcements but not a whole lot of action or focus on implementation of the ideas it seeks to embrace, so I just wonder whether it is more of the politics of the stunt and the set piece event rather than the policies of sound government. It is very much in the government’s court to prove that it is fair dinkum about this and to back up the legislation that we are debating today with a concrete plan of action and some bona fides on the measures that it plans to put in place and to provide some justification to this parliament and to the Australian public about why this enormous change of heart when measures of this kind have been stridently opposed by the Australian Labor Party time and time again.
That is the context in which I make my remarks. The bill itself aims to introduce conditions on the receipt of income support payments whereby parents are obliged to ensure their children of compulsory school age are enrolled in school and that those parents are taking responsible action to ensure regular school attendance. The bill provides the mechanism to suspend or cancel welfare payments of parents who are considered negligent in this role, and previous speakers have discussed some of the practical implementation issues of how those judgements will be made, who in fact will make those judgements and, when a conclusion has been arrived at that someone has been negligent in this role, what happens when they take adequate steps to no longer be negligent in those responsibilities. I certainly recognise an added burden that will be placed on school councils, on parents and particularly on principals that might find themselves involved in this regime that seems to be very broadly outlined with a crayon in this legislation.
The Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 goes further than a bill that was introduced and passed by the parliament in the term of the Howard government. The previous government’s legislation permitted welfare payments to be quarantined in the event of bad behaviour by welfare recipients, such as not sending their kids to school or so neglecting their children that they were brought to the attention of the child protection authority.
It is not easy to determine how many children of compulsory school age are not actually attending school. Some place a conservative estimate at around 20,000 Australian children of compulsory school age who are not enrolled to attend school, but the data that is available—collected and published in New South Wales and Victoria—is that, on any given day, 10 per cent of the student population may not be there. If those figures are accurate and give a reasonable picture of the overall situation, we could be looking at 200,000 school age children not attending school on any one day. This is a staggering figure and it does not really capture the issue of irregular attendance—that is a more complex thing to draw out—but, in referring to those statistics collected and published by New South Wales and Victoria, it does raise the point that other speakers have raised: isn’t this what state governments are supposed to be doing? Aren’t enforcing truancy laws and the responsibility of jurisdictions to see that children of compulsory school age are attending school things that the states and territories do? Most people would nod their head and say: ‘Yes, it is,’ yet from what you hear in many of the contributions in this place, particularly from the government members advocating this measure, you would not think there was such a thing as a state and territory government or that there are responsibilities that those jurisdictions are charged with discharging.
This is an interesting context: what are the responsibilities on those state and territory jurisdictions to carry out their roles and responsibilities? If the Rudd government were consistent—heaven forbid—would you see a reduction in payments to the states and territories if they do not carry out their roles? That would be analogous to what is being done here in relation to parents, but of course you do not hear that, because that is not what this bill is about. This is not about ensuring that those with responsibilities carry out their role; this is about something else. You have heard people talk about the need for the Rudd government to look like it is serious about these things. We have the announcement but not the action plan, not the implementation agenda and not the evaluation framework to see whether this is actually working or not.
We look at some of the work that has been done in this area. In his paper to the Learning Choice Expo, Graeme Withers, a senior research fellow at the Australian Council for Education Research, suggested that there are many key reasons for unauthorised nonattendance at school, and these reasons ring true with, I think, the experience of anyone who has had an involvement with school age children. Issues include family relationships; family values and the emphasis placed on school attendance and the value of education as a platform for future opportunities; ethnic values; excessive home responsibilities; peer pressure amongst friends and, dare I say, amongst enemies where children are frightened or bullied into seeing nonattendance at school as an option in dealing with challenges that they are facing in the school environment itself; strong attachment to friends or siblings that might have lost their way; poor reading skills and therefore an inability to engage in the curriculum and to benefit from the learning that is available; anxiety about course deadlines—a no-show because there is work due; fear of bullying, which I have touched on; maybe dislike of particular lessons or units that they are studying or even of some of the teachers; and maybe a feeling of being disengaged because of perceived irrelevance of the curriculum.
I am quite familiar with that challenge, having been a former secondary school council president. Our mission was to offer an engaging learning environment for our secondary school age kids in the school community for which I was responsible for a period of time. We would offer a rich range of course opportunities that the young people would see as valuable, as engaging, as worth while and as connected to future opportunities, and we would make that effort to piece that story together—that participation and commitment to education at secondary school meant a whole lot of opportunities in future life. We made that our goal and saw very encouraging improvements in attendance and also in passion and enthusiasm. Engaging learning is an enabler that says to people, ‘I want to get involved; I can see the benefits of applying myself.’ We also recognised that we needed to tell that story to the parents, where households might not have had a parent who finished even their secondary education and the young person might have been getting a message that the value of their education was not as highly prized as we thought it should be. That was part of our work.
Withers believed there was no such thing as the typical early school leaver or truant and that there were a whole range of reasons for that kind of behaviour. States have always had that responsibility for school attendance, with legislative requirements in place that school-age children must be enrolled in and attend school. That should be implemented and governed by state governments. Where is the collaboration that is needed to make this work? Where is the effort that was made by the Howard government in putting together a collaborative and cooperative approach to tackling truancy, notwithstanding the at times less than full commitment and assistance of state and territory governments, mainly of the Labor persuasion? The policies and programs that need to be talked about to support this crayon drawing of a headline of a piece of legislation are what is going on in those schools and what is happening with school-age people during working hours.
It is interesting that we are focusing on those receiving welfare payments. My experience is that some of those families whose primary source of income is welfare payments are the most committed, the most available and the most engaged in the school community. They are the parents involved in looking after the canteen and helping with reading recovery programs. They are always there and can be relied upon for a school excursion or a sports day. Because this measure targets those on income support, the inference is—and I imagine that this is the government’s argument—that there is somehow a correlation between households relying on income support and school nonattendance. I do not think that is convincing. I do not think it reflects reality, and it certainly overlooks some of the experience that I have been exposed to in an outer metropolitan community where parents may have considerably long commutes to work—the latchkey kid phenomenon—and might not actually know about the school attendance of their children. That puts a different light on things and leads you to ask: what else is going on to address this range of problems—none of which are common or consistent and for none of which a single reason can be pointed to—that Graeme Withers talked about? Where are those broad initiatives to make sure school is engaging and that support is there for young people to attend? Where is the counselling and mediation, if that is required? Where is there some recognition of a need for exemptions around distance eduction and other options?
So this is an interesting bill. I suppose it is a headline bill because that seems to be what it aims to achieve—getting headlines. Why else would you announce it three times? You would get on with it, you would put together a comprehensive package and you would talk about what you are doing to implement and support the idea behind it. The idea is not one that this parliament is unfamiliar with. The coalition’s truancy initiatives, borne out of the July 2006 COAG agenda, agreed that jurisdictions would work together to address school attendance in Indigenous communities.
Mr Bowen interjecting
The member opposite says that it was all talk. Well, it was full of Labor state and territory Premiers. I wonder whether they are now feeling more inclined to do things of little substance and dubious consequence but high potential for harm when there was a more comprehensive program in place and we saw state and territory Labor ministers there for largely ornamental value. That seems to be something that is being developed very quickly by this government.
In April 2007 the meeting of the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs also agreed on the attendance—
Ms Macklin interjecting
It is interesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have two hecklers across the table and you are doing a stealth-like job influencing the behaviour of your colleagues—
The member should be allowed to continue his speech without interruption
and I thank you for your help! Had they been listening or been in the chamber hearing the thoughtful contributions of many of my colleagues, they would know clearly what our position is. That April 2007 meeting of the ministerial council agreed to get attendance data reported to the National Student Attendance Unit. Ministers also agreed to establish a process to enable the sharing of enrolment information among states and territories, particularly South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, to address absenteeism in Aboriginal homelands resulting from the movement of families between communities in the area. Those were the plans put in place by the Howard government, which was committed to achieving those goals. That is why the opposition is not opposing this bill, but, as I said, one is entitled to be extremely dubious about the motive behind it, given its announcement has taken up more energy than putting in place an implementation program.
In closing, it is interesting—
Ms Macklin interjecting
I am grateful that the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is here heckling me during this debate. She might actually want to do something about an issue relating to children at risk and children at risk funding. I have been contacted by the directors of the Kids Paradise Child Care Centre and by families in the community that I represent who are very concerned about a family with three children that is under great stress. Two of the children attending that childcare centre found themselves needing to be removed from their mother and placed in foster care. Had these children been assigned to a selfless family to receive that foster care, they would have continued to receive children at risk funding and the financial support of the Commonwealth. Instead, those children are being cared for by their grandparents. Those grandparents, who are not at all wealthy, who are in need of the support that would have otherwise been available had they been foster carers, are denied that support.
These children have been provided with a loving and caring household in a reasonably familiar family environment. Under the current regime that the minister at the table is overseeing, that family, those grandparents, are denied the very support that would help them in their role of caring for those children at risk. I am hopeful that she will turn her mind and focus in on that issue rather than playing the blame game. I have written to her about it—
And in 12 years you did what?
and I would be grateful if she would—obviously not now but in a more thoughtful, reflective moment—put her mind and energy to the substance of that concern, and then she would be in a position to do something to support children at risk. That would be a pretty worthwhile use of your time, I believe, Minister.
Whilst not rising to oppose the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 I do seek to raise a range of significant concerns I have with the bill. Primarily, the bill seems to lack any degree of substance or indeed concern. One could even go as far as to say that the bill is somewhat of a charade, that it was announced in the media to take the focus off a declining economy, perhaps. Not even Labor revisionists—and indeed the Labor storytellers—could spin some of this. Growth figures for the previous quarter announced yesterday of 0.3 per cent compared to 0.7 per cent the quarter before is something that a bill like this cannot cover up. New South Wales growth was in negative territory at minus 0.1 per cent.
The Labor caucus did not even know this bill was coming up. The majority of Labor members of parliament found out about this bill—and I assume this includes you, Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis—through the media when the spinmeisters put it through. When caucus met, 38 speakers lined up to speak on the bill—35 against and three for. The Labor members did not even know the bill was coming. They heard about it in the media and the majority disagree with it. This is the genesis of this bill that this government seek to bring forward—a bill that is disingenuous, a bill that is designed to hide an economy that is going downhill because of a lack of confidence of Australian people in the Treasurer and, indeed, the Rudd Labor government.
Furthermore, the bill is steeped in duplicity. It seeks to force parents to make children go to school and then to punitively punish them if the kids do not go. Yet the Minister for Employment Participation has previously written to the Job Network providers and to Centrelink saying: ‘Go soft and have compassion on those looking for work. Go soft and have compassion on those who are seeking work for the dole and those responsible for mutual obligation.’
The government released the new employment services discussion paper on 16 May 2008 which said that negligent job seekers on the dole would not face automatic suspension after three strikes; rather they would be referred to comprehensive assessment. Furthermore, on 16 May the Age reported that the minister said, ‘We are not going to allow children to be affected adversely because of a breach by a parent.’ In the workplace participation area, we have a minister saying: ‘Don’t go hard on the parents if they do not want to go to work. It’s all right; they do not have to go to work. Show compassion. We are not going to allow children to be adversely affected because of a breach by a parent.’ But on the other hand, in a hypocritical and duplicitous manner, the government say about the same parent: ‘It’s all right if you don’t go to work. We don’t want to adversely affect your kids. But, if the kids don’t want to go to school, we’re going to punish the entire family by taking away welfare payments.’ The duplicity is outstanding even for this ‘hollow man’ government.
In the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act 2007, the Howard government said it permitted welfare payments to be quarantined in the event of bad behaviour by welfare recipients—that is, not sending their children to school or neglecting them. This struck the right balance. There was no need for any further act of parliament. This again reinforces that the only reason a government would bring this to the parliament without telling any of their Labor members, and letting them find out about it in the news, is that it is a charade. It is an act to cover an economy that is slowly going downhill because of an incompetent frontbench. This bill goes to quarantine, suspend and potentially cancel welfare payments to those parents who apparently do not properly do their job. It is not a problem if the parent does not want to get a job—no drama at all—but if they do not do their job at home the family will be punished. I think the average Australian can work out their hypocrisy in that.
The cancelling of welfare payments includes, of all things, social security pensions, social security benefits, service pensions and income support payments but does not adversely affect family tax payments. So this government is happy to say to veterans, ‘You can do everything you can to help your kids go to school, but if they don’t go we’re going to hit your service pension.’ The hide of this government to look men and women in the face who have faced bullets and war and danger and suffering, and say, ‘We’re going to take the pension away because your child doesn’t want to go to school’—without offering a range of incentives, support and help, they are going to say that to veterans. But I guess this is in line with what this Labor government put through in the budget—it took away $110 million of veterans entitlement. I guess they are consistent in their seeming dislike for veterans.
I agree with the government that bad behaviour should have consequences—
Mr Bowen interjecting
as the Assistant Treasurer nods his head. Bad behaviour should have consequences. However, the Labor ‘nanny state’ should not be telling families how to raise children. It should be following the previous Howard line to permit welfare payments to be quarantined in the event of poor behaviour by welfare recipients. This bill is rushed, and anything rushed that has not been thought through will have unintended consequences. The unintended consequence of this bill is that it will be completely, utterly and totally ineffective.
Punitive actions are not always the best responses. That is difficult, I know, for a party controlled by unions to understand. Punitive actions do not always work. Some argue that you catch more bees with honey than, indeed, with vinegar. This bill lacks a range of support measures needed to attract kids to school. Some schools are doing things like providing free breakfasts for kids from families where they are not getting fed, providing a range of extra support and tuition, and offering a range of activities that connect more with the culture of the day. These things are appropriate and relevant.
The bill singles out needy families for punishment. If you are a wealthy family and your kids are going to school, ‘We’re not going to do anything,’ says the Rudd government. But, if you are hurting, if you are needy, if you require support, ‘We’re going to kick you so hard in the guts, it will give you a nosebleed’—that is what this legislation says. For a party that stands up here and purports to represent working families, this is an appalling piece of legislation that has not been thought through.
Firstly, this is a state responsibility. The two ministers at the table should understand by now that this is a state responsibility. There comes a time when the federal government has got to stop bailing the Labor states out—difficult, I know, for a government that is putting aside $40 billion in slush funds to help their Labor mates out. But this is a state responsibility.
The Courier Mail reported on 7 April that in my home state of Queensland hundreds of Queensland students are skipping classes undetected and are not even enrolled in school. Yet only one parent was prosecuted in 2007 for failing to ensure their child attended school. The parent pleaded guilty but no conviction was recorded and they were placed on a six-month good behaviour bond. Minister Welford, the education minister for Queensland schools, said that a system was in place which involved phoning parents and holding meetings with them to ensure their children returned to school. Yet a report the Labor state government of Queensland refused to release actually showed that 800 students at Logan High School alone were absent for a third of the school year. Education minister Welford also admitted there was a problem.
The government believes that taking all of the parent’s money is one of the answers. Labor is looking to remove, at its worst, the funding from 800 families in Logan, one of the most socially disadvantaged areas between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. I believe it is held by the member for Rankin—has anybody told the member for Rankin that the parliament is looking at passing legislation that will take away the very support that 800 families in one of the most socially disadvantaged areas of Logan need? Has the member for Rankin been told that 800 families will be suddenly thrust onto the poverty line if this continues, based on current statistics?
Minister Welford, whilst admitting there was a problem, said that prosecuting parents was not the answer to combating the truancy problem. Has anybody told Minister Welford that, apparently, the Rudd government is actually going to take away their very means for survival? Based on this, and based on the comments that Minister Welford has made, I doubt very much whether the states are likely to agree to the collection of data. Minister Welford would not even release this report on truancy. The Courier Mail had to uncover it through the ways and means that the press gallery is used to. He would not even be upfront with the people of Queensland to say that these are the problems with truancy and kids not going to school. He was not even willing to engage the people of Queensland in a discussion on the issue. It is farcical—almost comical—to think he is happy to engage with this Labor government to publish these figures and to remove welfare payments. On the data right now, 800 families in Logan, one of the most socially disadvantaged areas in South-East Queensland, would have their payments removed.
Considering that, I doubt whether schools are likely to report. Why would schoolteachers and school principals start reporting data to Centrelink when they do not think they ought to report that data to their own head offices—and which their head offices have shown they are not willing to report to the people of the state? Why would they report this data when the consequences of that reporting would mean the family about which they are reporting would be totally without income? Many of these schools are running programs like providing breakfasts, extra tuition assistance, and phoning parents and other siblings to find out where schoolkids are. They are running these programs because teachers genuinely care about the children. Why would a teacher, who has gone out of their way to run a range of programs, who genuinely cares about children, make that phone call that would see that child’s family thrust into impoverishment? What will the schools in Logan do? What will they do about 800 families with children who have missed a third of the year? If the two ministers opposite think those schools will call Centrelink and say, ‘You know what? Eight hundred children from the most disadvantaged homes in the state are not coming to school. The best thing we can do is knock out all their money—that will get the kids to school,’ then I think they are on a planet different to mine.
The final point to consider is: as this government moves to punish a family for the failure of one child, what will the impact be on the other siblings? Let us take a hypothetical situation of mum, dad and three kids, with two children working their guts out and mum choosing to stay at home to take care of the kids. There is little support from the government—this government believes in supporting mums who go out to work with a 50 per cent childcare rebate; but if you want to stay at home and take care of the kids, there is nothing in that respect. Dad is out working, mum stays at home, there are three kids, and they are doing it tough with the mortgage. One of the children does not want to go to school, not matter what assistance, love, care or support is provided—and it is reported to Centrelink. There are two children busting their guts at school—studying hard with a vision for what they want their lives to be, a plan for how they see their futures—but one of their brothers just does not connect with the schooling system. It goes to Centrelink, and Centrelink speaks to the family resulting in 28 days and a range of things in place. The kid still does not want to play. Suddenly this legislation will take away the entire family’s income. It will punitively push the two siblings that are busting their guts onto the poverty line because of one other sibling. And you have the hide to look me in the eye and say that you know what it is to be a working family, and to stand up for working families.
This bill is a charade—it is a disgrace. It is an absolute cover-up for an economy that is hurting. This bill will be so ineffective and will not achieve anything because the reporting will not be in place, the states will not play, Centrelink will not play and the schools will not play. We will not oppose the bill because Labor needs to understand the consequences of their own poor legislation. It is not the coalition’s responsibility to save a rudderless Rudd government from itself. Minister, it is not my responsibility to save you from your own decision-making and from your own poorly, rushed-through judgements. It is up to you to save you from yourself; it is up to you to face the consequences of moribund legislation.
This bill needs to be referred to a Senate committee. It needs an enormous amount of scrutiny because that scrutiny has not occurred. The Labor caucus was not informed. No-one on the Labor Party back benches knew about it. It was announced in typical Prime Minister Rudd style to catch a media headline without thinking it through. I only hope a Senate committee will go through it, point out the range of egregious errors of judgement that the bill is predicated on and seek to bring back to the House a bill that makes a lot more sense and is in the nation’s greater interest.
I thank the House for the opportunity to sum up the second reading debate on the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 following its introduction by the Minister for Education. For the benefit of the member for Fadden, who has just spoken, I reassure him that most of what he said is wrong and I will go through all the details of that in my summing up remarks so that he can correct the record when he is speaking to his constituents. The same applies to the member for Dunkley. I thought it was unfortunate that he finished his remarks on a very personal case which related to some people in his electorate who very much deserve our support. I can respond here—and, of course, I will respond in writing as well—by saying that he would be aware, because the rules for grandparents have been in place all the time that he has been in the parliament, that people who are on an income support pension can receive the grandparent childcare benefit which pays the gap in childcare costs. Grandparents also receive all the family tax benefits for the child if they are assuming the care of the child. These are very difficult issues faced by grandparents who have the task of taking on the care of their children. I think it is appropriate that these matters be dealt with in a much more sensitive manner than the member for Dunkley chose to do.
The bill represents a very significant step in the government’s broader agenda to reform the welfare system to make sure that we provide the support that families need and to protect vulnerable children. This bill is all about giving effect to measures that were actually announced in the 2008-09 budget under a $17.6 million package of welfare reform initiatives, with this bill enabling implementation of the improving school enrolment and attendance through welfare reform measure. Under the initiative, parents in the trial sites who receive income support will need to give Centrelink evidence that their children are enrolled in school. This will be a condition of receiving the welfare payment. If a school reports that a student is not regularly attending school, that student’s parents may have their income support payments temporarily suspended if they do not take reasonable steps to engage with the school and the school continues to be dissatisfied with the child’s attendance.
The bill gives legislative authority for the trials of these measures. In both June and July I announced the locations of the trial sites in the Northern Territory and in the suburbs around Cannington. Another trial site in another metropolitan area is also under consideration. We expect that these trial sites across Australia will cover around 3,300 children. Without this legislation, these trials would not be able to proceed. If the trials are successful in getting children to school and keeping them in the classroom, the legislation will allow, after a proper evaluation, for the rollout of the policy to other areas.
It has been estimated that around 20,000 Australian children of compulsory school age may not be enrolled or regularly attending school. Many more are not attending school regularly enough to meet any reasonable benchmark. The government’s view is that we have to explore every single avenue available to us to fix this problem. I think it is important that we remember that each and every one of these 20,000 children will have their life opportunities constrained or diminished as a result of not going to school. Part of the way to fix that is to find ways of encouraging greater parental responsibility so that parents are making clear their expectation that their children will go to school.
This is a very important part of our child-centred approach to family policy. We are taking a number of other initiatives in our efforts to make sure that we support disadvantaged families, including the development for the first time of a national child protection framework, our early childhood development agenda, a national plan to reduce violence against women and children, and our homelessness strategy. We have a number of very significant initiatives aimed at making sure that disadvantaged children in particular grow up in happier and healthier families. These strategies are all about making sure we improve support for families.
Consistent with this, we as a government have a responsibility to make sure that the money that is made available from the Commonwealth to families—in this case, welfare payments—is put to the use for which it was intended: that is, to help families provide a safe and supportive environment to raise children. That is why in the 2008-09 budget we had a package of welfare payment reforms designed to assess a range of different approaches to improve the quality of care provided by disadvantaged families to children. I just touch on a few of them. Firstly, there is the approach to income management in prescribed communities in the Northern Territory. That will cost more than $63 million in this year alone. Secondly, we have an agreement with the Western Australian government to implement the income management for child protection measure, under which the Western Australian government department for child protection can refer parents who neglect their children to Centrelink for income management of a portion of their payments. That will cost $16.9 million this financial year. Thirdly, we are supporting the introduction of the Cape York welfare reform trials, where welfare payments can be linked to meeting parental and community responsibilities. That will cost $12.6 million this financial year.
The legislation before the House asks that parents meet a basic responsibility that each and every one of us as parents has—to take reasonable steps to make sure that their children are enrolled in and attending school on a regular basis. It does not of course require that children never miss a day of school. Of course we understand that children get sick. We also understand that some children have unsatisfactory school attendance despite the best efforts of their parents. But we do think it is reasonable to require that parents work with the school and education authorities for the benefit of their children.
There is another correction I need to make to comments made by those opposite: the bill does not change the balance of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Like the child protection measures that we have put in place in trials in Western Australia and in Cape York in Queensland, this bill involves the Commonwealth working in partnership with our state colleagues, each of us using the tools and powers that we have as governments to try and achieve positive outcomes for our children. This government will be introducing this initiative—I gather with the support of the opposition, even though they made a lot of noise along the way. We will be evaluating the initiative along with other welfare reform initiatives, and we will use this evidence to shape our further policy development and implementation. This is a trial.
We know that there are at least 20,000 children either not enrolled at or not attending school, and it is important that we try new approaches and use all of the tools available to us to get those kids to school. We know that issues such as poor school attendance and child neglect do not generally occur in isolation either. There are very strong links between disengagement from school, childhood neglect and other social exclusion factors that come from homelessness, drug and alcohol issues and joblessness. All of these issues together can be helped by this measure. Some critics have argued that the welfare payment reform approach is paternalistic or punitive. I actually see it quite differently. Given the adverse and lifelong consequences of non-attendance at school, I think that we, all of us in this parliament, have a responsibility to use and evaluate the full range of tools that we have at our disposal to improve the life chances of Australian children.
There are a number of misapprehensions about this initiative that have appeared in the debate in the parliament and also in the media. I just want to go through some of them to clarify these issues. First of all, parents will not lose payments where they cannot, after all their best efforts, control their child’s behaviour. This legislation is quite clear that parents should take reasonable steps to ensure their child is enrolled at and attending school. If, despite these steps, a child persists in truanting, this will not affect a parent’s payment. We certainly recognise that, especially as children get older, no matter how hard some parents try, they just cannot get all of their children to school. So if parents are trying their best and if they are doing everything they possibly can that is reasonable to get their kids to school, this measure will not apply to them.
The measure does allow schools who are having difficulty engaging with parents to ask Centrelink to remind parents that they have an obligation to make sure that their children go to school. If parents continue to ignore both the school and Centrelink then normal Centrelink procedures, including payment suspension, will apply. I think this is the other thing that many commentators, including members opposite, do not seem to recognise. It is normal, current Centrelink practice—which existed all through the time of the Howard government as well—that if an income support customer repeatedly fails to engage with Centrelink then their payments can be temporarily suspended for up to 13 weeks. They are the rules now and they were the rules under the previous government; they are rules that are necessary to make sure that people engage in a proper way with Centrelink. It occurs, for example, when there is no response to requests from Centrelink for information about a person’s income or their current address details. Suspension is not the first step; it is the last step. If a family is in this situation, they will be offered case management for support from schools and from Centrelink social workers before any consideration is given to suspension.
Another important correction to make is that suspensions are not designed to last for 13 weeks. In most cases, we actually expect that the suspension will only last for a few days until the parents re-engage with Centrelink and their school. This is the way in which the suspension mechanism currently works with Centrelink in the areas that I have already mentioned. Once the re-engagement with Centrelink and the school occurs, then full back pay for the days that the parent had refused to engage will be provided. In these cases, parents are plainly not going to lose their benefits. The approach is fundamentally different—and this is also an important correction that needs to be made to comments made by those opposite—to the eight-week non-payment period penalty faced by job seekers not meeting their obligations. I think it is critical that those opposite get that right. The privacy of parents on income support will also be respected. Schools will not be given a list of families on income support. The details of how the data exchange will operate are being negotiated with the states, but there certainly will not be a wholesale release of data by Centrelink.
There were some specific questions asked by the member for Warringah. I want to respond to those. He asked whether or not we are going to be able to implement these measures in the trial sites as we have announced. I can inform the House that preparation for these measures is well underway with both the Northern Territory government and the Western Australian government, and the measures are expected to apply from the beginning of the next school year. Once again to respond to the member for Warringah: there are no savings to the budget. No savings have been factored in because, as I have just indicated, where re-engagement by the parent occurs, full back pay is going to be provided. We do expect that parents will respond and make sure that their children go to school. The member for Warringah wonders whether we have agreement with the respective governments. To respond to his third concern: we have got agreement from the Northern Territory and Western Australian governments. We are in the process of developing protocols in the areas where the trials will take place and developing the protocols for the necessary exchange of information. Any suggestion that that has not taken place is just wrong.
It is also critical to make plain that this is not a measure that is targeted at Indigenous children. We recognise that Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in many parts of Australia are not attending school. The trial sites that we have identified in the Cannington district in Perth is in an ordinary suburb in Perth. Even in the communities and towns in the Northern Territory, there is a mixture—Hermannsburg, Wallace Rockhole, Tiwi Islands, the town of Kathryn, Kathryn Town Camps and Wadeye. And, as I mentioned earlier, the final site will also be in a metropolitan area.
Some critics have also argued that we should be working on improving schools and providing more support for children who are struggling rather than focusing on increased parental responsibility—as though the approaches in some way are mutually inconsistent. As far as we are concerned we cannot see any reason why we should not be doing both things at once, and we are. Just last week we say saw the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister setting out our next chapter for the education revolution, improving quality teaching in school, measuring school performance, helping our disadvantaged school communities. All of these areas are critical to improve the quality of education across the country. All those things are necessary, but children are not going to get a world-class education if they do not turn up to school. The measures in this bill will ensure that the education revolution actually works for those children who at the moment are either not enrolled to go to school or not attending on a regular basis. Each and every one of them needs to go to school to make sure they get the advantage of the improvement to education that we are putting in place.
Welfare conditionality linked to school attendance does work best when combined with other support services—that is absolutely true. That is especially the case with direct case management. The school enrolment and attendance trial will in fact be delivered in this way, with Centrelink and schools working very closely with communities. The trials will operate to trigger specific case management where children are not being supported to attend school. Results in the selected locations will be carefully monitored and evaluated to provide an evidence base for us to go ahead in this area. I do think that the trials will also help us to improve child protection systems. We are all very well aware, each and every one of us, of the very distressing cases of neglect or abuse where children involved were not enrolled to go to school. So linking welfare to enrolling children will actually help make sure that those children do not fall through the cracks. If children are at school they are much more likely to come into contact on a daily basis with their teachers and principals, and with Centrelink. And if those children are being subject to abuse they will have a much greater chance for early intervention or rapid response if the teachers know about it.
The government very firmly believes that meeting basic parental responsibilities is a reasonable expectation to place on families receiving welfare payments. We obviously are aware that measures of this kind are controversial but we think they are necessary for a very simple reason: the consequences of not exploring every possible avenue are far too serious to ignore. Financial levers actually work. We have seen that most significantly with the measure the previous government put in place, which I support, where we saw a huge increase in immunisation rates following the introduction of the maternity immunisation allowance and the requirement that parents have their children immunised in order to receive the childcare benefit. So this is what it is all about—linking personal responsibility to financial reward. It can change behaviour. That is what these measures are designed to do. Suspension is a last resort but a necessary element of these reforms.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 proposes technical amendments to the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005. The bill’s first purpose is to extend the Roads to Recovery program from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2014. Insofar as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the opposition welcomes the new government’s decision to continue yet another effective coalition policy. As a regional member, I know of few government programs more universally popular than Roads to Recovery; it has made such a difference to country roads and urban streets. Roads to Recovery began in November 2000, with a decision by the then coalition government to provide a new support program for local roads of $1.2 billion over five years. Funding was allocated to all councils in receipt of financial assistance grants according to the traditional formula used to distribute Commonwealth road funding to councils.
In January 2004, after a review in 2003, the coalition government announced that a further $1.2 billion would be provided over the four years from July 2005 to June 2009; from that date, it became a component of AusLink. This was supplemented in the 2005-06 budget with a bonus $307.5 million payment to provide an extra boost to councils for their roads program in that year. Roads to Recovery has simple administrative arrangements and goes directly to local government. It recognises the virtues of local decision making, allowing councils to implement their own priorities according to their own requirements.
I welcome the fact that the government has resisted the ongoing demands of the states to have this funding passed through them or to be administered, no doubt at great cost, by the states. The direct and largely unconditional payment of Roads to Recovery to councils is one of the great strengths of the program.
The coalition government recognised that much local road infrastructure in Australia was reaching the end of its useful life and its replacement was beyond the capacity of councils. After all, local governments are responsible for 650,000 kilometres of roads, slightly over 80 per cent of Australia’s total road length. Roads to Recovery is needed because the states have failed to provide adequate funds to local councils to meet their infrastructure requirements, and their own revenue raising capabilities are constrained. It took a coalition government to provide a practical solution, and it is deplorable that some of the Labor states actually used the Roads to Recovery funding as an excuse to further cut their assistance to local government. So some of the benefits which could have been achieved from this program were whittled away by state governments that were not prepared to honour their responsibilities to also fund some of these key road networks. Under Roads to Recovery, councils have delivered over 25,000 local projects. This amazing figure is testimony to what local communities can do when given the resources to act.
The former coalition government remained committed to this program’s success, providing $150 million in the first year of its operations in 2000-01 and then lifting that to approximately $300 million by 2006-07. In the recent election year the coalition government raised the amount further, pledging that the program would continue at $350 million per year from 2009-10. I note that the Australian Local Government Association in its last newsletter of Friday 29 August welcomed the minister’s decision to continue Roads to Recovery. We too support the government’s decision to continue this popular and effective coalition government initiative. It would be helpful if the Rudd Labor government could encourage its state Labor mates to provide enough funds to support their local governments the way they should. This has been an extraordinarily successful program, and it is great to see that it has now developed a degree of bipartisan support and that the new government is continuing it in the same form as it has served the community over the last five years or more.
The second purpose of this bill is to allow certain funds allocated under Roads to Recovery to be preserved in particular states or territories while arrangements can be made to determine the most appropriate entity to receive funds. There are parts of Australia that are not subject to local government jurisdiction. They are unincorporated areas in north-west New South Wales, outback South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. In terms of the provision of roads, these areas are subject to the jurisdiction of the relevant state or territory departments. I also understand that in Western Australia seven per cent of Roads to Recovery funds are provided for special projects, being divided up between bridgeworks and access roads to Indigenous communities. With regard to these cases, it has been necessary to preserve these funds while a suitable authority is found to receive and manage their expenditure. The amendments to this bill provide legislative clarity to this longstanding practice.
The third purpose of the bill is to amend the definition of ‘road’ contained in the act to put beyond doubt that future funding under AusLink may be applied to roadside projects such as rest stops, parking bays and decoupling facilities. The opposition has no problem with this change to the act, as again it gives legislative clarity to what is already occurring. I am puzzled, however, by the comments of the minister in his second reading speech on this issue. The minister said:
The bill amends the definition of a road so that it includes heavy vehicle facilities such as rest stops, parking bays, decoupling facilities and electronic monitoring systems.
