I move:
That Main Committee order of the day No. 1, private members’ business, relating to the resumption of debate on Australian Defence Industry Manufacturers, be returned to the House for further consideration.
The orders of the day are shown on the list which has been circulated to members in the chamber.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the recommendations of the whips relating to committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 17 August 2009. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Pursuant to standing order 41A, the Whips recommend the following items of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business for Monday, 17 August 2009. The order of precedence and allotments of time for items in the Main Committee and Chamber are as follows:
Items recommended for Main Committee (6.55 to 8.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR RANDALL: To move—
That the House:
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Randall—10 minutes.
First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MS KING: To move—
That the House recognises that:
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms King—5 minutes.
First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MR SIMPKINS: To move—
That the House:
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Simpkins—5 minutes.
First Government Member speaking—5 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR K. J. THOMSON: To move—
That the House:
Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 8.30pm
Speech time limits—
Mr K. J. Thomson—5 minutes.
First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items recommended for House of Representatives Chamber (8.40 to 9.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Orders of the Day
1 MR KATTER: To make a statement on Quarantine Proclamation Amendment Bill 2009.
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes (8.40 pm-8.45 pm)—pursuant to standing order 41
Notices
1 MR OAKESHOTT: To present Renewable Energy Amendment (Feed-in-Tariff for Electricity) Bill 2008
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes (8.45 pm-8.50 pm)—pursuant to standing order 41
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS
Presentation and statements
1 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Australia’s relationship with India as an emerging world power.
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—statement to conclude by 8.55 pm
Speech time limits—
Ms Parke—5 minutes
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking =1 x 5 mins]
2 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION
Immigration detention in Australia: Facilities, services and transparency.
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9.05 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Danby(Chair)—5 minutes
Opposition Member – 5 minutes
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking =2 x 5 mins]
3 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES
Report 103: Treaties tabled 12 March and 13 May 2009
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9.10 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr K. J. Thomson (Chair)—5 minutes
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking =1 x 5 mins]
4 PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
Report on the inquiry into the legislative arrangements to outlaw serious and organised crime groups.
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9.20 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Hayes—5 minutes
Opposition Member – 5 minutes
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking =2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS—continued
Orders of the Daycontinued
2 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE INDUSTRY MANUFACTURERS: Resumption of debate (from 22 June 2009) on the motion of Mr Baldwin—That the House:
Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 9.30pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Baldwin—5 minutes.
First Government Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Report adopted.
by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
I indicate to all honourable members that this motion enjoys the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax.
Question agreed to.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Griffin.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill gives effect to the key elements of the government’s secure and sustainable pension reform package in relation to veterans and their dependants.
The measures in this bill closely parallel for veterans and their dependants those reforms recently enacted in relation to certain social security pensions.
The variations reflect the differences between the social security and repatriation pension systems.
The pension reform package addresses the adequacy of income support pensions, makes the operations simpler and more responsive to pensioner needs and secures long-term sustainability.
It prepares Australia to meet future challenges, including the ageing population, through changes to social security, family assistance, veterans’ affairs and aged-care legislation.
The reforms will provide significant increases in pensions and result in a simpler, fairer and more flexible pension system.
More than 320,000 Veterans’ Affairs pensioners will benefit from these reforms, boosting their incomes by $1.1 billion over the next four years.
From 20 September 2009, the secure and sustainable pension reform package will increase pensions for all Veterans’ Affairs income support recipients and war widows and widowers. The reforms will deliver increases of $32.50 per week for single service pensioners and $10.10 per week combined for couples on the maximum rate.
War widows and widowers will benefit from an increase of $30 per week.
Income support supplement recipients will also receive an increase in the supplement and the ceiling rate will be increased.
These increases are in addition to the regular indexation due in September.
A significant improvement will be made to the indexation of income support pensions, benchmarking them against a more realistic indicator of changes to the cost of living for pensioners.
The Pension Reform package introduces a new Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index recognising that the cost of living for pensioners and beneficiaries may increase faster than the cost of living for the general community as measured by the consumer price index.
From 20 September 2009, the maximum basic rate of income support pensions will be adjusted in line with either the consumer price index or the new pensioner and beneficiary living cost index, whichever is the higher.
Pension rates will also continue to be benchmarked to male total average weekly earnings.
From 20 March 2010, a new pension benchmark will be introduced for the maximum combined couple rate of pension. The benchmark will be 41.76 per cent of the annualised amount of male total average weekly earnings.
For a person being paid the single rate of pension, the relativity of that rate will be maintained at a rate of 66.33 per cent of the maximum rate payable to a couple.
Therefore, the new benchmark for the maximum single rate of pension will be 27.7 per cent of male total average weekly earning, an increase of more than 10 per cent from the current 25 per cent benchmark.
The current complex system of allowances and supplementary payments will be simplified and made more flexible with the introduction of a new pension supplement for service pension recipients.
Telephone allowance, pharmaceutical allowance, utilities allowance and the GST pension supplement will be consolidated into a single pension supplement for service pensioners.
From 1 July 2010, income support recipients will have the option of receiving around half of this payment quarterly.
This introduction of the new pension supplement arrangements will provide income certainty for veterans and their dependants while maintaining flexibility in managing their budgets.
War widows and income support supplement recipients will have the former allowances added to their base rate of pension.
Self-funded retirees of pension or qualifying age will also benefit from these pension reforms. A new seniors supplement for holders of a Commonwealth seniors health card or gold card holders over qualifying age will be introduced from 20 September 2009.
The seniors supplement will replace the existing seniors concession allowance and telephone allowance. In addition, all seniors supplement recipients will now be paid telephone allowance at the higher internet rate regardless of whether or not they were in receipt of the allowance.
The seniors supplement for a single person will be $785.20 per annum.
For couples, the combined payment will be $1,185.60 per annum.
Depending on what allowances they are currently in receipt of, all seniors supplement recipients will receive a net increase of up to $266.40 per annum for a single person and $148 per annum for couples. The seniors supplement will be paid quarterly.
The bill also establishes two new supplements to replace pharmaceutical and telephone allowances for those veterans, members and dependants who do not receive a Veterans’ Affairs or social security income support payment.
The veterans supplement replaces pharmaceutical and telephone allowance under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. The MRCA supplement will replace pharmaceutical and telephone allowance under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
These new supplements will commence on 20 September 2009.
A work bonus will be established to provide an incentive for those who wish to take up or continue to undertake paid work. The work bonus will apply to those veterans and dependants who are over qualifying age and will provide concessional treatment for their employment income. With the bonus, only 50 per cent of the first $500 a fortnight of employment income will be counted in the income test.
The work bonus will provide a real and timely incentive for those veterans and dependants who are able to continue in the paid workforce.
With the introduction of the work bonus, the existing pension bonus scheme will be closed to new entrants from 20 September 2009. The Harmer pension review found the scheme is not meeting its objective of encouraging workforce participation among older Australians. Existing members of the scheme will be able to remain in the scheme and claim a pension and their bonus when they finish working.
The reforms in the bill will also introduce greater flexibility to the pension advance arrangements from 1 July 2010.
The maximum advance amount will be increased for income support recipients and will link the maximum and minimum advance amounts to future movements in the service pension rate. More flexibility will be provided in the frequency of advances with up to three advances being available within a 12-month period.
This will better enable pensioners to manage large unforeseen costs.
To help ensure the pension system is sustainable into the future and targeting those most in need, the pension income test will be tightened.
From 20 September 2009, the pension income test taper rate will increase from 40 cents to 50 cents for each dollar of income over the income test free area.
In the case of a pensioner couple, their combined pension will reduce by 50 cents for each dollar of combined income over the income test free area.
Pensions paid to each partner will reduce by 25 cents for each dollar of combined income over the income test free area.
In addition, to bring the veterans’ entitlements income test in line with other means tested payments, the additional income test ‘free area’ for dependent children will be removed.
As part of the reforms, new transitional payment arrangements are being introduced so that part-rate pensioners who would otherwise face a reduction in their payments as a consequence of the reforms will have their current payment rates maintained.
The transitional safety net will maintain indexation in line with increases in the consumer price index and will provide an increase of $10.10 per week for singles or couples combined.
The transitional rules will continue to apply until changes under the pension reforms result in a higher payment.
The pension age for persons other than veterans will increase in line with the increase introduced in the social security age pension age from 65 to 67 for both men and women.
These changes will be phased in gradually, commencing in 2017.
I want to make it abundantly clear that there will be no increase to the veteran pension age or to the age a veteran’s partner can apply for partner service pension as a result of this legislation.
The bill will also make minor amendments to the social security and aged care pension reform measures so that the reforms operate as intended.
Finally, the bill will provide a vehicle for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme increases to be payable to service pensioners, war widows and disability pensioners.
This government is acting to introduce much needed and long overdue reforms that significantly improve the adequacy of the pension and simplify and strengthen the nation’s pension system.
These reforms will make for a more secure pension system, provide greater certainty to veterans and their dependants and ensure the system remains both adequate and sustainable.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 11 August, on motion by Mr Combet:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is a great pleasure to participate in the debate on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009, particularly in the presence of the responsible minister, who might, if he bothers to take the time, listen to some of the arguments I will put forward on this issue. To begin with, this is a reporting process—in other words, it is a bureaucratic process to which many businesses will be subject. It will be costly to them, and it would be of some value if the end purpose of the process was to deliver emissions reductions in Australia. Considering those facts, I am anxious to speak today. There has been much debate in the last week or so regarding the misnomer of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is quite easy to see why the government chose to rebadge their emissions trading scheme with that particular label, because they know that the emissions trading scheme is not a scheme to reduce emissions; it is a scheme to license people to pollute.
It is quite peculiar, as far I am concerned, to think that the Prime Minister recently wrote a 7,000-word attack on the evils of the marketplace and yet he stands up here day after day telling this parliament and, through this parliament, the Australian people that he has a scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Australia when in fact, when one looks at even the compensation scheme, one sees that it is a process by which people are paid to buy the certificates to pollute and to continue to pollute.
I will take as an example the electricity generators—with whom I am totally sympathetic. They, like another circumstance I will mention in a minute—using coal to produce fertiliser for Australian farmers and to produce cheaper food for the world—will be severely disadvantaged by this legislation. The generators are unable to raise the necessary finance to maintain their business and to roll over existing loans because the financial institutions to whom they would normally apply for this money or to retain this money have told them, ‘Mate, you’re not viable under an emissions trading scheme as proposed and, as such, we’re not going to lose our money when you go broke.’ And, of course, we have had reports already of major generators refusing to commit the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to maintain their generating capacity.
There is a question on the ETS, the emissions trading scheme—though I prefer to follow Terry McCrann, who referred to it as the ETTS, the emissions trading tax scheme, which is what it is—that needs to be answered by the government. We have not heard a word from the relevant and responsible ministers on this important question—and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, who is at the table, is paying no attention whatsoever at this stage of the game so he clearly does not believe that he has to answer. The question that needs to be answered by the government is this: is Australia going to reduce its emissions as a response to this scheme? The answer is no. There are certain reasons relevant to its capacity to do so—for instance, to continue to supply Australians with electrical energy.