The amendment to ‘road’ in the bill, subsection 4(1) after subparagraph (a) (v), reads:
... a facility off the road used by heavy vehicles in connection with travel on the road (for example, a rest area or weigh station);
Plainly this amendment has nothing to do with funding electronic monitoring systems. In fact, the act already allows funds under AusLink to be expended for such purposes. Section 30 of the act, entitled ‘What projects are eligible for approval’, states:
A project is eligible for approval as an AusLink Transport Development and Innovation Project if the project is for either or both of the following:
So I conclude from my reading of the act that the legislation already permits expenditure of funds for the purposes cited by the minister. I am left with the conclusion either that the minister has simply been careless and sloppy in his second reading speech or that the bill before the House is in fact silent on the electronic monitoring systems.
I would also welcome the minister’s clarification of the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. The minister’s media release said that the $70 million package was to fund ‘trials of technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed—one using an on board ‘black box’ or electronic log and one which makes use of the global positioning system’. The second reading speech makes no mention that this initiative is to be a trial. Likewise, from the section of the act that I read out, it seems clear that such projects are authorised only on the basis of planning, research, investigation and studies. So I would be grateful if the minister in his response to these remarks, whenever that might happen, in a week or two’s time, could reassure me that the funding package is, as he stated in February, for a trial only. There are other elements of the minister’s second reading speech which require clarification. It was poorly worded, but it outlines government policy on the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. This policy is apparently one of blackmail.
Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the Leader of the Nationals will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I inform the House that the Minister for Sport and Minister for Youth will be absent from question time today as she is attending the Paralympics in Beijing. The Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions regarding sport and the Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions regarding youth on her behalf.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. Could the minister please update the House on the status of the nine Australian soldiers wounded in Afghanistan and the overall status of operations on behalf of Australia?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition not only for the question but for the concern he has expressed over our soldiers and the bipartisan support we constantly receive from the opposition on matters operational, particularly in Afghanistan. Yesterday the Prime Minister confirmed that on Tuesday night, our time, nine Australian special forces soldiers were wounded while on operations in Afghanistan. The question from the Leader of the Opposition gives me an opportunity to provide the House with an update on their condition and their progress.
I am pleased to be able to say that our most critically wounded soldier made it through the night and has been sufficiently stabilised for transport to Germany, where he will receive the sort of expert care suitable for his needs. However, he is not out of danger, and I ask all members and indeed all Australians to keep him in their thoughts and in their prayers. I can also report that overnight the number of soldiers on the serious list fell from five to three, so that is more slightly good news. Those three soldiers remain in a serious condition, however. They have been stabilised and remain under care in coalition medical facilities in Afghanistan. The remaining five soldiers are in the hands of those who provide excellent care on base in Tarin Kowt.
The incident which led to these casualties is a reminder of the dangers faced by the men and women of the ADF on a daily basis. They put their lives on the line for others, for all of us. Their work is critical to global security and indeed to Australia’s own security, and of course they fight for a better deal for the Afghan people at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan. The work of our troops there is diverse. They are taking the fight to those who want to take Afghanistan back to the dark days of the Taliban regime and those who want to continue to use the country as a breeding ground for terrorists who seek to perpetrate their acts of terror right around the globe, including in our own backyard. Our Reconstruction Task Force continues to build social and economic infrastructure—hospitals, schools, roads and bridges.
The events of Tuesday night remind us that Afghanistan remains a dangerous place and that the challenges to the global community there remain enormous. But we must continue to meet those challenges, and we will. I know that is what the six soldiers we have lost in Afghanistan would want us to do, and I am confident that all those who have served in Afghanistan, including those many who have been wounded there, would want us to do that. They know how important our work there is.
I conclude by thanking all of them for their service and their sacrifices and by reassuring them and their families that the Australian people are a very grateful people for the work they do. I also thank in particular the families, including those loved ones who are nervously awaiting the next update on the condition of those injured on Tuesday night. Their sacrifices are also enormous, and too often the emotional pain they feel can be excruciating. Again, I ask all members and indeed the broader Australian community to keep those who are currently under care both in their thoughts and, of course, in their prayers.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House why responsible economic management is needed for Australia’s future?
I thank the honourable member for her question. Overnight it was confirmed that the economy of the 15 euro zone nations shrank by 0.2 per cent in the June quarter of 2008. It was the first quarter-on-quarter decline since the data series for the euro zone commenced being collated back in 1995. As the House would know, this comes off the back of negative or zero quarter growth among five of the world’s largest economies: Japan, a 0.6 decline; Germany, 0.5; France, 0.3; Italy, 0.3; and the UK, zero.
By contrast, what we had from the national accounts figures yesterday for Australia was solid growth of 0.3 per cent during the June quarter, 2.7 per cent year on year. As Chris Richardson, of Access Economics, said today, I think, or perhaps it was yesterday:
I think it will be a better balance for the economy; business spending up a storm is good news, …
That shows business is confident about the future and putting their money where their mouth is, and that is better for future growth.
I note what CommSec equities economist Savanth Sebastian has said:
Australia has delivered another fantastic economic report card given the economic conditions on the global front.
What I would say, rather than use those terms, is that Australia is not out of the woods yet. We have a lot of work to do. It is important to be upfront with the Australian people about how difficult the challenges are, particularly off the back of continuing global economic difficulties and off the back of the domestic economic circumstances which the government inherited at the end of last year.
Those circumstances, of course, were difficult. As the House has heard many times this week, if the economy has been buffeted by 10 interest rate rises in a row, it does have a cumulative effect on economic confidence and activity. That is just a fact. And if you translate that through, the impact of those 10 interest rate rises in a row for working families was a $400-a-month interest rate hike. That is what it represented—real money in the pocket. That is the cumulative impact of 10 interest rate rises in a row under the Liberals, delivering us, by the time the government changed at the end of last year, the second-highest interest rates in the developed world.
The question asked why responsible economic management was necessary, given the challenges which lie ahead. The global factors are those which we have addressed in the parliament during this week, and we are not out of the woods yet in terms of the roll-on impact of the global financial crisis. The local factors are those just described, but the impact which that continues to have on confidence in the economy, the confidence of business and the confidence of consumers is real. The key challenge, however, is to deliver a responsible program of action. And what we have done on that score is that we have embarked upon a strategy which, first and foremost, delivers responsible economic management of a $22 billion budget surplus, which is now under assault, by those opposite, in the Senate—$22 billion on which they are seeking to conduct a $6 billion to $7 billion raid in the Senate. That is the first plank of responsible economic management.
The second is to have a clear-cut national program of economic reform, and that is what the government has embarked upon in terms of the challenges of education, skills and training, to address the skills crisis and skills shortage delivered to this economy by those opposite, having ignored 20 consecutive Reserve Bank warnings. As a consequence of that, the government has embarked upon an education revolution. The Minister for Education, the Deputy Prime Minister, and I have been speaking to that and, most recently, announced the quality education reform agenda, which will be part and parcel of that, to boost the quality of our school education, to boost the quality of our teachers, and to produce an increase in the quality of our education, skills and training outcomes.
The third element of our response, of course, is a program of nation building—a $76 billion plan for nation building, which those opposite, again, seem to wish to undermine. And finally, part of our program of responsible economic management—to ensure that those opposite are fully mindful of it—is to ensure that, through the budget, through tax cuts and through what we have done by way of additional payments to pensioners and carers, we are assisting working families, pensioners and carers on the way through.
What I would say to those opposite as we come to the end of the sitting fortnight is to reflect carefully on the impact of their actions in the Senate on this overall economic strategy, because this $6 billion raid on the surplus in the Senate being waged by those opposite is the very definition of economic irresponsibility. We had volume 1½ last night and this morning—depending on who was counting the votes in the Senate last night and who showed up for the vote, and who might have showed up this morning. It is interesting that the Liberals were too busy at their fun-fest over here in the Great Hall of the people to actually make sure that people were going to roll up and vote in the Senate, so committed were they to their course of action.
But, on the luxury car tax, I think it is remarkable that, in the first defining vote of the new Senate on a major tax measure before the parliament and the nation, the Liberal Party stands up and says: ‘We the Liberal Party—this party with its eye fixed firmly on the past—are going to say that our first legislative action is to ensure that you can get a cheaper luxury car.’ That is what they have done: they have voted for a cheaper luxury car for Australia—saying everything, I believe, about the priorities of those opposite, and how they bleat.
Mr Hockey interjecting
Well, Joe: $555 million, which you have chosen to provide to the Porsche drivers of Australia, as opposed to $555 million for the public transport needs of Australia; $555 million for Porsches and $555 million less for public transport; $555 million for Rolls-Royces and $555 million less for urban rail—those are the priorities which those opposite have embraced.
Whether it is the luxury car tax or the Medicare levy surcharge—and let us go to this other element of the in-touch Liberal Party of the 21st century. Here we are in this week, where, for the first time in seven years, we have had an interest rate cut for working families, for those who have suffered those 10 interest rate rises in a row, and those working families, depending on the size of their mortgage, being benefited to the tune of $600 a year, on the basis of that 25 basis point cut. In the same week that working families get a $600 interest rate cut, the Liberal Party of Australia says that they are going to vote for a $1,200-a-year hike in terms of their taxes, through the measures that they are taking on the Medicare levy surcharge. So the Reserve Bank brings down, for the first time in seven years, an interest rate cut to save working families $600 a year, and the Liberal Party says, ‘We are going to reward you by giving them a $1,200 tax hike this year.’
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This answer has been going for 7½ minutes. If the Prime Minister wants to give a speech, he should make a ministerial statement. He is boring Australia! We want to keep them awake, and we want—
The honourable member will resume his seat.
The question I was asked was about responsible economic management, and I could not think of a more irresponsible course of action than theirs in the Senate—and that is why they are so sensitive about it, because they have voted to save Porsche drivers $555 million and not spend that $555 million on public transport. That is why they are so sensitive about it.
Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded?
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order going to relevance. I am told that the operational cost of this place is $11,000 a minute. And, from an economic perspective, we have got a $50,000—
Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member knows that a point of order is not an opportunity to put debate.
The Liberal Party have become so leaderless and have so lost their way—as the member for Wentworth, who looks at me with surprised and open eyes, knows full well—
Plan C!
Plan C, as the Treasurer interjects. The leaderless Liberal Party have so lost their way that they think the right thing to do for Australia is to provide luxury car buyers with a tax cut and take that $555 million away from public transport. On the Medicare levy surcharge, they think the right thing to do—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on standing order 92. The Prime Minister has now been going for eight minutes and 40 seconds. This is gold medal boredom and it is an insult to the parliament.
There is no standing order that sets down the length of time for answers.
Opposition members interjecting—
I understand from the hubbub around the chamber that people might have different opinions about the need for such, but that is something for the House to decide through its procedures.
I notice that certain Liberals were so bored last night that they did not bother showing up to vote, but that is a different matter altogether.
So we have, where the Liberals now stand on the question of the Medicare levy surcharge, a $1,200 tax hit on working families. We know where they now stand on the question of luxury car tax—that is, half a billion dollars for the Porsche drivers but not for those using public transport. We know where they now stand on RTDs—backing the big distillery companies. We know where they now stand on Fuelwatch—backing the big oil companies. We know where they now stand on GROCERYchoice—backing the big supermarket chains—and on the Medicare levy surcharge—backing the big private health insurance companies. It is about time that the Liberal Party stood up for working families instead.
We have a clear plan of action, a responsible course of action for the future. I would say to those opposite: why don’t you allow working families to get a decent outcome from the votes in the Senate—most particularly on what is happening with the Medicare levy surcharge—and a decent outcome for those who are crying out for action by the national government on urban transport? The leaderless Liberal Party of today has lost its way when it comes to providing any leadership for working families.
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the OECD’s standardised consumer confidence indicator and ask: why, despite a near record high terms of trade boom, has Australia experienced the largest drop in consumer confidence in the OECD in the period since the election of the Rudd government? Treasurer, why does Australia now have the second-lowest level of consumer confidence in the OECD, after Spain?
Mr Robert interjecting
Order! I call the Treasurer.
Mr Robert interjecting
The member for Fadden is warned!
I certainly do welcome this question, because we have another day and another position from the member for Wentworth. This is what he had to say in a press statement issued yesterday. The lead par reads:
Today’s National Accounts shows the resilience of the Australian economy …
But he wants to come in here all the time and talk it down. And, of course, in the Senate today we have seen the Liberal Party try to blow a further hole in the surplus, showing very clearly where they stand. They stand for people who are buying luxury cars. They stand for lower taxes on luxury cars. They do not stand for working families who need lower interest rates.
The Treasurer will resume his seat.
There is an issue to do with confidence—
The Treasurer will resume his seat.
Ten interest rate rises in a row—
The Treasurer will resume his seat!
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It hardly seems worth while, does it? Anyway, the Treasurer was asked: why has consumer confidence plummeted since he became the Treasurer? Would he please answer the question?
The Treasurer is responding to the question.
Consumer confidence around the world has hit record lows because of what has occurred in international financial markets. But those opposite want to pretend that, if they were still in government, the international financial credit crunch would not have happened. Indeed, that is what the member for Higgins said only a week ago. He wants people to believe that he could have controlled international credit markets, when he cannot even get a job in one. We have seen the colours of those on the other side of the chamber in the Senate, with their attack on the surplus. We have seen the philosophy of the Leader of the Opposition. It has been laid out in the Senate. They stand for big oil, fast cars and Bacardi Breezers. It is now clear the Liberal Party is being led by Robbie Williams.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Ireland led by the Chairman of the Dáil Éireann, the Hon. John O’Donohue. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the progress of the changes to the luxury car tax and implications for the budget surplus?
I thank the member for his question, because we do need a very strong surplus in these times of international economic turmoil. International uncertainty demands that we have a strong surplus as a buffer against that global turmoil and also to ensure that the Reserve Bank has room to move when it comes to interest rates and also to put in place critical investments for the future. Of course, the plans that those opposite have to blow a hole in the surplus of $6.2 billion are now well advanced with their actions in the Senate today.
We saw how confused they are on the economy yesterday when they could not even organise a raid on the surplus. They could not do that competently yesterday, but today they have rejected the increase in the luxury car tax. In so doing, they have indicated, as the Prime Minister said before, where their priorities lie. Their priorities lie in lower taxes for people who buy luxury cars. That is where their priorities lie. That is where the member for Wentworth’s priorities lie. Their priorities do not lie in lower interest rates for working families. They lie with big oil and they lie with people buying luxury cars. They do not lie with those people who are suffering under the Medicare surcharge levy. They certainly do not lie with working families. They are doing their best to ensure that the rate cut that working families receive this week may not necessarily be put in place again. The Liberal Party’s determination to blow a hole in the surplus simply means that interest rates will be higher for longer. That is the consequence of their action in the Senate. Those people opposite stand for higher interest rates and slower growth and their actions in the Senate have demonstrated that.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can I ask the Treasurer to table the document from which he was reading. He said that we are opposing the increase in the luxury car tax.
Was the Treasurer quoting from a document? Questions without notice is what we are at.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I refer the minister to the ABS industrial disputes data released today, indicating an 800 per cent increase in the number of strikes in the first six months of the Rudd government compared with the first six months of last year.
The deputy leader having made her point can put down the chart.
What is the cost to the Australian economy of this massive increase in strikes?
I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I note before she was interjecting, ‘I know nothing.’ Never a truer word was spoken in this parliament.
Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will get to the answer.
I will explain to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—
Explain this.
I will. Let me explain it to you because you need to understand something about the workplace relations system. Let me explain to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what has happened with the workplace relations system. People saw an avalanche or a tidal wave of extreme industrial relations legislation coming under the former government. Knowing that that extreme legislation was going to be put in place, people rushed to lock in their collective agreements before it took effect. As a result, many collective agreements were locked in at the same time and those collective agreements are now coming up for rebargaining. That bulge of numbers is the logical consequence of people seeking to beat the industrial relations extremism of the former government.
What is the point of order?
If the member for Melbourne Ports will allow, I will give the call to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and she will have the opportunity to tell you the point of order.
The minister was asked the cost to the Australian economy of the 800 per cent increase in strikes—
The deputy leader will resume her seat. The Deputy Prime Minister will continue her response to the question.
Thank you very much. Let me further explain this matter to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The figures clearly show that there are more collective agreements coming up for renegotiation as a result of this lock-in before Work Choices. Listen to the figures. The number of expiring collective agreements in the first half of 2007 was 1,676. The number of expiring collective agreements in the first half of this year is 4,948. Obviously that is a huge lift in the number of collective agreements expiring in this six months and coming up for rebargaining.
Honourable members interjecting—
The Deputy Prime Minster will resume her seat. We will continue when the House comes to order.
To further explain these figures, during 2008, we anticipate that a total of 8,239 collective agreements covering more than 770,000 employees will expire and come up for rebargaining.
Mr Simpkins interjecting
I warn the member for Cowan.
In total, this is 43 per cent of the 18,985 federal agreements current as at 31 December 2007.
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not use that chart again.
To further explain to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition something she clearly does not understand, when collective agreements expire there is a period of bargaining. Even under the extremism of Work Choices, during a period of bargaining—
Mr Speaker, on the point of order of relevance, this has nothing to do with the question that was asked. The question was: how much will this cost the economy?
The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question.
When agreements expire, even under Work Choices people can engage in protected industrial action as part of the bargaining system. Therefore, the more collective agreements expiring in a time period, the more likely it is that there are people taking protected industrial action.
On a point of order, this was a very specific question about what the cost of this strike action will be to the Australian economy. She does not have any idea.
The member for Dickson will resume his seat. He knows that he cannot come to the dispatch box under the guise of a point of order to put another debating point.
Just answer the question.
The member for Dickson will leave the chamber for one hour.
The member for Dickson then left the chamber.
Under the precedents and practice of this chamber, the question has been asked. The answer in response to the question is in order in that it is going to matters raised in the question.
I again make this simple point because, obviously with the level of disruption from the member for Dickson, I do not believe it was heard: the more collective agreements that are coming up for rebargaining in a period, the more protected industrial action that may be occurring in that period, because the only time in which protected industrial action can be taken is when people are rebargaining for a new agreement. Obviously, you are seeing the evidence of that in the number of collective agreements coming up for rebargaining in the figures. I say to the opposition that under Work Choices you could have protected industrial action.
On a point of order, the Deputy Prime Minister is asked the question: what is the cost to the Australian economy of the eightfold increase in strikes under the Labor government?
The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the point made in the question about the increase in industrial disputes, and she is in order.
As I was saying, under Work Choices you could take protected industrial action during a bargaining period. I do not know what is being suggested by the opposition here, but I take it that they have in contemplation a workplace relations system even more extreme than Work Choices. Presumably, under that system anybody who took protected action during a bargaining period would somehow be, what, shot? Is that what you want?
On a point of order, the minister is wandering off on another tangent. She has not answered the question. She has been speaking for nearly five minutes and has not even addressed—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat.
Presumably, we can conclude that, yet again, the opposition stands for something more extreme than Work Choices. These figures show a clustering effect of the number of collective agreements coming up for rebargaining. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spent five minutes analysing the issue, she would understand that. Of course, she is incapable of it.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Has the minister received any representations from members regarding infrastructure funding?
I thank the member for Dawson for his question and for his acknowledgement that nation-building infrastructure is critical for his electorate, and, indeed, that is why it is at the heart of the Rudd government’s economic reforms. If you actually listened to those opposite and their attitudes towards infrastructure and towards the budget surplus and if you analysed what they did in the Senate, you would think that they had no regard at all for infrastructure. We have heard allegations that these funds are not real, that they are not important and that it does not matter whether we make that long-term infrastructure investment. But, whilst they say that through their spokespeople in the parliament and whilst they act on that in the Senate by undermining the budget surplus, what they do as local members is very different. I have a folder here with 103 submissions from many of the members of the opposition frontbench. Thirty-five coalition MPs have made submissions to me about infrastructure spending—more than half of their frontbench. That indeed is what you would expect local members to do about infrastructure. Many members on this side of the House are also making submissions about infrastructure spending.
Government members interjecting—
I am asked to give some examples. You will be pleased that I am not going to go through all 103, but—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I ask the minister to table the documents.
Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat.
I have a letter from the member for Groom. The member for Groom asks for $700 million as the first step in a multibillion dollar project. I wonder what this project is. Well, the member for Groom has been keen on this project for some time because he promised it in his first speech.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I ask the minister to table my letter.
The member for Groom mentioned this in 1998—and you can all look on the website because first speeches are easy to find—and he promised that it would be finished by 2005. That was in his first speech, but he did nothing while he was a senior cabinet minister. He waited for the Rudd government to come to office and then he wrote me a letter. Congratulations! And I table the letter. But there is more. The member for Flinders wrote to me supporting the creation of a community infrastructure fund and put forward seven pages of projects worth $266.92 million. But there is more—
Table it!
You just be patient.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The minister will resume his seat. The House will proceed when it comes to order.
The more trouble that they are in, the louder they yell.
The minister will come to his response.
I got a letter from the member for Paterson asking for $20 million—
No, I want one billion!
He has now upped it to a billion. The member for Paterson asked for $20 million ‘to fund coalition election commitments’. That is a beauty!
Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I do not request that he table the letter; I demand he table it as well as the request from the member for Hunter—
The member for Paterson will resume his seat.
Those requests are from long-term members who could have acted on this in government. But you do not have to be around for a long time to ask for money from our long-term infrastructure fund. The member for Gippsland, who has sat in this House for seven days, wants $140 million—$20 million a day. That is his sitting fee! That is the National Party for you. That is an extraordinary effort. But we know—
An opposition member—What is your point, Albo?
You will get the point; it is coming, Sunshine! The fact is that for 12 long years—and indeed since the election, so for almost 13 years—we have heard those opposite say, ‘Public transport is solely a state responsibility; it has nothing to do with us.’ There was no engagement with urban policy and no engagement with cities. We heard it for 12 years—no engagement with public transport. And yet the member for Cowan has written asking for funding for a mass transit solution for Perth’s northern suburbs. He asks for funding for buses, for light rail and for rail. Not just that—remember how day after day they said the BAF did not matter and Infrastructure Australia did not matter? Well, they are not just asking; they are pleading. I will read from the member for Cowan’s letter. It states, ‘As federal transport minister I implore you to support this proposal through funding from the Infrastructure Australia Fund.’ Imploring!
Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I ask the minister to table the letter, but I also—
The member for Cowan will resume his seat—and I remind him of his status in the House today. Minister.
What we see from the coalition is that in one chamber—the Senate—they are voting against our surplus, voting to reduce the amount of funds that can be used on the Building Australia Fund, and in this House member after member is asking—pleading—for expenditure from the Building Australia Fund. In one chamber they knock it down and in the other they plead for funding. Well, they cannot have it both ways. The total funding requests in this folder are a conservative $6.9 billion. That is what they are asking for. But in the other chamber they are ripping out $6.2 billion.
What they need to do is to put the principles that they espouse in this correspondence and the principles that they talk about in their electorates about the importance of infrastructure funding into practice and vote for our measures, vote for the surplus, and support the government’s long-term infrastructure agenda.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I ask the Leader of the House to show some courage and table the documents.
Order! The member for North Sydney knows that, under the standing orders, he is only able to ask for the minister to table any documents that the minister has read from.
I have a very serious question that I ask on behalf of working families and I address it to the Prime Minister of this country. Prime Minister, during a recent trip from Cootamundra to the New South Wales coast, I counted more than 70 vehicles for private sale parked on the side of the road. Prime Minister, why are people doing it tough since the election of the Rudd Labor government?
I thank the honourable member for Hume for his question. The truth is that working families, pensioners and carers are experiencing great challenges when it comes to cost-of-living pressures. That is the absolute truth. What in practical terms do you do about it? I say this to the member for Hume: what you do not do about it is bring about a set of economic conditions which make it easier for the Reserve Bank to continue to put up interest rates. If you look at the cumulative impact of 10 interest rate rises in a row, what you have is the Liberal’s $400 a month interest rate hike that was imposed on working families. That is what those 10 interest rate rises in a row led to.
Our response is responsible economic management, which makes it easier for the Reserve Bank to act to bring interest rates down. That is what we have done in the nine months that we have been in office, as demonstrated through the budget that we put through this parliament in May and that was announced by the Treasurer, and which is now, in substantial measure, being threatened in the Senate by the party of those opposite. That is a clear-cut course of action.
The second thing that you can do to assist working families under financial pressure is to honour your pre-election commitments on tax cuts, which is what we have done with a $44 billion package to reduce taxes for low- and middle-income earners. The third thing you can do, in practical terms, is to assist families dealing with the cost of child care, which is why we took a commitment to the Australian people to increase the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent—and that was honoured as of 1 July this year. These are practical measures which assist working families balance the budget, given that they are under enormous cost-of-living pressures.
I tell you what does not help the challenges faced by working families: the action of the Senate—which I presume the member for Hume is supporting through his party in the Senate—to vote against the government’s measures on the Medicare levy surcharge. If you look at the maths of that and how it flows through to families, for a family on a combined family income of, say, $120,000 a year, the measure we are putting forward would save that family $1,200 year—and that means something in the order of $20-plus a week. I would suggest to the honourable member for Hume that that is a practical measure, again, where he could help working families under financial pressure.
These are the practical actions which a government committed to dealing with these challenges have advocated. I would strongly say to the honourable member: get with the government’s program in the Senate—get in particular with the matter which is yet to be voted on, the Medicare levy surcharge, because that is a real potential hit on working families who continue to do it tough in Australia.
My question is to the Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Social Inclusion. Will the minister please inform the House of the government’s progress in delivering its education revolution and how it compares to the legacy of previous governments? Is the minister aware of any risks to Australia’s education system?
Of course the government are committed to an education revolution and we are doing that because we want every child in this country to have a world-class education. I know the members of the opposition are in a sour mood today, because last night they had their big shindig—listening to Memories, The Carnival is Over and Yesterday while having glasses of red wine—and this morning they have woken up a little sore in the head and with a sour taste in their mouths, but if they could just try and concentrate for one moment. While they are living in the past, we are committed to making sure that the children of this country get a first-class education in the future. We are committed to overcoming the neglect of more than a decade of the former government—six years of it under the personal administration of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. For a reason best known to themselves, they are all pretending to be characters from Fawlty Towers today. They picked the wrong show; it should have been Seinfelda show about nothing! They all would have fitted into that because they did nothing in government.
Let me tell you, Mr Speaker: the Howard government released 24 reports on teaching and 76 on school education and it did nothing of substance to make a difference to the quality of education in Australian schools. The Rudd Labor government are getting on with the job of investing in Australian education—our $1.2 billion digital education revolution, our $2.5 billion investment in trades training centres in schools, our $577 million investment in literacy and numeracy, our $534 million investment in early childhood education and our $500 million we have already delivered to Australian universities to help them renew their ageing capital stock because they were bearing the burden of a decade of neglect, six years of it under the personal watch of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
But we want to do more and, in doing more, we have created the Education Investment Fund, an $11 billion fund to renew the capital stock of our universities and our vocational education and training sector. I am asked about the risks to this new fund. The risk to this new fund is the smash-and-grab raid that the Liberal Party has engaged in on the surplus. In pursuit of luxury cars, they are putting at risk our ability to invest in our educational institutions, particularly vocational and higher education institutions.
Mr Tuckey interjecting
I hear the member for O’Connor yelling out, and I can inform the member for O’Connor that this fund, in operation, would be able to benefit the University of Western Australia, which has a campus in Albany in his electorate. It would be able to benefit the Curtin University of Technology campus in Geraldton. Presumably, he does not want to see these campuses benefit and that is why he is supporting the smash-and-grab raid on the surplus.
I thought it was all going to public transport.
I hear the shadow minister for education also calling out. He has a campus of Swinburne University and TAFE at Lilydale in his electorate. The smash-and-grab raid his political party is engaging in on the surplus—
Mr Anthony Smith interjecting
That was the interjection you made before. The Education Investment Fund, you might not have noticed, is an $11 billion investment in education.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order regarding standing order 92: the Deputy Prime Minister has already exceeded her own four-minute rule. I ask you to direct her to conclude her answer.
Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the opposition have previously tried to apply standing order 76, which does not apply. Standing order 92 does not apply to question time.
Order! There is no point of order and the Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to see that, in opposition, the member for Warringah has finally found a copy of the standing orders—something he neglected for all those years in government. He never had one before, so something has improved in his life during the last few months. We want to see investments in universities—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 104 does apply to questions—that they should be relevant. The question of whether the member for Warringah has a set of standing orders is hardly relevant to the answer of this question.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. She will respond to the question.
Thank you very much. Now they are calling each other irrelevant. That is amazing. We want to invest in universities and vocational education and training around this country. The risk to that is the Liberal Party’s smash-and-grab raid on the surplus. I say to the Liberal Party: if they are going to continue on this smash-and-grab raid, they should have the decency to ring every vice chancellor and every TAFE director to explain to them why they do not believe their campuses are worth investing in. That is what they are putting at risk by their conduct.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his last answer, where he emphasised the importance of honouring pre-election tax commitments. Given that this budget increased taxes by $20 billion with no electoral mandate, will the Prime Minister guarantee there will be no new taxes in next year’s budget?
Again the Leader of the Opposition puts a question to the parliament based on an entirely false premise—that taxes have increased under this government as a proportion of gross domestic product. The only effective measure of the tax impact on the economy is tax as a proportion of GDP, and tax as a proportion of GDP has gone down this year relative to last year, relative to the year before that, relative to the year before that and relative to the year before that as well. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition study his statistics and work it out.
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. How will moves to block key budget measures in the Senate impact on the government’s plans for the future?
I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. Today we have seen the first instalment of the Liberal Party’s smash-and-grab raid on the government’s surplus in the Senate after bungling it yesterday. That first instalment is highly symbolic, because the Liberal Party are seeking to relieve the tax burden on the purchases of Porsches, Lamborghinis, Ferraris and other such vital modes of transport for ordinary working people. At the same time as they are seeking to relieve the tax burden for purchases of such vehicles, they are also seeking to keep the tax burden for middle-income working families arising from the Medicare levy surcharge—something in the vicinity of $1,000 plus, which the government is seeking to remove and they are seeking to retain. In effect, their message to these working families in that middle- to upper middle-income bracket is: ‘Don’t worry; it’s okay. We will allow you to get a tax break on your next Ferrari or your next Lamborghini.’ While they will still have to suffer the Medicare levy surcharge, if they are out buying a Lamborghini, a Ferrari or a Rolls-Royce they will be okay.
It is interesting that the member for Hume today had the gall to ask a question about battlers selling cars on the side of the road. It appears to me to be rather odd that the policy response from the Liberal Party on the cost-of-living challenges facing working people—the first big policy position they put forward in this parliament—is to cut the taxes on luxury cars like Ferraris and Lamborghinis.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take exception to making comments in this House on behalf of working people and being denigrated for it by a member on the opposite side of the House.
There is no point of order.
It is good to see, finally, that the opposition have a policy with respect to the cost of living. It is: ‘Let them drive Ferraris!’ Given the shambolic performance of the Liberal Party yesterday and the fact that their positions on what they are going to do in the Senate, and indeed on their leadership, have moved around over the past few months, we can be forgiven for not being entirely sure about how this is all going to unfold. I would urge the opposition again to rethink their position. We could actually get a change of heart. But we know that one thing will not change with the Liberal Party, and that is that their core priority is to stand up for the interests of high-income, wealthy Australians.
We do not know who their leader is going to be. We have seen over the past few months the member for Higgins appear on the horizon as a would-be saviour for the Liberal Party. You can see them huddled in corridors around parliament discussing this—the Messiah is potentially on the horizon for the Liberal Party.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How could this possibly be relevant to the question asked?
The minister will respond to the question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am concerned about the future behaviour of the Liberal Party in the Senate and the prospect of a leadership change. We have seen over the past month or two, courtesy of the member for Higgins, the longest striptease in Australian history. It is a very peculiar striptease.
The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will bring his answer to a conclusion.
Don’t mention scores. You wouldn’t want to mention scores, would you?
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!
I have come into possession of the member for Higgins’s budget report to his electorate.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Correct me if I am wrong, but you have just asked the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to bring his answer to a conclusion. Referring to some newsletter is not concluding his answer.
I will listen carefully and I will expect this to be the completion of the answer.
I just want to draw attention to one particular point in this newsletter—
Hold it up.
I will table it too, if you like. The first item of attack on the government is to criticise the government for failing to deliver the coalition’s tax cuts to high-income people on the highest tax rate, above $180,000 a year.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the minister table the document, please.
Has the minister concluded his answer?
Not yet.
The minister will conclude his answer and then I will ask him whether he wishes to table any documents, which is the usual practice.
Yet again, this indicates the true priorities of the Liberal Party. It does not matter whether they change jockeys; the horses will still be the same—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask if he will table the document.
Was the minister quoting from a document?
Yes, he was.
Excuse me! The member for Cook will resume his seat. He cannot ask for things and then answer!
I table the document.
The minister has tabled the document.
Mr Baldwin interjecting
The member for Paterson is warned!
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to understand proceedings: given your earlier remarks, are you indicating that requests for the tabling of documents should be made at the conclusion of an answer or are we going to see this new practice of interrupting an answer to ask for a document to be tabled?
The chair indicates that the preferred action is that requests for the tabling of documents arising from a minister’s answer be done at the end of the answer.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his previous answers today and to table 2 in Budget Paper No. 1. I ask the Prime Minister: isn’t it a fact that the only reason that tax as a percentage of GDP has declined somewhat is that the government has implemented most, but not all, of the coalition’s tax cuts which were set out in the pre-election financial outlook and that, if the government had implemented those tax cuts in full and not imposed $19 billion of new taxes in the budget, tax as a percentage of GDP would be lower still?
I might begin my answer with a continuation of what I thought was a first-class presentation from the finance minister. I will tell you what we were not prepared to commit to in any element of tax reform and that was providing a tax break for those highest income earners in Australia. The minister for finance was absolutely right: how those opposite could have gone to the election last year promising, from memory, $3 billion to $4 billion in tax cuts for those Australians earning north of $180,000 a year strikes me as passing strange.
The honourable member asked this other question about what other tax measures we have introduced to provide tax relief to working families. I tell you what else we are introducing: it is called the education tax refund. For the first time in this country’s history, we are providing—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It is a very straightforward question, and the Prime Minister should direct himself to it.
The Prime Minister will respond to the question.
The question was about tax and what the government has done on tax. We have been absolutely clear cut about honouring our commitments for tax cuts—some $44 billion of them—for low- and middle-income earners.
Secondly, we have been absolutely clear cut that, when it comes to the use of additional public revenues, we do not believe—as those opposite believe—that Porsche drivers need further income tax relief. Those opposite are about to give them a tax break in terms of the luxury car tax. But do those north of 180 grand need an extra $3 billion to $4 billion? I would have thought not. Therefore, what we did with that money—and I say this to the member for Wentworth—is we said to working families, ‘If you are spending money on your kids’ education in primary school and high school, you should keep those receipts and then, at the end of the financial year, we will provide you with a tax refund at different levels for both primary school and secondary school students.’ It is $750 a year for primary school students and $1,500 a year for secondary school students.
That is a measure which, from memory, cost something in the vicinity of $3 billion to $4 billion. We believe that is a very significant measure. For example, if those at home wish to add to the digital revolution occurring in the classrooms of Australia, as a consequence of the policies of the government, by assisting with their kids buying a home computer and getting internet connections at home, that becomes a tax deductible expense for the future. As a consequence of that, we are making it easier for working families to provide for their kids’ education.
On the question of child care, there is the increase in the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. I do not recall those opposite actually saying anything about boosting the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent prior to the last election.
So on the education tax refund, Member for Wentworth, you are wrong. On the question of the childcare tax rebate, you are wrong. On the question of your predisposition to provide $4 billion worth of funding for those north of 180 grand—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While the Prime Minister is going through his list, he could at least include a relevant answer to a relevant and important question.
Order! That is not a point of order.
He treats this House with contempt.
The member for Wentworth will resume his seat.
On those three measures that I have just referred to, the position of the government on tax is absolutely clear. But I go back to the fundamental premise of the question being advanced by both the member for Wentworth, the plan C for the leadership of the Liberal Party, and the current Leader of the Liberal Party.
Answer the question.
Order! The member for Wentworth has asked his question.
Is the member for Wentworth seriously suggesting that he is not out there counting numbers at the moment?
You are a joke. I’m seriously suggesting you’re a joke!
Are you seriously suggesting that you are not out there counting numbers at the moment?
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The latest comments by the Prime Minister have nothing whatsoever to do with the question, and I ask you to bring him—
The Leader of the Nationals will resume his seat. I will listen carefully to the Prime Minister.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My comments have everything to do with the answer to the question because they go to the future of the government’s tax bills in the Senate. If there is a change in the leadership of the Liberal Party, we will wait with interest to see what new posture will be adopted to the passage of those bills—whether it is plan A, plan B, plan Z or plan whatever in terms of the alternative leadership of the Liberal Party. I would say to the member for Wentworth that, given that he is so experienced in counting the numbers, they should probably think about appointing him as Senate whip, because they seem to have a problem with counting numbers in the Senate at the moment, too. If you are harnessing votes generally, Malcolm, I would suggest that your Senate whip needs a bit of help on that score, because it did not go so well last night.
You couldn’t even get a quorum this morning.
It is the member for North Sydney volume barometer again: when in big trouble, bellow most loudly.
Order! The Prime Minister will ignore the interjections.
I say to the honourable members who have asked this question about tax: the previous Liberal Party government was the highest taxing government in Australia’s history. Why do we say that? We say that because tax as a proportion of GDP reached 24.9 per cent in both 2004-05 and 2005-06. When we took over office it was running at 24.7 per cent. For the benefit of those opposite, get these numbers straight: 24.7 per cent in 2007-08, 24.6 per cent in 2006-06, 24.9 per cent from 2004 through to 2006, 24.5 per cent from 2003 to 2004, 24.6 from 2002 to 2003. The first budget brought down by this Australian Labor government reduces tax as a percentage of GDP to 23.8 per cent. That is the mathematics. You might find it very disconcerting, but that is the mathematics. And if you look to the forward estimates, it remains lower right out to 2010-11.
I would conclude my answer by suggesting that those opposite reflect on this: if we were to sustain in this budget—the one that the Treasurer brought down in March—the same tax to GDP ratio as we inherited from you with the last budget, do you know how much more we would be collecting by way of tax in the period ahead? We would be collecting $30 billion in more tax. If we sustained the Liberal’s tax as a percentage of GDP at 24.7 per cent, as opposed to the 23.8 per cent we had hit, that would be a further $30 billion tax hike on Australian working families.
I would say to those opposite, given their deep addiction to taxation, to do one thing for working families: tell your senators in the Senate to get behind the government’s program on the Medicare levy surcharge, as $1,200 extra a year means something to working families at the moment. If the Reserve Bank can give us an interest rate cut which produces for working families a reduction of $600 in their interest rate bill each year, the Liberal Party should at least not add to that by providing an additional $1,200 tax hike a year, which their current action in the Senate is contemplating.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Jennifer Rankine, South Australian Minister for Families and Communities, Housing and Disability Services. On behalf of the House I extend to her a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister explain the benefits of the government’s decision to raise the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds?
I thank the member for Longman for his question. He takes a particular interest in our government’s health policies, having recently secured $7 million for 12 new dialysis chairs in his electorate. But he asks particularly about the Medicare levy surcharge. Members might recall yesterday that I enlightened the House as to the reasons behind the setting of the surcharge, introduced by then health minister Michael Wooldridge, who told us that this threshold was devised over a bottle of Jameson’s whiskey late one night. I thought it might be a good idea to let the House know about a few other comments that Dr Wooldridge has made about this surcharge.
When the surcharge was first introduced, he said:
High income earners will be asked to pay a Medicare levy surcharge if they do not have private health insurance. These are people who can afford to purchase health insurance.
Now we have the current-day Liberal Party with the firm opinion that someone who earns over $51,000 is a high-income earner. Never mind that somebody earning that rate is now earning less than the average wage; in the Liberal Party’s eyes, if you earn more than $51,000 a year, you are a high-income earner. You are rich if you are over Michael Wooldridge’s Jameson’s whiskey threshold—hardly something to be proud of. But I am informed that this morning in the House, a Liberal senator for Queensland—in fact, I think the same—
In the House? It must have been in the Senate!
Thank you. It is good to know that the education spokesperson can help us out on occasion. I thank the member for that. In the Senate this morning, a Liberal senator from Queensland—and I believe it was the same senator who feels so passionately about the luxury car tax that she forgot to turn up—suggested that the Liberal Party’s position on the Medicare levy surcharge was all about choice. There is nothing wrong with choice; the Labor Party think choice is a good idea. However, the choice that the Liberal Party are offering working families is this choice: they can choose to pay for private health insurance or they can choose to pay a tax. That is the choice that they are offering.
I do understand that working families start to get nervous when the Liberal Party talk about choice. We know that the last time they talked about choice it was Work Choices. We know where that led; it was absolutely nothing to do with choices. Under the Labor Party’s policy, we are offering a real choice to these people. We know that family budgets are under pressure, and our measure would actually allow families to choose whether they want to spend their money on their home loan, whether they want to spend their money on groceries, whether they want to spend it on private health insurance or whether they want to spend it on child care. We believe in giving them a real choice by giving them the money in their pockets so that they can choose how to spend it. It is about time, if the Liberal Party were really about choice, that they supported our measure in the Senate.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the comments in today’s Launceston Examiner by the Tasmanian premier that he will be lobbying hard for a cut in fuel excise. Will the Prime Minister listen to his Labor mate and adopt our plan to take pressure off motorists and inflation by reducing fuel excise by 5c a litre?
I would ask those opposite—
Order! The Leader of the Opposition!
to reflect long and hard about their first action in the Senate, which is on the luxury car tax.
The Leader of the Opposition! The Leader of the Opposition!
The first priority legislatively for those opposite is to send a message to working families, pensioners and carers that they, the Liberal Party, stand for cheaper Porsches. That is their message: cheaper Porsches, cheaper Ferraris and cheaper Rolls-Royces.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question is about a cut in fuel excise. It has nothing to do with the issues the Prime Minister is talking about.
The Leader of the Nationals will resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister.
In terms of the cost-of-living pressures on working families, you have groceries, you have petrol and you have interest rates—and the impact which that has on home mortgages and rents—as well as the other challenges which working families face in balancing their budgets. The measure that was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply, which I notice was opposed by the member for Wentworth, and I think the member for Higgins and the member for Flinders—have you sorted that one out yet, by the way, as to whether it is official opposition policy?
The Prime Minister’s answer will go to the question.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Prime Minister cannot answer the question, he should save Australia and not give us any more gas.
Order! That is not a point of order.
Give us an answer.
Order! That is not a point of order, and I warn the member for North Sydney.
Again, it is a relevant question in terms of the future leadership of the Liberal Party. If they change to the member for Wentworth, will this policy they currently have be sustained? It is an entirely legitimate question.
The Leader of the Opposition! I warn the Leader of the Opposition!
It is an entirely legitimate question because the member for Wentworth had been backgrounding at the time how much he opposed the policy—I think the member for Higgins as well, supported by the member for Flinders. I think, on the calculations put forward by those opposite at the time, they said that this would assist working families by about $2 a week. I think that was the figure used by the Leader of the Opposition. I would say this to those opposite: the measure you are about to vote against in the Senate on the Medicare levy surcharge equals about $20 a week. That is about $1,200 a year based on the income profile I referred to earlier in the question.
The Leader of the Opposition!
Those opposite stand here and say on this measure that they are concerned about the price impacts on working families. We are offering, in effect, a tax cut for a very large number of those working families; you stand for a tax hike. The inconsistency in these positions is extraordinary.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government’s response to the crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin and outline any other responses?
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects, ‘A holding pattern’. What were the last 12 years? The last 12 years were, I would say, not just standing still but actually taking the entire debate backwards. They had 12 years to act on a climate change crisis which is impacting on the Murray-Darling Basin, and what did they do? How many gigalitres of water entitlements did they buy back after 12 years in office? Zero. Absolutely zero.
Mr Hunt interjecting
Order! The member for Flinders!
There is a direct proportional relationship between the loudness of their interjections and the absence of action during their period in office. The situation in the Murray-Darling Basin is serious. There has been some modest reprieve with some recent rains but, with the arrival of warmer weather, evaporation will start again to take its toll, and water levels are again expected to start falling.
If we look at the facts which we are presented with, we have just had the fifth driest winter on record, and that is out of 117 years of records. Normally storages would be starting to fill now but, while there have been some inflows, these are now below the historical average. Active storage in the Murray system is around 20 per cent capacity, and for the basin as a whole it is around 23 per cent capacity. These are the facts that we are presented with. This is a deep challenge to the entire Murray-Darling Basin system; in fact, the system is in real crisis.
I look also to comments made yesterday by the CEO of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Wendy Craik. She said that the current water shortage ‘has the fingerprints of climate change all over it’ and she said:
There are features of the current phenomenon that we find ourselves in—water shortage, drought, whatever you want to call it—that are linked to climate change.
We also have statements by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology in their technical report on climate change in 2007—when those opposite were in office—which say:
Recent Australian droughts have been accompanied by higher surface temperatures due to anthropogenic—
human induced—
warming.
If you look at the 2008 report of CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, An assessment of the impact of climate change on the nature and frequency of exceptional climatic events, it states in its conclusion:
About 50 per cent of the rainfall decrease in southwestern Australia since the late 1960s is likely to be due to increases in greenhouse gases. The autumn rainfall decline in southeastern Australia since the late 1950s may be partly due to increases in greenhouse gases.
That is what the scientists have to say. The Chairman of the NFF, David Crombie, said, ‘The NFF believes that climate change may be the greatest threat confronting Australian farmers and their productive capacity now and into the future.’
This is the challenge we face with the Murray-Darling Basin system now. We have clear statements from the scientific community, from those representing farm organisations and from those representing the basin authority itself about the direct linkages between climate change and what is occurring in the Murray-Darling Basin. The government’s course of action is clear-cut.
Dr Nelson interjecting
The Leader of the Opposition says that the government has done nothing. The Leader of the Opposition therefore says that the fact that we have, for the first time in the history of the Murray-Darling Basin, spent $50 million on purchasing back 38 gigalitres of water entitlements—when those opposite had 12 years to buy back one gigalitre—is doing nothing. We have done that in nine months. In 12 years they bought back zero. Secondly, we have allocated, at the Adelaide cabinet meeting, a further half-billion dollars to accelerate the purchase back of water entitlements; thirdly, we have allocated $5.8 billion to improving irrigation infrastructure; fourthly, a new and independent Murray-Darling Basin authority has been established as a consequence of the intergovernmental agreement which this government brought into being—not our predecessors—which will implement a new basin plan from 2011. On top of that, we have for the first time an independently audited account of the total storage within the entire system. These are practical courses of action against a real crisis facing the Murray-Darling Basin system.
I am also asked about alternative responses to the challenges we face. The core problem we face is that those opposite still do not accept that there is any linkage at all between climate change and the impact on the Murray-Darling Basin system. How can we get to first base in reaching a conclusion on what should be done about the Murray-Darling Basin when the alternative government of Australia and, as the Leader of the Opposition often describes himself, the alternative Prime Minister of Australia say that there is no relationship at all between climate change and the current state of the Murray-Darling Basin? That is what he has said. You cannot dispute it. He was asked the other night, ‘Do you accept what’s happening to the Lower Lakes and right up the Murray is also related to climate change? And he answered, ‘No, I don’t.’ It is quite clear-cut.
They were at dinner last night with the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard. Those opposite and those on this side of the chamber may remember the answer that was given at the beginning of last year on climate change when I asked, I think, the Prime Minister at the time whether he accepted the reality of climate change and its relationship to human-induced emissions. He said that the jury was still out. Eighteen months on, that is still the state of the Liberal Party. They are climate change deniers—not in their heart of hearts but in the words put forth this week by the alternative Prime Minister of Australia. Can I just say to those opposite: in terms of the leaderless rabble that the Liberal Party have become, the time has come for the conspirators to come out of the shadows and bring this to a conclusion. It has gone on for too long—whether it is plan A or plan B. It is about time this was brought to a conclusion. We have here a clear statement from the climate change denier who is currently the Leader of the Opposition and the alternative Prime Minister. Our Murray-Darling Basin system is in crisis. It requires, therefore, national political action—not opportunistic, short-term political pointscoring. It is time that the climate change deniers in the Liberal Party got with the government’s program and backed a national solution to a river system in crisis.
My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, why would any responsible economic manager put new taxes on vehicles that are used extensively by farmers and tourism operators already struggling in a declining economy?
We are not doing that; that is the point. What we are doing is increasing taxation on Porsches—very expensive luxury cars. That is what we are doing, and you have no—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. It would be helpful if the House were silent so that we could listen to the response.
The opposition want lower taxes for people who purchase luxury vehicles; it is that simple—lower taxes for people who purchase luxury vehicles. All of this today is about covering up their embarrassment, because what they are now doing is trying to blow a $6 billion hole in the surplus, which means that what they are saying to the Australian people is they do not stand for working families who want lower interest rates. It is very clear who they are siding with in this debate. They are siding with big oil, they are siding with people who are purchasing luxury vehicles and they are siding against people on average incomes who are slugged with a very high levy when it comes to the Medicare surcharge. That is what they are doing. They are acutely embarrassed about it, and all of their tactics in question time today have been about camouflaging that fact.
My question is to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister update the House on the free trade talks of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, and New Zealand?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I can indicate to the House that in Singapore last week Australia and New Zealand concluded a free trade agreement with ASEAN. This agreement is the most comprehensive free trade agreement that ASEAN has ever entered into. It is Australia’s largest free trade agreement; ASEAN as a whole is our largest trading partner, with some $71 billion in two-way trade between us and them. This is a larger trading partner than China, a larger trading partner than the US, a larger trading partner than Japan.
As for the agreement itself, it will liberalise commerce on up to 97 per cent of Australia’s current trade with key ASEAN partner markets by 2015, a significant advance on the Bogor 2020 time line. It covers all three major sectors—agriculture, manufacturing and services. In the case of agriculture it will cap tariffs and phase them out over time. In respect of manufacturing it will cover over 30 per cent of our manufacturing exports and eventually eliminate tariffs on manufactured goods such as machinery and parts, electrical equipment and instruments and gaming machines. Australian pharmaceutical products as well will be tariff free in a few years. As far as the services sector is concerned, there will be greater security and certainty for the banks and insurance companies. The agreement will improve entry for teaching staff, allow education providers to supply more courses and give telecommunications providers access to essential network services.
This is a very significant free trade agreement. It will provide not only new export opportunities but, significantly, capacity to create new jobs in this country. As well, whilst I was in Singapore, where Austrade has headquarters, I also had discussions with the Austrade regional manager for the ASEAN region and I have instructed Austrade to work with industry to develop a strategic plan for all the sectors of industry not only to have a better knowledge of what this agreement holds but to develop a strategic plan to properly take account of it.
This is a significant advance. Australia was left a woeful record in trade by the previous government. We inherited a trade performance of 72 consecutive months of trade deficits. Never before in the history of this country has a government presided over such a performance. And in the 11 years that the previous government was in office it was only able to have net exports contribute to economic growth in two of those years. Not only did it leave us high inflation which drove up interest rates; it left us a woeful trade performance. Labor has a plan and has started to implement it to turn around that woeful trade performance. This ASEAN free trade agreement is part of that plan.
My question is to the Minister for Tourism. Minister, how will the Rudd government’s $1 billion of new tourism taxes affect the job security of 483,000 Australians who work in our tourism industry?
I thank the honourable member for her question on the tourism industry. I say that because the tourism industry is exceptionally important to the Australian community, especially in the context of jobs in regional and rural Australia. One of the issues the tourism industry is raising is their serious concern about the impact of inflation on their local businesses and the need for the Australian government to get the economic fundamentals right. In that context they are vitally concerned and they seriously welcomed the reduction in interest rates this week, which has made it a little bit easier for them to conduct their businesses in a very tough global environment.
I say that because the tourism industry in Australia is finding it a little bit tough at the moment because of the serious economic concerns throughout the global economic community. On top of those serious economic concerns, they have also had to handle the impact of a very strong dollar, which has undermined our historical inflow of tourists from such significant markets as Japan. This industry has also had to handle the impact of a serious oil crisis, which has made it more difficult for tourists to come to Australia and to travel in Australia. So I simply say that the Australian government—
I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about the $1 billion in taxes imposed on the tourism industry, and he has not mentioned the $1 billion.
The honourable member will resume her seat. There is no point of order.
I can assure the House that we will continue to work closely with the tourism industry. We will also continue to work to overcome the neglect that this industry has had to put up with—the failure of the previous government—on such fundamental issues as a shortage of labour and a failure to train Australians to perform very valuable work in the tourism industry, which is so important to Australia’s economic performance. I might also say that they have raised with me their serious concerns about the failures of the previous government with respect to key infrastructure issues, such as improvements in railways and the performance of airports—in association with the requirements of the Australian community—to actually save to invest in improving those key economic activities for the future in terms of investing in skills and infrastructure development.
I am pleased to say that I have a good working relationship with the tourism industry. They continue to bring their concerns to me, because they are also about making sure that, unlike the previous government’s international tourism advertising campaign called ‘Where the bloody hell are you?’—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am loath to interrupt, but the minister has now been speaking for about 2½ minutes and he has not yet mentioned the billion dollars, and before—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will leave the chamber for one hour.
The member for Curtin then left the chamber.
Mr Deputy Speaker, under the general standing orders, I wish to protest against that action.
Order! It will assist your cause if you get my right title—but that’s okay.
I am sorry, it has been a long and tiring afternoon, and we have been rather bored by the proceedings. Mr Speaker, you have quite properly over the last couple of weeks talked about the circumstances of the House and how rulings are influenced by the circumstances of the House. Given the circumstances of the House today, I put it to you that to exclude the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a harsh measure. I would respectfully ask you to reconsider.
The member for Warringah will resume his seat. It is true that I have emphasised the circumstances of the chamber. I warned the Deputy Leader of the Opposition earlier in the piece. On the basis of the circumstances of proceedings that have followed that, I have ignored a number of times things that have happened. On the basis that I had asked her to resume her seat and on the basis of previous matters that I had taken into consideration, I thought that it was a fair cop. To get back to the point of order that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was making before I sent her on her way, in her points of order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has only been emphasising one point of the question. The minister has been relevant to the question, as set by the precedents of this place.
We will also work with industry to get Tourism Australia’s performance right. I recently read with concern a report by the Australian National Audit Office about the lack of attention paid by the previous government to corporate governance issues concerning the operation of Tourism Australia. I understand the need to actually make sure that I get the tourism industry right. The Leader of the Opposition is concerned about tourism because the member for Wentworth is just about to send him on a long, long holiday.
My question is to the Minister for Housing and the Minister for the Status of Women. Is the minister aware of figures released today on homelessness from the 2006 census? What action is the government taking in this area?
I thank the member for Kingston for her question today. The member for Kingston held a very successful forum on homelessness in her electorate with a lot of local organisations represented. Her report to me was a very insightful and compassionate report. So I thank her for her question today. Today the Australian Bureau of Statistics released a report Counting the homeless. It counted the people who were homeless on census night in 2006. One of the frustrations of working in the area of homelessness is that figures are really only taken twice every decade and then we wait two years to see what those figures are. Nevertheless, the Counting the homeless report, which looks at census night 2006, shows us some very important and disturbing information. The number of people who were sleeping rough each night increased 16 per cent between 2001 and 2006, from 14,000 people to 16,000 people. On census night 2006, there were 2,192 more children homeless compared with census night 2001. That reflects, unfortunately, a 22 per cent increase in the number of homeless children under the age of 12 in that five-year period. It also reflects a much broader shift in the type of people who are becoming homeless. We are seeing a lot more families and couples becoming homeless—a lot more families with children.
I am pleased to report that there is some good news in the data as well. There has been a fall in the number of homeless young people between the ages of 12 and 24. That group of homeless people fell from around 23,000 in 2001 to just under 18,000 in 2006. That shows that targeted interventions in a particular population group can be successful in reducing homelessness.
This data also confirms that homelessness services have been doing an amazingly great job with the resources that they have. Over 20,000 people were staying in shelters and refuges on census night 2006. That is 5,600 more people than were in the same type of accommodation in 2001. That was done without, at the time, any real increase in funding from the Commonwealth.
Of course, the Rudd Labor government has already taken action in the area of homelessness. In the May budget we contributed $2.8 million to RecLink, the organisation behind the Choir of Hard Knocks, and 30 other similar programs. We put $150 million of new money into building homes for homeless Australians. These funds have been allocated to states and territories, and states and territories are building, buying and planning those homes right now. A Place to Call Home will meet its target of delivering 600 new homes for homeless Australians, an important though modest contribution.
Last month I launched the National Homelessness Information Clearinghouse. With government funding of $500,000 over three years, it is a crucial tool for informing and connecting the homelessness sector. Our homelessness white paper will be out in a few weeks time. Over 1,200 Australians attended consultations and over 600 written submissions were received. Today I also released a short summary of those submissions.
Homelessness is being tackled by the COAG Housing Working Group because obviously Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments need to work together. Of course, the problem of homelessness goes beyond government intervention. It requires all the support and help of the not-for-profit, non-government, benevolent and charity sector, which has been so successful for so many years. But it goes beyond that also. Our response needs to engage the business community and the whole of the Australian community. We know that with targeted action we can turn around the figures that we have seen today.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of the forecast increase in the price of gas and electricity in Western Australia as a result of the government’s new tax on gas?
Can I say to the honourable member, who I think comes from the state of Western Australia, that the first responsibility we have as a government is to make sure that we are prosecuting a policy of responsible economic management. Secondly, I would say to the honourable member that if he looks at the national accounts figures released yesterday he will see a solid growth performance for the Australian economy but a particularly solid growth performance in the Western Australian state economy.
The honourable member, I presume, refers to the impact of another tax measure which is being considered by those in the Senate. I presume that is the reference of his question; what in particular he was talking about is somewhat unclear. Can I say to all those opposite: if you are going to prosecute a policy of responsible economic management, it means ensuring that you deliver a responsible surplus outcome. Currently, we have a $6 billion assault on it. I would say to those opposite: you ought to pursue these policies in order to make it possible for the people of Western Australia to enjoy, like other Australians, a decision by the Reserve Bank to bring down interest rates, rather than to see them continue to go up. That, I would say to all those in Western Australia, is a good way ahead.
The other thing I would say on the question of fuel prices for those in Western Australia is this: those in Western Australia have benefited from a Liberal government decision since 2001 under Premier Richard Court—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I did not ask the Prime Minister about fuel prices; I asked him about gas and electricity prices.
The Prime Minister will respond to the question.
On the matter that the honourable member just raised, I also draw his attention to what his own leader had to say on 20 August. He said, ‘I’m advised in part that the change in excise referred to is not likely to have any impact on domestic gas prices.’
No, that is not what I said.
So says the Australian Financial Review. Is anyone up there in the press gallery saying they got it wrong? Let us find out.
Opposition members interjecting—
Well, the Leader of the Liberal Party should be careful about what he says. Obviously, he has come under attack from his Western Australian Liberal colleagues for that statement and he is trying to wriggle out from under it. It is there in black and white. I have not heard—
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The people of Western Australia want to know: are their gas prices going up?
The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
As we know, the tax measure being considered in the Senate at the moment is a tax on condensate. Again, I draw the attention of those opposite, including the honourable member, to their leader’s own statement on 20 August. He said:
I am advised in part it—
the change in excise—
is not likely to have any impact on domestic gas prices.
I know it is a politically uncomfortable message for the honourable member, particularly on this day, that his own leader does not adhere to the political script that he desires. I know that is politically uncomfortable—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question to the Prime Minister is for the Prime Minister to guarantee this will not increase the price of gas.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He has not characterised the nature of the question properly.
The more the Leader of the Liberal Party protests this day, the more we know the Leader of the Liberal Party is in terminal trouble. We had the Nelson doctrine on interest rates earlier this week: what he says on interest rates as Leader of the Opposition is not what he will do on interest rates as Prime Minister. We have had the Nelson doctrine on climate change, which is that he does not accept there is any connection between climate change and inflow of water.
The Prime Minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.
Opposition member interjecting—
Order! I have actually asked the Prime Minister to bring his answer to a conclusion, which I hope will be very rapid.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Again we have the Nelson doctrine when it comes to the impact on gas prices in WA. One thing is said in this place—
The Prime Minister will get to the end of his answer.
and another thing elsewhere. I would suggest that those opposite develop a clear political and policy script for the nation’s future.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Sidebottom interjecting
Order! I will give the member for Braddon the opportunity to go and throw wheat to chooks in a minute.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the progress of implementation of the government’s world’s best practice national reform package for organ and tissue donation for transplantation?
I thank the honourable member for her question. I believe this is a matter on which all members of the House have a common view—that is, how do we deal with the problem of the inadequate supply of donated organs for those who need them and for those who now are adding to the waiting lists for transplants around Australia? Currently we have 1,800 people around Australia on waiting lists and that number is made up of those who make the waiting list. There is a further number of patients—
Can you get a brain donation?
Order! The member for Paterson will withdraw that remark.
I withdraw.
The member for Paterson is warned.
The member for Paterson should really reflect on whether something as sensitive and as serious as organ donation is something to make cheap political points about.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order!
Do you support the interjection by the member for Paterson?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister—
Do those opposite support it?
Honourable members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Order! The House might like to remain tranquil for this answer.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Where I began on this was to say that I believe all members of the House are united in their interest in ensuring that we have a decent organ donation and transplant system for the future. I assume that is the case on the part of all members in this place.
What are you doing about it?
The honourable member for Paterson interjects, ‘What are you doing about it?’ Can I say this: as a consequence of the 2020 Summit, when the question of organ donation came up and was prosecuted with legitimate vigour by those who are associated with the system as it works at present, the government decided in July to embrace a $136.4 million national plan to boost organ donation and to save lives.
That’s not enough.
The honourable member for Paterson interjects, ‘That’s not enough.’
Order! The member for Paterson.
Mr Speaker, I would suggest that those opposite try to enter into the spirit of what we are doing here, which is to try to make a real improvement for a whole lot of people who need organ donations. This $136.4 million plan includes the following elements: firstly, $67 million to fund dedicated organ donation specialist doctors and other staff in public and private hospitals who currently do not exist; secondly, $46 million to establish for the first time a new independent national authority to coordinate national organ donation initiatives across the country, which anyone associated with this would know are currently poorly coordinated; thirdly, $17 million in new funding for hospitals to meet additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs associated with organ donation; fourthly, $13.4 million to continue a national public awareness campaign; and, fifthly, $1.9 million for counselling for potential donor families.
These are very practical measures. We have engaged in a lot of discussion within the government about how to do this and how to do it better. The reason we have done that is the figures that I began my answer in question time on today. I think all of us have people in our own electorates, people that we know, who are directly personally affected by something we as a nation need to do better. That is what we are trying to do. It is not just the 1,800 who are now on transplant waiting lists; it is those who cannot even get on to those lists for a series of other reasons.
We had some good news today at a personal level when we had a visit from little Cordelia Whatman. She is, I think, 15 or 16 months old, a little bub. This case is prior to this scheme coming in. There is no direct connection here, but I simply use this little one as an example of what good things we can do as a country if we talk up, both sides of politics, the importance of getting donations right. This little one successfully, thank God, got a liver transplant at Westmead children’s hospital two months ago. I saw her today and she is looking in really good nick. But that is just one case, and there are 1,800 others out there who need help and need it now.
Therefore, I would say to all members of the House: in our own way, in our own communities, let us get behind what I think is a really good national program. It is not going to solve everything. But one of the things that is really important is for us all to talk up the need to not just commit ourselves to organ donation but, when that terrible tragedy occurs in a family, for people to go through with it to the end, because that is where the downfall is occurring.
The stats on people signing off for organ donation are huge for Australia. Australians want to do this. Some 90-plus per cent, I think, of Australians sign up saying that they are willing to donate. But last year we had a total of 198 people who donated organs. There is a real problem at the actual interface—that is, where it happens in the hospital. That is what we have to crack. That is why the advice to us from the medical experts is that they need specialist medical and nursing staff within hospitals to try and make this work—people who are not associated with the normal functions of the hospital; people who have this as their dedicated mission. As of Saturday, I understand, the positions of the chief executive officer and medical director of the new organ donation authority will be advertised. We are at this stage on track to have the new authority up and operating by 1 January 2009.
It will be good if we can get those numbers down. That is the ambition I think of all of us here, and I think we can all play a modest part in our own communities in trying to make this work as well.
Mr Speaker, on that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, this is one of the initiatives of the government which the opposition strongly supports and commends, and has been very supportive of publicly. I join with the Prime Minister in challenging every Australian to discuss with his or her family what they would like done in relation to organ donation in the event of their sudden death. Everyone of us every day should do everything we can to encourage a broader discussion in the community because, tragically, it does often fall down, as the Prime Minister says, at the hospital level and in the discussion between medical and nursing staff and immediate family members.
Mr Speaker, given that this is quite likely the lengthiest question time in the history of the Commonwealth parliament, could I ask what your preferred timetable is for the Procedure Committee to consider the Deputy Prime Minister’s demand that ministerial answers be limited to four minutes.
That is not a question that is in my hands.
Mr Speaker, a few days ago you noted that you had written to the Procedure Committee asking them to continue with their review of question time, particularly I would imagine with reference to the previous demands by the now Deputy Prime Minister to limit answers to four minutes. Have you received a response and can you inform the House of that response if you have received it?
The member for North Sydney might liaise with members of the opposition that are on the committee.
Mr Speaker, I refer you to standing order 54, which says, inter alia:
The Speaker shall take the Chair and, if a quorum of 30 Members is present, read prayers. If a quorum is not present standing order 57 (count out) shall apply.
This morning, not enough government members to provide a quorum in this chamber bothered to turn up prior to prayers. Why did you allow the sitting to begin rather than counting out the House as required under standing order 54?
I have two options: I can use the indication that I have given to the chamber that matters of procedure are not open to discussion at this point in time—and I am tempted to do that because of the implied inference in the latter part of the question—or I can respond to the question. It is true, as the Chief Opposition Whip has indicated, that standing order 54 is the relevant standing order. On this occasion, on taking the chair, and in the absence of advice as to a quorum not being present and, therefore, in the belief that a quorum was present, I proceeded to prayers. I will say that, as a result of the raising of this question, a lesson may have been learnt by a number of people in this chamber, and I just take the opportunity to perhaps iterate that it is the duty of all members to ensure that a quorum is present, particularly at the commencement of proceedings when the prayers are offered.