A letter from the electricity generators was, I think, circulated to probably all members of parliament. As I say, I am totally sympathetic to their case. Included in that letter were the words: ‘Unless we can get more compensation, we fear we will be unable to pass on the full cost to us—the generators—of the emissions trading scheme.’ The government then says, ‘Oh, don’t you worry about that; we’re going to give poor and middle-income earners compensation for passing on that money.’ So that confirms it: the government admits that the electrical generators will pass on as much as they think they can get away with—if I can use those words—to the community and of course to industry. Industry does not get any help; the consumers do because they vote. What does that say? Does that say that emissions will therefore reduce? No, it does not; it says that generators will pay to go on emitting. How does that work? Where is the purpose?
The downside of a market response in this arena is simply that you can buy your way out of the problem. If you have got a captive market—like those working-class families we do not hear of much these days—you just put your price up. It is happening all the time. Take alcopops, for example. The government put up the price on alcopops. The response of this government to every problem is to put a tax on it. And what do we read in the paper now? We read that people have got over the price increase and they are going back to drinking them. Under an emissions trading scheme, people simply pay to pollute. But it goes one step further. In light of the fact—a fact also recognised by the government—that there will be little capacity for a reduction within the Australian industry groups, they will have to buy certificates. And the government says—and let me say that the process that was put to the coalition party room yesterday made the same admission—that you will have to buy certificates overseas.
The Chinese are too smart to have an emissions trading scheme. There would be some difficulty in their managed economy to have a market based outcome, one would presume, anyway. But are they doing that? No. There are some of us within the coalition who believe the solution to this problem is for the government to invest money in renewables and, I might add—and I wish to touch on this somewhat—the improvement of the generating sector, particularly in transmission, so that you get positive reduction in emissions within the borders of Australia. That is what the Chinese are doing.
We had a seminar which was attended by 10 different groups promoting the means by which they could reduce emissions in Australia—each recognising a cost and each recognising and complaining that the government has no policy for emerging technologies. All the government wants to do is have a RET that is going to promote wind power, which is recognised universally as having no purpose unless it can be backed up by a renewable like hydro or tides, simply because if you back it up with coal—considering the lack of responsiveness of that sort of generation—you burn the coal anyway. There is not one scrap of evidence around Australia that all those wind generators have actually reduced the consumption of coal. They are burning it. If you were to talk to a couple of middle managers at one of the Victorian power stations, they would tell you that they have to burn the coal because they cannot otherwise meet the drop-off in wind generation, which might be for seconds.
With other responsive mechanisms you can get away with that, but the fact of life is that the emissions trading scheme concept does not reduce emissions. It creates a process where you can pay to emit. But then it is suggested by the government and that wonderful Treasury modelling that you can save a lot of money by buying certificates offshore. One can only wonder what has happened with the politicisation of Treasury for the first time in my history in this place. The Chinese will have certificates for sale because their government is investing in high-voltage DC transmission lines, in massive hydro projects et cetera. China will get reductions in emissions and Australia is going to buy them.
That might not be too bad, because there might be some integrity in those certificates, judging by the presentations we got the other day showing just what is going to happen in China with high-voltage DC transmission—which just happens to halve the amount of line loss over long lines. It is an interesting fact. I made some inquiries. We have 25,000 kilometres of natural gas lines in Australia. The one that runs between the Pilbara and Perth produces just less than 700,000 tonnes of emissions a year in the process of pumping the gas from the Pilbara to Perth. What do we use the gas for when it gets to Perth? Thirty per cent of it goes into electrical generation. But if that generation had been established at the wellhead or, in the case of offshore, on the beach or as close as possible to the point of production, and if that energy had been transmitted to Perth by high-voltage DC lines, of which the Chinese are building about 10—one of them under construction now is 2,000 kilometres long—then that particular amount of emissions would be considerably reduced. I put a question to Minister Ferguson on this matter. He told me in a written answer that there are only about 800,000 tonnes of emissions associated with pumping this gas around Australia, but I have it on absolute authority that 700,000 tonnes are attributed to one pipeline. I do not know if that is misleading the parliament or not—I will seek further information—but it is a classic example of how investment in the right transmission system would reduce emissions. That is measurable.
We are apparently going to have a world trade in certificates. That will be under the Kyoto principle, because at the moment Australia is the only country that is coming up with an emissions trading scheme. They say they have one in Europe, and everybody knows that is a farce. But where are these certificates going to come from? Romania? Eastern Europe has a great capacity to do so because, when they broke up the Soviet Union, competition closed down all their rust bucket industries—and that was within the first 12-year period of Kyoto. And who is going to guarantee the integrity of these certificates? When I questioned a presenter on this new scheme yesterday, he said, ‘They’ll be very noticeable because the dodgy ones will be less valuable—will sell at a lower price—than the good ones.’ I had a leading businessman tell me that the best investment in the world at the moment is Indonesian forests because you can sell the certificates three or four times for the same bit of forest. Where is the integrity in that? Where is the guarantee that Australia’s emissions will be reduced? If the minister wants to put a bit of time into it maybe he would bet me a year’s salary that there will be significant reductions resulting from this scheme. It is a scheme to pollute. You pay to pollute. The generators are going to pay to pollute, but they tell us they cannot afford it.
We just had a briefing, from which I came immediately to this place, by a fellow who wants to spend about $3 billion in the area of Collie, a good Labor-voting area on the fringes of or just outside my electorate, to create hundreds and hundreds of full-time jobs making urea and, for the first time, on his advice to us, selling that urea to Australian farmers at the price that will be attributable to his exports. That will create a very significant drop in the price of urea fertiliser, make farmers more viable and continue to maintain Australia’s food security, but he has not got the money yet, because the banks are cautious of how he is going to be treated under the emissions trading scheme. Notwithstanding what I heard the minister say yesterday about the two-year process, the answers he needs are not available.
I note Bob Brown was on the radio this morning. It is quite an interesting thing: I am closer to Bob Brown on this issue than I am to some other people I know, because I have a genuine interest in reducing emissions. I know this scheme is not going to do it and so does Bob Brown. We get all this rhetoric about the national interest. The national interest is apparently going to be served by creating a new balance of payment problem when businesses are unable to purchase certificates within Australia. Of course, the government might accommodate them by selling a few more, because that is going to be a wonderful revenue stream for them, but the reality of the situation is that every certificate sold is a certificate to pollute. The market has the option. You either pay or you reduce. We have a party that criticises the market, saying, ‘That’ll drive everybody into investment in better and less-emitting technologies.’ All the emerging technologies with the best chances of doing anything are excluded; they are not going to get any assistance.
The alternative to that is to look at the priorities of government investment. Government built all the coal-fired power stations around Australia, practically. State governments flogged them off to get some money. Government have the responsibility to fix this problem. But government say, ‘We’re going to find $40 billion to improve the speed at which Australians can download movies.’ Very few people need the sorts of speeds that are necessary under the national broadband initiative. Tasmania is so excited about it that a big political push had to be cancelled because nobody was going to turn up. On a scale of one to 10, considering the rhetoric of this government, what is most important for Australia and the world? Is it the convenience of a faster broadband system, which the private sector is willing to provide on the normal terms of business, or investing significant amounts of money—not a few hundred million here and there for a bit of research—to reduce emissions? Most of the money is going into carbon capture and sequestration for the coal industry, which will not work and will be hugely expensive. The generators have made it clear that they are about to pay the 20 bucks, or whatever it might be, because they know they are not going to have the money and no-one is going to lend it to them to invest in changes. The fundamental of the ETS is, ‘We’ll take the money off you and if you have any left, you might invest in fixing the problem.’
The alternative is for government to invest the money and invest it where it will deliver emissions through energy efficiency. I do not mean little plug-in fluorescent lights; I mean the big-ticket items. High-voltage DC current transmission is accepted around the world as being the means by which you shift electricity with least loss in the lines. AC is extremely inefficient—you are burning up electricity, burning up coal and creating emissions, and creating excessive emissions by pumping gas around the countryside. They are things that government can fix and should fix, and you do not necessarily get the right response by taxing people. Australians have got a habit, as I said—and the alcopops example is one of them—of paying the money while they have it, and often by forgoing some other discretionary expenditure. The ETS will not reduce emissions in Australia. It will generate significant job losses, increase costs and, of course, increase the balance of payments as industry struggles to keep afloat by paying the Chinese and others, because they have worked out how better to manage this issue. (Time expired)
What a big week it is in Canberra this week and what a big week it is for the nation in relation to public policy debate. The environment certainly has become front and centre in relation to debate in Australia, and so it should be. Many of the distractions that have been going on over the winter break should be well and truly put behind us and we should move on and talk about the big issues. There is no doubt that this bill, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009, is part of that debate and that is why I am pleased to speak on it today.
In relation to what Australia is going to do in the future and what our policy direction is going to be in relation to climate change, we have seen a very significant document put on the table this week by the opposition in relation to our suggestions on how we might best manage that as a nation and how we might best protect jobs and the Australian people from higher taxes and loss of income. What has disappointed me about what happened this week, and the media today have been alluding to this, is that, unfortunately, the government does not have the will to consider other ideas. When you talk to the electorate, you find that the electorate believes that one party cannot be right on everything and one party wrong, and the reverse—that both the government and the opposition have good ideas and those ideas should be put together in a melting pot and mixed to get a better outcome for our country. I think the electorate actually yearns for that to happen, for the government to adopt the opposition’s good ideas and for the opposition to support the government’s good ideas. That is the best way for democracy to work.
In relation to what has been proposed by the opposition this week, you really have to ask: why won’t the government consider a plan that will save working families $280 a year on their electricity bills? Why will they not consider it? Why will they not consider a plan to save 68,000 jobs? Many of those jobs are in regional electorates like yours and mine, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. Why will they not consider that? Why will they not consider a plan that will save our economy $49 billion? That is an interesting question and it is something that the government have been trying to avoid answering, and I do not quite understand that. When our policy was released on Monday, the government ruled out the policy before even reading it. I think that is a bit cynical and I think the Australian public will not be happy to see that the government have adopted that position.
I am pleased to say that the original bill was a Howard government initiative to establish Australia’s first nationwide mandatory system for collecting high-quality greenhouse and energy data from industry. It has allowed for a more comprehensive and accurate picture than ever before of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and energy use, and that can only be a good thing. The 2007 act brought about a single national framework for the reporting and dissemination of information relating to greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas projects, and energy consumption and production of corporations. It was designed to underpin the future introduction of an ETS, which we are now discussing; inform policy and the Australian public; meet international reporting obligations; avoid duplication in states and territories; and assist Commonwealth, state and territory programs and activities.
The 2007 legislation demonstrated how committed to climate change the coalition government was. We have a continuing debate in this country in which it is suggested that the opposition are climate change deniers. That is utter rubbish. On all sides of politics there will always be one or two who have a different view to that of mainstream Australia. I think it is clear that the opposition are very mindful of what we need to do, what the government needs to do and what Australia needs to do to protect the future of our kids, our jobs and our families. We have seen from the government a response that is out of touch with sound economic management, business interests and the environment, and I worry about that.
The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, introduced by the Howard government, demonstrated the coalition’s action on climate change. It was a vital link to the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in 2011. Our colleagues opposite would have the public believe that the coalition had no such commitment to the environment. How wrong they are. The bill before the parliament today seeks to better administer the 2007 act and will reflect its original intentions. Because of that, the opposition will support the bill. The coalition, in supporting the bill and the administrative changes it makes, observes that it is a significant bill that will allow a company to appeal to the AAT if it is in disagreement with a Commonwealth decision. That is standard practice across many portfolio areas and will give Australian businesses greater options for review.
I have noted the coalition’s serious concerns with the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme. Australian jobs and businesses must not be forced overseas as a result of a rushed scheme. Time and consideration are needed, and the coalition is determined to have a scheme that is in the best interests of all Australians. On Monday I communicated with my electorate and indicated this to them directly. Our new CPRS model will save jobs and industries in North Queensland. We came together in the party room meeting on Monday to back our leader and his alternative scheme, which proposes to double Australia’s carbon reduction target to 10 per cent by 2020 at a cost 40 per cent less than Labor’s model. The alternative is greener, with an unconditional 10 per cent reduction on 2000 levels; it is 40 per cent cheaper than the government’s scheme, saving Australia’s economy $49 billion; and it is smarter, because it protects regional Australia and creates more jobs. As of January this year, almost 9,000 jobs had been lost in the mining sector. That has certainly affected North Queensland. Green shoots are reappearing and Australia is on the way to recovery, as is the world, but we must not allow any further loss of jobs in the mining industry. It is so important to our economy, to our state and to our families.
The Frontier Economics report released on Monday reiterated the negative impact that the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will have on regional Australia. This should be evidence enough for the government to reconsider the design of its CPRS in order to protect workers in Australia’s export industries, and there is time to do that. There are now four credible studies available that have determined there will be significant job losses in regional Australia as a result of the CPRS.
In North Queensland we were very concerned about another element of the mining industry, which was the metals refinery area. The Yabulu nickel and cobalt refinery in Townsville, which was originally owned by BHP Billiton, was very much under threat of closure. In fact, it came within 12 hours of being closed completely, with a loss of 1,000 jobs at Yabulu and all the flow-on jobs that support Yabulu. It is now safe, thanks to Clive Palmer and his operation. We must do everything we can to make sure that that refinery stays safe, as we should with the zinc and copper refineries in Townsville.
The alternative model developed by Frontier Economics would involve lower electricity prices than Labor’s model and would save 69,000 regional jobs. The debate that we are having is about design and it is purely and simply about jobs. I would like to quote to the parliament a statement by Mitch Hooke, the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia. He said: ‘The Frontier Economics report proposes a number of significant changes aimed at better aligning Australian efforts with those of our international competitors. The proposed changes, including better shielding for trade exposed firms and a phased approach to the auctioning of permits, will reduce the disadvantage that the CPRS would impose on Australia’s export sector. In doing so, these reforms would better align Australia’s scheme with those in place or being developed by other nations, including the European Union and the United States, and remove many of the negative employment impacts of the CPRS proposed today. The reforms will also remove the arbitrary and unjustified exclusion of the coal sector from being considered for assistance as a trade exposed sector. These changes will also address a central flaw of the proposed CPRS; namely, the preoccupation with raising revenue. In its first four years the CPRS as proposed will raise $30 billion from Australian businesses, and this represents $30 billion that will not be available to invest in clean energy technologies. This is a perverse way to promote the uptake of clean energy technology.’ Finally, he said: ‘The proposed CPRS is preoccupied with raising revenue rather than delivering a positive outcome for the environment. The CPRS debate must now shift to a genuine discussion on how Australia can continue the transition to a lower emissions economy where the job losses are minimised and environmental benefits are maximised.’
I draw the attention of the House to a concern with the bill we are discussing today. The definition ‘operational control’ is very uncertain. The government needs to clarify this definition and ensure that the mining industry can be given flexibility in its obligations under this act. In the white paper it was suggested that the term be given an operational control test. Such a test would not properly address the concerns about the ambiguity of the definition. I understand this issue is currently being considered by the department. This consideration should be undertaken urgently so as to ensure that any amendments to this section of the bill can be implemented. The coalition supports that the responsibility for calculating emissions be given to mine owners where there is no clear contractual statement to the contrary. This was the view of the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Constructors Association. The coalition will support the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. It is a continuation of a coalition government legislative initiative and the present bill clarifies and strengthens the audit framework of the original act. In closing, I would like to thank Keegan Sard for his help in compiling this contribution to the parliament and I indicate my support for the legislation.
in reply—Firstly, I present a correction to the explanatory memorandum to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. I thank all of the members who have participated in the debate on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill, but before I go to the heart of the amendment bill I would like to address a few of the points raised by those opposite during the debate, including the most immediate previous speaker, the member for Herbert. These comments go to the issue of operational control for the mining sector and the reporting obligations that arise under this legislation. I welcome the indication that has been previously forthcoming from the member for Flinders that the opposition will support the amendment bill in the House and I do hope that this bipartisan support will carry forward into the Senate. The member for Flinders also indicated that the opposition will support the government’s tabled amendment in the House and in the Senate in relation to this issue, provided of course that it adequately addresses concerns raised by the mining industry about operational control. So I would like to address this issue briefly and explain how the amendment does address this question.
The additional government amendment that was tabled on 24 June responds directly to the industry feedback, including from the mining sector. The amendment will provide increased flexibility to industry, including the mining sector, in establishing reporting arrangements under the national greenhouse and energy reporting system from the first reporting year of 2008-09. The amendment introduces the reporting transfer certificate concept to allow the voluntary transfer of National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act reporting and record-keeping obligations from a controlling corporation where one member of its group has operational control of the facility to a member of a different corporate group that has financial control of that facility.
Aligning the reporting transfer certificate concept with the liability transfer certificate concept outlined in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill will also ensure that a high degree of continuity between current and future reporting requirements is achieved. The alternative amendment tabled by the opposition in the Senate to deem that a mine owner has operational control would not align with future arrangements under the CPRS and would not require the mutual agreement of the party taking on the reporting obligation. Such an amendment also would not only change the operation of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act but also amend the CPRS legislation, which relies on the definition of operational control in this act—the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act—to define entities that are liable for direct emissions from facilities.
The approach in the government’s amendment requires the consent of both parties to the transaction, such as the mine owner and the operator, and this will become increasingly important as taking on the reporting obligation will be a precursor to taking on the CPRS liability. In addition, and importantly, the government amendment is not industry specific to the mining sector. The bill provides other industry sectors with this increased flexibility, such as the commercial building sector. These provisions are voluntary and impose no additional burden on industry stakeholders beyond those originally intended by the act. They have been worked through methodically and are properly integrated with the rest of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting and CPRS legislation. So I hope that this explanation, and the accompanying detail in the supplementary explanatory memorandum that I will present in relation to the amendment, addresses any lingering doubts that the opposition have about the amendment addressing concerns from industry including the mining sector. I believe that they will.
The opposition has also argued that industry was given only a short time to consult on the legislation. This is a contention that we do not believe is accurate. This amendment bill is the result of comprehensive stakeholder consultation, including numerous discussion papers seeking stakeholder feedback, workshops and one-on-one discussions with key affected parties. As part of this consultation, the Department of Climate Change released a consultation paper and conducted workshops on the audit framework in October and November 2008. Three hundred audit professionals and reporting entities around Australia participated in those workshops. A consultation paper on amending energy production disclosure requirements under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act was also released for public comment over three weeks at the beginning of this year. Eight industry and stakeholder submissions were received on this consultation paper. An exposure draft of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009—the bill before the House—was released for public comment for a one-week period commencing 23 February 2009 and no less than 22 formal submissions were received, 16 from industry and six from members of the public. In addition to this extensive stakeholder consultation, held over more than eight months, stakeholders will also be consulted on exposure drafts of audit regulations and the audit legislative instrument.
I would now like to make some comments on the amendment bill itself. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 makes amendments to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 commenced on 29 September 2007, establishing a framework for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption by industry. This reporting framework is an important part of the government’s strategy to combat climate change in an economically responsible way. The act underpins the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, assists the government to meet Australia’s international reporting obligations and facilitates the reduction of duplicative industry reporting requirements under existing state, territory and Commonwealth programs. Under the act, corporations which exceed certain thresholds are required to register and report greenhouse gas emissions and energy data. The first reporting period under the act is the current financial year, 2008-09. The bill demonstrates the government’s continued commitment to an efficient and effective national greenhouse and energy reporting system, including a robust audit framework.
These amendments also support the establishment of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, with a staged approach to ensure a smooth transition for business and other affected parties. The bill reflects extensive stakeholder consultation on the audit framework to be established under the act and around reporting arrangements in the lead-up to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The bill also requires individuals who conduct greenhouse and energy audits under the act to register with the regulator, the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer, to ensure the quality of the auditing process. Stakeholders support a registration process for auditors, and through these amendments the government is developing the necessary framework for a robust auditor registration system.
This bill also allows the minister to determine by legislative instrument the requirements for the preparation, conduct and reporting of audits. This will ensure greater levels of consistency in the conduct of audits and reports provided by auditors. The amendments also clarify that the legislative instrument may outline different types of greenhouse and energy audits. This will provide the regulator with flexibility to target audits towards specific outcomes. Other amendments protect commercially sensitive information. The government recognises that reporting entities need confidence that commercially sensitive data will be protected.
Accountability is an important component of a world-class reporting system. The bill allows for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of any decision by the regulator to refuse to register an auditor. This ensures that statutory decision making is transparent and defensible. The regulations will take these review rights further by ensuring all decisions by the regulator that affect registered auditors are reviewable.
The amendments also give the regulator the power to publish certain audit results. Currently the regulator has no power to disclose information on the outcomes of audits to the public. This is in response to stakeholder feedback that audit outcomes are a key indicator of the reliability of a corporation’s published greenhouse and energy information. The bill also removes the obligation for the regulator to publish energy production information that is aggregated in such a way as to be unusable and potentially misleading. The proposed amendments will address potential confusion between economy-wide energy production statistics, such as those produced by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, and corporate-level energy production levels. Importantly, this will not affect the reporting obligations of corporations registered for reporting under the act. Neither will it affect the publication of corporate-level emissions and energy consumption data. Collection of energy production data will remain a key component of the act to inform government on energy flows across the Australian economy and to underpin energy statistics publications.
This bill is the result of continued comprehensive stakeholder consultation on the act and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The government has struck a balance between disclosing useful information to the public, by including provisions for disclosure of audit outcomes, and protecting commercially sensitive information. The amendments will make the audit framework for the act and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme far more robust to support this government’s commitment to economy-wide accountability on greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendments (1) and (2):
(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 8 to 10), omit the clause, substitute:
2 Commencement
(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.