Mr Speaker, as a passionate devotee of organ transplants, I would like to ask you whether it was appropriate this afternoon, at the last question on the last hour on the last sitting day of the fortnight, to raise a question which the Prime Minister said was so important and not give it the status it deserved of a ministerial statement.
That is not actually a question to me.
Mr Speaker, given that the Prime Minister sought in question time and numerous other places today to highlight the fact that there was a senator missing from a vote in the Senate, and given that we noted that there were nine Labor members who did not attend to form a quorum for this House to meet today—
The member for North Sydney will resume his seat.
I have not asked the question.
I am perhaps suggesting that I am not going to make any more comments about the events of this morning other than the response that I have given to the Chief Opposition Whip.
But I am asking a question!
All right, the member for North Sydney may ask a question on the administration of parliamentary departments.
That is right. Yes, I am, and I am asking you to make available the tape of proceedings of this morning that proves there was not a quorum present when the House met at the first opportunity this morning.
The tape of proceedings is available to all members. I say to the member for North Sydney, if we want to go down this track of rewriting everything that happened this morning so that some people can feel better about it than others, by all means do that. I think that, if you look carefully at what I have said, you will see I have admitted that I did not get advice from people that there was not a quorum. Remember that I come in here trailing the mace. I then stand, and it would be a bit hard for me to actually count all the faces that are smiling back at me. In fact, today, if you want to know what my other problem was, one member had his phone in his pocket and it beeped for a message, which distracted me if I wanted to claim I was distracted. But, if you want to listen to what has been said, I said that a lesson was learnt by the events of today. On the basis of the lesson learnt, I for one will ensure that any error will not be repeated. If you leave it at that, that should be sufficient. At the end of the day I could deflect it to other people. I accept that it was in my control because there is no opportunity for another member to indicate to me that there is not a quorum. Of course, there are other procedures and other ways that the Speaker can be advised of it, and I do not wish to put the blame on other people that work in the chamber.
Mr Speaker, I respect and accept that, but it does raise issues in relation to section 39 of the Constitution about whether the chamber had a valid quorum in order to give effect to the day’s proceedings.
That is why I carefully said that I obviously believed that there was a quorum, and that is why I proceeded to prayers.
Mr Speaker, given the number of opportunities afforded to the opposition to raise questions with you, is it the case that there were 31 points of order and one protest made during question time today? Is it also the case that, during the last term of the previous government, the government gave 288 answers that were longer than four minutes? Thirdly, given the question raised by the Manager of Opposition Business about constitutionality, I wonder whether you could ascertain from the opposition whether they intend to proceed with their legal action about the constitutionality of this parliament when it does not have quorums or divisions between 6.30 and eight o’clock and whether the extension that they have asked for of that provision, which has been forwarded to the Procedure Committee, raises any legal questions whatsoever as well.
Okay, so you want to raise that subject too. Right, bring it on!
You were going to take legal action. Do it!
Mr Hockey interjecting
As I said, I am reluctant to make, and try to avoid making, any comments about questions to do with procedures. I am not in a position to give any type of legal advice from the chair. Thirdly, the fact that the matter—
Mr Hockey interjecting
Mr Albanese interjecting
The Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business will leave the chamber for one hour.
The member for Grayndler then left the chamber
The member for North Sydney then left the chamber
Given the fact that the matters raised by the Leader of the House have been referred to the Procedure Committee, I think the Procedure Committee can look at the matters that have been raised.
by leave—There have been a lot of economic numbers in the last week or so and a lot of debate and commentary about our economic circumstances. So I do think it is appropriate now to give the House and the Australian people the government’s detailed assessment of the Australian economy: where we have come from, where we are and where we are going. I do so in the knowledge that this is a challenging time for the Australian economy and the global economy. There is rightly a good deal of concern about the security of our prosperity, about global financial turbulence and about economic dislocation elsewhere. These are indeed challenging times.
Our economic circumstances require careful consideration of policy, careful weighing of the evidence, discriminating judgement and a continuous openness to new information. But I want to offer this message to the House and to Australian families: the Australian government’s assessment of the unfolding information about our economy suggests we do have reason for optimism, and if we engage and work on the challenges we face we will come through this difficult time better placed to enjoy and secure the long-term prosperity this government is committed to delivering.
Through to the beginning of this year the global economy experienced the five best years of global prosperity in recent history. This year, growth in the global economy is much slower and the global environment is much more uncertain. The global financial turbulence which began in the US subprime mortgage market over a year ago has spread throughout global financial markets. Borrowing costs have been pushed higher around the world. Global share markets have fallen by an average of about 20 per cent since the global turmoil began. Business and consumer confidence has fallen across developed economies, with the OECD’s measure of consumer confidence for member economies at its lowest point in almost 30 years. In the face of these global difficulties, the world’s largest developed economies are experiencing sharp slowdowns in output growth. The UK, Japan, Germany, France and Italy all recorded negative or zero growth in the three months to June this year. So what began as a crisis in the US subprime mortgage market is now producing a significant slowing across developed economies. Even if, as we hope, the worst of the financial turbulence is behind us, we are now dealing with the impact of higher interest rate spreads for borrowers, losses of financial capital and diminished confidence on growth and employment in major developed economies. At the same time, higher food and oil prices have driven up inflation worldwide, limiting the response of central banks to the downturn in output growth.
These are the global challenges confronting the Australian economy, and they are considerable. From the beginning, we have been upfront about them. We also face formidable domestic challenges. In November last year we took responsibility for an economy in which the Reserve Bank of Australia had already been obliged to impose 10 successive interest rate increases to combat the threat of rising inflation; an economy in which underlying inflation was already well over the top of the central bank’s target band and still increasing; an economy in which the inflation threat was sufficiently serious that the central bank was compelled to tighten rates twice more within four months of this government coming to office—in addition of course to the increases in the general level of interest rates that arose from the global financial crisis; an economy constrained not only by high interest rates but also by capacity constraints which had become tighter and tighter as a result of the negligence of our predecessors; an economy in which export volume growth had slowed to a crawl despite the highest export prices in half a century; an economy in which productivity growth had fallen to half the average rate of the previous three decades; an economy which in the fourth quarter of last year, the last quarter in which those opposite held office, had already slowed to well under the average quarterly growth of the past 16 years. These were economic circumstances to which this government had to make an immediate and decisive response.
Instead of celebrating an electoral victory, we immediately sought the best advice from the Treasury and from the Reserve Bank on what we saw to be critical threats to the continuing prosperity of the Australian people. We were determined to be upfront and honest with the Australian community about the challenges we faced, both domestically and from abroad, and the impacts they were having on our economy.
First, we identified the magnitude of the inflation challenge and dedicated ourselves to addressing it. At that time the opposition said it was a fairytale and a charade. But now inflation is over four per cent and everyone understands it is a problem. We also recognised that, while Australia was not affected as acutely by the global financial crisis as many other economies, we needed to be in continuous and close contact with our regulators, with the central bank and also with the commercial banks. We recognised that as a government we needed to put our weight behind the stabilisation of financial turbulence in Australia, while exerting ourselves to support actions to address the crisis internationally.
No issue took more of my time in the early months of office than assessing and monitoring the financial crisis and reassuring all the relevant parties that the Australian government understood the gravity of the issues and stood ready to assist where necessary. That is why, some months ago, in a ministerial statement to the House, I announced plans to increase government securities on issue as part of a prudent plan to maintain liquidity in critical government bonds and to underpin the proper functioning of the bond market.
Recognition of the inflation problem we inherited and recognition of the gravity of the global financial crisis was our priority in the early weeks of office. This was the difficult backdrop that we confronted when we sat down to prepare our first budget. In designing our budget strategy we recognised that inflation would likely continue at an unacceptably high rate for some time to come. And we recognised that the global financial crisis and tighter credit conditions would continue to affect the growth of developed economies as well as our own.
But we also recognised there were big differences between Australia’s circumstances and those of other developed economies. We recognised that Australia’s financial sector is strong and did not face the same problems being experienced in the US housing and subprime mortgage markets. We recognised that the prices for many of our export commodities had risen to levels not seen in a generation and, in some cases, were still rising. This meant nominal export income would be rising rapidly and this would mitigate some of the contractionary impact of higher interest rates and tighter lending standards. We knew that in these circumstances we had to get the balance right between bearing down on inflation, providing a buffer against global uncertainty and providing the means to finance vital investments in nation building for the future. All these considerations suggested to us that it was imperative that we abruptly change Australia’s fiscal direction, move away from the reckless spending of our predecessors in their last desperate years of office and change to a consistent and disciplined stance that would help rather than hinder the efforts of the Reserve Bank to bear down on inflation. At the same time we judged that the household sector was under considerable strain, which is why we were determined not to compromise in any way on our election commitment to deliver tax cuts.
Finally, we recognised that, with the Australian economy running close to full capacity after years of neglect of the physical infrastructure of our economy, education and training and health, we needed to begin planning a nation-building program that would put Australian prosperity on a more secure basis. We needed to plan that modernisation and we needed to begin to set aside the resources that would allow us to execute those plans.
That was the budget strategy we put in place five months ago and those were the circumstances it was designed to address. It was a budget that struck the right balance between relief for families and long-term investment, a budget right for the times and geared for the challenges of the future. We anticipated in our budget what is now occurring, we were prepared for the challenges now unfolding and we got it right.
The opposition told us we should have cut harder, despite having said before the budget that there was no need to make spending cuts. Others also told us we should have cut harder in the budget. But the Prime Minister and I had been taking careful soundings on the international climate and thought it wiser to strike a more careful balance. I think, today, people are very glad that we did. People told us the tax cuts would ruin the economy and we should cancel, cut or divert them. We insisted we could deliver them responsibly by making cuts elsewhere and we did. And I think, today, people are glad that we chose that path.
Whether you look at the inflation problem or the turbulence in global financial markets, this has been a government working hard to stay ahead of the game and make the right decisions, popular or not, in the national interest. This brings me to the core of my assessment today. How is the economy evolving, particularly in the light of our budget strategy and forecasts and in the light of the June national accounts received yesterday? In the last week or so we have seen new numbers on business investment, exports, imports and the current account and now we have the national accounts for the June quarter. We have also seen the Reserve Bank cut the official interest rate by one quarter of a percentage point which, I am glad to say, was promptly passed on to variable rate home loans by the major commercial banks.
We are in a position to outline a detailed assessment of the circumstances of the Australian economy. The first point I would make is that domestic demand growth has certainly slowed, much as expected in the budget forecasts. In the June quarter, domestic demand increased by 0.9 per cent. This is quite vigorous but slower than in the previous two quarters. As we expected at budget time, the biggest contribution to the slowdown in domestic demand growth came from household consumption.
The cumulative impact of rising interest rates, which had increased by 200 basis points since March 2005, combined with unofficial rate rises by the commercial banks, has clearly taken its toll on household budgets. On top of this, the global oil price shock saw average petrol prices rise by 25c a litre in the space of three months. These factors were the main contributors to the 0.1 per cent fall in household consumption in the June quarter.
That fall confirms the wisdom of proceeding with the tax cuts, which of course kicked in during the current quarter rather than the June quarter and will provide support to household budgets, as will this week’s much welcomed interest rate cut. We on this side of the House were certainly heartened to see that the Reserve Bank was sufficiently confident of the direction of inflation to be able to lower interest rates—for the first time in seven years.
Turning to other elements of demand, we begin to see how different the performance of this economy is from other developed economies. Business investment for example was up 4.0 per cent in the June quarter alone and contributed 0.7 percentage points to GDP growth in that quarter. This strength is most welcome. It is enlarging our capacity, helping to sustain employment and contributing to future productivity and growth.
Creating room for the continuing expansion of business investment was one of the major objectives of our May budget. Last week’s data on business investment intentions suggest that the strength we saw in the last quarter of last financial year will likely extend well into the current financial year. It demonstrates that, despite global turmoil, businesses have the confidence to invest in the economy and the confidence to plan for yet more investment into the future.
The June quarter accounts are pleasing in another respect as well, which is the expansion of export volumes. In the June quarter alone export volumes increased 2.7 per cent—the biggest quarterly increase in almost five years. We saw in the current account data earlier in the week that in the June quarter Australia achieved the first quarterly trade surplus in over six years—another very welcome development. So while we are not immune from global difficulties we do have grounds for optimism.
We acknowledged in the budget that, given the global difficulties and the impacts of successive rate rises flowing through our economy, economic growth would slow and that this would lead to a modest rise in unemployment. But, as recent events have demonstrated, Australia is well placed in comparison to other developed economies and the Rudd government is determined to secure this advantage. Because many of the global challenges we face are beyond Australia’s control, the government is focused on those things that we can control—that we can influence.
We delivered a strong surplus to bear down on inflation, to buffer against international turbulence and to give us the flexibility to respond to today’s challenges. We made room in the budget to deliver tax cuts for working families—$7 billion in tax cuts this year; half a billion each month. And we have begun the process of modernising our economy and expanding our productive capacity for the long term. We have laid the foundation of $40 billion of responsible investment in our nation-building funds and, all up, $76 billion in total infrastructure investment.
Genuine nation building means lifting the productive capacity of the economy road by road, port by port, cable by cable, university by university and trade school by trade school. It means boosting productivity, lifting our international competitiveness and investing in human capital. These are the fundamentals of a modern competitive economy, where all our efforts are directed.
Building a new platform of growth with low inflation is going to take time and disciplined effort. The business community are confidently investing in our economy’s future. The Rudd government will stand with them in this effort, helping provide the critical infrastructure and the skills they need. We are determined not to make the same mistake those opposite made. The mistake that was made by those opposite was to celebrate prosperity but do so little to sustain it.
The House would have heard me say before that Australia is not immune from global difficulties which are slowing the world economy, but we are better placed than most countries to withstand the fallout. Given your pick of developed country to be, in these circumstances, you would choose Australia, for all of the reasons I have outlined above.
But of course we are far from complacent. We are focused on delivering responsible economic management so we can have strong growth with low inflation well into the future. Our strategy, which combines a strong surplus, relief for families, and long-term investment in nation building and growth, is the best way to respond to the global challenges Australia faces.
I thank the House. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Wentworth to speak for 17 minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Turnbull speaking for a period not exceeding 17 minutes.
Question agreed to.
I thank the Treasurer for what is not so much an economic statement as a confession of incompetence. It is welcome nonetheless, although the Treasurer should recall what Mark Twain said, ‘A confession is good for the soul and bad for the reputation.’ We have seen today a new approach from the Treasurer—a first. He has spoken well of the Australian economy. He has been right to speak well of our economy. As I have been saying all year—whereas he has not—our economy is stronger than those of comparable developed economies, our financial system is more secure, our mortgage lending practices are more prudent and our rates of default are relatively low.
The Treasurer should have been shouting that from the rooftops all year, but he was not. He says that he identified the magnitude of the inflation challenge shortly after the election and he implies that the remarks that he made about inflation were made with the advice of the Reserve Bank and the Treasury. I cannot accept that either the Reserve Bank or the Treasury advised him to say ‘the inflation genie is out of the bottle’.
The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have been an economic tag team—recklessness leaning on the shoulder of irresponsibility, the Treasurer talking about an inflation genie out of the bottle and the Prime Minister talking about an inflation monster stalking the land, wreaking havoc on working families.
Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.
At the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics hearing in April, the member for Aston put the Treasurer’s remarks—those disgraceful remarks about the inflation genie being out of the bottle—to the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Glenn Stevens. Remember that it was on the day before the Reserve Bank met in February that the Treasurer chose to say that the inflation genie was out of the bottle. It was the day before the Reserve Bank met to consider how it should respond to inflationary pressures in Australia that the Treasurer said inflation was out of control. Mr Stevens gave his commentary on the Treasurer in April. He replied to the member for Aston with every syllable dripping with distaste for the Treasurer’s recklessness. The governor said:
I do not want to comment on colourful things that are said in public debate, but what we have said is inflation has risen and that is a problem. It has to be dealt with and we are dealing with it. We will contain it and it will come down. Is it out of control? No, I have never said that. I have tried, if you like, to make balanced comments that one cannot say that there is not a problem. There is a problem, but I do not think it is out of control. I think it will be controlled, and that is why we are doing what we are doing. So, there is a problem, a response is needed, it is being made and it will work.
That was the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Consider the measured language from the Governor of the Reserve Bank compared to what we had from the Treasurer. We have had a Treasurer all year who in pursuit of a simple political objective—to blacken the economic reputation of the Howard government—has talked up inflation and talked down our economy. And we have paid a very heavy price for it.
The Treasurer has talked today about a number of other developed countries in which economic activity is slower and which either have zero growth or are going backwards. He has pointed out that our economy is stronger than those other developed countries, and he is right to do so. He should have been doing so all year. But that begs the question: if our economy is stronger than those of other developed countries, why is it that confidence is so low? Since the election of the Rudd government, Australia has experienced the largest drop in consumer confidence in the OECD, according to the OECD’s standardised consumer confidence indicator. That indicator for Australia has dropped 13.7 per cent since November, whereas the overall indicator for the OECD has dropped by only 4.6 per cent. The drop in Australia was by far the largest in the entire OECD. As I pointed out in a question that the Prime Minister chose not to answer—he does not answer any questions in this House anymore—Australia currently has the second lowest level of consumer confidence in the OECD after Spain.
So what has made the difference? Why can an economy that is so relatively strong have a business community and consumers that are so relatively lacking in confidence?
Twelve interest rate rises!
It is an indictment of the spin and deception of the Rudd government. The Rudd government has misrepresented every significant economic issue that we have dealt with—
Mr Turnour interjecting
Mr Irons interjecting
Mr Robert interjecting
Mr Turnour interjecting
I interrupt the shadow Treasurer. The exchange is ridiculous and unparliamentary. Stop it. Member for Wentworth, please continue.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have been told that the government is proud that it is levying a lower percentage of GDP in tax revenues this current year than in the last year of the Howard government. That is true, but it is true for one reason only: the Rudd government has implemented almost all of the tax cuts proposed by the Howard government which were set out in the pre-election financial outlook. When you look at the Treasurer’s own Budget Paper No. 1, you see over the forward estimates that there is $19.7 billion of additional taxes. In other words, were it not for the policy changes of the Rudd government, tax as a percentage of GDP would be lower over the forward estimates than is set out in the Rudd government’s first budget papers. So that claim to some sort of fiscal rectitude is completely bogus. It is no wonder that when that was raised with the Prime Minister today he was unable or unwilling to answer the question.
We have been told that if the $6 billion worth of unmandated, unwarranted and unnecessary tax increases are blocked by the Senate—if the Senate does not pass them—that will cause interest rates to rise. We have been told that this $6 billion will punch a hole in the $22 billion surplus. The $22 billion surplus is for one year only and the $6 billion is over four years, so that statement too is completely false. The $1.5 billion, approximately, of Commonwealth revenues that would be reduced by reason of those tax bills not being passed by the Senate could not have any conceivable impact on inflation whatsoever other than to put a slight upward pressure on prices, because all of those taxes would increase prices—be it for cars, alcohol or gas. But $1.5 billion a year in a $1.1-plus trillion economy obviously can have no material effect on aggregate demand and, hence, no material effect on inflation—again, another economic proposition that is nonsense.
And then we have the extraordinary falsehood told to us about Fuelwatch. We are told that Fuelwatch is there to protect independent retailers, to protect competition and to bring down fuel prices. Yet we know that every expert department in this city told the government that it would put prices up. And we know from Michael Luscombe, the Chief Executive of Woolworths—a big oil retailer—that, based on his experience with Fuelwatch in Western Australia, it delivers his giant corporation its best margins. So much for the question of who is on the side of big oil. Fuelwatch is on the side of big oil.
Then we come to another great economic issue that the government made so much of, and where it has again shown its complete incompetence, its complete impotence, and that is grocery prices. For all of last year the Prime Minister was going around supermarkets feeling sorry for shoppers—sharing their pain, so he said—and then he comes up with a website called GROCERYchoice. It provides averages of the cost of shopping baskets a month ago, averaged over a very large number of stores, in some cases over gigantic geographic areas, and sets them out as ‘Coles’, ‘Woolworths’, ‘Aldi’—if Aldi is present—and then ‘independents’. Because ‘independents’ includes everything from 24-hour grocery stores, which quite reasonably charge higher prices for greater convenience, and larger stores that are competing on price with Woolworths and Coles, it makes the independents appear more expensive than they are. It defames and misrepresents the independent grocery sector. It is nothing more than an advertisement for Coles and Woolies. It is as though the government wants to look after Michael Luscombe—not just big oil, but big retailers as well. So $14 million for GROCERYchoice and no useful information other than an advertisement for Coles and Woolies.
We were told in the Treasurer’s address that capacity constraints in Australia are tighter because of the neglect by the previous government. Really? Almost all productive capacity in Australia is in the hands of the private sector. When growth is strong, capacity utilisation is high. When capacity limits are beginning to be stretched, business invests in new capacity—new premises are required, new equipment is ordered, more staff is hired. High levels of capacity utilisation are signs of a strong economy. High levels of spare capacity and low levels of capacity utilisation are signs of a weak economy. Empty factories and equipment that is not running are signs of a weak economy. When everything is working at full tilt, that is the sign of a strong economy. But high levels of capacity utilisation are not enough in themselves to promote investment. That is the ideal. As capacity is getting close to full utilisation, owners of businesses invest in more capacity. That is what we want to see, and we were seeing that under the previous government. But that requires confidence as well. So it is not just high utilisation of your capacity; you have got to have confidence and faith that better times are ahead, that the nation’s economic destiny is being steered by people who know what they are doing.
That is why this collapse in confidence in Australia has been so dangerous. Without that confidence, there will be no improvement in capacity, because there will be no confidence to invest. Confidence is at the core of everything in our economy. We talk about a global credit squeeze, a global credit crisis. It is a crisis in confidence. And the melancholy fact is that the international financial markets appear to have no more confidence in our economy than they do in those that are travelling much worse than ours. Why is that? It is because for all of this year the Treasurer and his colleague the Prime Minister—irresponsibility and recklessness together—have been talking down the economy and talking up inflation. They have done that for a political purpose and we have all paid a price.
There was a clear difference between the Treasurer and me at the beginning of this year. He was egging on the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates, saying that inflation was out of control—not the moderate language he uses today, where he says that it is a problem, with which we can all agree; not the moderate language of Glenn Stevens. When he was using that dramatic language, talking up inflation, I urged the Reserve Bank to stay its hand. I expressed the view that the global credit squeeze would be very tough on Australia, that we would get more than enough monetary tightening from the international financial markets, that the global credit squeeze would achieve all of the interest rate pressure that the Reserve Bank could want without it having to raise rates. These are all questions of judgement, and it is hard to say who was right and who was wrong. But I staked my position on the side of prudence, of caution, of looking after the Australian economy, of speaking of its strengths and seeking to protect it against a global credit crisis. The Treasurer exposed us to the credit crisis. He did nothing to speak of the strength of Australia. He did everything to make us appear worse.
He said that there have been abrupt changes in the government’s economic policy since the election. Well, there have been abrupt changes. We have had a government who have talked the economy down. We had a Treasurer who, in the lead-up to the budget, said that it would be a harsh one—cutting spending, inflicting pain. An anxious nation awaited the axe, and what did we get? We got a budget whose impact was at best neutral; in truth, slightly inflationary. They had the audacity to stand up in the House and quote from an economic report from Goldman Sachs JBWere, my old firm, but they did not even have the time to read through it, because what it said—in the faintest of faint praise—was that the best thing that could be said about the budget was that it did not make inflation any worse.
We do have a strong economy. We do have a resilient economy. We do have a prudent and well-managed financial sector. But what we do not have is leadership with vision, with courage and with the preparedness to stand up for this nation. (Time expired)
I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
I rise to support the plan to build an AFL stadium at Helensvale in my electorate as the home ground for the 17th AFL franchise team, which will come to the Gold Coast. I also rise to call on the Labor state government in Queensland to work with the Gold Coast City Council with respect to including Helensvale as a station for the light-rail hub. Helensvale is the fastest-growing electorate in the nation; it grew by 31.6 per cent between 2001 and 2006. The fact that Helensvale is actually being viewed as a potential home for the new AFL stadium is testimony to the strength of the economy in the local area and the growth in Fadden.
The local community in Fadden, particularly in Helensvale, has exploded, with the construction of Helensvale train station, new developments, a shopping centre, and now possibly an AFL stadium. The state government is progressing with light rail, having announced that that will be the preferred way of moving to a mass-transit system. But the closest station to Helensvale that is currently being considered is at Harbour Town, which is 5.5 kilometres away. The new stadium, as proved conclusively at Robina stadium, will bring with it new business precincts, increased numbers of tourists and, of course, the tens of thousands of people who come along on game night.
It is incongruous to consider that a new light-rail system would go in to provide mass transit across the Gold Coast but would not take it to Helensvale, where the new AFL stadium is proposed to be. There is a railway station at Helensvale for the electric train system, which moves mass numbers of passengers north to Brisbane and south towards the New South Wales border. But there is nothing that moves east-west, which is why having a light-rail station at Helensvale makes an enormous amount of sense. If we assume that the GC17 bid is successful, as I certainly hope it is, and that the stadium is built at Helensvale, it makes sense to have the light rail there. I join in supporting His Worship the Mayor Ron Clarke in making sure that a light-rail station is at Helensvale. I hope the Bligh Labor government will seriously review the current light-rail plan and include funding for Helensvale station. I also wish GC17 and their 20,000 supporters—of which I am one—the best of luck in procuring the 17th national team licence to enable AFL to be played on the Gold Coast in 2011.
In conclusion, I would also encourage the work of Bravehearts and its founder and CEO, Hetty Johnson. It was great to see so many members of both parties wearing a Bravehearts badge to recognise and support White Balloon Day next Tuesday, 9 September, and National Child Protection Week next week. Our society and, indeed I—and I hope I speak for all members of parliament—will not accept child sexual assault or abuse in our communities. It is interesting that Bravehearts reported that, as a result of the first White Balloon Day and other initiatives, the number of disclosures of child sexual assault increased by over 500 per cent. I encourage the community to support the great work of Bravehearts and other child advocate organisations. I especially encourage them to make a stand and a statement next week, particularly on Tuesday, 9 September for White Balloon Day.
I rise today to raise an issue that is very important in my electorate, and that is the issue of public transport in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. There are many new homes being built in my electorate and there is an imperative to ensure that these new suburbs, as well as the existing suburbs in my electorate, are serviced by good public transport. It is estimated that over the next 15 years the population in the outer metropolitan areas of Adelaide is set to double. We need to make sure that the infrastructure is there to accommodate this growing population, including by providing a good public transport system.
With the price of petrol going up and with growing concerns about global warming, using public transport is becoming a more affordable option for many people. This is particularly the case in the southern suburbs, where many people in my electorate commute to the CBD of Adelaide. If you take a car, this takes around 50 minutes. However, the public transport option is attractive not only for enabling commuters to get around more easily but also for governments who are looking to make a significant impact in reducing carbon emissions and urban congestion on our roads.
In my electorate, there is a train line that goes from Adelaide to the suburb of Noarlunga. I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the South Australian state government’s recent announcement to electrify this rail line. This will be a key measure to allow for a faster, quieter, more reliable and cleaner public transport service. When this train line was first constructed in Noarlunga, it was the obvious place for the line to end. However, over the years, the suburbs of Seaford and Aldinga have grown significantly. It is therefore inevitable that the Noarlunga rail line will need to be extended to the suburbs of Seaford and Aldinga. This project has been widely endorsed by local residents, including the Seaford Residents Association. The South Australian state government has moved one step closer to extending the rail line by committing $34 million in its most recent budget to acquiring land to develop a transport corridor from Seaford to Aldinga. I certainly support this move, as it is one step closer to extending the line.
The previous member for Kingston talked a lot about extending the rail line. However, he was never able to deliver one cent to this project. Why? It was because the previous federal government were intent on blaming the states rather than looking at how they could contribute to building the nation’s public transport system. I am pleased that this government, the Rudd government, takes a different view. That is why I welcome wholeheartedly the announcement in this year’s federal budget of $3 million to fund a transport sustainability study for Adelaide. This is a first for a federal government. I was pleased to announce recently at the Flinders Medical Centre the specific projects that the study will focus on. One of the projects that we need to tackle is the complex engineering issue of extending the Noarlunga rail line across the Onkaparinga River. The study does exactly that. It is a complex task to extend the bridge over the Onkaparinga River, as the width and the winding nature of the river make crossing difficult. However, the study will focus on solutions.
The commitment of $3 million shows that the Rudd government is serious about being involved in the development of public transport and building a modern nation for the future. This has been backed up by the $20 billion Building Australia Fund. I am pleased to be part of a government that does make building our nation its priority.
I rise today to discuss the Rudd government’s climate change legislation and, in particular, its plan for an emissions trading scheme in Australia and the effect it will have on my constituents in the Swan electorate. With reference to two of the many constituents who have approached me on this issue, I would argue that this scheme has the potential to severely disrupt business in Western Australia and I urge the government to consider a more effective way of dealing with this issue.
I was recently contacted by two constituents who raised some extremely important points that I would like to take up with the House. The managing director of a locally based resource company contacted me, having read about the Labor government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The company in question has just completed a pre-feasibility study for a major resource subsidiary project to take place in the goldfields region of WA. This constituent’s assessment of the impact of the proposed legislation on his business is horrendous. It would not only stop his company from spending $1 billion in WA that would benefit all the people who live there with downstream benefits but also decimate the whole sector of his industry. It would make them less competitive by 16 per cent against their international competitors. This would see the shutdown of the industry in Australia and the massive export dollars that it earns. As there is so much uncertainty in the legislation, business investors worldwide are looking at Australia and thinking that we are taking a huge risk without global participation. This company has been trying to raise capital but overseas investors are not prepared to take the risk, because of the uncertainty, and this will probably kill the $1 billion capital investment in Western Australia.
If the current Rudd climate proposals become law, my constituent’s company will not qualify for assistance as an emissions-intensive trade-exposed industry. Without this assistance, the industry would risk being out-competed globally by nations that are not burdened by a carbon tax—in this case, the Philippines, Russia and Indonesia. The uncertainty surrounding the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will make it difficult to attract investors. Ultimately the project may not go ahead, and that would cost WA jobs and it would be disastrous for the Australian economy.
I have also been contacted by the director of a public company based in WA—again in my electorate and again regarding the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The company is looking at investing $2 billion into a resource extraction plant in a high unemployment region of Australia. Under the Rudd government’s climate change proposals, this project would be liable for an estimated $40 million in tax per year. Again it seems likely that this company would not qualify for assistance as an emissions-intensive trade-exposed industry. If there is no temporary protection against this tax it is likely that the project will be discontinued and relocated to a more favourable business climate, probably in Asia. Australia would lose an opportunity for $300 million to $500 million in foreign currency.
These pleas for help from local businesses demonstrate several points. First, the uncertainty surrounding the CPRS caused by the Rudd government’s confusion is crippling Australian industry. The Rudd government is very happy to announce these grand policies—the Prime Minister’s ‘grand designs’ for the country—but they seem never to be properly costed and thought through. Is it any wonder business confidence is at such an unprecedented low? Second, the Rudd government is rushing through these proposals without any appreciation of the damage they are doing to the competitiveness of businesses in Australia. Third, the Rudd government clearly underestimates or just does not care about the number of jobs that will potentially be lost by such a scheme. I do not believe that the examples I have just raised are isolated and I do not believe I am overstating the threat to Australian businesses. I would like to read to the House an extract from the Australian newspaper of Friday, 22 August 2008 titled ‘Carbon plan a company killer’. It says:
A “real world” analysis of the impact of the Government’s plans based on 14 companies that opened their books for the Business Council of Australia revealed that even with the Government’s proposed compensation, three firms would face a carbon cost so high they would close. The future of another two of the 14 companies drawn from hard-hit sectors such as aluminium refining, cement manufacture, petroleum refining, steel making, sugar milling and zinc and nickel refining would be extremely bleak. The companies, with annual revenues ranging from $90 million to more than $3 billion, revealed their confidential financial data to BCA consultants Port Jackson Partners on the basis that their identity would remain secret. But the research shows that on average, the companies’ pre-tax earnings would be cut by 22 per cent. The worst affected would suffer a 136 per cent reduction in earnings.
I am not a climate sceptic; I am a climate realist. I understand the need for action to cut the world’s carbon pollution, but I feel duty-bound to ensure that this happens in a responsible manner. That is why the coalition supports, in principle, an ETS as part of a three pillars approach to climate change. (Time expired)
On 5 June this year, the Qantas group made an announcement that would reverberate through tropical North Queensland communities. A significant reduction in international flights between Cairns and Japan—our strongest provider of international tourists—has been planned. The decision by Qantas to cut these flights means the loss of an estimated 62 per cent of total flight seat capacity to Japan, which equates to approximately 3,500 seats per week. This is a significant impact for the tropical north, and some economic analysis shows the potential financial loss to Cairns equates to about $100 million.
Earlier this week, the Minister for Tourism, Martin Ferguson, announced the release of the regional tourism profiles that provide regional communities with thorough and meaningful data about tourism in their area. The profile for tropical North Queensland states that, last year alone, visitors spent $2.8 billion in the region. Four-point-two million visitors were drawn to the region, helping to support more than 7,100 tourism related businesses.