Commencement information | ||
Column 1 | Column 2 | Column 3 |
Provision(s) | Commencement | Date/Details |
1. Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table | The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. | |
2. Schedule 1 | The 28th day after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. | |
3. Schedule 2, Part 1 | The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. | |
4. Schedule 2, Part 2 | The later of: (a) the commencement of section 3 of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Act 2009; and (b) immediately after the commencement of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act. However, the provision(s) do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (a) does not occur. | |
5. Schedule 2, Part 3 | At the same time as Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 commences. |
Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally passed by both Houses of the Parliament and assented to. It will not be expanded to deal with provisions inserted in this Act after assent.
(2) Column 3 of the table contains additional information that is not part of this Act. Information in this column may be added to or edited in any published version of this Act.
(2) Page 11 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2—Amendments relating to reporting transfer certificates
Part 1—General amendments
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007
1 Section 7
Insert:
financial control has the meaning given by section 22R.
2 Section 7
Insert:
interim financial year means:
(a) the financial year beginning on 1 July 2008; or
(b) the financial year beginning on 1 July 2009; or
(c) the financial year beginning on 1 July 2010.
3 Section 7
Insert:
reporting transfer certificate means a certificate issued under section 22L.
4 Section 7
Insert:
reporting transfer test has the meaning given by section 22J.
5 At the end of section 13
Add:
Reporting transfer certificate
(3) For the purposes of this section, if a person was the holder of a reporting transfer certificate in relation to a facility on a particular day in an interim financial year, the facility is taken not to have been under the operational control of a member of a controlling corporation’s group on that day.
6 After subsection 17(3)
Insert:
(3A) The Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer must register a corporation under this Division if:
(a) a reporting transfer certificate is issued to the corporation; and
(b) the corporation is not already registered under this Division.
7 Subsection 18(3)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(3) The Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer must remove the name of the corporation from the Register if the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer is satisfied that:
(a) if the registered corporation is the controlling corporation of a group—the registered corporation’s group is not likely to meet any of the thresholds under section 13 for:
(i) the financial year in which the application is made; and
(ii) the next 2 financial years; and
(b) the registered corporation does not hold a reporting transfer certificate.
8 At the end of subsection 19(1)
Add:
Note 3A: Reports under this section and section 22G may be set out in the same document—see subsection 22G(6).
9 Before subsection 19(6)
Insert:
(5A) For the purposes of this section, if a person was the holder of a reporting transfer certificate in relation to a facility on a particular day in an interim financial year, the facility is taken not to have been under the operational control of a member of the corporation’s group on that day.
10 At the end of section 22
Add:
(5) In this section:
this Act does not include Part 3E.
11 Before Part 4
Insert:
PART 3E—REPORTING OBLIGATIONS OF HOLDERS OF REPORTING TRANSFER CERTIFICATES
Division 1—Reporting obligations
22G Report to be given to Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer
(1) If a corporation was the holder of a reporting transfer certificate in relation to a facility during the whole or a part of an interim financial year, the corporation must, in accordance with this section, provide a report to the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer relating to the:
(a) greenhouse gas emissions; and
(b) energy production; and
(c) energy consumption;
from the operation of the facility during the whole, or the part, as the case may be, of that interim financial year.
Civil penalty: 2,000 penalty units.
Note 1: Under Division 137 of the Criminal Code, it may be an offence to provide false or misleading information or documents to the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer in purported compliance with this Act.
Note 2: Under section 30, a corporation may be liable for an additional civil penalty for each day after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (2)(d) for which the corporation fails to provide a report in accordance with this section.
(2) A report under this section must:
(a) be given in a manner and form approved by the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer; and
(b) be based on:
(i) methods determined by the Minister under subsection 10(3); or
(ii) methods which meet criteria determined by the Minister under that subsection;
where the use of those methods satisfies any conditions specified in the determination under that subsection; and
(c) include any information specified by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; and
(d) be given to the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer before the end of 4 months after the end of the interim financial year.
(3) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) may specify different requirements for different circumstances.
(4) In particular, and without limiting subsection (3), the regulations may specify different requirements for corporations who:
(a) do not meet any threshold; or
(b) do not meet specified thresholds;
for an interim financial year to which a report relates.
(5) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) may also specify information that a State or Territory has requested the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer to collect.
(6) Reports under this section and section 19 may be set out in the same document.
(7) If no regulations are in force for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) of this section, then, in addition to their effect apart from this subsection, regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 19(6)(c) also have the effect they would have if:
(a) they were made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) of this section; and
(b) each reference in those regulations to a facility of the corporation were read as a reference to the facility to which the reporting transfer certificate relates; and
(c) each reference in those regulations to a facility under the operational control of the corporation were read as a reference to the facility to which the reporting transfer certificate relates; and
(d) those regulations were otherwise appropriately modified.
22H Records to be kept
(1) A corporation that is or was required to provide a report under section 22G for an interim financial year must keep records of the corporation’s activities that:
(a) allow the corporation to report accurately under section 22G; and
(b) enable the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer to ascertain whether the corporation has complied with the corporation’s obligations under section 22G; and
(c) comply with the requirements of subsection (2) and the regulations made for the purposes of subsection (3).
Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.
(2) The corporation must retain the records for 7 years from the end of the financial year in which the activities take place.
(3) The regulations may specify requirements relating to:
(a) the kinds of records; and
(b) the form of records;
that must be kept under subsection (1).
Division 2—Reporting transfer certificates
22J Reporting transfer test
A corporation (the transferee corporation) passes the reporting transfer test in relation to a facility if:
(a) the facility is under the operational control of another corporation (the transferor corporation); and
(b) the transferee corporation has financial control over the facility; and
(c) the transferee corporation is a company registered under Part 2A.2 of the Corporations Act 2001; and
(d) the transferee corporation is a constitutional corporation; and
(e) if the transferee corporation is a member of a controlling corporation’s group—the transferor corporation is not a member of that group; and
(f) the transferor corporation is a member of a controlling corporation’s group.
Note: For financial control, see section 22R.
22K Application for reporting transfer certificate
Scope
(1) This section applies if a corporation passes the reporting transfer test in relation to a facility.
Application
(2) The corporation may apply to the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer for the issue to the corporation of a reporting transfer certificate in relation to the facility.
(3) The corporation is not entitled to make an application unless the corporation has the written consent of the controlling corporation mentioned in paragraph 22J(f).
(4) If:
(a) the corporation is a member of a controlling corporation’s group; and
(b) the corporation is not the controlling corporation;
the corporation is not entitled to make an application unless the corporation has the written consent of the controlling corporation.
Form of application
(5) An application must:
(a) be in writing; and
(b) be in a form approved by the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer; and
(c) set out such information as is specified in the form; and
(d) be accompanied by:
(i) the consent of the controlling corporation mentioned in paragraph 22J(f) to the making of the application; and
(ii) if subsection (4) applies—the consent of the controlling corporation mentioned in that subsection to the making of the application; and
(iii) a written statement, signed by the chief executive officer of the transferor corporation mentioned in section 22J, to the effect that the transferor corporation has agreed to give the applicant such information as is necessary for the applicant to comply with obligations that will be imposed on the applicant by this Act in relation to the facility if the certificate is issued; and
(iv) such information (if any) as is specified in the regulations; and
(v) such documents (if any) as are specified in the regulations.
(6) The approved form of application may provide for verification by statutory declaration of statements in applications.
(7) The approved form of application may require the applicant to set out its Australian Business Number (within the meaning of the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999).
22KA Further information
(1) The Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer may, by written notice given to an applicant, require the applicant to give the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer, within the period specified in the notice, further information in connection with the application.
(2) If the applicant breaches the requirement, the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer may, by written notice given to the applicant:
(a) refuse to consider the application; or
(b) refuse to take any action, or any further action, in relation to the application.
22L Issue of reporting transfer certificate
Scope
(1) This section applies if an application under section 22K has been made for a reporting transfer certificate in relation to a facility.
Issue of certificate
(2) After considering the application, the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer may issue to the applicant a reporting transfer certificate in relation to the facility.
Criteria for issue of certificate
(3) The Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer must not issue the reporting transfer certificate unless the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer is satisfied that:
(a) the applicant passes the reporting transfer test in relation to the facility; and
(b) the applicant has, and is likely to continue to have:
(i) the capacity; and
(ii) the access to information;
necessary for it to comply with obligations that will be imposed on the applicant by this Act in relation to the facility if the certificate is issued; and
(c) at least one of the following conditions has been, or is likely to be, satisfied:
(i) during an interim financial year, the operation of the facility causes emissions of greenhouse gases that have a carbon dioxide equivalence of 25 kilotonnes or more;
(ii) during an interim financial year, the operation of the facility causes production of energy of 100 terajoules or more;
(iii) during an interim financial year, the operation of the facility causes consumption of energy of 100 terajoules or more; and
(d) if the regulations specify one or more other requirements—those requirements are met.
Timing
(4) The Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a decision is made on the application:
(a) if the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer requires the applicant to give further information under subsection 22KA(1) in relation to the application—within 90 days after the applicant gave the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer the information; or
(b) otherwise—within 90 days after the application was made.
Refusal
(5) If the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer decides to refuse to issue the reporting transfer certificate, the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer must give written notice of the decision to the applicant.
22M Duration of reporting transfer certificate
(1) A reporting transfer certificate comes into force on the day specified in the certificate as the day on which the certificate is to come into force (the start day).
(2) The start day may be earlier than the day on which the certificate is issued, so long as:
(a) the start day occurs in:
(i) the same financial year as the day on which the certificate is issued; or
(ii) the financial year preceding the financial year in which the certificate is issued; and
(b) each of the following has consented to the specification of the start day:
(i) the applicant;
(ii) if a controlling corporation consented under subsection 22K(3) to the making of the application for the certificate—the controlling corporation.
(3) A reporting transfer certificate remains in force until the end of 30 June 2011.
(4) Subsection (3) has effect subject to this Division.
22N Surrender of reporting transfer certificate
Scope
(1) This section applies if a corporation is the holder of a reporting transfer certificate in relation to a facility.
Surrender
(2) The corporation may, with the written consent of the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer, surrender the certificate.
(3) The surrender takes effect when the consent is given by the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer.
Consent to surrender
(4) The Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer must not consent to the surrender of the certificate unless:
(a) if a controlling corporation consented under subsection 22K(3) to the making of the application for the certificate—the controlling corporation has agreed to the surrender of the certificate; and
(b) the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer is satisfied that there are special circumstances that warrant the giving of consent to the surrender of the certificate.
22P Cancellation of reporting transfer certificate
Scope
(1) This section applies if a corporation is the holder of a reporting transfer certificate in relation to a facility.
Cancellation
(2) The Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer must, by written notice given to the corporation, cancel the certificate if the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer is satisfied that:
(a) the corporation does not pass the reporting transfer test in relation to the facility concerned; or
(b) the corporation has become an externally-administered body corporate (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001); or
(c) if the regulations specify one or more other grounds for cancellation—at least one of those grounds is applicable to the corporation.
22Q Reporting transfer certificate is not transferable
A reporting transfer certificate is not transferable.