Given my limited amount of time, I want to make the point that tourism is doing it tough in tropical North Queensland. It has been great working with the minister. I am looking forward to his visit to my electorate on Sunday and Monday and to visiting a number of tourism operators up there to experience what they provide. It is going to be a great opportunity for us to work with the industry and outline some of the measures that will be put in place in terms of a $4 million package that the federal government has committed to support tourism in Queensland.
Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
Today I rise to speak about the poor treatment of schools in my electorate by the Carpenter government in Western Australia over the last two parliaments. In particular, I want to give examples of the poor maintenance and funding provided by the Carpenter government to two schools in the north of my electorate. The area concerned is covered by the state electorate of Belmont, which happens to be the seat held by the Deputy Premier and Treasurer of WA, Mr Eric Ripper. We have had announcements from Mr Ripper advising that he has given a state grant to the Belmay Primary School. How much would you expect for a school maintenance program? How does $200,000 sound? Not bad. But the Carpenter government has rolled out the pork-barrel and announced funding of $1 million. As much as I welcome the funding of any educational institution, this reeks of vote buying.
When the Principal of Belmay Primary School, Mr Chris Leed, was questioned by the local paper, he stated that the announcement was unexpected and the school had been in need of repairs for some time. Would it be mischievous of me to say that the repairs had been required for four years or more? Of course it would, but I dare say it is probably true. Have the Carpenter government sat on previous budget surpluses to roll them out now as vote-buying slush funds? Of course they have. People in my electorate should be angry that the Carpenter government have treated them with contempt. This is blatant electioneering and pork-barrelling by the Labor Party, who earlier this year in this same room had the cheek to accuse me of pork-barrelling during the 2007 federal election. Just because I tried to get a $90,000 grant for the bowling club in my electorate, the members on the other side interjected with calls of pork-barrelling. The Labor Party have proven they are a party of hypocrisy.
I have received phone calls at my office from the people at Redcliffe Primary School, which is just down the road from Belmay Primary School. Redcliffe School is in need of the same repairs and infrastructure being provided to Belmay Primary School in a vote-buying grab. Redcliffe Primary School is older than Belmay Primary School and it is in its centenary year. I congratulate this place of education, which has provided 100 years of service and education to the community. The school needs repairs to its roof, the gutters need replacing and the verandas are in a disgraceful condition. But the Carpenter government ignore the school’s needs because it does not suit them and their re-election plan. Redcliffe Primary School has been trying to get funding for nearly three years but it has not received any funding at all. It suits the government to ignore it. Redcliffe Primary School is in its centenary year and it has been overlooked for purely political reasons. The students are expected to learn and be educated in these substandard conditions.
The WA government are showing signs of desperation. They are spending money and pork-barrelling with huge amounts from a war chest of surpluses that actually belong to the taxpayers. The WA government are a disgrace for having sat on this money for so many years. I call on the voters of Western Australia to show the Carpenter Labor government what they think of the treatment the government have meted out for the last eight years and to toss them out at the WA state election on 6 September 2008.
I wish to pay tribute to the work of volunteers, in particular those who work for Meals on Wheels. Last Wednesday was National Meals on Wheels Day. Meals on Wheels was established 55 years ago, offering meals to about eight people. Today that service has grown to provide meals to roughly 50,000 people a day. To provide so many meals to the elderly, frail and disabled, Meals on Wheels carries out this important service with the help of 80,000 volunteers and workers.
It is important to acknowledge and pay tribute to the volunteers, who offer not only their time but their care and friendship. I am proud to acknowledge one particular couple in my electorate of Lowe who were each awarded a Commonwealth Community Service Award in April this year. Mr Noel and Mrs Catherine Richardson, from Croydon Park, have given more than 50 years combined voluntary service to the local community. The Minister for Ageing, the Hon. Justine Elliot, presented them with the national award for their tremendous community service particularly to the aged. To date, Catherine Richardson has been involved in Meals on Wheels for over 25 years. Her husband, Noel, has been her driver for the last six years, while continuing his charity work with St Vincent de Paul, of which he has been a member for some 40 years. All the while, Mr and Mrs Richardson raised five children.
It is wonderful to see commendable citizens such as Mr and Mrs Richardson receiving recognition for the unpaid work they carry out in my electorate of Lowe. Their selfless hard work, like that of thousands of volunteers around Australia, has immeasurable benefits for our community and society at large. The Rudd government also recognises the vital role and the positive contribution that volunteers make to our society and the difficulties recently experienced by voluntary based groups with rising fuel costs. That is why the government has committed funding of an additional $15 million over the next three years to the Volunteers Grants Program to assist community organisations such as Meals on Wheels and their volunteers to pay their fuel bills.
Many people go without recognition for their hard work and most do not expect any. However, on this occasion the quiet, unpaid work of those around us is much appreciated and should be acknowledged by those receiving the assistance, and I would like to show that appreciation here today. I call on those living in my electorate to nominate someone they know and who they feel deserves public recognition. I look forward to meeting and awarding more citizens for their fantastic efforts. I again commend the work of my constituents Mr and Mrs Richardson for a job well done. I thank them for their efforts and ask that each and every one of us consider what we might give back to our community.
Before I call the next member, I would like to welcome Colonel Theo Tawiah, the Marshal of the Parliament of Ghana to the Main Committee. Thank you for sitting in today.
Hear, hear!
I was stunned by the Prime Minister’s talk last week of what he laughingly called a ‘revolution’ in education, given that the ALP is closing schools in my electorate without having regard to students’ interests. While the Prime Minister was crying crocodile tears over the fate of the nation’s young, the students at Bannister Creek Primary School in Ferndale were shedding real tears as they prepared to be dragged to a new site by an uncaring Labor regime. Until recently, there were three primary schools in the neighbourhood. But now there is just one and it is slated to be closed next year with the opening of a new so-called superschool. Students from Lynwood and Kinlock primary schools were transferred to Bannister Creek, which was formerly Ferndale Primary School. A new school was pledged for the Lynwood site, scheduled to open in 2009, although construction has not yet begun.
The Prime Minister’s talk of an education revolution reeks of hypocrisy given that his government are standing by while their cronies in power in Western Australia close down schools that are deemed unviable. It is all very well to talk about economies of scale, but at what cost to the welfare of our children? I am happy that the Prime Minister has apparently gone back to school; after all, his government obviously need to get some help with their sums. But he is really giving to education with one hand while his acolytes are taking with two.
There are certainly some lessons here for the rest of us. We are learning just how unreliable Labor is on education. Schools in my electorate are now suffering from both state and federal Labor governments. We have a shortage of teachers, we have the laptop debacle—which demonstrates that Labor does at least know how to divide by two—and we have closures which threaten to destroy school communities. Is that what the Prime Minister means with his talk of a new era in education? The Ferndale students, in their most tender years, face being uprooted from their happy school community and being forced to run a daily gauntlet of traffic on an arterial road for no other reason than the fleeting whim of a heartless administration. I found it ironic that the member for Swan also talked of schools. We were discussing a little earlier the fact that schools are such a major issue concerning both state and federal governments. I call on the state government to clean up this mess.
Like all cities, the city I represent, Newcastle, is indeed a unique place. But, interestingly, our demographics reveal that we are quite reflective of the typical Australian communities where typical Australian families live and work. The last census revealed that average weekly earnings in the Hunter region were $836 a week, just below the New South Wales average. Almost 15,000 households in the Newcastle electorate were purchasing their dwelling, with a median monthly home loan repayment of $1,343.
Those 15,000 householders in my electorate are among the millions of Australian households who are relieved that the Reserve Bank has announced a 0.25 per cent cut in the official interest rate, the first cut for seven years. This very welcome cut will put about $42 a month back into the pockets of average mortgage holders. The Treasurer’s determination to enlist the goodwill of the banks to pass on the rate cut in full has been quickly responded to, with most, including the Newcastle Permanent Building Society, Hunter United Employees Credit Union and the Greater Building Society, expected to reduce mortgage rates within the month. Newcastle families deserve this rate cut and rightly expect their banks to pass it on to them promptly and in full. I congratulate our local banking institutions for doing so.
Inflationary pressures have meant that many families in Newcastle and beyond are struggling to keep up with the cost of essentials like groceries, petrol, education and utilities. Ten interest rate rises in a row under the previous government have added around $400 a month to the typical mortgage and have meant that family budgets have been squeezed to breaking point. The stress on households has been reflected in the number of writs of possession issued in our region—about 24 a month, or almost one a day, over the two years to February 2008. As reported in the Newcastle Herald this week, fortunately not all of those writs are executed, but it remains a personal tragedy when even one family loses their home. Being able to access financial counselling and legal advice when mortgage stress starts to overwhelm certainly remains imperative, but the most important thing our government can do for mortgage holders is to keep a check on inflation through responsible economic management. Having inherited underlying inflation running at a 16-year high of 3.6 per cent, the Rudd government has done this by producing a budget that got government spending back under control after the blow-outs of the previous government.
Our budget produced a $22 billion surplus as a buffer against global economic instability and to provide for a productive future. By investing in the infrastructure that we need to free up our roads, rail and ports and by investing in a skilled workforce and an education revolution, we will continue to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates while keeping the economy strong and growing. But we can only do this if the opposition passes our budget, and I urge them to do so promptly.
I present to the House a petition with 489 signatures regarding the lack of mobile phone coverage at Walker Flat, a thriving community on the Murray River. Just about every adult who lives in Walker Flat has signed this petition. To put that in perspective, that would be like getting four million signatures in Sydney. That is how important this is to the local people in Walker Flat.
Mobile phone coverage along this stretch of the Murray River between the towns of Punyeroo and Bowhill is poor, with residents, businesses and holiday-makers unable to make or receive any mobile phone calls whilst in this vicinity. Houses, businesses and houseboats have no communication along this stretch of the river other than through landlines. I point out that when you are on a boat it is a bit hard to have a landline. This lack of mobile phone coverage requires residents to walk to the tops of hills in the area to try to gain mobile phone reception.
In Australia the use of mobile phone technology has grown significantly during the past five years, and more Australians have become increasingly reliant on this technology; in fact, many people use mobile phones as their sole means of communication. Mobile phone reception is essential in communities such as Walker Flat, and I call on the government to rectify this major communication failure.
Labor are up to their tricks again. When I first came into this parliament nearly 10 years ago, Labor had already arranged to get rid of the old analog coverage, which was pretty important for rural areas. It was up to the incoming Howard government to fix up that problem with CDMA coverage, which it did very well. Unfortunately, six months after this the Rudd Labor government have turned off the CDMA network, which was very important for rural areas, and we still do not have satisfactory mobile phone coverage in large areas of rural Australia. We always made the point when we were in government that we would not allow the CDMA coverage to be turned off until we had coverage at least as good as the old CDMA network. There is no doubt that this government is failing in rural areas, and I call on this government to fix up this problem.
It is with great pleasure that I present the petition.
The petition read as follows—
This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that mobile phone coverage along a stretch of the River Murray at Walker Flat, South Australia between the towns of Punyeroo and Bow Hill is incredibly poor with residents, businesses and holiday makers alike unable to make or receive any mobile phone calls while in this vicinity. Houses, business and house boats have no communication along this stretch of river except for landlines. Those who do not have landlines in this area have to walk to the tops of the hills in the area to try and get mobile phone reception. In Australia the use of mobile phone technology has grown significantly during the past five years and more Australians are becoming increasingly more reliant on using mobile phones. Therefore, good mobile phone coverage is essential in Walker Flat, especially if an emergency phone call needs to be made.
We therefore ask the House to support and encourage the Federal Government to ensure that the problem of poor mobile phone coverage at Walker Flat is rectified.
from 489 citizens.
Petition received.
A few weeks ago, on a large vacant block in an industrial estate in my electorate, I had the great pleasure of meeting Mr Kevin Kennedy, the General Manager of Gippsland Group Training-Apprentices Victoria, who, I am sure, is well known to the member for McMillan, and a number of his senior managers. GGT-AV are one of Australia’s largest and most experienced group training organisations. They have been employing, training and supporting young people in apprenticeships, especially in the traditional trades, for more than 25 years.
In July I received the news that they had been successful in receiving $2 million in funding under the National Training Infrastructure Program towards establishing a new multitrade industry centre in Derrimut, in my electorate of Gorton. The industry centre is scheduled to open in 2010 and will cater for 720 apprentices in automotive, electrical, plumbing and building construction trades, with 450 of these apprentices being directly employed and placed by GGT-AV, a very good learning institution, as the member for McMillan would know. That is why I went to Mr Kennedy: to congratulate him and his team, and to inspect the site at first hand.
I cannot overstate the significance of this announcement to my electorate and to neighbouring electorates in Melbourne’s west. Melbourne’s western suburbs suffer higher than average rates of youth unemployment. At the same time industry is crying out for skilled labour. At the moment many of the young people in my electorate who take up apprenticeships must travel up to two hours, each way, to the other side of town if they wish to participate in this particular type of training. The new industry skills centre will provide opportunities for young people in my electorate and will help local industry by providing a skilled local workforce. The Rudd government is committed to improving the skills of Australians. This contribution of $2 million to invest in the infrastructure of training is part of that commitment. I am very much looking forward to being at the opening of this magnificent learning centre.
Like the member for Gorton—and it is good to see in this place a minister caring about his community—I know that love of a geographic area. I grew up near Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp, with Yallock Creek and its surrounds as my playground. I know of that love, when you have tilled the soil and worked the fields as a teenager and when you have run your business in your community, with your lifestyle tied to the total amenity of your family and all the surrounds of that geographic area of Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp. Now all the way across that area the Victorian Labor government is going to put some powerlines, right across the beautiful amenity of the area. At this time I hold in my hand a press release from that same government lauding itself for undergrounding powerlines in urban areas. Consider the contradiction and the hypocrisy of the document that I hold in my right hand. It talks about the work that it is doing to improve the amenity of the area whilst at the same time it is going to build a coast-destroying desalination plant on the coast at Wonthaggi, in my electorate. Worse than that, it is going to cruel the amenity of so many lovers of West Gippsland, people who have run their farms, built their businesses and invested in that area for the future of themselves and their children. It is going to run these abhorrent powerlines right across Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp, to go from Wonthaggi all the way to Tynong.
Why do I care so much? It is because I have been around this country by road and, while I have seen the beauty of what is New England, the beauty of what is Queensland and the beauty of what is central New South Wales, I have still come back to the beauty of the area that I grew up in, an area for which anyone would have a natural and immediate love. So when you see something like this happening to it, you know that you are not going to be handing that beauty on to the next generation. As for powerlines in particular, I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have powerlines running right through my property. They were there when I bought the property and they are still there today. They are the main powerlines from the Latrobe Valley to Melbourne—but that does not mean that we go ahead and do not underground.
The Rudd Labor government committed to this desalination plant during the election campaign. All I am asking for is this: if, as a government, you have committed to something, you have to have regard for the amenity of the area and the individuals affected. That is a responsibility of government; it is a responsibility of individual members as well. That protection has to come in now, and the government should be undergrounding those power lines if they want this project to go ahead. It will double the price, but isn’t it worth it for the amenity of those people affected?
I would like to make a statement on the issue of alcohol and binge drinking, particularly among young people. I want to start by pointing out some figures released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare at the recent Senate estimates which define the problem of binge drinking. The director of the institute, Dr Penny Allbon, stated that 9.1 per cent of young people aged 14 to 19 drink at risky or high-risk levels at least once a week. That is approximately 170,000 young Australians.
The city of Geelong in my electorate has a problem. We have had some terrible incidents in Geelong involving binge drinking and a very recent incident where young partygoers, fuelled by alcohol, pelted police with bottles and debris. We have had people bashed to within an inch of their lives due to binge drinking. We have had knifings; we have had young women brutally raped. Every night we have young people arrested, babbling incoherently. Often drugs are involved, but almost always binge drinking is involved as well.
Some local media in my region are running a very important campaign to educate young people and to get some action on this issue. Recently a very good piece was written in the Geelong Advertiser by Danny Lannen. Danny put the issue more succinctly than I could. I propose to read a part of his piece out for the benefit of members. It is a piece that deserves to be put on the record in this place. The piece is in response to the Geelong Advertiser’s ‘Just Think’ campaign—a very important social initiative by that paper and I totally commend them for their effort. The piece is titled: ‘Think before you drink; it’s a clear message’ It says:
Just think.
Just think about the instant the head hits the concrete.
Think about the way the skin splits, the blood leaks and the skull breaks.
Think about the reaction of the traumatised brain.
Think about a life abruptly in peril. Think about a life perhaps forever changed. Think about the potential perhaps never realised.
Think about family members, white with shock at the measure of injury suffered by their loved one.
Think about the sense of emergency as the body lies listless on the footpath.
Think about the medical response and how swift and sure it needs to be.
Think about the precious seconds.
Think about that body in freefall before the sickening landing.
Think about the malicious king hit, which sent it flying without warning.
Think about the attacker and the cowardly act.
Think how stupidly insignificant and futile the reason for the flash of rage might have been.
Think about a night which started out in innocence, but became distorted in a wash of alcohol ...
(Time expired)
I am pleased to report to the House on the Shire 2020+ Youth Summit held in my electorate on 18 July in partnership with the member for Hughes at the local retirement village of Waterbrook at Yowie Bay. Joining us as event patrons were local and National Rugby League legend Jason Stevens and former ironwoman, schoolteacher and President of the Wanda Surf Life Saving Club, Anita Pryke. We were also pleased and honoured to have local Gweagal elder Merv Ryan to provide a welcome to country and join us throughout the day.
The summit was attended by some 50 young shire residents aged between 16 and 24 from all walks of life and backgrounds. Summit delegates debated issues as diverse as the environment and world-class education to youth suicide and depression. The summit made it clear that, while young people expect governments to do their job, they strongly believe the challenge to create a better society does not begin and end with governments.
I was encouraged by the importance our younger generation placed on community and the need to take a proactive role to provide a positive future and confront problems in our society. With the proliferation of technology, where it is easier to text someone than talk to them, there was a strong sense of the need to get back to basics with our relationships and take a greater personal interest in the welfare of others, especially locally.
The summit expressed more specifically a clear desire to create and foster a stronger community among young people in the shire and also between generations. Keenly aware of the impact that economic stress and family breakdown was having on their own generation, delegates also highlighted the need to ensure that young Australians were being taught the life skills for today’s modern world. This included more instruction on managing personal finances, how to have successful personal relationships and generally handling the stresses of modern life.
Delegates also spoke of their willingness to get involved in local community organisations, whether it was sports clubs, lifesaving, bush care groups or our Rural Fire Service. However, they expressed a need to do it in a way that was relevant to their generation. With the average age of volunteers in the 60s, this is a challenge that will require new thinking from our volunteer organisations, supported by governments, on how they recruit and retain younger volunteers.
They also recognised the corrosive effect that negative attitudes and behaviour have on society and how these attitudes manifest themselves through binge drinking, substance abuse, violence and other antisocial activity. Delegates said the challenge was to proactively provide an alternative to these harmful cultures and they are looking for assistance to do just that. They also want more chances for young people in the shire to get together and relate to one another in a more positive and inclusive environment. There was recognition of the need for global action to address climate change but, more significantly, there was a strong commitment for all of us to take steps to ensure we look after our own local environment—our beaches, parks and waterways.
It was a privilege to spend the day with them. Their ideas are summarised on the event’s website, www.shire2020.com.au. I particularly wish to thank Kevin Ryan from Waterbrook as well as my youth liaison officer, Matt Versi, who, together with Britany Kenaly from the office of the member for Hughes, organised and brought the event together. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on behalf of my constituents in Hindmarsh on the need for a Commonwealth Dental Health Program in this nation. It is a big need, and especially in my electorate of Hindmarsh, which has many elderly people—in fact, it has one of the oldest constituencies in the country. This Rudd Labor government was elected on a platform that included the reintroduction of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. However, dental care for pensioners risks being stalled by the opposition as they continue to block funding for the government’s program.
Currently, in South Australia the average waiting time for dental care restorative services is estimated at 18 months, for dentures 39 months and for specialist dental care 33 months. This number is down from 49 months in 2001, after the Rann Labor government poured quite a significant amount of money into the program. After the Howard government abolished the Commonwealth dental program in 1996 as one of their first acts in government, South Australians were waiting an average of four years to see a dentist. As I said, the South Australian government has worked very hard to decrease the waiting times. However, we know more needs to be done.
There are currently approximately 30,000 people on waiting lists in South Australia, many of whom are in my electorate and are pensioners. We have heard horror stories of some pensioners resorting to pulling out their own teeth to stop the pain while languishing on these public dental waiting lists. The opposition can currently give these pensioners immediate relief if they choose to pass this important measure in the Senate. They would be able to assist pensioners immediately, but by blocking funding for this program they are only doing harm to these people and making them wait longer. Pensioners across South Australia, and particularly in my electorate, deserve to receive the dental care they need and not have games being played in the Senate by the opposition purely for politicking.
Australia-wide there are 650,000 people waiting for public dental care, and the average waiting list Australia-wide in 2007 was 27 months. The opposition is threatening to stop $290 million from reaching public dental services to help reduce these dental waiting lists. This will only be to the detriment of the Australian public and many, many pensioners. The opposition is jeopardising the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, leaving pensioners out in the cold. This is obscene, but it is not uncommon amongst the opposition. As I said earlier, one of the first acts of the Howard government was the initial cessation of the program in 1996. So I urge the opposition to pass these very important measures as soon as possible in order to allow pensioners, many of them in my electorate of Hindmarsh, the dental treatment that they require. Under the new Commonwealth dental program, pensioners will receive up to a million treatments, which will provide immediate relief for those 650,000 people. (Time expired)
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 27 August, on motion by Mr Bowen:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008. It is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation that has the full support of the opposition. The legislation gives effect in law to a new tax treaty with Japan. The new tax treaty, which updates an older treaty, was negotiated and the detail was concluded by the coalition government before the change of government in November last year.
Before I go into the substance of the bill, I just want to make a few comments about the importance of our relationship with Japan. I think it is important for members in this place to remember that Japan is one of our most important allies. It is, of course, our largest trading partner, although in many ways now you hear so much more about China. I am not trying to set up Japan in opposition to China or anything like that, because China remains terribly important for Australia’s future, but it should be noted that Japan is our largest trading partner. In Western Australia it was actually the Japanese demand for resources that resulted in the opening up of the Pilbara. Those great economic advances in Western Australia were something that Sir Charles Court pursued very readily in his time as a minister and Premier. He established excellent relationships with Japanese political figures and business figures that opened up the north-west of Western Australia. That Japanese influence is extremely important for the whole of the Australian economy.
Moves to improve our economic relationship, such as this bill which updates a tax treaty, are very important for Australia’s national interest and they have the full support of the opposition. This bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to incorporate into Australian law the Convention between Australia and Japan for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income. This convention replaces the Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Japan for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income that was signed in Canberra on 20 March 1969. This was obviously at a time when the Australia-Japan relationship, while strong, was not as strong as it is today and it makes sense that this treaty be updated to take into account changes in our respective laws. This new treaty was agreed in principle on 3 August 2007 between the then Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello, and the Japanese finance minister, Koji Omi—and I apologise if that is not a particularly good pronunciation. The convention is based on the OECD model tax convention and is generally consistent with other tax treaties that have been concluded by Australia, including treaties we have with the United States and other important trading partners.
The previous treaty no longer reflected the developments in the economic relationship between Australia and Japan, and those developments of course are numerous and vitally important to Australia’s interests. So in recognition of this the coalition government undertook a series of negotiations in 2007 to comprehensively revise the previous convention. The commencement of negotiations by the coalition government illustrates our commitment to encouraging foreign investment and encouraging opportunities for Australian businesses in overseas markets.
Australia and Japan share a mutual understanding. I have had the opportunity to visit Japan on a number of occasions in a personal capacity and an official capacity. We are both market based liberal democracies. Our countries have a very longstanding relationship. In Japan there is a very strong recognition of the importance of Australia to their economic wellbeing, which is obviously reflected in Australia.
Since 1969 when the original treaty was concluded, Japan has been Australia’s largest export market. I think that is very important. Japan remains Australia’s largest trading partner. Japan is also Australia’s third largest source of foreign investment, and that foreign investment has been crucial, as I outlined earlier, for the resources, tourism and manufacturing sectors. Japanese investment, as I said, was vital in opening up those northern parts of Western Australia.
I am optimistic that the agreement on this convention will encourage ongoing negotiations towards a free trade agreement with Japan. This has been something that has been on the agenda for many years. Negotiations, I think it is fair to say, have been patchy. I think initially there was probably more enthusiasm for this treaty in Australia than might have been met with by our Japanese counterparts, but I detect that the mood is rapidly changing. I think it is terribly important that we do conclude this free trade agreement once and for all with our largest trading partner.
The convention updates the previous convention by providing for reduced rates of withholding tax on dividends, interest and royalties; improved integrity measures; and new rules for real property which bring the capital gains tax treatment into line with that of the OECD. The convention has a number of key changes from the previous convention, such as: the inclusion of anti-treaty-shopping provisions in relation to withholding tax rates on dividends, interest and royalties; the inclusion of a limitation on the benefits clause to ensure treaty benefits pass only to qualified persons; rules to prevent tax discrimination; specific provisions for the taxation of business profits from natural resource activities, building sites and the operation of substantial equipment; specific provisions relating to the taxation of income derived through business trusts; provisions preventing double exemption of income derived by temporary residence; and provisions that will encourage the cross-border movement of people, capital and technology between Australia and Japan.
The convention also facilitates increased cooperation between the Australian and Japanese tax authorities to reduce fiscal evasion. The convention will encourage the growth of Australian and Japanese enterprises by making it easier to obtain intellectual property equity and finance. The convention will reduce complexity and compliance costs for Australian businesses and their Japanese counterparts. This convention will lead to real economic benefits for both our economies and will build on the strong relationship between Australia and Japan. I think this is a non-controversial bill, but it is a terribly important bill and it will enhance one of our most important relationships. I commend it very heartily to the House. I congratulate the previous Treasurer for concluding the detail of this particular treaty and I urge all members to support it.
I rise to support the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008. This bill will strengthen the strong ties Australia enjoys with Japan, and I take this opportunity to focus in this debate on the strength and the importance of this relationship. This century is the century of the Asia-Pacific. Our region will become more important to global growth and security than ever before. Paul Keating once warned that if you do not succeed in the Asia-Pacific you succeed nowhere. Our relationship with Japan is integral to Australia’s achieving success in the Asia-Pacific area.
This bill is one of many steps this government is taking to ensure that. It is Australia’s second comprehensive tax treaty with Japan. It will modernise the tax relationship between the two countries and will serve to facilitate trade and investment between Australia and Japan. The relationship between Australia and Japan is forged on many levels. Firstly, the two nations share many similarities. We share common values. We are both great democracies. We both share very similar values also on the direction that East Asia should take, having agreed to work together to strengthen various regional forums, including the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, or APEC; the ASEAN Regional Forum, or ARF; and the East Asia Summit, or EAS. We share the common goal of promoting peace, security, prosperity, development and sustainability in the Asia-Pacific region.
Perhaps the strongest relationship we enjoy is through economic ties. We are lucky in Australia, as we have one of the most resource rich continents, from the iron ore mines in the Pilbara to the cattle stations in Rockhampton. This has formed the basis of the strong economic bond between Australia and Japan. Japan is our biggest export market and has been for the last 40 years, with $32.7 billion worth of goods last year. We are the third biggest importer of Japanese goods—$17.4 billion worth. Overall, there is a two-way trade of $54.5 billion.
Japan is Australia’s largest export market for energy and the second largest export market for beef. We supply 87 per cent of Japan’s beef. The chances are that, if you are eating a steak in Japan, it will have come from one of our cattle farms in Rockhampton or in the Kimberley. This enduring economic cooperation was solidified over 50 years ago when the Commerce Treaty was signed in 1957. Since then, our economic ties have continued to strengthen, and this bill is evidence of that.
This new tax treaty with Japan enhances the existing bilateral tax arrangements between Australia and Japan, creating incentives for increasing trade and investment between our two countries. Already, Japan is Australia’s third largest investor, with an investment stock of $51 billion as at the end of 2006. This bill serves to further increase that investment. I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs for signing the treaty in February this year, and I congratulate the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs for introducing this bill into the parliament.
Australia and Japan have stood side by side on two major challenges that the international community faces. Australia and Japan have fervently supported efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. There is a great onus on both countries to be champions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of global nuclear disarmament. Japan carries the burden of being the only state to have experienced the consequences of nuclear weapons. Australia carries the responsibility of being the country with the largest known uranium reserves. We both have a unique perspective on nuclear disarmament and we share a common view on the importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Australia and Japan have stood solidly side by side on this issue.
The new global challenge of the 21st century is climate change. Climate change is the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of this century and, again, it is an area where Japan and Australia share many common views. The international community met over a decade ago in Kyoto with the objective of reducing greenhouse gases. It was an important first step towards a global emissions reduction regime. Like the Australian government, the government of Japan has acted decisively on climate change. In an address to the Japan National Press Club in June this year, former Prime Minister Fukuda said:
We must squarely face the current state of the global environment and, instead of repeating empty calls, step up real action that will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Japan has already provided real action on this issue. It ratified the Kyoto protocol in June 2002. There is a history of our two countries working together on climate change. Australia is Japan’s main source of coal and provides Japan with a quarter of its energy needs. We have also have been working together on clean coal technology.
The government has been working closely with Japanese car maker Toyota to start building hybrid versions of its Camry model at its factory in Victoria. In June this year, when the Prime Minister visited Japan, he announced a $35 million subsidy to Toyota. However, the partnership between Australia and Japan is not limited to economic, security and strategic ties. There are also very strong personal ties. In a speech the Prime Minister gave at Kyoto University on a recent visit to Japan, he said:
Our relationship is strong and our friendship is enduring.
Already, under this government, seven cabinet ministers have visited Japan this year. The Prime Minister has visited on two occasions. Australians and Japanese share equally strong ties. There are currently 64,000 Japanese residents in Australia, the fifth largest Japanese community outside Japan. In 2007, 570,000 Japanese visited Australia and 220,000 Australians returned the favour. Tourism is an area that continues to bind our two countries. In fact, it was through tourism that Australia gained arguably one of Japan’s greatest exports, Tetsuya Wakuda, the head chef at one of the top 10 restaurants in the world. Tetsuya grew up in Japan until the age of 22. Armed with his only piece of information about Australia—that there were lots of koalas and kangaroos around—and having only limited English he decided to travel to Australia, where he has stayed ever since. It is Japan’s great loss, but we have gained one of the world’s great chefs—and, I must admit, I am a big fan of Tetsuya’s restaurant.
Sister city relationships also increase our cultural bonds. Japan and Australia share 102 sister cities. One of those sister city relationships exists in my electorate. The Japanese city of Suita is the sister city of Bankstown. As part of this arrangement youth exchanges take place between the two cities, promoting cultural understanding and friendship between our next generations. I look forward to meeting the 20 local students who will be travelling to Suita on 4 October.
I also share a strong affinity with Japan. I am the chair of the Australia-Japan Parliamentary Friendship Group and I had the privilege of meeting the Japanese Ambassador to Australia, Takaaki Kojima, at the Japanese embassy earlier this year. It was an honour to meet him. In the short time he has been the Japanese Ambassador to Australia, just 10 months, he has done a fantastic job of strengthening the close ties between our two countries. In my role as the chair of the friendship group, I look forward to working closely with the ambassador and his team to continue to build on this strong and enduring relationship. As part of that, I will be visiting Japan in early October as a guest of the Japanese government. I thank the ambassador for his kind invitation. This visit will provide a great opportunity for me to gain a greater understanding of the importance of this significant relationship. I look forward to gaining a greater insight into the political, economic, strategic, security and cultural aspects of Japan.
This morning as I was driving to work, I saw what I think is the most visually symbolic example of the enduring friendship between our two countries. While driving along State Circle, here in the nation’s capital, I noticed that one side of the road was lined with cherry blossoms, the national flower of Japan. The other side of the road was lined with the golden wattle, Australia’s national flower. It is a symbol of the strength and closeness we share. This bill further embeds the bond our two countries share, and I commend the bill to the House.
As I rise to speak on the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the three government members listed to speak on this bill are all from Western Sydney. That is quite easy to explain: with a population of nearly two million people, Western Sydney is the third largest economy in Australia. With our population growing faster than the rest of the country, there is perhaps no more serious issue than increasing the economic strength of our communities. We will do that not only by how well we engage the skills, imagination and hard work of our own people, but also by how well we engage with the world. We are lucky in Western Sydney in that, in many ways, we have the world within us. The people who have migrated here have brought to this country their languages, knowledge and business experience and they are comfortable dealing with various parts of the world. We already have the world very much within us in Western Sydney. But our relationship with Japan, which has been strong and enduring over many decades, is one of the most important to us.
I have worked on this bill and read sections of it over the last week. As I have said several times when I have spoken on tax law, it is all a bit dry. In fact, it is very dry. I come from a music background, so I am looking forward to seeing a bill which I understand and which other people have to read three times! There are paragraphs in this bill where, quite frankly, I fell asleep before I got to the end of them. But what underpins it, the purpose of the bill, what it is actually about, is really quite fascinating and has grabbed my imagination as I have worked on it over the last week. The bill underpins an incredibly important relationship. What it deals with is how people make decisions to commit more to Australia, to commit more to the relationship with Japan, to invest, to trade and to essentially commit over the long term to building a stronger relationship. It looks at what barriers there might be, it looks at the complexities, it looks at the burdens of complying with two complex tax codes. It also looks at the needs of the people of both countries in supporting those relationships. It looks at whether the people with businesses who live and work in both countries are getting a fair deal out of the taxation arrangements. So underpinning all of this very dry legislation is an incredibly important process that Australia and Japan will go through in order to strengthen our relationship into the future.
The bill seeks to give force of law to a renegotiated tax treaty. The renegotiations began under the Howard government in 2007 and the new treaty was signed on 31 January 2008. It will replace what will soon become the old tax treaty, which was signed in March 1969 and came into effect on 1 July 1970. That is 38 years ago. During the 38 years of that treaty, the way that businesses think and work, the range of businesses in both countries and the way that business moves between the two countries with technology have changed quite considerably. So it is well and truly overdue that this incredibly important treaty, which underpins the growth of our relationship, be reviewed.
The new treaty will come into force 30 days after both countries have completed their domestic requirements. Japan have already met theirs. This bill is part of the process of Australia meeting our commitment. It inserts the text of the new treaty, which was signed in January this year, into the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 effectively replacing the old treaty of 1969. I hope I am speaking about this in English—I am actually trying very hard to keep this in understandable language. In order to allow the Australia-Japan tax treaty to come into effect, for the purposes of withholding tax from 1 January 2009 the bill needs to pass both houses of parliament and receive royal assent prior to 30 November 2008, so there are some time constraints on the House.
If you are a business or an individual straddling both countries, this is incredibly important and interesting legislation. It is important for businesses operating, or planning to operate, in both countries and trying to deal with the complexities of two tax systems and for the citizens of both countries to ensure that appropriate taxes are paid. The treaty is essentially about removing or reducing tax barriers to cross-border movement of people, capital or technology; tax barriers do apply to all three. It does this by relieving double taxation, preventing tax discrimination and providing certainty with respect to the tax treatment of cross-border income flows, thereby reducing the compliance burdens and excessive taxation on taxpayers and allowing businesses to get on with what it is that they actually do.
The new tax treaty will improve the integrity of the tax system—and, again, it is required after 38 years of change—and will promote cross-border trade and investment with one of our most important trading partners, Japan. You cannot underestimate just how important that relationship is and how important it has been over the last 40 years, not only because of the size of the money flow—and Japan is still our largest trading partner—but also because of its longevity and strength and the quality of the relationship between our two nations. The relationship is not one of a quick buck and it is not one of quick import and export; there are very real longstanding relationships and investments in capital in both countries that hold our relationships in very good stead.
Japan is Australia’s largest export market and it has played a central role in Australia’s postwar economic development. At the moment, China is likely to overtake Japan’s position as the primary export market, but the complementary nature of the Australia-Japan relationship, its longevity and the strength of our personal and business relationships will ensure that that relationship remains vital to both economies long into the future. In 2007 Japan was the world’s second largest economy, measured in US dollars, and the third largest economy, measured in purchasing power parity. Economic growth is expected to continue at the rate of 1.5 to two per cent over the next two years. Japan’s economy is driven by strong business investment and export growth, with strong regional demand providing considerable input.
Japan—this powerhouse to our north—became Australia’s primary export market in 1969, the same year that the old treaty was negotiated, and it continues in the No. 1 position today. In 2007 the two-way trade between our two countries was valued at $54.5 billion, accounting for a 0.9 per cent decrease on 2006. Trade between the two countries is largely stable as a result of the domination in our relationship by multinationals in the resources sector using very long-term supply contracts. Japan is Australia’s third largest source of investment—which, in 2006, was valued at $51 billion. Japanese investment has played a central role in Australia’s postwar economic development, particularly in the resources, manufacturing, auto and tourism sectors.
The Australian-Japan economic relationship is significant due to its historical and contemporary importance, and the two economies enjoy a highly complementary trade relationship and relative geographic proximity. It is a very strong foundation on which to build. Again, this bill ensures that people—and they are people and businesses that build this relationship—are working under the best circumstances in which to do that.
Stakeholders’ submissions which have been received are overwhelmingly supportive of this new treaty, particularly in relation to the 10 per cent withholding tax rate for dividends and the interest withholding tax exemptions. Submissions to the government’s tax treaty review largely suggested that the approach taken in the Japanese tax treaty be applied to future Australian tax treaties.
The Convention between Australia and Japan for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income does a number of specific things. Probably the most significant of these are summarised by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in report 91, which was tabled on 12 March 2008. It summarises the key differences between the 1969 Japanese tax treaty and the 2008 Japanese convention. I will just read into the record two of those paragraphs:
4.4 The Committee was advised that the proposed treaty is generally consistent with recent tax treaties concluded by Australia and includes a number of changes from the existing treaty. The key differences are reduced rates of withholding taxes (WHT) on dividends, interest and royalties, and improved integrity measures, particularly relating to rules for the exchange of information on tax matters. The treaty also introduces rules for real property which align the Capital Gains Tax treatment closely with that of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
4.5 Treasury advised that it sought greater clarity in the revised agreement. The organisations that would be subject to exemptions for interests to withholding taxes have been expanded to include the Australian Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, the public authority that manages the investments of Australia’s Future Fund, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, and Nippon Export and Investment Insurance.
The other key changes which were summarised in that report included the inclusion of anti-treaty-shopping provisions in relation to withholding tax rates on dividends, the inclusion of the comprehensive limitation on the benefits clause to ensure treaty benefits passed only to qualified persons and rules to prevent tax discrimination.
It is quite a complex bill. There are many people in the departments in both countries that have done substantial and really good quality work in a very complex area to put this treaty together. It has been incredibly well supported by stakeholders in the industry and it will, without any doubt, place this extremely important relationship between Australia and Japan in good stead to grow into the future. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to add my comments to this debate and to speak in support of the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008. The bill, once enacted, will implement into Australian law the taxing rights and obligations set out in the convention entered into earlier this year between the Australian government and the Japanese government—the Convention between Australia and Japan for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income.
This convention between Australia and another sovereign nation, Japan, is what is typically known as a double tax agreement. These arrangements are not only common for us as a nation to enter into but absolutely essential in the context of the global economy that we all now live within. What does a double tax agreement do? Essentially, a double tax agreement, or tax treaty, seeks to allocate taxation rights to the respective jurisdictions. Where gains are derived by individuals or entities, there will always be a desire on the part of a domestic jurisdiction to tax those gains. But in a global economy there needs to be some balancing of the desire of an individual jurisdiction to tax those gains and ensuring that individuals doing business across borders are not being taxed twice by two jurisdictions. A double taxation agreement is about the coming together of two nations to reach some agreement as to how gains derived by individuals and entities in those two contracting states are to be appropriately taxed so that individual taxpayers do not have to pay tax twice.
This is an essential element of having an open trading environment across the globe, and it is on that basis that we enter into many of these agreements on a bilateral basis. In most cases the terms of those agreements override the specific provisions of domestic taxation law in our country. It is worth noting that it is of particular importance in a case such as Japan that Australia modernise and update its arrangements with one of our most significant trading partners when it comes to taxation and our respective obligations and rights to tax individuals in respect of their gains. As a result of that recognition, the government has entered into that agreement and we are now implementing that agreement into domestic law through this bill.
As one of our key trading partners, Japan has been Australia’s largest export market for over 40 years, with bilateral merchandise trade totalling $54.5 billion in 2007. Japan is also Australia’s third largest investor, with a total stock of investment worth $51 billion at the end of 2006. It is also worth noting that Australia is the third largest exporter of food to Japan, and those exports are valued at more than US$4 million. In trade terms our relationship with Japan is a significant one. But not only do we have a strong relationship in trading terms; we also have a strong relationship at the diplomatic level as fellow international citizens.
A tax treaty is not only about allocating taxation rights between contracting states; it is also about ensuring that there is some mutual cooperation on stamping out practices that would challenge the integrity of revenue measures within each of those states. An essential part of this bill and the convention that it implements is that it strengthens some of those integrity measures. I think all members of this place would agree that that is a good thing.
I would now like to turn to some of the technical amendments contained within the convention. The new treaty provides that the dividends, interest and royalties paid from one country, which is defined as ‘the source country’, to a person who is a resident in the other contracting state will generally remain taxable in both countries but with limits on the tax that the source country may charge on the resident of the other country. In respect of withholding taxes relating to dividends, interest and royalties, a number of significant changes will be implemented as part of this convention.
In respect of dividends, under the existing treaty between the Australian and Japanese governments, which was signed back in 1969, the maximum withholding tax rate which may be imposed is 15 per cent. Under the new treaty, there are essentially four classes of dividends, which will be taxed in different ways depending on the nature of those dividends. No tax will be chargeable on intercorporate non-portfolio dividends where the recipient holds directly at least 80 per cent of the voting power of the company that is paying the dividend. This will be subject to certain conditions. There will be a five per cent rate limit, which will apply on all other non-portfolio intercorporate dividends where the recipient holds directly at least 10 per cent of the voting power in the company that is paying that dividend.
The treaty also contains a 15 per cent rate limit, which will apply to distributions from Australian real estate investment trusts. That 15 per cent limit will also apply to dividends which are paid by a Japanese company which is entitled to a deduction for dividends paid to its beneficiaries in calculating its taxable income in Japan where more than 50 per cent of that company’s assets consist of real property in Japan.
The fourth category of dividend, which will essentially be all of those other dividends that do not fit into any of the above three categories, will be subjected to a withholding tax rate limit of 10 per cent. This is a significant reduction in the withholding tax rates that apply to dividends across the board. I think this will clearly facilitate greater cross-border investment, both outbound and inbound. Clearly, the rationale of this bill is to enhance the already very strong economic relationship that we have with Japan.
In respect of interest, the ability of a source country to tax residents of the other contracting state will continue to be limited to 10 per cent. However, there are some alterations. No tax will be chargeable in the source country on interest derived by a financial institution resident in the other country, a body performing governmental functions, including central banks, the Australian Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, any public authority that manages the investments of Australia’s Future Fund, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation or Nippon Export and Investment Insurance. There are some safeguards that apply in respect of interest income earned from those particular entities.
In respect of royalties, the general limit for royalties will be reduced from 10 per cent to five per cent. This is a significant change that will drive much increased investment in Australia. The new treaty provides that amounts derived from equipment leasing—this area has been a matter of some uncertainty in the past—including certain container leasing, will be excluded from the royalty definition. They will be treated and dealt with under the international transport operations article, which is article 8, or under the business profits article, which is article 7.
In respect of the withholding tax that applies on royalties, intellectual property is one of the most significant assets to which royalties and royalty withholding tax will apply. We will see a greater capacity for our nations to share in some of the intellectual property that is generated and created in our respective states.
I would also just like to comment more specifically on some of the measures contained within the convention that seek to preserve the revenue base here in Australia. Specifically, the convention preserves our taxing rights over income from real property and income arising from activities related to our natural resources. There is a clarification of our boundaries in terms of resources. That is of particular significance in respect of resources contained within those expanded boundaries.
It is also worth noting that this convention enhances information exchange provisions which allow tax administrations of both of the jurisdictions to share tax information. This is an essential part of maintaining integrity in our respective tax systems but, importantly, those provisions will be extended more broadly to take into account the goods and services tax, which of course was not anticipated by anyone back when the original treaty was entered into.
All in all, there are a range of integrity measures that are included within the convention. The measures go a long way towards ensuring not only that we are bringing down some of those potential double-taxation barriers that exist and might act as a disincentive to further investment between the two countries but also protection and preservation of our revenue base.
There are a number of other features of the convention that are worth noting. Apart from expanding the list of taxes covered, there is a refinement of the definition of ‘permanent establishment’, including prescribed time limits for the creation of PE, permanent establishment, where an enterprise is engaged in the exploration for or exploitation of natural resources. A significant element of the convention is the provisions that relate to comprehensive alienation of property, which broadly align the capital gains tax treatment with OECD practice whilst preserving our taxing rights over Australian assets that have that physical connection with Australia. This is particularly important in relation to mining rights and other interests related to Australian real property.
There are special provisions that relate to a particular type of arrangement that exists with Japan involving sleeping partners—an expression that relates to the nature of the entities for taxation purposes and nothing else—which clarify the situation and take into account some peculiarities that exist in the legal and taxation arrangements within Japan. Importantly—and this will be an issue that provides much greater certainty to taxpayers in both countries—a time limit of seven years will be enshrined for the commencement of transfer pricing audits. But, ensuring the integrity of the system, there will be no such limit in the case of fraud or evasion, which is a very common carve-out in relation to time limitations in taxation matters. Fraud or evasion should never be matters that are protected by a time limitation.
Importantly, the convention also creates new rules to prevent tax discrimination against nationals and Australian businesses operating in Japan and vice versa. There is also a comprehensive limitation-on-benefits article to prevent abuse of the treaty—specific integrity provisions that seek to ensure that taxpayers are not able to avoid their obligations by relying upon these particular provisions within the convention.
That is a summary of some of the specific technical amendments that are contained within the convention. But it is worth reflecting more generally on the benefits of entering into this convention. Apart from the fact that, by reducing withholding tax, we are reducing the interest burden on Australian borrowers of Japanese debt—and I think we would all agree that that will certainly assist some of our companies looking to make inroads into various markets—there will be an expected increase in economic activity between Australia and Japan. That will be a natural by-product of streamlining the taxation processes and arrangements with respect to the two countries. That is a great thing and it will benefit our economy and much of the industry within it.
The cost of borrowing from Japanese lenders for Australian businesses will reduce, which will also assist many Australian businesses. The increased economic activity that is anticipated will lead to greater tax receipts in the long run. Taxation is one of those wonderful tools where, sometimes by reducing it and delivering a benefit to the economy, the revenue is able to recoup some of those reductions by way of additional tax receipts as a result of the benefit of that investment.
The benefits of encouraging foreign direct investment are plain to see for all of us. The introduction of new technologies, governance standards and management concepts will directly flow from the updating of this particular treaty. There will also be training and skill upgrading, improved productivity, increased imports and exports, increased competition, more efficiency and lower consumer prices. It is a fallacy to think that higher withholding taxes are in the end borne by the nonresident from the other contracting state. We all know that they are very quick to pass on the additional costs to the consumers. Many of those consumers are people in Australia securing those goods and services.
Regarding the impact of lower dividend withholding tax on foreign direct investment, the flows of foreign direct investment are highly sensitive to country tax rates. Therefore, we can expect an increase in foreign direct investment as a result of this legislation. OECD research shows that a one per cent reduction in tax rates leads to a 4.28 per cent increase in foreign direct investment inflows, which is a significant additional investment that we would expect to flow from some of the reductions that have occurred.
The benefits of a revised tax treaty include having a more modern and updated instrument that dictates these matters. That in itself is an end that should be supported. This particular convention removes some of the existing impediments to investment and trade between the two countries. Withholding tax removal prevents a lockup of profits offshore. As a result of these changes, we will see more Australian businesses doing business in Japan and vice versa. The benefits of that will be great for our national economy.
I want to reflect briefly on the press release issued by the Assistant Treasurer in relation to consultation regarding Australia’s tax treaties. Whilst the consultations involved tax treaties more generally, it is worth noting that a number of the comments that came back through the various stakeholders that contributed to this debate were very much in support of and praised the elements of the Australia-Japan tax treaty, particularly in relation to the need for lower dividend and royalty withholding tax rates. Clarification has been brought about by the provisions that deal with real estate investment trusts, or REITs. There is also the treatment of capital gains and bringing that treatment into line with OECD practice and the issue of transfer pricing and imposing a time limitation with the exception of where cases of fraud or evasion are to be considered.
In concluding, I want to bring this debate back to my local community and acknowledge the very strong friendship that the Penrith City Council has with a number of city councils and cities in Japan. Fujieda City in the Shizuoka Prefecture and Penrith City signed a sister city agreement back in 1984. A long and very strong friendship has emerged as a result of that agreement, which involves yearly student exchange programs—with more than 200 exchange students during the time since the agreement—and regular citizen exchanges. This has been of great benefit to both cities.
In addition, the Penrith City Council has a relationship with Hakusan City in the Ishikawa Prefecture. This friendship agreement was signed in 1989, extending beyond friendship and involving increasingly developed and closer economic ties between the two countries. No doubt these great relationships and Australia’s great trading relationship with Japan will only improve as a result of this convention. (Time expired)
in reply—I thank the members for Stirling, Blaxland, Parramatta and Lindsay for their very worthwhile contributions to this debate on the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2008. Responding to the needs of both Australian and Japanese business, the new Australia-Japan income tax convention comprehensively updates the existing tax treaty arrangements with Japan, which were last updated in 1969. The existing agreement no longer fully reflects the modern tax treaty policies of either country. The new convention, which will modernise and enhance the bilateral tax arrangements between Australia and Japan, was signed in Tokyo on 31 January this year. The bill will give force to the law of the new tax treaty with Japan by inserting the text of the new convention into the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 and repealing the existing treaty.
Tax treaties do facilitate trade and investment by minimising tax barriers between treaty partner countries. The importance of tax treaties is magnified where the relationship is as strong as that between Australia and Japan. So this is one of the more significant tax treaties that the parliament has considered in recent times. The new convention underlines the strength of the modern and sophisticated bilateral ties between the two countries and reduces obstacles to inhibit further corporate expansion into Japan.
Japan is Australia’s third largest investor. Direct investment by Japan continues to play a key role in the development of many Australian industries, including export industries such as car manufacturing and the natural resource development activities that have driven Australia’s export performance. Australia is now one of the largest recipients of offshore investment by Japanese mutual funds. From Australia’s perspective, Japan is the fourth largest destination of Australia’s investment abroad and it has been Australia’s largest export market for more than 40 years.
The new convention streamlines taxation arrangements between the two countries to the benefit of both economies. The key outcomes from the convention include: lower withholding tax rates on dividend and royalty payments for businesses looking to expand offshore and obtain access to valuable intellectual property, which the member for Lindsay referred to in some detail; specified interest withholding tax exemptions that will facilitate more competitive and accessible cross-border debt arrangements; and broadly aligning capital gains tax treatment with international practice and with Australia’s domestic law. The treaty also ensures Australia’s revenue base is appropriately protected by preserving taxation rights over income from real property and income arising from activities relating to Australia’s natural resources and by enhancing information exchange provisions which allow the tax administrations of both countries to share information—something particularly important in these times of heightened efforts to crack down on tax havens.
Public submissions received as part of the review of Australia’s taxation treaty—again this was referred to by my friend the member for Lindsay—and policy announced by the government earlier this year strongly supported the outcomes of this convention. Modernising, updating and reducing our withholding tax rates have of course been key economic priorities of this government. The new convention will enter into force 30 days after both countries advise that they have completed their domestic requirements, which in this case includes this process of passing the bill. The treaty has been considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—of which the member for Shortland is a senior member—which has recommended that binding treaty action be taken. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Wine and Truffle Co. located at Hazel Hill Estate, near Manjimup, in my electorate of Forrest. Just over 10 years ago 25 Australian investors had a vision to establish the largest mainland truffiere in the Southern Hemisphere. Their aim was to produce French black truffles, a rare and expensive gourmet delicacy. To complement the truffles they also wanted to produce a range of fine premium wines.
The location was selected because the climatic and soil factors are similar to the truffle-producing areas in France and New Zealand. The 15-acre Hazel Hill Estate property is very picturesque, undulating and surrounded by karri and jarrah forests. Thirty acres is devoted to the vineyard but the greater portion of the property is covered by 13,000 hazel and oak trees that have been inoculated with black truffles spores, making it the largest mainland truffiere in Australia. These trees have continued to mature under the guidance, nurturing and monitoring of the company’s expert mycologists.
In July 2003 the very first and highly valued truffle was discovered by truffle dogs. It was a single massive 163-gram truffle, which caused great excitement. The annual harvests have increased each year and, although a warm, dry August cut short this year’s truffle season, the company’s 2008 harvest came in at a record black-gold crop in excess of 600 kilograms. My congratulations go to the owners of the Wine and Truffle Co. at Hazel Hill Estate for an excellent crop result. The retail price for the black truffle is $3,000 per kilogram. This equates to a $1.8 million harvest for the rare fungus crop and is a fine return for the vision, the risk, the investment, the nurturing and the hard work that the owners have put into their venture.
Truffles are uniquely flavoured, edible fungi, usually classed with the mushroom family. They have a pungently scented aroma described as the ancient flavours of the forest. Think of a musty, garlicky, nutty flavour that can overwhelm the senses, and that is what they taste like. The cultivation of truffles requires a lot of scientific knowledge, skill and investment. Because truffles grow underground on the roots of inoculated trees, they are difficult to find. Trained dogs and dog handlers are needed. When truffles are found, the truffle hunters have to actually get down on their hands and knees in cold, wet mud and dig them out with their bare hands. Truffles are found anywhere from five to 30 centimetres below the ground within a metre of the base of hazelnut or oak trees.
The Wine and Truffle Co. has six trained dogs that search for the elusive truffle, and that gives the hunters the option of covering the 40 kilometres along the truffle tree rows in less than seven days. If a truffle is ready to pick, it is guaranteed not to be missed by the dogs. Truffles are roundish, brown and dirty when they come out of the ground. That is why the name ‘truffle’ has been borrowed to describe small, fancy chocolate-and-nut balls covered with cocoa powder—delicious but not to be confused with the real truffle.
The Manjimup truffles are sold to restaurants worldwide. Some of the international buyers include Japan, the USA, Hong Kong, Singapore, Italy, France and Indonesia. The venture has been so successful because the harvests in France have been declining due to urbanisation, climate change and pollution. In 1998 France’s truffle production was only eight tonnes.
Truffles being added to the food bowl of the south-west has certainly set the Manjimup area up for tourism activity as it has broadened the appeal of the region for wine and food lovers. Truffles are used to transform very simple dishes into gourmet delights. Although considered a luxury item, the taste and aroma of truffles is so intense that only a small quantity is needed to produce exquisite meals. The black truffle is used predominantly in the cooking process of dishes such as pasta, risotto, soups, stews, sauces, even mashed potato, eggs, souffles, chicken and wild game. The best way to enjoy a fresh truffle is to shave it over risotto, pasta, fish, eggs, meat, soups or salads.
I wish the Wine and Truffle Co. all the best for the export sales of their 2008 harvest and also wish them every success for next year’s harvest. They hope to harvest more than 1,000 kilograms of black truffle then. The photo of the dog that found their first truffle is on their wall. He is a very important part of that truffle company. I congratulate them all.
On 30 March this year I raised in this House the issue of a post office for the Jewellstown Plaza. This has involved a long campaign, one that has gone on over a number of years. It has had enormous support from the community. The shopping plaza has a very big feeding area. A lot of people throughout the electorate of Shortland in the near vicinity of that shopping centre use it. But I report to the House with great sadness that Australia Post have recently advised me that they will not support a post office at Jewellstown Plaza. This is despite enormous support within the community.
I learnt of the fact that they were not going to support the post office not from Australia Post but, rather, second hand from Colliers International, who own the shopping plaza. They advised me that they had been informed by Australia Post that this was the case. I contacted Australia Post immediately I heard that on 31 July. They responded to my letter, saying that they were sorry that I had found out about it that way and, basically, that they had been going to get around to telling me one day. They said a number of factors had been involved—things like closeness to other outlets. I might point out that Jewellstown Plaza is further from other postal outlets than other centres within the electorate. On 6 August I wrote back to Australia Post and informed them that I would like to bring all parties together to talk. I might add that we had had numerous discussions prior to this. Today is 4 September and they have not responded as yet. They can be selective about when they respond quickly and when they do not respond quickly.
A matter of further concern is that it is reported in the Hansard of 1 September that the member for Fowler tabled a response in relation to petitions that had been submitted. In that was a response from the minister, who said Australia Post had advised that senior management from its New South Wales administration met with the petition sponsor—me—late in March to discuss my interest in the establishment of a postal outlet. It goes on to say:
Australia Post has also advised that it has received few direct approaches, including from the local business community, requesting a postal outlet at Jewellstown.
The one thing I can guarantee Australia Post here in the parliament today is that they are going to receive so many direct responses that they will wish they had never said that to the minister. They have received numerous petitions—but we will change our tack on this one. Further, they said:
Australia Post has also informed me that, at this stage, no decision has been reached.
So on 1 September the minister had not been informed that Australia Post had told me that they would not support a post office at Jewellstown Plaza.
I have written to the minister about this issue. I have told him how dissatisfied I am with the response from Australia Post. I have told him that I am not prepared to sit back and just leave this. I would like to put very strongly on the record that Australia Post needs to listen to the local community. They need to make sure that they do not give one message to the local member and a different message to the minister. I will be taking this matter further. (Time expired)
At the outset I would like to thank my friend the honourable member for Flinders for his accommodation of me. My contribution in this debate will be somewhat shorter than usual as I have to speak in the main chamber imminently.
Eminently.
And eminently, I hope, as well—but certainly in the very near future. I do not believe that elected representatives have a monopoly on good ideas and common sense. It really is important for members of parliament, regardless of their political affiliation, to consult with members of the community in as many fora as possible. I know that all members, regardless of where they stand in the political spectrum, do endeavour to engage with their community.
I have been having a series of ‘meet Pete in the park’ events, which are sausage sizzles in various parts of the electorate. We invite constituents to come in and enjoy a sausage and in doing so we have the opportunity, particularly in those areas distant from the electorate office, to talk with constituents in their own environment. That means that those constituents are able to tell me about problems that they might be having with the government or a government department, how they feel the government is going wrong or what the opposition is doing right or wrong, as the case may be.
I do find it quite useful to talk to people in their own local areas. For instance, on Saturday, 30 August at Jessica Park, Nicklin Way, Minyama, there was a sausage sizzle from 10 am until 12 noon and then at Dicky Beach Park, Beerburrum Street, Dicky Beach, from 2 pm until 4 pm. We had a very good roll-up of people. I have to say I personally value the interaction. Initially I started to do the sausages, but people want to talk to me and I suspect that their digestion benefited from the fact that someone took over that particular task from me.
On Saturday, 6 September, in addition to having the inaugural meeting of the Sunshine Coast region of the LNP, I have three of the ‘meet Pete in the park’ sausage sizzles. One is at the bluff, the Esplanade, Alexandra Headland, from 7 am until 9 am. There is one at Kawana Forest Park, White Cedar Drive, Kawana Forest, from 11 am until 1 pm and then there is one at Ayliffe Park, the Esplanade, Golden Beach, from 3 pm until 5 pm.
There is concern out there in the community about the way the government is operating. Many people were sold a pup in the election campaign. Many people, particularly on the Sunshine Coast, voted for the Rudd Labor government because the Prime Minister came from the Sunshine Coast. He grew up on the Sunshine Coast. I suppose there was a sense of reflected pride that a boy from Nambour could become Prime Minister of Australia. Many of those people are seeing that what the government offered is a long way short of the reality of what the community is now receiving. I suspect that if the election were held again the result would be quite different.
That does not mean that the opposition do not need to look very closely at our policies with a view to making sure that, come the next election, we are electable. I was one of those people who was of the view that we might well be in opposition for two, three or four terms. But the current government seems to have the aura of Mr Whitlam about it increasingly. There are some ministers who are performing well and some ministers who are not performing well at all, but the community feel quite let down because the government they got is not the opposition they voted for. They believed that the government was going to be a much better government than it actually has been. I now believe that we as a party have an opportunity to be re-elected next time as long as we engage with the people, as long as we continue to bring forward sensible, rational policies, as long as we listen to the people and as long as we remember the mistakes of the past and move forward.
The government that was defeated on 24 November was a good government. That is not to say we cannot be better in the future. But these ‘meet Pete in the park’ sausage sizzles are a wonderful way for me to have community consultation and a wonderful way for me to listen to what people are saying. I feel I am able to come to the national parliament better equipped to speak on behalf of local constituents. I thank the chamber.
I rise to speak on the issue of the illegal riding of trail bikes and monkey bikes in various parts of Wakefield, particularly in the northern suburbs, where I live, around Salisbury North, and where my office is, in Munno Para, and also along the coast in places like Middle Beach. For the benefit of the Main Committee, I might just explain what monkey bikes are. They are miniature versions of road bikes. You might get a tiny little Harley-Davidson motorcycle or a tiny little Honda road bike. While they are small, they are incredibly powerful. They are often powered by 50cc motors and they can hurtle along at incredible speeds.
As far as I know, they do not have to meet the Australian design standards. These bikes are available for sale in various parts of the country but they do not meet design standards. The illegal use of these bikes has almost reached plague proportions in some parts of the electorate, as teenagers and some adults ride through parks and along walking trails like the Elephant Walk, near my office in Munno Para. I was walking down there after work one night and one of these bikes hurtled past me. People ride along roads, along median strips, along railway corridors and in car parks.
The last two locations have been the sites of tragic accidents involving two riders. One was riding along a railway corridor in Salisbury North and fell off. He was not wearing a helmet and, tragically, he died. Another young person died in the car park at Munno Para. He was hurtling along on one of these bikes, hit the concrete stoppers that prevent cars from going into the next space, went over the handlebars and hit another one on the other side of the car park. These have been tragic accidents. Obviously, we do not want to see deaths. But my great fear is that we will see a nonrider—a senior or a child who is walking through a park or along a walking trail or suburban street—killed in an accident with these bikes. Such is the frustration with the illegal use of these bikes that there have been some incidents of people acting foolishly—stringing up bits of wire across trees to stop these bike riders. The bikes cause great damage to the native vegetation, they create visual and noise pollution, they create danger for other users of the area and they affect the local amenity.
I have written to both the local councils and the state government and got a petition to the state government going so that special laws can be made to take action on this matter. I also want to see more effective policing of the illegal use of these bikes. As I said, they have been a problem in my area. I am aware that they are also a problem in Frankston, Victoria and that the council there has taken some action. They have also been a problem in the United Kingdom, where special laws were made to confiscate and crush these bikes, which I think is definitely the way to go.
Federal agencies also can look at this issue. I acknowledge that the ACCC will be looking at national product bans and the bans that states and territories make on safety grounds, and monkey bikes will be looked at in that process. I would like to see the importation of these bikes restricted. I think they are very dangerous. They are quite powerful but they do not have the manoeuvrability that you need, and the sooner they are removed from our communities the better.
I want to raise three issues in relation to the people and the development of Phillip Island, in my electorate of Flinders. Phillip Island, of course, is a magnificent tourism site. It is the home of the little penguin and it has the Koala Conservation Centre, Churchill Island and incredible north-facing beaches with calm waters.
I want to start by congratulating Amanda Drennan, who will, over the coming week, be part of the Australian Paralympic team in Beijing. I have met Amanda. At 20 years of age she has shown real courage, in the true sense of the word, in overcoming difficulties. She has a great, positive attitude to life and is a fantastic sportsperson. She will be competing in the 100 metres breaststroke, the 100 metres freestyle and the 400 metres freestyle. I want to wish Amanda all the best as she embarks upon her Paralympic campaign, as well as everybody else who is representing Australia more generally. I note that she is an inspiration to kids on Phillip Island. I have met young kids at the primary school who talk about Amanda as ‘one of ours’. She is a great example not just of personal endeavour but of taking a very positive message to everybody on the island and to young people in particular.
This brings me to the second point. Amanda is a swimmer. One of the challenges she has had to overcome is that of training facilities. It is a considerable distance from Phillip Island to the next major swimming pool at Wonthaggi. The islanders have long had a plan for a swimming pool; it is a plan I believe in and support. We had it in a position where it was ready to go. It was prepositioned and had been through preliminary stages for approval under the Regional Partnerships program. That program has now been abolished. The source of federal funding for the pool has disappeared. I grieve for the loss of that source of funding. I say to the new government: please reconsider this decision or, alternatively, find a new source of funding for communities such as Phillip Island to have access to a swimming pool.
The community have raised well over $1 million themselves, either in kind or in cash. They are on track to reach the $2 million mark. They have done all of the right things that a local community should do to support itself. Above all else, they had relied upon the notion that they would have support from government matching that which they have raised themselves so that young kids, inspired by Amanda, would have the chance to train on Phillip Island and to be part of not only the Olympic future, but, if it is less than that, the development of their own health and self-discipline. So to the federal government I would say: please reconsider what you have done to communities around the country such as Phillip Island with the abolition of the Regional Partnerships program, to no good end and with no effective replacement in sight.
This brings me to my third point, which is in relation to a proposal by the Bass Coast Shire Council for closed-circuit TV in the town of Cowes, the main centre on Phillip Island. As I mentioned at the outset, Phillip Island is a great tourism centre. It attracts numerous people in summer and, increasingly, around the clock. The result is that, sadly, from time to time we have outbreaks of street violence or street crime. So the council did the right thing: it planned, under our National Community Crime Prevention Program, to install closed-circuit television cameras. It was to its surprise and to its great disappointment that, not long after the election, it discovered the program had been axed and its chance for community safety had been abolished. Assuming that the program would still be in place, it had completed its plans; it had applied for funding. It was something which it had done in good faith. It is not a large council; it is not flush with funds. It is trying to protect the people of Phillip Island and provide a safe environment for families visiting the island for tourism purposes. Bad move again, in abolishing this program.
I would say to the federal government: please find a way of supporting local communities who are doing their best to reduce crime, to improve local security. It is a poor decision and was simply done, I believe, to abolish a previous government’s program for the sake of it. The losers are the local communities. (Time expired)
This Sunday we celebrate Father’s Day, a day when those of us with fathers can show our appreciation for the role that our fathers have played in our lives and the love they have given us. Father’s Day is a family day. It reminds us that the most fundamental and nourishing social unit in our society is the family. As children, families protect, teach and nurture us; as adults, they provide us with a sense of connection—connection with our immediate environment but also a connection with our childhood. They are the primary source of our identity. Our families are our life’s witnesses.