22R Financial control
(1) For the purposes of this Act, if a corporation (the operator) has operational control over a facility, another corporation (the second corporation) has financial control over the facility if:
(a) under a contract between:
(i) the operator; and
(ii) the second corporation;
the operator operates the facility on behalf of the second corporation; or
(b) under a contract between:
(i) the operator; and
(ii) the second corporation and one or more other persons;
the operator operates the facility on behalf of the second corporation and those other persons; or
(c) the second corporation is able to control the trading or financial relationships of the operator in relation to the facility; or
(d) the second corporation has the economic benefits from the facility; or
(e) all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) the second corporation is a participant in a joint venture;
(ii) there is one other participant in the joint venture;
(iii) the second corporation shares the economic benefits from the facility with the other participant;
(iv) the second corporation’s share equals or exceeds the share of the other participant; or
(f) all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) the second corporation is a participant in a joint venture;
(ii) there are 2 or more other participants in the joint venture;
(iii) the second corporation shares the economic benefits from the facility with the other participants;
(iv) no other participant has a share that exceeds the share of the second corporation; or
(g) all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) the second corporation is a partner in a partnership;
(ii) there is one other partner in the partnership;
(iii) the second corporation shares the economic benefits from the facility with the other partner;
(iv) the second corporation’s share equals or exceeds the share of the other partner; or
(h) all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) the second corporation is a partner in a partnership;
(ii) there are 2 or more other partners in the partnership;
(iii) the second corporation shares the economic benefits from the facility with the other partners;
(iv) no other partner has a share that exceeds the share of the second corporation; or
(i) the second corporation is able to direct or sell the output of the facility; or
(j) under the regulations, the second corporation is taken to have financial control over the facility.
(2) In determining whether the second corporation has that financial control, regard must be had to the economic and commercial substance of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
12 Before subsection 24(1B)
Insert:
(1AD) If a corporation gives the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer a report under section 22G in relation to an interim financial year, the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer must publish on a website, by 28 February next following the interim financial year:
(a) the greenhouse gas emissions that are scope 1 emissions (within the meaning of the regulations); and
(b) the greenhouse gas emissions that are scope 2 emissions (within the meaning of the regulations); and
(c) the energy consumption;
set out in the report.
(1AE) In addition to publishing the matters mentioned in subsection (1AD), the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer may also publish on the website:
(a) the methods mentioned in paragraph 22G(2)(b) that were used to measure the values for the facility concerned; and
(b) the rating given to each of those methods under the determination under subsection 10(3).
This subsection is subject to subsection 25(3).
13 Before subsection 24(2)
Insert:
(1F) The Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer must not publish information mentioned in subsection (1AD) unless:
(a) no application has been made under section 25 in relation to that information; or
(b) if such an application has been made—it has been refused.
(1G) However, if the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer accepts an application under section 25 in relation to information mentioned in subsection (1AD), the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer may instead publish on a website the fact that the values concerned fall within a specified range of values.
14 Subsection 25(1)
After “registered corporation,”, insert “ a person required to provide a report under section 22G,”.
15 Before subsection 30(3)
Insert:
(2B) If, under section 22G, an act or thing is required to be done within a particular period, and a person fails to comply with that requirement, the person is liable for a civil penalty for each day that the person fails to comply.
Civil penalty: 100 penalty units per day.
16 After paragraph 56(d)
Insert:
(da) refuse to issue a reporting transfer certificate under section 22L;
(db) refuse to give consent to the surrender of the reporting transfer certificate under section 22N;
(dc) cancel a reporting transfer certificate under section 22P;
Part 2—Consequential amendments relating to the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007
17 Subsection 17(3A)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer”, substitute “Authority”.
18 Subsections 22G(1) and (2)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer” (wherever occurring), substitute “Authority”.
Note: The heading to section 22G is altered by omitting “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer” and substituting “the Authority”.
19 Subsection 22G(5)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer”, substitute “Authority”.
20 Paragraph 22H(1)(b)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer”, substitute “Authority”.
21 Subsection 22K(2)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer”, substitute “Authority”.
22 Paragraph 22K(5)(b)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer”, substitute “Authority”.
23 Subsection 22KA(1)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer” (wherever occurring), substitute “Authority”.
24 Subsection 22KA(2)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer”, substitute “Authority”.
25 Subsection 22L(2)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer”, substitute “Authority”.
26 Subsections 22L(3), (4) and (5)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer” (wherever occurring), substitute “Authority”.
27 Subsections 22N(2) and (3)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer”, substitute “Authority”.
28 Subsection 22N(4)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer” (wherever occurring), substitute “Authority”.
29 Subsection 22P(2)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer” (wherever occurring), substitute “Authority”.
30 Subsection 24(1AD)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer” (wherever occurring), substitute “Authority”.
31 Subsections 24(1AE) and (1F)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer”, substitute “Authority”.
32 Subsection 24(1G)
Omit “Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer” (wherever occurring), substitute “Authority”.
Part 3—Consequential amendments relating to publication of information
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007
33 Paragraphs 24(1AD)(a) and (b)
Omit “(within the meaning of the regulations)”.
I will make some explanatory comments in relation to the amendments. The government has been working to streamline reporting requirements under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 in order to reduce administration and economic costs to industry. These amendments recognise feedback from industry seeking increased flexibility by establishing reporting arrangements under the national greenhouse and energy reporting system from the first reporting year of 2008-09.
To achieve and provide greater flexibility for industry in setting up their reporting arrangements, these amendments introduce a reporting transfer certificate concept. This concept allows the voluntary transfer of reporting responsibility from a controlling corporation where one member of its group has operational control of a facility to a member of a different corporate group that has financial control of that facility. Importantly, holders of a reporting transfer certificate will voluntarily accept all reporting obligations and liabilities under the act and will be a constitutional corporation in line with current coverage of the act. To enable the reporting transfer certificate concept, the amendments also introduce new terminology, concepts and rules outlining how and when reporting transfer certificates are applied for, issued, surrendered and cancelled. By design, the provisions will closely reflect the existing category B liability transfer certificate provisions outlined in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation. This will promote consistency between the national greenhouse and energy reporting system’s reporting regime and the future Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, thereby ensuring a high degree of continuity between current and future reporting arrangements. The reporting transfer certificate concept, which applies until 30 June 2011, does not impose any financial liability. With the introduction of the CPRS, corporations with operational and financial control of a facility will need to apply for a liability transfer certificate with the scheme authority should they wish to transfer liability under the scheme. These provisions are to commence on the day after royal assent and will be voluntary, reduce administration and economic costs of industry and impose no additional burden on industry stakeholders beyond those originally intended by the act. I commend the amendments to the House.
Minister, I think we might clarify the amendments (1) and (2).
For clarification, I have moved government amendments (1) and (2) ending in a reference to clause 33.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
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 Griffin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009. This bill has three measures that will affect the veteran community. The first is a change to the way Veterans’ Affairs payments are paid to veterans and their dependants who live permanently overseas. This measure will be welcomed by those recipients and other members of the ex-service community. It means receiving the payment will become more convenient and the cost will be lower. Under existing arrangements, persons residing permanently outside Australia who are in receipt of pensions and other payments under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are required to have an account in Australia with a bank or financial institution into which Veterans’ Affairs payments can be made. Having an Australian bank account incurs bank fees and higher transfer costs as money is deposited into the account in Australia and then transferred internationally. Such an arrangement puts Veterans’ Affairs payment recipients at a disadvantage in comparison with other Commonwealth beneficiaries—for example, Centrelink recipients who receive their pension directly into an overseas bank account. Changing the arrangements will align the Department of Veterans’ Affairs policy of payment to overseas bank accounts with other Commonwealth agencies, including Centrelink and the Child Support Agency.
As shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, I have taken the opportunity to consult with many ex-service organisations representing veterans. The need to change the way overseas pensions were paid was being raised with me by key organisations in the veteran community, including Legacy, the RSL and the War Widows Guild of Australia. I support this measure as it responds to an issue of concern to the veteran community and the change will benefit veterans and their dependants.
The second measure is to extend access to the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to serving and former members and reservists who are eligible to apply under the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme. An estimated 7,500 Australian Defence Force personnel and reservists will now gain access to defence service homes insurance for building and contents insurance products. Extending access to a broader section of the Defence Force reservists is a good move and will result in a net saving of $1 million over a period of four years. The savings will be created due to the difference in the premiums received and claims made during that period. I understand the reasoning behind the measure is to encourage retention in the Defence Force and reserves. An additional benefit is the savings of approximately $1 million over four years. This will add value to the budget over coming years and will provide a benefit to our men and women in the Defence Force.
I turn now to the third and final measure. The veteran community, because of the special and unique nature of this service, have a range of benefits and payment entitlements that in some way say thankyou for the sacrifices and contributions they have made in the service of this nation. Those benefits and entitlements, including income support, pension payments, allowances and a range of programs, provide for the financial, social and physical wellbeing of the veteran community and their families.
The third measure in this bill proposes to cease the payment of dependants’ pension. Dependants—children and spouses—were eligible under the Repatriation Act for a dependant’s pension. The rate of payment depends on the rate of pension paid to the veteran or member, and that is 10 per cent of the amount of pension paid. Payments made under this scheme were additional payments to a person on disability pension for a partner or spouse and also for dependent children. The dependants’ pension has had no new recipients since 1985, no rate increases for children since 1952 and no rate increases for partners since 1964. The only exception was in July 2000, when a one-off increase was made to compensate for the impact of the GST. The maximum payment is $8.42 per fortnight for partners and widows and $2.86 per fortnight for children. Minimum payments can be as little as 84c per fortnight for partners and widows and 29c for children.
The bill proposes to cease the person’s entitlement and close for good the dependants’ pension. To compensate recipients for this unexpected change, a lump sum one-off payment equal to three years of the amount of the fortnightly payment is proposed to be made as recompense for the closure of the pension. The change is proposed to come into effect on 22 September 2009, with payment of the lump sum to be made on 24 September 2009. The lump sum payment will be exempt from income tax. I also understand that people without adequate means of support on this pension will be excluded from this measure. Without adequate means of support, pensions will continue to be payable to entitled persons under section 4 of the Veterans’ Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986. The one-off payment will be equivalent to three years worth of pension—that is, 78 fortnights.
Not having the benefit of the department’s calculations, it is not possible to estimate the amount of the lump sum payment that each recipient will receive. In Senate estimates we were advised that 26,089 people were receiving this payment and that it cost $1.7 million per year. The department claims on page 16 of the portfolio budget statement that this allowance is:
administratively expensive in proportion to the benefits it provides—
and will—
free up resources that can be better targeted with other programs.
In essence, what the department is saying is that this measure is a housekeeping one where the spending is more than the payment cost—a reasonable proposition. But any consideration of terminating a benefit or payment entitlement to a veteran and their family deserves the closest possible scrutiny. The decision to cease a benefit or entitlement is significant and there are a number of questions that need to be answered. We do not really know, because it has been difficult to obtain information about those people, who will be impacted by the termination of the dependant pension under this bill. Those people deserve to have some questions answered.