As we celebrate Father’s Day this Sunday with our families, I ask all Australians to take a moment to reflect on those who are not so fortunate, on those who do not have families in quite the same way. This is the reality for half a million Australians who grew up as wards of the state and in orphanages. These are the forgotten Australians. For them, the connection which comes from growing up in a family is not there. For them, identity is far more complex. For them, childhoods did not occur with security or nurturing or familial love. For the forgotten Australians, this Sunday will not be a happy day. Rather, it will be a reminder of what they did not have. It will be a day of pain.
Of course, the circumstances which led to their being in orphanages vary—their parents were abusive or there were simply no parents at all—but in each case their fragile lives started with the worst of luck. From there, our society took the most vulnerable of our people, sometimes simply because their family was poor, and placed them in large institutions where their vulnerability was placed on show. In doing so, we denied these Australians their most fundamental right to a childhood and the innocence of it. Many who worked in these institutions were truly angels of mercy, and I note, from talking to those who grew up in orphanages, that despite all of their ordeals the recognition of these people is a constant refrain. But there were some who worked in these institutions who were predators. Each and every one of those who were condemned to this childhood was guaranteed a youth absent of familial love, but for many their stories were far worse.
Amidst the 537 submissions that were made to the Senate inquiry into children in institutionalised care was that of Mr Marcus Paul Greenhalghl, aged 62 when he wrote his submission. He says that the abuse he suffered as a child in care facilities has affected his whole life and it has taken him 50 years to be able to talk about it. Mr Greenhalghl was made a ward of the state at age seven, having been termed a neglected child in need of proper care. He remained in the care of the state until just before his 18th birthday.
His submission recalls stories of public humiliation and starvation, of being flogged with a heavy leather belt while kneeling naked before the feet of his punisher, of verbal abuse, of the withholding of appropriate medical care and of sexual abuse. Mr Greenhalghl writes that, following his time in institutionalised care, he was able to later find a measure of peace. But in achieving this, a sense of normality in his later life, he is in a sense one of the more fortunate cases you will find amongst the pages of the Senate inquiry submissions; some never have.
There are people like Ms Georgina Fraser, who was a state ward in New South Wales from age three until age 18 and whose submission was not one of violent recollection but rather one of neglect. Now in her 50s, Ms Fraser’s story recounts the lasting effect upon her life of having been denied appropriate access to an education. While most children of her age were studying at their desks, Ms Fraser’s childhood years were spent doing domestic duties, 12 hours a day, six days a week. Ms Fraser has the soul of an artist and she says:
I feel the words inside me, I hear the poetry in my heart, I feel inside me the beautiful art ... [but] I find it hard to express myself or to write so [as] to be understood.
Afforded a proper education who knows what future may have beckoned for Ms Fraser, but sadly her potential was not nurtured because, as she says, ‘The child that I never was died a brutal, violent death years ago in orphanages, institutions and state homes.’
Last Saturday was the fourth anniversary of the report Forgotten Australians: a report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children, the Senate report which arose out of the inquiry where both Marcus Greenhalghl and Georgina Fraser told their stories. This report was groundbreaking for forgotten Australians. For the first time at a national level, it provided them with an acknowledgement. In the 39 recommendations it described a path for our nation to right this wrong and for these Australians to gain some long sought-after peace.
So August 30 has become a significant day for the forgotten Australians. While Father’s Day for them will be a painful day, August 30 must become a day on our calendar of recognition and hope for these Australians. In championing this issue, I follow in the footsteps of many, most significantly Senator Andrew Murray, himself a migrant child, whose work in this area has been nothing short of heroic. I also have the great honour of working with and knowing Leonie Sheedy and Joanna Penglase, who run CLAN and are themselves ‘clannies’ and who have made our country aware of forgotten Australians. In this parliament I do not walk alone, as Jason Clare, my colleague and friend, the member for Blaxland, has also decided to champion this cause with great energy and eloquence, as he did here last Monday night. (Time expired)
I rise in the parliament to raise a very important issue this morning. As you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the confronting nature of the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe has gripped the soul of every decent-natured observer. Considering the horrific genocides that have plagued the African continent over the last century, I believe those of us who care for human rights must be the first not only to speak up but to provide, if you like, a helping hand to those peoples who are most in need.
Australians, of course, have a very proud history of providing aid and succour to those peoples whose hardship transcends what can be dismissed as simply ‘a time of need’. As the President of Indonesia observed when Australia provided $1 billion in funds after the devastating tsunami that swept the Indonesian coast in 2004, Australians punch above our weight when giving humanitarian aid to other nations. There is no partisan or ideological divide when it comes to the generosity of the Australian people. Perhaps, as a nation of people who have done it tough in the past, we are quick to offer a helping hand to states in their moments of crisis.
It was in that vein that I wrote months ago to the Prime Minister regarding the humanitarian crisis currently taking place in Zimbabwe and the devastating erosion of democracy in that country. It is widely accepted in the international community that the situation has now reached crisis point and that no stone can be left unturned to help alleviate the suffering of the people and to provide the hope of real democracy in Zimbabwe. Given the seriousness of the situation, I wrote to the Prime Minister saying that Australia must do more than we have done to help the people of Zimbabwe. To this end, in the letter I requested that the Prime Minister appoint or consider appointing Malcolm Fraser as a special envoy to travel to Zimbabwe to work with like-minded people to convince Robert Mugabe to embrace real democracy. The outcome would be to enable a free and fair election to take place.
As those in this place would be well aware, Mr Fraser has had a long-standing relationship with Robert Mugabe and was crucial in both Zimbabwe gaining independence and Robert Mugabe becoming its president. It is a matter of public record that Robert Mugabe has held Mr Fraser in high regard. I believe it is the shared history between Mr Fraser and Robert Mugabe that may provide fellow concerned nations with a unique avenue for meaningful dialogue. Given this shared history over many years, Mr Fraser’s words could carry significant weight with Robert Mugabe.
In finishing my letter, I asked the Prime Minister to pursue lateral approaches in order to help the people of Zimbabwe, as international actions to date have not been successful. The action that I pursued in my letter was with all due respect for the Prime Minister’s high office and with the best interests of the Zimbabwean people uppermost in my mind.
The letter was dated 24 June this year and I had it hand-delivered on the same day to the Prime Minister’s office here in Parliament House. The following day a journalist asked our Minister for Foreign Affairs about my suggestion. While the minister considered it a long shot, he did note that he was aware of my proposal. It has now been 73 days since Prime Minister Rudd received my letter. Over two months have passed and I have yet to receive an acknowledgement of receipt of my letter, let alone a considered response. The only response I have had from the Rudd government has been the answer given by the foreign affairs minister to a journalist’s question. So I want to thank the minister and Sky News for delivering a response, of sorts, to my sincere communication with the Prime Minister.
I am not going to take this opportunity to rake over the stories of inefficiency within the Prime Minister’s office. Those matters of fact are already on the public record. What I do wish to add to the public record is this concern: when a federal member of parliament writes to the Prime Minister on a matter of high principle and does not receive so much as an acknowledgement of said communication, one may ask what hope the so-called working families have of ever being heard or considered by Prime Minister Rudd. So today I ask the Prime Minister to please respond to my letter. I conclude with the hope that the current Prime Minister’s successor displays a greater interest in the views and charitable intent of the Australian people.
I rise today to talk about a recent visit to my electorate of Franklin by my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services. The member for Maribyrnong visited southern Tasmania early last month and accompanied me to Oakdale Services Tasmania in the suburb of Mornington. Oakdale Services Tasmania has been operating since 1970, but it has its origins in a family based, state-wide organisation established in the 1950s. Oakdale delivers services to people with a disability in the greater Hobart area. Currently, it employs nearly 100 staff, providing both residential support for clients and day support services. The services provided by Oakdale include hostel style accommodation, independent living units, acquired brain injury accommodation, community access, as well as a community living program, youth services and an ageing-in-place program. The ageing-in-place program was originally set up as part of a national pilot project in June 2003. It supports seven people with an intellectual disability who are ageing, so that they can remain within their home at Oakdale Lodge with their friends and their support network.
The member for Maribyrnong visited Oakdale with me in December last year. He got talking with one of the local residents and discovered a shared love for the great game of Aussie Rules. We were invited by a local resident, Lindsay Appledorf, to visit his unit, and it was here that it became apparent that Lindsay was a very passionate AFL supporter and, more particularly, a Carlton supporter. The generous member for Maribyrnong offered to talk to his contacts to get Lindsay some AFL memorabilia—and then one thing led to another and it quickly became clear that AFL was a shared passion amongst many of the residents at Oakdale. The result of the conversation was that the member for Maribyrnong contacted all the AFL clubs around the country and put together a range of memorabilia for all of Oakdale’s footy fans.
So on a chilly Monday morning in Hobart, the member arrived at Oakdale with me to make good on his promise. He presented a variety of memorabilia, including two signed Hawthorn posters, a framed Brisbane Lions poster, signed jumpers, footballs and caps—and of course some Carlton gear for his great friend Lindsay. I was delighted to be part of the visit to Oakdale and to see the smiles on the residents’ faces when they received their gifts. It was truly inspiring. The residents were so keen that we spent quite some time fitting the signed team jerseys, scarves and hats on the local residents.
When the residents received their gifts at that packed morning tea they also presented a gift of their own to the parliamentary secretary—a handmade autographed card and some of their artwork. The artwork is now on display in the parliamentary secretary’s office in this building. It was clear that a great love of AFL was a universal thing amongst the supporters. It showed that sport can and does bring together people from all walks of life.
I wish to place on the record my appreciation to all those AFL clubs the member for Maribyrnong contacted. They were all really happy to get on board and provide all the supporters memorabilia for the Oakdale team. I am sure those clubs appreciate the support of all their fans, and they are obviously keen to foster even more interest in the great game of AFL. As members of the House would know, many Tasmanians are loyal AFL supporters. Many great champions from Tasmania have played in the AFL, such as Peter Hudson, from the Hawthorn Football Club, of which I am a member.
Later that day we also co-hosted, with Senator Catryna Bilyk, a forum for disability service providers in southern Tasmania. This was an opportunity for providers to speak firsthand with the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services and to raise their ideas, issues and concerns. The attendees appreciated this opportunity and the parliamentary secretary was able to update the group on the government’s policy plans for the sector.
This was the member for Maribyrnong’s third visit to southern Tasmania since taking up his new role. This shows that the government is serious about listening to local stakeholders and people with disabilities about the issues they face and serious about giving people direct access to government decision makers. It also shows that the government is serious about ensuring that Australians with disabilities are treated as equal and active citizens in our local communities.
Today I would like to speak about the Rudd government’s commitment to an education revolution. We have heard much about how only Labor makes a connection between education and the future of the nation—what a stunning discovery! This great commitment seems to have become a pledge to supply computers for senior secondary students. In a sort of Orwellian oversimplification, we are hearing: computer pledge good, everything else bad. As a result, the government has slashed the highly popular and flexible Investing in Our Schools Program, through which local school communities could decide their own priorities.
Let us remember that the Prime Minister committed to ‘a computer for every secondary school student’. But the ground has moved and now it is ‘one computer for every two students’. Schools are telling me they are thankful for computers but they do not know how they will fund them. There is no money for installation, training and ongoing servicing. Even more disturbingly, replacement of these computers has not been discussed. One school has told me that, as the computers reach their use-by date, they will have to pull them out if no new funding comes along.
But today I specifically want to question the government’s commitment to its self-proclaimed ‘education revolution’ at Woomera, in the north of my electorate. Woomera is a world-famous facility, owned and controlled by the Department of Defence. It has a spectacular past and it promises to play an important part in the future of the development of our defence capability. After all, there are not many places in the world where you can fire a rocket and then pick it up 2,500 kilometres later and still be in the same country. All land and buildings in Woomera are owned and maintained by Defence.
In Woomera there is a Commonwealth owned school facility. This school should be leased by the South Australian Department of Education and Children’s Services, or DECS, who would then provide the education service to the residents, but DECS and Defence cannot agree on terms. So much for the end to the blame game this government is so fond of talking about!
The Woomera school is in a deplorable and dangerous state. Defence has engineering reports on the remedial action required and called for tenders to complete the work. It was all ready to happen. Now the school has been informed that the proposed work, worth around $350,000, has been pulled to meet efficiency gains within the department.
I recently visited the school to see just how bad things were. The school was built for an enrolment of 1,400; it is currently down to 70. However, it is far from the smallest school in Australia, particularly in our more remote areas. These kids and their families deserve educational facilities equal to those of the rest of the population, and certainly they deserve to go to school in a safe environment. On inspection, I found that the Woomera school is falling apart. Its walls are leaning outwards so far that the ceiling has collapsed. Furniture and plant such as photocopiers are leaning at strange angles all over the place, many of them with chocks under corners to try and level them enough so the units can function. Heavy doors in the corridors have been removed because the doorframes have twisted so much that they have fallen off their hinges. There are props in the doorframes to prevent the lintels falling. The school is in a deplorable condition. In some rooms you can see into the next through cracks in the walls. The floors are cracked and uneven to such an extent that they are an OH&S issue and almost certainly will lead to an accident.
Even more disturbingly, the Woomera school has a disabled child in a wheelchair and no wheelchair access. Can you believe that in 2008? At a time when every DECS and privately owned and controlled school in South Australia is compelled to have wheelchair access, we have a facility owned and controlled by the Commonwealth which has not made the grade. As a result, this child cannot navigate the school on their own and requires a full-time carer at a time when DECS believe that for the child’s development it is very important they be encouraged to become more independent.
The government talk big—in big, sweeping statements—about grand visions, but when it comes to putting meat on the bones they go missing. In Woomera we have children and staff operating in a dangerous environment and the government has pulled the funding. Is this a commitment to an education revolution or is it more about image and style? Whatever it is, it is certainly not delivering the goods in Woomera.
I rise today to speak of an issue that I feel very strongly about: premium SMSs and their impact on the Australian community and our Australian youth. SMS messaging is a great service—if you call for it and you want it. But what we are finding more and more is that many people are subscribing to these SMSs without even realising what the costs are and how they are getting hooked into them. This is an issue that I have been campaigning on for a long time. I have called for provisions to be put in place to educate the public, and especially our youth, about the costs associated with premium SMSs. I took this up on behalf of residents in my electorate who had accrued enormous costs through their children’s mobile phones. I met with my colleague the Assistant Treasurer, Chris Bowen, earlier in the year to discuss the issue with him, and I am very pleased to say that an awareness campaign was launched last month.
Mobile premium SMSs include downloading ringtones and music, chatting, votes, horoscopes and competition entries—you name it and you can get it on your mobile. According to the ACCC, these services are often from numbers starting with 191, 193 to 197 and 199. Concerns have been raised about the way that premium SMSs are marketed, especially to children and teenagers, who are sometimes unaware of the huge weekly subscription charges associated with the service. With mobile phones now being a common accessory for youths, I am sad to say that the premium SMS industry is preying on the young to make profits. This is not on.
An astronomical number of mobile phones are in circulation—according to the ACCC, approximately 20 million. Costs vary greatly but can be as high as $6 for a message and ringtone to be sent and received—that is, $12 per message. This is a high price for a service which often appears in very deceptive advertising and where the costs are often not clearly displayed.
Families have written to us, stating they owe hundreds of dollars to the premium SMS providers, after children have subscribed without understanding what those costs are and what they involve. I have heard stories of children as young as 14 who are subscribing to these premium SMSs and, as a result, are unknowingly falling into substantial debt, which is often then passed on to the parents.
Earlier on this year, when I raised this matter in the media, I was inundated with examples of people from across Australia who had been caught by these gimmicks of premium SMSs. Some individuals who spoke to me owed over $4,000 for the use of premium messaging services. In most cases, as I said, they were young teenagers who were unwittingly, unknowingly subscribing to premium SMSs and were then continually charged, even at times when they would ask them not to send them any more messages. A bit of investigating showed that some of these companies in Australia were very hard to trace because they operate through overseas third companies. I am pleased to see that the ACCC currently has a couple of cases before it and it is investigating them. As I said, many of these services are also owned by offshore corporations. They are profiting from the youth and disadvantaged members of our society who perhaps do not understand the intricacies and the costs involved.
Some examples of the scams involved were brought to my attention by the Youth and Enterprise Legal Centre, which alerted me to companies holding competitions that result in a monthly or daily fee being charged to a person’s phone bill and providing services that claim the ability to detect your compatibility with a partner for $10 per week. It sounds pretty good!
I was pleased, though, that the ACCC and the Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Chris Bowen, listened when I raised the concerns with them and, more importantly, that they listened to those concerns of the Australian public and launched a fact sheet to raise the awareness and increase the public’s knowledge of this issue. The fact sheet, released by the ACCC in August, refers to all the dangers. The ACCC states that, by law, ‘Advertisements for premium services must be upfront, clear, accurate and cannot be contradicted by disclaimers or fine print’— (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on behalf of older Gippslanders who are struggling to make ends meet on the single age pension. I also seek to highlight my concern that the federal government is paralysed by a mentality of reviews and inquiries and is failing to take action to help older Gippslanders, carers and people with disabilities to enjoy a decent standard of living. I ask the question, somewhat rhetorically: is there is a statute of limitations on the blame game? When does a new government stop looking backwards and blaming its predecessors and get on with the job of governing the nation?
Judging by the behaviour of the Victorian parliament the Labor blame game goes on forever. The Brumby and Bracks governments have been in power for nine years and they are still looking backwards and blaming the previous Kennett government, which left office in 1999.
I urge government ministers to end the blame game in relation to pensioners and carers and to get on with the job they are elected to do. We all know that the single age pension is inadequate. We have already had reports and inquiries which have highlighted the problem. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs titled A decent quality of life was tabled in parliament in March this year, and I quote from the executive summary:
Australians have endured cost of living increases over recent years. In many cases, incomes have generally risen commensurately and compensate for these cost pressures. However, many older people, especially those on low, fixed incomes with little discretionary spending capacity, are vulnerable to these rises. In particular, they are disproportionately affected by cost increases in essential goods and services—food, rent, petrol, household utilities and healthcare.
The report further stated that, although the real value of the age pension had increased over the past decade:
… evidence suggests that for those on a full pension this level may be insufficient to maintain a basic, decent standard of living.
The pension review background paper, released last month, revealed that the single rate of pension, which is set at 60 per cent, is lower than the average of 63 per cent for major OECD countries. We are clearly falling behind world standards and the Prime Minister knows it is a problem. In response to a question on 27 August, the Prime Minister conceded that cost-of-living expenses ‘have certainly spiked in recent times because of factors like petrol and groceries’.
Indeed the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is reported in today’s Australian newspaper as saying:
There’s no question that all of these people, particularly people who are wholly dependent on the single rate of either the aged pension or the disability support pension, are finding it very hard to make ends meet.
There is a recognition at the highest level of the federal government that cost-of-living pressures have spiked, and these increases have a greater impact on our pensioners and carers. The government’s thus far response has been to order another review. Why not act now? Why wait until next February for the review findings, when there will then be further delays while the review is considered? It could be another 12 months before this government does anything to help our pensioners and carers.
If the government wants to buy some time until the review is released, I would support an immediate catch-up payment of $300 to pensioners and carers, including people with a disability who were discriminated against in the May budget. Help give them a chance to have a decent Christmas. We can afford to do better now.
I agree with National Seniors Australia that we need to investigate ways to better prepare the nation for pensioners and an ageing generation into the future. We must better support those people who are currently relying on the age pension. The current single age pension is not enough to provide a decent standard of living and must be urgently increased by at least $30 per week to two-thirds of the rate for a couple, as proposed by National Seniors Australia.
We cannot afford to condemn our pensioners to another 12 months of struggling to find the money to eat healthily, pay their bills, cover their medical expenses, get around to visit friends and attend social activities. This is even more of an issue in country areas like Gippsland. Pensioners there do not have the luxury of access to public transport. Instead, they must pay the higher petrol prices or—worse still—they choose to stay at home and miss out on the social life that they richly deserve and on the quality of life opportunities that would add to a healthier lifestyle for them. These are the people who built our great nation. They allowed us to enjoy the privileges we have today. These people deserve better.
Most pensioners did not have the opportunity of compulsory superannuation to prepare themselves for their retirement. As for single women receiving the age pension, they are often in a worse situation because they have not necessarily had the opportunity to work outside the family home and have had very limited superannuation opportunities. Also they may have spent many years as a carer for a family member. As I said during my inaugural speech to the House, carers of family members save our nation a king’s ransom but they often live the life of a pauper. We live in a wealthy nation, we can do better and we must do better. We can afford to give our pensioners and carers a decent standard of living. This is a test of the government’s rhetoric. They promised to govern for all Australians, and it is time for action now, not more empty words.
I would like to draw the House’s attention to the potential loss of a valuable radio broadcasting asset in my electorate of Bendigo. The new government has adopted the policy of its predecessor to extend the ABC’s NewsRadio service to all communities with a population of more than 10,000. The Australian Communications and Media Authority has identified an FM frequency that has carried community broadcasting for some 26 years as being the most suitable one for NewsRadio in Bendigo. Community broadcasting is founded on principles of accessibility, diversity, independence and localism. These are an essential part of the sector’s code of practice, which is registered with the ACMA.
I am a great admirer of the NewsRadio service. Its news coverage is excellent and, of course, it brings the proceedings of this parliament to many people who would not otherwise be able to hear the words of profound wisdom that are spoken here and in the Senate—well, sometimes. As federal parliament is usually in session for around 18 weeks per year, the other 34 weeks are for broadcasting national and international news. But, despite all that, no-one can claim that NewsRadio carries local content, nor does it offer the accessibility of community radio.
The replacement of a community radio station in Bendigo by NewsRadio would mean the loss of a valuable community asset that serves the needs of many of my constituents. Research on behalf of the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia in 2006 showed that one-quarter of all Australians aged over 15, or more than four million people, listen to community radio in a typical week. People who listen to community radio do so for an average of 7½ hours each week, and listeners aged over 55 tune in for almost 10½ hours per week. Their main reason for listening to community radio, particularly in non-metropolitan areas, is its local content. Research by Griffith University in 2007 found that listeners also find community radio accessible and approachable. They like the laid-back presentation style by ‘ordinary people’. They like the diversity of programming, particularly as to local news and information, that cannot be found on other broadcast media.
Australia has one of the highest concentrations of media ownership in the world, a situation made worse by the changes to the media ownership laws by the previous government. In the commercial radio sector, this has led to a reduction in local content and an increase in syndicated programming in order to cut costs. The ABC has not been immune either, as its funding has been slashed in real terms over the past decade. My local ABC station in central Victoria is only manned during daylight hours Monday to Friday and carries network programs at other times. In contrast, most community radio stations are manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week, making them unique in regional centres. The practical advantage of this was widely demonstrated in 2003, when certain suburbs of Bendigo were struck by a freak storm. In a seven-kilometre trail of destruction, 10 homes were completely destroyed and another 90 suffered damage. Local community stations were broadcasting news of the events soon after it happened, but it was five hours before a commercial broadcaster mentioned it and even the ABC had no ability to report locally and it was two hours before the incident was mentioned on its national news bulletin.
Sport is a part of Australian culture and local sport is particularly important in rural and regional communities. Local football and netball clubs are a significant part of a community’s social life. They bring an important benefit during times of adversity, such as the drought that many regions, including my own constituency, have been suffering for a decade or so. Sport not only offers exercise and enjoyment; it also allows some respite from the harsh realities of life on a water starved farm or running a depressed rural business. The community radio frequency in Bendigo that has been earmarked for the ABC’s use is the only one that carries local sport broadcasting. Our commercial stations do not cover local sport, the local ABC does not cover it and NewsRadio certainly will not if it is allocated this frequency. In the light of these considerations, it is vital that there is no reduction of community radio broadcasting in Bendigo. I will continue to work with ACMA and the government to find alternative solutions so that my constituents can also have access to the ABC’s NewsRadio service while retaining their excellent community radio frequency of 89.5.
Another day, another tranche of job losses under Mr Rudd’s rudderless economy. Another Gold Coast boat builder has fallen victim to the slowing Australian economy, with Coomera based Telwater yesterday revealing it has sacked 100 staff in my electorate of Fadden. This, in combination with the losses out of Riviera Marine, takes the total boat-building losses to well over 357 in one of the biggest industries in Fadden and an important export industry for the nation. The management company of Telwater, which is the parent company of well-known brands that include Quintrex and Stacer, lays the blame squarely at the feet of the struggling economy and high fuel and food costs. It goes to show that food and fuel do not just hurt at the checkout and the bowser; they hurt all the way down the economic line, right throughout the purchasing chain.
Despite Mr Rudd’s rhetoric during the election campaign, we are yet to see any real, tangible initiatives to solve these problems. A couple of websites—costing millions and millions of dollars each—have never had a major impact on the economy, and I do not see any change with the farcical Fuelwatch or GROCERYchoice websites. On average, petrol has gone up more than 30c per litre since Mr Rudd was elected. Many times during the election campaign he and his politicians indicated to the Australian people that they would bring petrol and grocery costs down. Petrol prices have not come down and it is impacting on the marine industry. The high Australian dollar, which has now dropped by up to 20 per cent, has almost offset any reductions in petrol that may have been received by the Australian people because of the drop in the price of oil.
Grocery prices continue to rise, putting further strain on family budgets. Labor’s own budget forecasts that by mid next year 134,000 Australians will be out of work, will have lost their jobs. Treasury indicates perhaps another 100 per cent more. The Bankers Association indicates that unemployment will reach five per cent by mid next year and it will be approaching six per cent by next Christmas. That is almost one million Australians, taking into consideration mum and dad and the kids, who will be impacted by job losses—all of them, each and every one of them, on Mr Rudd’s watch. In Mr Rudd’s own words:
We have done as much as we physically can to provide additional help to the family budget …
I contend that this is not good enough. These job losses demonstrate that fuel and food are not just about the family budget.
I asked the Deputy Prime Minister last week in question time how many job losses we would see in the wake of the losses at Riviera; are 134,000 not bad enough? Boats are a discretionary purchase item, and historically the discretionary market segments are the first to suffer in times of a slowing economy. Whilst this week’s interest rate reduction by the RBA is welcome news for mortgagees, it is an indicator that the RBA believes the economy needs a kick-start, although inflation is still high and heading towards five per cent. In the national accounts released yesterday it is not hard to see why. Growth for the last quarter was 0.3 per cent, compared to 0.7 per cent for the previous quarter. Growth in New South Wales was minus 0.1 per cent. New South Wales is at the start of a recession—a recession technically being two quarters of negative growth. It has just experienced its first quarter of negative growth, and my home state of Queensland is not far behind it.
The great question for the people of Fadden is this: is the marine industry the canary down the mine shaft? Is it the flickering candle down where oxygen is thin? Are these job losses in the marine industry an indicator of more to come on the Gold Coast, where one of the most important industries is the tourism industry? Holidays are another discretionary item that is likely to be hit hard as the economy continues to worsen. The more our household essentials continue to rise in price, the less we have in the wallet for the things we do not really need but would otherwise purchase or experience. Luxuries or discretionary items may not seem that important, but they are when you consider where they come from. I firmly believe in protecting jobs. I believe in employment. I believe in the great virtue and dignity that jobs bring and I know we need to fight to continue to see that jobs remain in the electorate of Fadden.
I rise to pay tribute to two members of my local community who passed away recently, both of whom I knew very well and respected. They were both champions of my local community.
Mr Patrick ‘Paddy’ Koppman, born in 1921, was a life member of the Australian Labor Party and of his trade union, the old Federated Storemen and Packers Union. In 2001 Paddy was awarded a Centenary Medal for his service to the community and to politics. Educated at St Joseph’s College as a boarder, Paddy was driven, from an early age, by a desire to serve his community and his God. He entered the Catholic seminary and began his training as a priest, but after a number of years this training suffered a setback after he contracted a bone infection in his legs and he spent two years in and out of hospital in plaster casts. It was during this time that Paddy met the woman who would become his wife, Josey, and discovered that his true vocation was as a loving husband and father.
Paddy’s contribution to his community was guided by his devotion to Mary and his belief in the rosary. As a result, Paddy became a prolific maker of rosary beads, a set of which I was honoured to receive. He would make multiple sets of these rosary beads and distribute them to local schools, community members, members of his parish—to anyone whom he felt might benefit from praying the rosary.
Paddy’s other great guiding light in life was his belief in the ideals of the Australian Labor Party, which he joined in 1946. He was a committed member of the trade union movement and committed to equity and social justice.
After living in Cabramatta for much of their lives, Paddy and Jo retired to Cambridge Park, in my electorate, in 1983. Whilst living in Cabramatta, Paddy worked tirelessly for the election and re-election of the local Labor Party representatives, which included the former Prime Minister and member for Werriwa the Hon. EG Whitlam. Paddy was a great supporter of mine, and during my first federal election campaign in 2001 he staffed the pre-poll booth on most days. I might add that he was approaching the age of 80 at that point. He broke down in disappointment when neither I nor Labor won that election, but I know that he would have been very proud on 24 November 2007. Elected Labor representatives are carried into office on the shoulders of great men like Paddy Koppman. To Paddy I owe a personal debt and so too does the Australian Labor Party. I pass on my regards to Paddy’s wife, Jo, and his family. He was a great man indeed.
I would also like to pay tribute to another great community worker, Mrs Trish Spillane. Trish was a long-time member of the St Marys branch of the Red Cross, tirelessly raising funds for the numerous causes that are generously supported by the Red Cross.
In her early days, Trish was a keen swimmer, racing against Australian Olympic great Dawn Fraser at North Narrabeen pools and selected for the train-on squad for the 1956 Melbourne Olympics. She could have been among the ranks of Australia’s golden girls of the pool, but her family could not afford to send her to Melbourne. For Trish, this was probably a blessing in disguise. A few years later she met her husband, Joe, and they began their long life together. In fact, they would have celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary next month.
With three children, nine grandchildren and one great-grandchild, Trish had her hands full but she never declined a request for assistance and she lent her great energy, commitment and good humour to every task. I valued my friendship with Trish and, along with my local community, I mourn her passing. Trish was a great local contributor and her absence will be sadly felt by many in the St Marys community. I pass on my condolences to Joe and his family and wish them all the best in the future.
Individuals such as Paddy Koppman and Trish Spillane, great community workers and advocates, are the very glue that binds together a community such as that in which I live. Today I acknowledge their tremendous contributions to our community and wish their families all the best in the future.
I express my deep concern about the impact that both state and federal government decisions are having on my electorate of Mallee. There are three issues I want to address. The first is water. Over the last five years at least, elderly citizens right across the vast expanse of Mallee, which is a third of the state of Victoria, have been carting their greywater in buckets and have been restricted to one-minute showers. Horticulturalists, who are wealth creators and the centre of the economic activity in my constituency, particularly along the Murray River, have zero allocations. These people grow food. At the same time I have heard complaints about the rising cost of food, particularly vegetables and fresh fruit. The impact of this lack of water on communities like Swan Hill and Mildura is dire.
We have a government that is preoccupied with the needs of the environment, which are very serious—and I accept how serious they are, but that is more popular in big cities. The grim reality is that my constituents are watching their whole lives’ work—in effect, their superannuation—literally die before them. Vines and citrus are dying from a lack of water. It is just tragic.
Then you add to that the decision that had to be made by CSIRO in June following the federal government’s slashing of CSIRO’s budget. The Merbein research laboratory, which was principally focused on horticulture and vegetable research, has been closed. That has meant that 30 highly qualified scientists within the Sunraysia community, which Merbein is part of, are leaving the district. The proposal from CSIRO is that they will go to Adelaide.
I have to put up with the government’s defence on this. The government says that this is a decision by CSIRO, yet the May budget dramatically slashed the CSIRO budget by $60 million a year. Australians are immensely proud of that organisation. The former government progressively increased its funding because research is the means by which we will meet the challenges of the future, particularly climate change. I have to listen every day in the chamber to the Prime Minister and Labor members boasting about what they do for research, but the grim reality I have confronted is that the very tools with which we arm particularly agriculture to face the challenges of climate change are being removed.
Then, in August, we had an announcement by the Victorian state government, through the Department of Primary Industries, of the closure of the Walpeup grain research facility. Walpeup is a small community on the Mallee Highway, an hour south of Mildura. There are 25 scientists working in that facility, developing grain research that gives our growers the capacity to use varieties which can be grown with reduced rainfall outcomes—and the state government is boldly naming the federal government as the cause of the closure, because of cutbacks to research. I find this incredibly difficult to accept because research is funded by grower levies. The Grains Research and Development Corporation collects grain growers levies and invests them, and a lot of that valuable funding is directed to the Walpeup research station. The same thing happens with Merbein in horticulture. There are a whole range of commodities that contribute through levies to fund valuable research.
My constituents watch the evening news or listen to the broadcast of parliament and hear the Prime Minister boasting about his commitment to research and to primary production to cope with the challenges of climate change—and I am sorry to say it but they find themselves fairly cynical about the government’s commitment. I am not just concerned about this; I am absolutely alarmed. Those 30 scientists associated with the Merbein CSIRO facilities are valuable to the community and, in a direct sense, probably contribute around $2 million or $3 million into the local economy, but more important is the valuable research they have been providing that has given my growers the opportunity to cope with the challenges they confront. I have to say that the federal government stands condemned for its role in closing down important facilities in my constituency. (Time expired)
Unlike my friend the member for Forrest opposite, my glass is half full rather than half empty. I am very pleased today to be able to announce that a future constituent of mine in the Braddon electorate is in the gallery today—Taya Cropper, from St Brendan-Shaw College. I welcome Taya and her colleagues in the Rotary-parliamentary education exchange. Congratulations to you all. I hope you are getting everything you wanted from this and that you are finding it interesting.
I will use my time, if I may, to congratulate this government and the community I come from on achieving some important funding grants which are going to make my community even better than it is now. Just to remind you, I come from the north-west coast of Tasmania. It is a beautiful place. My communities are united and yet at the same time my electorate is divided into lots of different little towns, all the way along the coast and all with their individual character.
The good news I was able to announce last Friday, particularly through the work of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Minister for Sport and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—and not forgetting the Minister for Health and Ageing—was the resurrection of $1 million that went missing, hidden somewhere in the system since 2004. I give recognition to the former government for dishing out a bit of dough, but the money went missing and we never knew what was going to happen to it. They tried to resurrect it in the last week of the election campaign, but, of course, like everything else it was all form and no substance and we had to find it and use it.
So we have used it and we were able to offer $1 million to the Burnie City Council to enhance the programs that they have been progressively introducing since the mid-1990s, when, as members might remember, we had very serious issues with the closure of our pulp mill and the downgrading of the paper mill. In fact, rather than just being depressed as they were used to being depressed, as manufacturing was closing down, Burnie—along with the north-west coast but particularly Burnie—decided to invest in itself, to have faith in itself and to look up and out rather than down.
They developed a strategy for rejuvenating their community that involved some fundamental principles that have been applied broadly to the city’s development, which I would like to share with you: valuing Bumie’s unique places, upholding the arts and people’s ability to express their creativity, rebuilding a strong sense of community through events that embrace the whole of the community, engaging youth as the future lifeblood of the region and investing in significant infrastructure to help people feel proud of their city again.
To enhance that, to support people who are already helping themselves, the $1 million was used in a way that was determined by that community. It was shared as follows. $450,000 went towards the redevelopment of the Burnie United Soccer and Sporting Club facilities. This is a great soccer club with a great tradition but, let me tell you, its facilities really are second-rate. In actual fact, because they have to share the same change room, the girls team will come and hold the change room door so the girls can change. When they have finished, the blokes will come and hold the door so they can change and then out they trot. That is over 150 club participants in a sport 1,000 strong in that region. I would say they are very much in need of these funds.
$350,000 has gone towards the development of an indoor sports facility at West Park. This is the first stage of a long-term development of sporting facilities at the city’s premier sporting arena and it is complemented by the $3 million we have committed to developing the Burnie waterfront precinct and sports area. Finally, $200,000 has gone towards the relocation of the Burnie Bowls Club to Les Clark Oval. This will, again, complement and enhance the sporting facilities of the Burnie region.
It is great to be able to announce good news, it is great to have one of our fellow citizens here and it was lovely to meet her earlier today.
On Monday, 18 August, there were two major Vietnam Veterans Day commemorations in my electorate—one at Bundaberg and one at Hervey Bay. I attended the latter. After a march from the RSL, Vietnam veterans, civic officials, families and members of the public assembled at the Hervey Bay cenotaph. The day was of particular relevance because Harry Smith, three of his platoon commanders, Geoff Kendall of 10 platoon, Bob Buick of 11 platoon and Dave Sabben of 12 platoon, along with Bill Roche, Russ Pendaris, Buddy Lea and Max Cameron—eight veterans of the Battle of Long Tan—were present in Hervey Bay. Max Cameron, Buddy Lea and Harry Smith all live in Hervey Bay. It was very moving to have eight of those veterans together. They came because their commander, Harry, had been quite ill and, whilst he was on the mend, they wanted to be with him.
I saw an extraordinary thing that day. It followed the normal Vietnam Veterans Day commemorations except that, when these eight guys went up as a group, laid their wreaths and stepped back from the cenotaph, the crowd burst into prolonged applause, which I have never seen at a cenotaph before. It said it all—that these people, many of whom had been deprived of decorations for all that time, were finally being acknowledged. It was the continuation of the hangover of that dreadful treatment of Vietnam veterans that so many Australians participated in. When this whole veterans’ decorations thing is straightened out, we will be much the richer for it.
Harry Smith has been awarded the Star of Gallantry—the equivalent of his original recommendation for the DSO, second only to the Victoria Cross—in recognition of his conspicuous leadership and gallantry during the battle. His original citation had been downgraded to a Military Cross. Two of the platoon commanders, Dave Sabben and Geoff Kendall, were awarded the Medal for Gallantry—the equivalent to the Military Cross—after their original recommendations were downgraded to ‘Mentioned in Despatches’. The strength of D Company 6RAR in Vietnam on 18 August 1966 has been given approval to wear the former Republic of Vietnam’s Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation Emblem. As we know, there is no longer a South Vietnamese government, so these guys have been allowed to wear that decoration which was recommended for them in 1966.
Two former officers and 10 soldiers will have their original recommendations for honours re-examined by the independent Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal. Harry Smith himself has selflessly promoted this cause. I commend him and support his stance. He is currently in the process of preparing a submission to the tribunal asking that the 12 men who served in the battle of Long Tan have their original gallantry recommendations reinstated and recognised: three medals for gallantry and nine commendations for gallantry, replacing the original military medals and mentions in dispatches. For the record, the causes he is promoting are those of Delta Company’s Gordon Sharp, posthumously because he was killed in action; Bill Roche; Ian Campbell; Geoff Peters; Barry Magnussen; Neil Bextrum; Allan May; Noel Grimes; and Bill Moore; and of the APC Reaction Force’s Adrian Roberts, Frank Alcorta, and the late Ron Brett. Ron, who was wounded in Vietnam, died in a motor vehicle accident in Australia some years ago.
I commend Harry Smith. As I stood there that day I thought that justice had finally been done for some of those men and that it needed to be done for the rest of them, the other 12. I will follow this matter in this parliament like a hawk until that honour has been given. The ceremony at Hervey Bay ended with a whole flock of white doves being released, symbolic of the 17 men who laid down their lives in Vietnam and the one man who died later. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on what I believe is a very important issue not only for me personally but also for the state of Queensland. Firstly I will give a little bit of history. In my maiden speech on 19 February this year I spoke about my background, my past and the fact that I am an adoptee. Interestingly enough, in 1960, when I was born, my mother was only 17 years of age and there were no support systems in place and no way for her to be able to care for a child in that situation. She came from a large family and, while they made all possible arrangements, it was decided in the end that I would be adopted.
I have had a great upbringing and a great life and I certainly have no regrets. In 1989 I was fortunate enough to be reunited with my birth family. I can say that the journey up to that point was quite an elaborate one, being at a time when legislation, certainly that of Queensland, did not provide support or access for people who were in that situation. In 1990 the then Goss Queensland government, through Minister Anne Warner, introduced what were then revolutionary amendments to the Adoption of Children Act. In fact, the Adoption of Children Act then and to this day is still the most restrictive in Australia. It is still wedged in a period of time when there were so many social differences as to understanding. For me, to be part of the changes to that legislation in 1990 was very important. Unfortunately, the amendments at that time did not go far enough. They certainly went far enough to match a balanced community expectation, but the difficulty is that they created even more of a minority of people who wanted access to their adoption information. Put simply, they essentially disallowed people from getting information about their birth.
As I have said, my upbringing was a very good one. While my adoptive parents were very supportive and always wanted me to know as much as I could, that restricted information situation applied to everyone. I was very lucky that they had my original adoption order. Up until 1964 your mother would be named on that particular document. My mother’s name was Denise Mary Smith, and of course with a name like ‘Smith’ it was going to be quite difficult. Given that there were no government processes to allow me to find further information, that was where I sat. At the age of 15 and not knowing of the restrictions of the law—and, as I said, my adoptive parents were very supportive—I attempted to make some contact to find out a little bit more about who I was. The straight answer from government at that stage was no. When I did turn 18 I would be an adult in law and I would get access to a birth certificate—and I did, although it was not my birth certificate but a thing they called a ‘schedule’. Interestingly enough, the comparisons are quite subtle. When you look at them collectively, you do note that one is a birth certificate and one—mine—is a schedule.
That aside, on 14 July this year the Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, and Minister for Child Safety, Margaret Keech, announced that the Queensland government would be developing new laws to open up access to birth information. These laws are being developed and will go through a long consultation process. I believe that submissions on these changes will be accepted up until September.
As I said, that process will take its own path. But I will just give you an example of the very simple changes that we need. Currently, there are vetos on information. Information is released, if there is an agreement. If there is a veto, that information is perpetually locked up. It is locked up even beyond someone becoming deceased. So once parents, siblings or others, who may at some time have decided to put in place a veto on that information, are deceased, it is locked up forever. In Queensland there are about 3,000 people who are affected by these particular laws. That is one concern and one of the major amendments.
I am very pleased, though, that the Minister for Child Safety, who has a very difficult portfolio—any child safety minister around this country has a very difficult portfolio—has made this move. I think this shows a glimmer of hope, certainly for the people of Queensland. As I said before, these laws are the most restrictive laws in the country and, while I was involved in 1990 with those first amendments, I am pleased that, in talking here today 18 years later, there are further moves and I hope good moves.
To give one last very important example, at age 28, in 1988 I had my first son. I had to talk to a specialist, with my wife, about my medical background. She had all the information; I simply said, ‘I’m adopted.’ Even the specialist did not believe that I had no access to my birth information. I did not know who I was, where I came from or whether I had any problems that may have come through my genetic stream. On a medical front, that is certainly another issue that people have. But my experiences have been very positive. My extended family are all together now, including my adoptive mother. My adoptive father died some years ago. Again, I would like to commend the new legislation.
Today I would like to raise the issue of the Murray-Darling system. A number of mixed messages are coming from the current government. I would like to place on record, as I have before, some concerns that I have about the way in which the government is responding to the issue of climate change. I believe climate change is a reality, so I am not approaching this matter from a climate change sceptic’s point of view but from the point of view of looking at some of the practical applications of potential policy on the Murray-Darling within the rhetoric of climate change being used.
In the last few days in the parliament the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has used the add-on of drought and climate change—and it is part of a process that many ministers are using—and the fact that the Murray-Darling system is in crisis because of previous policy decisions that were made by governments over many decades. It is this add-on of climate change that I would like to address. The current rhetoric suggests, as I said, that climate change is having an impact on the inflows into the Murray-Darling system. If that logic holds, the government—or the Minister for Climate Change and Water or the minister for the environment—should have a figure that relates to the loss of inflows into the Murray-Darling system which have been caused by climate change. You might have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in the parliament yesterday I kept interjecting, asking the environment minister: how many gigalitres of water are attributable to climate change? Because, if you cannot quantify the gigalitres then the credibility of the argument that the inflows into the Murray-Darling system are due to climate change becomes somewhat dicey. So I call on the government to quantify how much has climate change, an unnatural event, caused the reduction in the amount of water in the Murray-Darling system?
I would like to take that a step further. If it can be shown that half a million megalitres or one million megalitres of inflow has stopped and that has been caused not within the system but outside the system and is due to human global emissions then the government should look at adding some water to the system. That is fairly simple. People will say: ‘Here we go again, bringing water from the coast or down from Queensland.’ If human greenhouse gas emissions outside that valley have had an impact on that valley then that is an option that needs to be looked at. In the past when people have talked about bringing water into the Murray-Darling system the argument has been that that would be unnatural and would have an impact on salinity and a whole range of other things. If the government is going to run this line that climate change has caused part of the reduction in the inflow and that most of those causes are outside that valley, then surely one of the options should be to bring water into the system.
I would also like to address briefly these other arguments about the barrages at the end of the Murray mouth, Lake Alexandrina and the crisis that is occurring in South Australia at the moment. I have been to that area on a number of occasions. It is an absolute disgrace what the South Australians have done at the end of the Murray. Most people do not know that there is a dam. A lot of people condemn Cubbie Station, and I do too—I think the government should purchase that piece of land—but exactly the same thing has happened at the end of the Murray. The Murray is dammed with a series of barrages. I agree with the government on climate change, but they are going to have to establish some rhetoric that actually fits the system. (Time expired)
I have the honour of being the Chair of the Australia-US Parliamentary Friendship Group. I want to reflect on our relationship with the great country of the United States as it moves towards its presidential election. In the last few weeks we have had the visit of the USS John S McCain in Sydney and Melbourne. Many ship visits happen in Australia. Isn’t it interesting that the great American admiral after whom that ship is named was the grandfather of John McCain? The ship was here to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Great White Fleet, the first visit of an American fleet to Australia. In some senses, the visit of the Great White Fleet recognised that Australia was and is an independent country. Despite the concerns of the British embassy at the time, the American fleet visited this country.
The US-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group had breakfast at the American embassy this morning. The US ambassador was the gracious host. There were about 50 members of parliament there. He and Mimi McCallum treated us with their usual great kindness and hospitality. We all reflected on the fact that there are so many connections between Australians and Americans at many different levels, not just at the expected security level through the ANZUS treaty but at all levels of politics, culture and the economy.
My relationship with the United States goes back to 1979 when I was a participant in the East Asia South Pacific Youth Leader Project. Never will I forget the kindness shown to me by the farmers in Illinois who I stayed with for a few days—they drove me to Chicago for one night to celebrate Passover—or the Marine pilots who worked with Pan Am who I celebrated thanksgiving with in upstate New England. We continue to see that kind of profound relationship with our political leaders now. For instance, it was fascinating to see Julia Gillard talk to Paul Bongiorno on Channel 10’s Meet the Press program. She said, in discussing plans for Australian education:
I think we all know from our television screens as much as anything else that New York is a city with pockets of very great wealth and pockets of very great poverty and disadvantage. And Joel Klein’s model has made a difference to those pockets of poverty and disadvantage. And when you see a model that is working in some of those tough suburbs in New York, then I think you’ve got to take notice of it.
Similarly, it is very interesting to see our great Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, take his concerns about supplying uranium to India to the United States to make people there understand that it is very important to get India to participate in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So it is a two-way relationship, not just a one-way relationship. It is very interesting to see the maturing of the Australian media. Unlike Mr Pilger, with his turgid America-phobic presentation on Q&A, we have serious people like Leigh Sales, the former Washington correspondent for the ABC, Barry Cassidy and Tony Jones, host of Lateline, with access to equally serious players right across the political spectrum in this period before the US presidential election.
Even the conservative Wall Street Journal Asia said that Julia Gillard’s recent presentation in Washington was very impressive. When she was in Washington the Deputy Prime Minister said:
Beyond us—
the people who were at the Australia-US dialogue—
stand hundreds of thousands of people of the same conviction, on both sides of the Pacific Ocean. No matter where they meet—whether in a law firm in New York, on a movie shoot in Hollywood, backpacking in the Greek islands or serving alongside each other in Afghanistan—Australians and Americans just seem to click.
I would not underestimate the role of popular culture in cementing this. Australians have been the beneficiaries of our successful involvement in US popular culture, as we have seen with Heath Ledger in the great box office success The Dark Knight. It is a great tragedy that his life was taken away. But isn’t it fascinating to see Australian actors, people in music and people from all kinds of cultures so successful in this globalised world because of our intimate understanding of things American. Some time ago I was at a gay festival in Melbourne, which had a Doris Day festival at the end of it. The singer had won New York Cabaret Artist of the Year. A friend of mine, Robbie Weil, won ‘best imitation of an orthodox rabbi’ at the New York Comedy Festival.
A war of aggression threatened both Australia and the US. This is what Julia Gillard meant when she said:
The bedrock of that relationship is the US-Australia alliance, which was signed 57 years ago, but which reflected the judgments—clear, accurate, brutally frank judgments—of an Australian Labor Prime Minister a decade earlier.
That is, ‘Look to America.’
Order! The member’s time has expired. At this point, may I welcome our visitors.
Mr Deputy Speaker, may I join you in acknowledging the Rotary sponsored students who are here in Parliament House for the week. I hope they are enjoying this experience.
Indeed. Thank you.
Earlier this year parliament witnessed an incredible outpouring of sorrow in an apology to the stolen generation. It was very important symbolically, but now Indigenous people need to be empowered to manage the pressing social and economic issues in their communities. One issue that has come to my attention in recent weeks is the rate of suicide in Aboriginal communities. It is truly tragic. Six males have committed suicide in the wheat belt town of Narrogin, in my electorate of Pearce, since January this year. Four of these were local Aboriginal community members aged between 21 and 30 years. I understand that a further four Aboriginal men in Narrogin attempted suicide over the past month. Indeed, since I have been here this week I have had a report of another attempted suicide. Fortunately, they were not successful, but it is obvious that there is a most serious problem needing urgent attention. It is having a shocking impact on the whole community.
On hearing of this tragedy I contacted the state and federal ministers for health to ask for assistance and for some action to be taken. The first reply was from the state Minister for Health, the Hon. Jim McGinty, saying several meetings had been arranged. I visited Narrogin soon after making that approach and, during the visit, the Narrogin Aboriginal Community Reference Group, whom I met with, said that there had been very few practical outcomes from those meetings. That group is working extremely hard to try to make sure that culturally appropriate services are brought to the town. They have been working with the community to try to establish services to avoid the needless loss of young lives.
I find it extraordinary that currently there is no Aboriginal health service in the wheat belt. The reference group have asked the state government to fund an Aboriginal controlled response which is culturally appropriate for the issues faced by young Aboriginal people. Included in this would be a men’s shelter, a medical centre, a youth officer and a community development officer.
I pay tribute to Oxfam’s work. It is a non-government organisation and it has taken responsibility for providing emergency responses by funding an Aboriginal psychologist, Darrell Henry, who will work in the town for a week each month seeing patients and training two local people as community support workers.
It is a matter of enduring shame that, in a state that is awash with money from the mining boom, practical support to assist Aborigina1 people in the wheat belt to manage their own community issues is simply not available. While the state government coffers overflow with taxes, little finds its way back into the wheat belt for essential services. I think that is very sad indeed.
During my visit to Narrogin, I was also shocked while meeting some of the people delivering services in a general sense when I was told that there are only two part-time mental health support workers to cover an area of 48,000 square kilometres from Narrogin to the port city of Bunbury and to the other port city of Albany. It is a massive area and there is only one psychiatrist for that total area. Further, there has been no increase in funding for these services for 12 years. For the past 12 years, there has been no increase in funding.
We have been going through a drought as well and many young farmers are also taking their lives, so this is not just an issue that affects Indigenous people—but it is sad that there are not culturally specific services to address some of these issues. I know the rural community is working very hard to try to help both the farming sector and the Indigenous community. The psychologist, Darrell Henry, has also committed to providing Narrogin with telephone and teleconference support during his weeks away from the town.
Both state and federal governments need to commit more money to train Aboriginal people to provide appropriate support within their local communities. It is these practical measures that will go a long way to better managing the health of Aboriginal people in the wheat belt. (Time expired)
I want to talk about a local woman, a friend of mine, who died in 1999. Her name was Lois Martha Roberts. Lois was tragically and brutally murdered. I am going to quote something that I have said before when I was in another parliament when I talked about Lois. I am going to use some of the comments I made about her then. I have given a promise and undertaking to continue to talk about Lois and hopefully one day her murderers will be found.
On 22 January 1999 I attended the funeral of Lois Martha Roberts. Lois was a friend, and she was 39 years old. She was the daughter of Muriel Roberts and Pastor Frank Roberts, deceased. Lois was a mother to Charles and Emily, a sister to Philip, Rhoda and Mark, an aunty, a granddaughter, a friend to many and a local identity. At Lois’ funeral we were given a script which said ‘A Celebration of the life of Lois Martha Roberts’. That is how Lois’s funeral was conducted, as a celebration of her life. Lois lived her life as a free spirit.
I have known Lois for approximately 21 or 22 years—
it is a bit longer now—
She was a young woman when I first met her. She was beautiful, vivacious, glamorous and intelligent. A local hairdresser, she had the world at her feet. Even then she had a free and joyous spirit. Lois came from a family that had contributed enormously to family life. Her father, Pastor Frank Roberts, was an icon in Aboriginal affairs. Known for his passion and commitment to social justice at all levels of public life, national, State and local, he had a wonderful presence and a wonderful voice. Indeed, the whole family contributed to the betterment of community life. It was into this family that Lois was born.
Lois then, as a young woman, tragically suffered severe injuries in a car accident and sustained permanent head injuries. This event changed her life. I always thought about Lois’s life as before and after the accident. Lois was in hospital for a time and then returned home, where she carved out her place in the community. She was known to all—
and loved by all—
She frequently travelled around our area by hitchhiking, often to Nimbin and back. Lois loved Nimbin and its community embraced her.
I often saw Lois hitchhiking and would pick her up. I would go a long way out of my way to make sure that she got to her destination safely. Lois was respected by many and in turn she respected many, including her elders. Her uncle Fletcher talked about this at her funeral. Before Lois’s accident she called me Janelle … When I became active in public life I became Miss Saffin. I used to say to her, “Come on Lois, I am still Janelle. She would say, “Yes, but you are now Miss Saffin.” She continued to call me Miss Saffin until she died. Everyone knew Lois, she was totally trusting. She had opinions on all manner of things including politics and would commend or chide me as was her wish. She would often say to me, “Miss Saffin, I haven’t seen you in the media lately. It is time to get in there again.” She watched everything that we did.
She was courageous in expressing her views, many of which she shared with me. The last time I saw Lois before she died she had fallen from her pushbike at the roundabout in Lismore. I was driving by in a truck and managed to pick up Lois and her bike, put Lois in the truck, take her home and care for her. We had a nice time that afternoon. Lois was tragically and brutally murdered. She was last seen hitchhiking in Nimbin’s main street, near the police station. Lois would have trusted those who offered her a lift and who ultimately betrayed her—
She was later found in Whian Whian State Forest—
Her murderers are still unknown. As her mother, Muriel, said at the funeral, she wanted people to think about Lois’s tragic murder with forgiveness. She could find it in her heart to forgive. I will read from the script that was given to us at the funeral:
“Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” saith the Lord.
That was the spirit of Lois’s funeral.
I go for morning walks, and I walk past the house where Lois lived, which is around the corner from me. When I am at home in Lismore I am frequently reminded about Lois when I pass by her house. My undertaking was to continue to talk about her. I hope that we can get a stronger investigation into her death.
I rise to speak on a matter that is close to my heart—a program that I have been a strong advocate of, and extremely proud of, throughout my time in parliament—Green Corps. Green Corps is a popular and innovative scheme which allows young people aged between 17 and 20 to demonstrate their commitment to preserving and restoring Australia’s environment and heritage.
The coalition government introduced the program, honouring its 1996 election commitment. Since that time the program has had great success not only in my electorate of Canning but throughout the country. More than 18,000 participants have planted more than 14 million trees, erected 8,000 kilometres of fencing, removed 50,000 hectares of weeds and conducted more than 5,000 surveys encouraging community groups into environmental projects.
It is one of Labor’s worst-kept secrets that it plans to axe this program. Following the government’s earlier announcement that it would abolish the $291 per week allowance for participants and extend eligibility to all age groups, this week the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations confirmed that Green Corps would not continue as a separate program. The government has been trying to keep its plans off the radar, but Labor cannot continue to spout its ‘green credentials’ while it slashes environmental funding and axes programs which so clearly make a difference. Actions speak louder than words, Mr Rudd.
Considering that around 75 per cent of Green Corps projects have been based in rural and regional areas, this is just another slap in the face to country Australia from a city-centric government. One of the major success factors for Green Corps is the involvement of the local community in activities. Projects are community based and involve multiple partners from the community as well as state, territory and local governments.
Only a month ago I attended the graduation ceremony of participants in what was called the Youth, Riffles, Rapids and Riparian Planting in the Peel Inlet Green Corps project. This team completed a wide range of activities to help develop and improve the biodiversity of the Peel Inlet. Pinjarra’s growth has had a direct impact on the Murray River and, with input from local environmental groups and the support of the Shire of Murray, rehabilitation strategies including weed control, baffle boarding and planting of local species were implemented by this team. Congratulations to the team leader, Emma, and to Greening Australia for their great work.
Participants gain accreditation in conservation and land management—they get to certificate I level and they can go on from there—horticulture, first aid and occupational health and safety. But the program provides far greater skills to young Australians then practical horticultural skills. Green Corps is not just about planting trees; in many cases the experience helps shape a direction for these young people and gives them the confidence they need to get ahead in life and their future careers.
In Canning, Green Corps participants have completed some outstanding environmental projects, such as the Fairbridge heritage and South Dandalup River restoration project, which involved the conservation of declared rare flora and the refurbishment of Newton Cottage, which had unique shingling. Another was the Peel Harvey rehabilitation project, where local native species were planted, and the team constructed pathways, boardwalks and a viewing platform at Lake Geogorup. In another project, a team working at South Yunderup helped rehabilitate South Yunderup’s Centenary Park and address the degradation of riverbanks caused by boating. Another project, the Serpentine-Jarrahdale Heritage Park project, involved trail construction to facilitate access to Gooralong Brook and improvements to Jarrahdale’s heritage-listed Mill Managers House.
I have met most of the graduates from the projects I mentioned, and an increasing number of Indigenous people are now involved. I know many of them have gone on to further training and some have taken employment in the horticulture field. I have heard nothing but good stories and outcomes from this program and I believe that it is an absolute travesty that this highly successful program will be trashed under the Rudd Labor government.
Every member of this house has an electorate rich in history and in character, and I would like to draw members’ attention to a unique part of the Fremantle electorate, Rottnest Island. Located 19 kilometres off the coast of Fremantle, Rottnest Island is 11 kilometres long and 4½ kilometres wide, and was named by the Dutch explorer de Vlamingh, who landed there in 1696 and thought the native marsupial quokkas were rats, hence ‘rat’s nest’. Rottnest Island has many important heritage aspects. It was notoriously used as a prison for Aboriginal people. It was a military base during World War II. More recently, Rottnest has been made an A-class environmental reserve and is a popular tourist destination: over 500,000 tourists visit the island each year.
I would like to speak, firstly, of Rottnest Island’s Indigenous heritage in a little more detail. Seven thousand years ago, Rottnest was connected to the Western Australian mainland. Over the millennia, moving seas turned it into an island. Tools that have been found on Rottnest Island indicate that Aboriginal people were there many thousands of years ago. In our more recent history, Rottnest was used as a prison for Aboriginal people for almost a century, starting in 1838. The island has some very sad stories to tell about the treatment of Aboriginal people in WA. The heritage officers at Rottnest informed me that many of the Aboriginal men who were prisoners on Rottnest Island were leaders and lawmen in their own communities. They were in some cases transported many thousands of kilometres to be put on an island with other Aboriginal men from all over Western Australia, many of them not even speaking the same language. Not only would this have been a terrifying and bewildering experience for the men but also, almost certainly, it would have devastated the Aboriginal communities that had been deprived of their leaders.
Over 3,700 Aboriginal men and boys were sent to the island over the course of its use as a prison. While there, the men were required to construct buildings and perform other work that was completely alien to their own culture and experience. Three hundred and sixty nine men are recorded as having died on Rottnest Island and it is believed that many more died when they were released to the mainland and had to find their way back to their lands hundreds or even thousands of kilometres from the Fremantle port. The buildings and structures that many of the Aboriginal men built are still used on the island today, including the quod, which had been the prison and is now part of the Rottnest Lodge Resort, and the lighthouses on the island. More recently, steps have been taken to include Aboriginal people in the decision-making processes on the island, to reclaim the Aboriginal burial grounds, which were formerly used as tourist camping facilities, and to rebuild and celebrate the spiritual connection of the Aboriginal people with this place.
In relation to Rottnest Island’s military heritage, I was pleased to have been able to invite the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to visit the island recently. It was an eye-opening experience for him, as it was for me the first time I went there, to see what a significant role the island played during Australia’s wartime history. The island was first used for military purposes during World War I, when it was used as an internment camp for 1,300 Germans and Croatians. During World War II, the island became a key defence post. By 1942, 2,500 military personnel were stationed there. Rottnest Island had two extremely large, nine-inch guns for the purpose of defending Fremantle port and the south-west coastline. These guns are in their original locations atop two hills overlooking the sea and they are the largest in-situ guns in the country. One of these guns has been fully restored and is open for inspection to the public. Unfortunately, due to lack of funds, the other gun has not been restored. There is also an elaborate system of tunnels and underground rooms or battle stations, including mapping rooms, where many women were stationed during the war. These facilities, which are not currently open to the public due to safety concerns, are also deteriorating and in serious need of repair. I hope that funds will become available for this purpose in order to preserve this important part of our history.
In relation to Rottnest Island’s natural heritage, Rottnest is a great model for sustainable tourism. Many people come to the island to enjoy the beaches, snorkelling, scuba diving and fishing. The Rottnest Island Authority has done a wonderful job in ensuring their operations are sustainable and do not damage the island. In the near future, work will begin on an eco resort which will have a five-star green rating. As the member for Fremantle, I encourage members to visit Rottnest Island to gain an appreciation of its rich Indigenous, military and environmental heritage, and also to stay and enjoy its relaxed atmosphere and beautiful nature.
It is a privilege to have a second opportunity to say a few words. I would like to talk about diabetes. Well before this century reaches its halfway mark, the global affliction of diabetes will have seriously challenged the health and the budgets of all nations. Diabetes is not just a matter of concern to health professionals; it will have brought incalculable harm to the quality of life for individuals, with consequences for the social fabric of nations. The dilemma for richer nations will be drastic, but for poorer nations it will be catastrophic. All over the globe, diabetes is an insidious blight to income production, to creativity and, indeed, to life expectancy. The conflict we are waging is fast becoming too late for too many, particularly in the small Pacific nations. The number of people affected is in the millions and the process from decision making to action is a challenge of considerable magnitude.
On Tuesday in this place the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group, which I chair, co-hosted a summit with Diabetes Australia. Some of the best clinicians in the country came to this place to deliberate on how we might move forward with policies that will help us to stem the diabetes pandemic in Australia. We had notable people such as Professor Martin Silink, the President of the International Diabetes Federation; Dr Gary Deed, the President of Diabetes Australia; Professor Ruth Colagiuri and her husband; and Professor George Rubin, who facilitated the event—amongst others. We also work closely with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and they were represented by their Chief Executive Officer, Mike Wilson, and Sarah Harrison.
I would like to pay tribute to the work of our peak organisations in trying to manage this terrible disease of diabetes in this country. They do a marvellous job. Diabetes Australia manages the national scheme. I also look forward to getting a summary of the deliberations from the summit on Tuesday because it will help us to know what direction we have to move in as legislators in this place to stem the tide of diabetes. Finally, I would also like to pay tribute to the work of my many colleagues in this place, some 60-plus in number, who are members of the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group who continue to support this important work.
I want to draw attention to the fact that before we return to parliament, in just over a week, local government elections will be held in New South Wales. The election in Newcastle is very important because our city faces several important challenges. Our CBD is facing the challenges of revitalisation, continuing the wonderful work started by the Building Better Cities program, and of ensuring it has a diverse heart that reflects retail, residential, commercial, creative and recreational activities. We also have to overcome significant infrastructure neglect across the whole city, which is delaying our progress. Another challenge for our city is providing effective and efficient management as we bring in a new general manager, who I wish well and I welcome to our city. We also need a council and councillors who will best serve the basic needs of our people and our residents. We need to know that essential services are delivered in the best, most timely and most efficient ways that represent value for money. The other great challenge for the city of Newcastle is as a leader: as the regional capital that helps to lead the development of the Hunter region.
Given those challenges, I wish to say that I think it is time for new leadership, a new set of councillors and a new approach in our city. We need leadership that is genuinely collaborative, consultative and inclusive of all the stakeholders of our city, without fear or favour. We also need leadership that assists our city to have a strong and united voice that reflects the vision of the people of Newcastle for the city’s future. We need councillors with a more modern focus. From working with younger people, I do know that they have new ways of looking at engagement and of communicating. They also understand best practice in management and efficiencies. They understand that it takes some particular modern practices to build a strong, effective and efficient city and to give people confidence in the probity and accountability of the city council. We need councillors in our city who are willing to commit to the young people of our city, to value them and to understand that they make an important contribution. Regrettably, in our city they have become the focus of negative attention because of the emphasis on binge drinking and those sorts of minority antisocial events. It is time for our young people to be given more encouragement. Certainly there should be more encouragement for the creative side of our city that enriches their lives and allows them to remain in our cities and become great citizens of the future. That is the sort of harmony that I think our new councillors could build.
I want to commend to the city of Newcastle the Labor team. They are young. They are vibrant. They are committed. They are the youngest team we have ever put up, with an average age of less than 40, and they are standing for council at the peak of their careers and family life. It is unusual because city councillors are often people who have retired and are coming back to contribute something, but I think it is important in this century that we take on new and younger people who are willing to make a real investment. So I commend Sharon Claydon, Tim Crakanthorp, Nuatali Nelmes and Michael Jackson, who are all in lead positions in their wards. I also commend to the people of Newcastle our lord mayoral candidate, Marilyn Eade, an experienced and effective councillor who has stood aside from a council position to put herself before the people solely as a lord mayoral candidate willing to lead a young and vibrant team who share her ambitions for our city: that it can truly take its place as a regional capital and live up to the reputation it has earnt—but perhaps does not communicate to the rest of Australia as strongly as it could—as the seventh largest city, by population, in Australia.
I thank the members for their contributions.
Question agreed to.