At Senate estimates we asked for a breakdown of the age groups of people receiving this payment. Again, we were told there were 26,089 adults and 45 children. We asked the age of the oldest recipient; the department would not hazard a guess. We asked the age of the youngest recipient and the department said that they do not have an age break-up of the individuals. Given that the last approved recipient was in 1985 and it has been 24 years since then, who and how old are the 45 children? Then, if you look at that person’s entitlement over their lifetime, the lump sum looks, and may be, small indeed.
The budget papers say the cost of paying out this pension in the first year will be $5.3 million. We do not know the ages of the people on the scheme, and this is of concern to me. The forgone benefit of someone who has perhaps many years of benefit ahead may be much more than the payout amount. I would not want to think that any partner or dependant was going to be disadvantaged. By the same token, I would not want to stand in the way of savings if savings can be made without making people worse off.
My question to the minister is in relation to the recipients who may still be relatively young and, as a consequence, then miss out on the benefit of future payments. Will the three-year lump sum be adequate to compensate those recipients? How was the three-year time frame chosen? Was it based on factual data regarding the age of the recipients or was it an arbitrary figure picked out of a hat? How will the intention of the Rudd Labor government be communicated to the current recipients? What will their reaction to the termination of their payment be? How will you ensure these people are not disadvantaged? Without having these questions answered, we do not know the full impact that this budget savings measure and loss of entitlement may have on the veteran community. However, the urgency of this bill to ensure prompt payment to the recipients leaves me able only to assume that the minister has the answers and that he is confident that the one-off payment will be adequate. I hope that this modelling is sound and will be holding him to account.
Since becoming shadow minister for veterans’ affairs I have advocated against the erosion of entitlements. I stood up for the partners of veterans when the government stopped the partner service pension for partners separated for 12 months or more who were not separated due to illness and had not formed a new relationship. The Labor government’s reckless spending has now resulted in another savings measure being introduced that may impact on veterans’ families. Labor started with the coalition’s legacy of no net debt and $45 billion in the bank. The budget revealed the high price all Australians will have to pay for Labor’s reckless spending spree over the previous 18 months. On Labor’s own figures it is now taking net debt past $200 billion and gross debt to at least $315 billion. Since November 2007, two-thirds of the debt owed by taxpayers by 2012-13 will be due to new spending decisions taken by the Rudd government over the past 18 months, and this is just the beginning. It will cost every man, woman and child around $9,000 to pay back the debt. This is a debt that will be carried by every Australian and by generations to come. Veterans and their families deserve to be treated with the greatest respect and dignity. It is only proper that Australia provides the entitlements and support that veterans and their families need. The coalition has a sound track record of managing the economy and is committed to responsible economic management.
The Australian people have every right to feel betrayed by a big-spending, reckless Labor government, who were left an outstanding economic legacy courtesy of the coalition. It is distressing indeed to see that in such a short time the surplus has been spent, the future funds have been raided and Labor have racked up a debt and deficit that will take generations to repay.
The budget had very few announcements for the veteran community and the department will continue to look for savings. I have no problem with the first two savings initiatives, as they are what the veteran community have been asking for. The third measure focuses on the termination of an entitlement, and the people who receive the entitlement are entitled to answers. While the coalition will not oppose the legislation and its measures, I strongly urge that answers be provided—particularly for the sake of the 26,089 people who have been receiving this payment.
The termination of the dependants’ pension, which seeks to round off very old payments, when no new grants have been issued since 1985 and where the cost of administering payments is more than the payments themselves, seems reasonable enough. What is of concern are the number of questions unanswered, the lack of information and the potential for people to be disadvantaged. More disturbing is that this could be seen as yet another instance of the Rudd Labor government terminating an entitlement.
It is possible and, indeed, it is right to look for and make savings, but this should not be at the expense of entitlements. My concern as shadow minister is that there is not enough information. We do not know the impact that this will have on the 26,000 plus people receiving this payment. My message to the veteran community is that your concerns are important to the coalition. The coalition is committed to maintaining an economically responsible approach to providing effective support for the needs of veterans, their families and their community. I assure you that the coalition’s focus is on entitlements, compensation and support for the physical, mental and social needs of veterans and their families. We will continue to hold the government to account whenever there is any change to entitlement or action that impacts on the veteran community.
I had intended to make quite a bipartisan speech in relation to veterans’ issues
because I understood that, in fact, the
Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009 was agreed to by both sides of politics. But I cannot let pass some of the comments made by the member for Greenway in relation to some of the issues she has raised. If the member for Greenway wants to talk about compassion, understanding, empathy and even sympathy, I refer her to the deseal-reseal issue which affected thousands of people in south-east Queensland. We made an election commitment before the last federal election that we would engage in a parliamentary inquiry to look into the effectiveness and efficacy of what happened to those thousands of men who were exposed to chemicals which affected them and their families for years.We also made a commitment that we would engage in a review of the Clarke review and all its recommendations, which the Howard government had four years to act upon and did not. If you want to talk about compassion and understanding to the veterans’ communities let us be real and talk about history, because the Howard government has form on ignoring the needs, the aspirations and the health issues affecting veterans’ communities and also people who have served in our military and at the RAAF base at Amberley in my constituency of Blair in south-east Queensland, where people who worked on F111s were exposed to these sorts of things.
Let us be a bit fair dinkum about this and also acknowledge the fact that the Rudd Labor government, following the Harmer review of pensions, will allocate $1.1 billion over four years to provide extra financial support in the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio. I see no quibbling from those opposite about that. Over 320,000 service pensioners and war widows or war widowers will benefit from the pension changes. The minister was talking this morning about the pension reform bill in this House. The truth of the matter is that single service pensioners and war widows will receive a boost to their pension of up to $32.49 a week and service pensioners paid to the couples’ rate will get an extra $10.14 combined a week. These increases will be in addition to normal indexation and will apply from 20 September 2009.
I heard no acknowledgement from the member for Greenway about the impact of the global recession upon the government’s budgetary situation. It is almost like we live on an island, not just geographically but financially, and Australia’s economy is not impacted by the global recession. The truth of the matter is that the Rudd government is working long and hard in relation to these particular issues and we, in fact, have form when it comes to actually assisting and cushioning the impact of the global recession upon the Australian community and also engaging in nation building for recovery. Across my electorate, and electorates across the country, we can see that happening.
The truth is that the Rudd government is assisting veterans and their communities, including those people who have suffered tremendously because of the failure of the Howard government—the 2,000 people involved in the ‘pick and patch’ work and the forgotten people from the F111s. I commend the recommendations of the Hon. Arch Bevis, the member for Brisbane, who was the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Defence subcommittee. I urge the government to follow those recommendations lock, stock and barrel, and also to take steps in relation to the review of the Clarke review. We called for submissions in September last year and there were 472 submissions in that regard. I ask the minister and also the Prime Minister’s advisory council to come back with a response as quickly as possible in relation to that, and I acknowledge the efforts of the Atomic Ex-Servicemen’s Association in that regard.
I see the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the House. I understand that he wishes to make a statement in relation to the terrible circumstances in PNG, so I seek leave to continue my speech later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: I would like to update the House on Airlines PNG flight CG4684. I thank the member for Blair for his assistance. I regret to advise the House that the missing plane, Airlines PNG flight CG4684, has been located but that the plane has crashed. A PNG search and rescue reconnaissance helicopter located the crash site this morning. The site is located just north of the village of Isurava at an altitude of approximately 5,500 feet. The helicopter landed some way below the crash site. A group of PNG police officers disembarked from the helicopter and are now attempting to reach the crash site, but the terrain presents obvious difficulties of access. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade consular officers have contacted all of the families of the nine Australians on the flight and in the last hour have advised them that the crash site has been located. Obviously, our thoughts are with the families at this time.
The Australian Defence Force Sea King helicopter is currently on the tarmac at Port Moresby with four PNG police officers and an Australian doctor, and it will depart as soon as possible. In addition to the four PNG police officers and an Australian doctor, the consul from the Australian High Commission in Port Moresby will be on board. The flying time to the site is approximately half an hour. The Sea King helicopter will attempt to land near the crash site, but this will entirely depend upon the terrain and the weather conditions. The ADF Caribou aircraft, which was stationed overnight in Port Moresby, containing additional PNG search and rescue personnel and the Deputy Head of Mission from the Australian High Commission at Port Moresby will depart Port Moresby at 11 am this morning for an up to 45-minute flight to the Kokoda village, which is approximately a three-hour walk from the crash site, leaving open the prospect of three separate parties trying to reach the crash site at high altitude in very difficult circumstances. Regrettably, I am advised that the weather is closing in, is deteriorating and is very likely to hamper these efforts, both by air and on foot, after about midday today.
I am not in a position to give any advice as to the condition of the passengers and crew on the plane but, given that a crash site has been located, we have very, very grave concerns about the safety and welfare of the nine Australians, the three Papua New Guineans and the one Japanese citizen on board the plane. I thank the House and the shadow minister for foreign affairs for their cooperation. I will endeavour to update the House with further details as soon as they come to hand and after the families have been advised. I thank the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: on behalf of the opposition I join with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the government in expressing our deep concern about the reports of this plane crash in Papua New Guinea. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those who were reportedly on this plane. I commend the government on its rapid response to the news of this incident as soon as we learnt yesterday that the plane had gone missing. I acknowledge the efforts of our consular, military and rescue personnel, who have been ready to take action in conjunction with the PNG officials as and when required.
This is obviously a matter which touches the hearts of so many Australians. Australians are renowned for their sense of adventure. They like to experience all that the world has to offer, and over recent years walking the Kokoda Track has become a pilgrimage for many Australians. A day that would have started out with so much excitement and anticipation has ended up with a plane crash, and that touches so many people. I thank the government for keeping us informed, and we certainly offer the government all support in its efforts to work with the PNG officials to locate the plane. We understand it is in very difficult terrain and our full support must be with the rescue teams, who will be involved in a very difficult mission. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those involved.
Debate resumed.
Our thoughts and prayers are with those people who suffered so terribly and, of course, with their families. All of us who come to this place come not in isolation but with the aspirations, the thoughts, the love and the affection of our families and communities. We feel deeply that at these times we need put aside our partisan differences and work together. It is a great thing to travel through South-East Asia and to see the faces of young Australian tourists. Australians are beloved across the world for their sense of adventure, as the shadow minister for foreign affairs said, as well as for their sense of egalitarianism and mateship and for the friendship they show people from other countries. That is why we are a great country: we have accepted people from so many different walks of life. Many of us here come from families who, a generation or so ago, were of a non-Anglo background or are people whose parents were born overseas. My family comes from Germany. With a name like Neumann, you expect that, but just a few generations ago they came across in boats seeking a new life. Our thoughts and prayers are with those families who are suffering at the moment, who are wondering and who have a great deal of anxiety.
On the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009, the bill we are dealing with here today, there are many people in our community who are concerned about the issues that I have just raised. For example, 130 submissions were made to the subcommittee chaired by the honourable member for Brisbane, there were six public hearings and 18 recommendations were made. I would urge the government to respond to the F111 deseal-reseal report tabled in parliament on 25 June 2009 as quickly as possible so there becomes certainty in terms of health, support and financial assistance to affected communities. There are people in my community who have seen me in relation to their concerns about those Australians who participated in the British nuclear tests and the Australian members of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force after World War II who were exposed to the effects of radiation. I would urge the government, who received 472 submissions in relation to the review of the Clarke review and recommendations, to look into this issue and expedite the response.
In its 2009-10 budget, the government provided a million dollars for a review of military rehabilitation compensation arrangements and a review into costs of pharmaceuticals for war caused disabilities. That funding will of course deliver on two commitments. The legislation that is before the House has three components, in particular. The first component deals with veterans affairs beneficiaries who live permanently overseas and have their veterans affairs payments paid into an Australian bank account. This can result in unusually high bank fees to transfer money internationally, and those of us who have transferred money internationally know how costly that can be. So the reform is a sensible suggestion allowing the monies to be paid into other bank accounts, in reliable banking systems overseas, to ensure that veterans do not suffer financial hardship or disadvantage in any way at all. In 2008 the Prime Minister made a commitment to review this injustice. The veterans communities living overseas warmly welcomed the funding, and I know the RSL and veterans communities locally in my electorate also warmly welcome that.
The second change that is in this particular budget measure is an interesting one but also an important one. I have spoken to personnel at the RAAF base at Amberley, and they have told me that what the government is doing in terms of the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme has been of tremendous assistance to them. In fact, I remember speaking to one particular fellow inside a C17 as we were flying down to Adelaide. He was telling me that simply the government’s reforms with respect to the assistance through the defence homeowners scheme was what prompted him to stay in the military for an extra few years. This scheme provides eligible Australian Defence Force members with access to subsidies on interest incurred on their home loans.
Eighty thousand children move across borders every year because their parents move across borders. In my electorate, which has about 3,500 RAAF and other military personnel—including personnel from 9FSB, the Army unit—at the RAAF base at Amberley, there are many children, spouses and partners who come with those military personnel to live in the Ipswich community. As they move to different postings around Australia and overseas it becomes difficult, if not problematic, for them to find a location to purchase a home. It is not always easy, and any form of assistance we can give, not just to permanent members of the ADF of but also to reservists, is good—I know that it is appreciated. It is important for recruitment and retention that we provide this.
ADF members can be eligible for assistance under one of three subsidy tiers, and I know that they appreciate very much the assistance we have given. This scheme was introduced in 1991, by a Labor government, to assist eligible members and ex-members of the ADF to purchase their homes by providing a subsidy on interest of a home loan borrowed from an approved lender. In those circumstances, that was the National Australia Bank. What this section of the bill does is to extend the insurance that can be provided to that scheme. It is important that the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme be provided in terms of assistance also to defence personnel.
The third aspect of this particular piece of legislation deals with closing off what really is quite an antiquated system of an outdated dependant pension, and paying a lump sum equivalent to three years of pension. Under previous repatriation legislation there were arrangements that payments could be a maximum of $8.42 for partners and widows, and $2.86 for children. The minimum payments were 84 cents and 29 cents, respectively. This pension was virtually frozen and no new grants have been made since 1985—it started in 1964—and what is happening here is simply a one-off payment equivalent to three years pension. I am pleased that it has bipartisan support. Entitlement under the old scheme will cease on 22 September 2009 and it is anticipated that the new lump sum will be paid on 24 September 2009. In the circumstances, this is a sensible budget measure and, along with a number of other budget measures it is undertaking, the government takes the view that savings of $4.2 million over four years can be sought and received by the Australian taxpayer, through better coordination and administrative efficiencies across programs and enhancements to service delivery.
These three changes in this legislation are important and they are sensible. I am glad they have got bipartisan support and I know that the 7,500 ADF and reserve members will benefit from the change with respect to insurance, which is a very popular measure. I know that it will go down well in my constituency of Blair, in southeast Queensland.
I think what the government has done in the veterans budget this year is really a demonstration of the government’s empathy towards the veterans community. What they have done with respect to the Clarke recommendations and the deseal-reseal parliamentary inquiry is a recognition of the health, family support and counselling needs of veterans and military personnel The government is really showing that it understands the needs of veterans and their families and is also showing a commitment to the personnel of the ADF.
I commend also the white paper and look forward to the 24 Super Hornets coming to RAAF Base Amberley in March 2010 and also the Joint Strike Fighters, of which the white paper recommends we purchase 100. The development of RAAF Base Amberley is important for the Ipswich community and certainly for the federal electorate of Blair. The reforms to the pension that were announced by the government on budget night and also in the legislation that the minister spoke about this morning are very important. In the circumstances, the 320,000 veterans and their spouses, widows and widowers will appreciate the support of the federal government. I commend the legislation to the House.
I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009. The stated purpose of this bill is threefold. First, the bill seeks to amend the provisions for the payment of veterans affairs pensions and allowances. This amendment will provide for the payment of allowances into overseas bank accounts and will affect eligible veterans residing outside Australia. Second, the bill will extend the eligibility for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to persons eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008. Third, the bill seeks to stop the payment of the majority of dependants pensions and provide for a lump sum payment of the pension, the value of which is to be the equivalent to three years of the pension. As each of these issues differs extensively I will speak to each individually.
Part 1 of schedule 1 of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009 concerns the deposit of certain payments into foreign bank accounts. Under existing legislation, veterans who currently reside outside of Australia and who are in receipt of pensions or payments covered by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 are required to have their payments made to a bank account in Australia. The changes contained within this legislation will enable the Repatriation Commission to make arrangements for pensions, allowances or other pecuniary benefits payable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to be paid into bank accounts or similar financial institutions outside Australia.
This is indeed welcome news and has been very well received by the veterans and ex-service community. The current legislation makes it needlessly difficult for the expatriate veteran community to access their pensions and other payments. By widening the scope of how payments are made, veterans living outside of Australia can now expect that their payments will be easier to access. The new measure will align the Department of Veterans’ Affairs policy of payments to overseas bank accounts with the policies of other Commonwealth government agencies, including Centrelink and the Child Support Agency. I welcome this change and I believe that all veterans, whether residing in Australia or overseas, should be able to easily and readily access their entitlements.
I will now refer to part 2 of schedule 1 of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009. The defence homeownership scheme, which was superseded by the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme on 1 July 2008, provides eligible ADF members access to a subsidy on interest incurred on their home loan. Simply put, the scheme makes homeownership easier for ADF members by helping to reduce costs associated with purchasing a house. This program is a key recruitment and retention initiative for the ADF, even more so during a housing availability crunch such as the one all prospective homebuyers are currently facing.
It is therefore welcome news that the amendment contained within part 2 of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009 proposes to expand eligibility for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme, a scheme that helps safeguard a Defence Force member’s most valuable asset: their home. This amendment will provide those ADF members entitled to assistance under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme with access to subsidised building and contents insurance. Importantly, eligibility does not require ADF personnel to have accessed a subsidised loan under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008. An ADF member need only be eligible for the subsidised loan to be eligible for the home insurance benefit.
ADF personnel are often absent from their homes for extended periods of time. Australia’s defence forces are currently experiencing their highest operational tempo for decades and are involved in operations right across the globe. Approximately 2,000 ADF personnel continue to serve in the Middle East as part of Operation Slipper. There are approximately 650 ADF personnel in East Timor as a part of Operation Astute. More recently, there have been up to 850 ADF personnel involved in Operation Vic Fire Assist. When ADF personnel are away from their homes serving the people of Australia, they deserve peace of mind that their own home and belongings are properly insured. For the above reasons I support the extension of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme, a scheme that will assist an estimated 7½ thousand ADF and Reserve members to insure their most important possessions.
I now come to part 3 of schedule 1 of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill. The provisions contained within this amendment concern the cessation of payments for the majority of dependants pensions. At the outset, I wish to put on record my firm belief that any issue that concerns a cessation or change to a payment of a person’s pension, allowance or salary must be thoroughly examined before being implemented. Recent history shows us that it is the men and women on the ground that are most affected by poorly thought out changes to pay and/or payment systems. Of course, I am referring to the recent SAS pay debacle that saw special forces soldiers returning from dangerous tours of duty in Afghanistan only to be faced with bureaucratic bungling that left them out of pocket. It is therefore in everybody’s interests, particularly serving ADF personnel, that we avoid another Rudd Labor government pay debacle. I therefore urge the government to give attention to the following points regarding this amendment so as to avoid another poorly thought out and poorly administered pay reform program.
Under the current repatriation legislation, if a veteran or a member is receiving disability pension for incapacitation, certain circumstances allow the veteran’s dependants to claim a dependants pension. Furthermore, upon the death of a veteran certain dependants other than the veteran’s partner or children may be eligible for a dependants pension. Depending on the circumstances a dependant could include the veteran or member’s family members such as parents, siblings or grandparents. The amendments to repatriation legislation made by the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985 resulted in future grants of dependants pensions applying only to the eligible partner or child of a living veteran or member.
While the amendments provide that no future grants be made other than to an eligible partner or child of a deceased veteran or member, those already in receipt of the entitlement retained the entitlement. Upon the enactment of the Veterans Entitlement Act 1986 the ‘saved’ status of dependants pensions under section 66 of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985 was continued under section 4 of the Veterans Entitlement (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986. Section 4 of the Veterans Entitlement (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986 was subsequently amended to save the entitlement to dependants pensions for persons whose rate had been reduced to nil.
Under the current system there have not been any new grants since 1985 and nor have there been any rate increases for partners since 1964 or for children since 1952. The amendments to this legislation will see a person’s entitlement to the pension cease and instead will provide for a lump sum payment of a dependants pension. Importantly, this amendment does not affect pensions granted on the grounds of the person being without adequate means of support. Those ‘without adequate means of support’ pensioners will continue to receive their entitlements in accordance with section 4 of the Veterans Entitlement (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986.
Additionally, this amendment does not affect the payment of a pension to eligible orphans, war widows or war widowers of deceased veterans. It is anticipated that the lump sum payment, which will be exempt from tax, will be made on 24 September 2009 and will be equivalent to three years worth of pension. A person’s entitlement to an affected dependants pension will cease on and from 22 September 2009.
I now refer back to my earlier remarks concerning the extra level of diligence which needs to be applied when altering a payment system. This is particularly the case given the Rudd Labor government’s poor track record in this area. While the new system is intended to simplify the payment process and reduce the associated administrative burden, I am now deeply concerned about the lack of detail concerning this program. For instance, no information has been made available concerning how many people this amendment will affect, the age brackets of those affected, how many of those affected based on their age will be penalised with no further payments after the three-year lump sum payment has been made and whether affected persons will be compensated after the three-year lump sum time period expires.
As is the case with the Rudd Labor government’s 2009 Defence white paper and budget statements there is a glaring lack of detail in this amendment bill. Worryingly, the most crucial detail is left out—that is, just who will be affected by the new system. The measures presented in the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009 should be welcomed by the majority of ex-service veterans and current ADF personnel; however, the measures contained within the aforementioned amendments pale in comparison to what could have been done for veterans if the Rudd Labor government had not recklessly spent $40 million on cash splashes.
Once again the Rudd Labor government continues to wilfully ignore the plight of veterans. It has demonstrated this shameful policy of neglect by not resolving the outstanding issues surrounding ADF superannuation benefits. This is most surprising as superannuation is a key component of the total remuneration package for ADF personnel and is therefore critical to recruitment and retention of service men and women. Again, the Rudd Labor government favours rhetoric over results.
There is considerable frustration within the Defence community due to the lack of initiative shown by the Rudd Labor government in addressing ADF superannuation contributions. The inaction of this government has failed Australian service men and women, whose current superannuation arrangements fall well below modern standards. The Rudd Labor government’s budget shows a clear hole with respect to any reform of super arrangements for ADF personnel.
Labor has deprived thousands of ADF personnel, who remain under lagging superannuation conditions, by failing to act on findings published in the Review into military superannuation arrangements report, failing to respond to lobbying by the coalition, and failing to act on numerous submissions from serving and returned ADF personnel. The wide-ranging review into military superannuation was announced on 27 February 2007 by the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Billson MP. Findings of that review were released on 24 December 2007.
It is beyond belief that it has now been 20 months since the report of the Review into military superannuation arrangements was tabled by the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Warren Snowdon, on 24 December 2007. This report has been sitting on the desks of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel for over a year and a half and there is still no word on the government’s response from either of those ministers.
The Rudd Labor government has shown again that it is about image not substance, and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Alan Griffin, has certainly subscribed to this policy. Mr Griffin, while in opposition, called on the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon Bruce Billson MP, to release the report. Now in government Mr Griffin has done nothing with the report. Quite frankly our troops deserve much better. They deserve action.
Over a year and a half is more than enough time to review the report and its recommendations. This report was commissioned by the coalition so that it could help meet the unique and specific needs of our service men and women. Instead Minister Griffin and Minister Snowdon deliberately chose to ignore the needs and the interests of our serving personnel past and present. To my disappointment and to the disappointment of our veterans this is to be expected of the Rudd Labor government, who could not even deliver the white paper on time let alone with the requisite financial detail expected within such an important strategic document.
By ignoring the report the government is failing both our current and past serving members. The new defence minister must insist that the Minster for Veteran’s Affairs and the new Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, Greg Combet, deliver the report. If Mr Griffin is not up to the challenge, then he should be retired like Minister Snowden. If Minister Combet refuses to act, it will bring into question the very principles he stood for before he entered parliament.
The Rudd Labor government is neglecting some of our most vulnerable ex-service personnel—those that have been totally and permanently incapacitated. Mr John Ryan OAM, National President of the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-Servicemen and Women, wrote in a letter to the Prime Minister on 1 June 2009:
The view of the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Federation is that we have been badly let down by your government. In a time when extraordinary sums of money are being spent by the government to dull the impact of the recession it seems that the group given the least consideration is that which has given the most in the service of their country. We request that military disability pensions be increased by the same percentage as other government pensions - that is, 11.4%.
The ex-service community is clearly being made to suffer by the Rudd Labor government. They are right to wonder why an increase to the age pension did not extend to totally and permanently incapacitated and other veteran disability pension recipients. The ex-service community has been let down by the Rudd Labor government’s inaction. The Veteran’s Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 only tinkers with the edges and is part of a larger smoke and mirrors campaign by this Rudd Labor government. Australia’s veteran community will not be fooled by the Rudd Labor government’s campaign of deception. They deserve a government that respects their past service through the establishment of fair and equitable pensions. They deserve a government that will take action on the Review into military superannuation arrangements report. I call on Ministers Combet and Griffin to act decisively and finally deliver a response to the Review into military superannuation arrangements report.
These ministers need to explain why they refused to provide any funding support to the veteran community while instead splashing around $14 billion in cash handouts. Where is the fairness? Where is the equity? I can only presume that the Rudd Labor government will now say that they can do nothing in the face of the global financial crisis, even though they found $14 billion to hand out in electoral largesse—largesse at the expense of our current and former service men and women. The main point is that our service personnel, past and present, deserve to live out their lives in dignity and peace after giving so much to their nation. Again, I call on the government to take action and finally deliver a response to the Review into military superannuation arrangements report.
Today I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009. The purpose of the bill is to give effect to budget measures announced in May. The three measures include the extension of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme, the payment of pensions and allowances into overseas bank accounts and the cessation of dependants’ pensions.
We are very lucky to live in a democratic society and are afforded the right to freedom of speech, expression and association. It must not be forgotten that these rights, which we are so fortunate to enjoy today, were afforded at the expense of many Australian lives. These lives were not lost in vain, however, and the current defence service men and women continue, in their honour, to preserve our rights. The work of our former and current service personnel is critical and I take this opportunity today to thank them, on behalf of our nation, for their important, courageous and dangerous work. They serve our nation with great honour and distinction. Their selfless courage and bravery must be recognised and commended.
Measures outlined in this bill seek to offer that recognition in extending the benefits afforded to them and their families. In 2008, the Department of Defence established a new home loan subsidy scheme under the Defence Force Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008, which effectively established a home loan subsidy for current and former Australian Defence Force personnel. The measure was established to improve the recruitment and retention of personnel in the Australian Defence Force. The amendment proposed in this bill will also provide discounted insurance products. Currently, several benefits are provided to eligible service men and women, widows and widowers for home loans and home insurance. This measure is a positive, complementary addition to those existing incentives.
The initiative has also been proposed in light of evidence that its long-term viability will be enhanced with the increase in the number of policyholders. At present, there are approximately 80,000 building and contents insurance policyholders registered with the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme. However, as you are aware, records indicate that membership is declining at about four per cent per annum. To improve the dwindling policy registration numbers, the proposed initiatives will expand the scheme’s eligibility and product range. More importantly, the initiative will offer an estimated 7,500 Australian Defence Force and Reserve members cost-effective home insurance. The scheme itself is self-funded through the premiums.
Any measure that can provide benefits to our Defence personnel and at the same time cost virtually nil to the Australian public is a worthwhile initiative indeed. Further, this bill seeks to improve financial benefits to those Veterans’ Affairs’ beneficiaries living overseas by transferring DVA payments directly to overseas accounts. Unlike other Centrelink payments, the current legislation stipulates that DVA payments must first be deposited into an Australian bank account. Naturally, this increases expenses for the recipients through extra account holding fees and international funds transfers. Under the proposed measures outlined in this bill DVA payments will be updated to align with other Centrelink payment arrangements. Funds will now be paid directly to overseas bank accounts for eligible beneficiaries. These payments, however, will only be made directly to overseas accounts where a suitable, reliable banking system exists. The transfer of funds will be made through the Reserve Bank of Australia.
This development is the result of extensive consultation with ex-service groups like Legacy, Centrelink, the Reserve Bank of Australia, financial institutions, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This measure delivers on a promise made by the Prime Minister last year to review existing arrangements for Australian veterans, war widows and widowers living overseas. It will improve the finances of approximately 2,000 recipients in over 70 countries, including service pensioners, disability pensioners, and war widows and widowers. The government seeks to implement these new arrangements by March next year.
The cessation of the dependants pension also proposed in this bill will affect approximately 26,000 people and is scheduled to take effect in September this year. The cessation of the dependants pension, as outlined in the bill, is made in light of the continuous erosion of the financial benefit it seeks to provide. Unfortunately, the erosion of the benefit is the result of the pension not being indexed for over 45 years. The dependants pension was first introduced in 1914 to provide financial support to the wives and children of veterans. However, the rate of pension has not increased since 1952 for children and 1964 for wives, and there have not been any new grants of pension since 1985. Further, in 1986, with the introduction of the Veterans Entitlements Act, many recipients chose to voluntarily cease the ongoing payment of their pension in return for a lump sum to the value of three years payment. Hence the proposal under this bill to cease the payment also includes a three-year lump-sum payment. I dare say that the lump-sum payment of up to a little more than $656 is expected to provide more benefit to recipients than a small fortnightly payment of between 29c and $8.42.
It is also prudent to note that there have been improved income support measures introduced through the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 and the Social Security Act 1991. One very important improvement is the significant pension increase which was announced in the last budget. Under the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform and Other 2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009, from 20 September 2009 pension payments will increase by $32.49 for singles and $10.14 combined for couples. This equates to more than $1,500 for singles. Just a moment ago I was listening to the criticisms of our government by the member for Paterson in relation to its support for the veteran community. That flies in the face of the former Howard government’s efforts to help struggling pensioners—the ones who have fought for this country—and the support given by their dependants. The member for Paterson did not note that in his contribution this morning.
The proposed changes to the qualifying age to receive an age pension will remain unchanged for veterans under the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986. These are the benefits afforded to service men and service women who have offered great service to our nation, and I am extremely pleased that the Rudd government has taken the initiative to improve their benefits too. As a proud patron of the Burwood and District Sub-Branch of the National Servicemen’s Association, I would particularly like to thank those men and women who have offered their lives to serve our nation, and I take this opportunity to thank the dedicated members and executives of the nashos sub-branch for their efforts. The group supports members in very many areas, including welfare and securing recognition of their service through medals and financial benefits. I know of their fine efforts and I thank them for their invaluable contribution to our community. They work very hard, and their base is in the suburb of Burwood in my electorate of Lowe.
On the subject of Burwood, last Sunday week it was a pleasure to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, the Hon. Dr Mike Kelly, the member for Eden Monaro, to the Sandakan Memorial service in Burwood Park, which was organised by the Sandakan Memorial Committee. As guest speaker, Dr Kelly delivered a very moving address about the horror that was Sandakan. The memorial service is an annual event held in Burwood Park on the first Sunday in August. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating dedicated and opened the memorial in 1993. I share with colleagues in this House the knowledge that the memorial is very close to Mr Keating’s heart because his uncle died in the infamous Sandakan death marches. Mr Keating marked the 10th anniversary of the Sandakan Memorial by returning to the annual service at Burwood as guest speaker. Mr Keating describes Sandakan as ‘the saddest story in Australia’s war history’.
Dr Kelly in his speech this year noted that 23 of the soldiers who died at Sandakan were from Burwood. Dr Kelly said:
The sacrifices these true Anzacs made have contributed to the security we enjoy as Australians. They will be forever remembered for the ultimate sacrifice they made. These soldiers endured some of the most inhospitable conditions that any soldier would have been through, with only six Australian soldiers who were at Sandakan surviving the war. The courage and commitment that these soldiers displayed is an inspiration to us all and they will not be forgotten.
That is part of what Dr Kelly said last Sunday week in Burwood Park. Dr Kelly, himself a very distinguished former member of the Defence Force, understood clearly the contribution that those ex-servicemen who were victims at Sandakan gave to our country.
In concluding, there can be no doubt that our national servicemen distinguished themselves also fighting for our country abroad and supporting and defending our country on home soil. National servicemen fought for an independent nationhood that greatly contributed to the freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of religion that we cherish. As a great act of selflessness, many paid the ultimate price so that we may enjoy peace. It is prudent to pay tribute to our current brave service men and women who are continuing the pledge of others who have gone before them to serve in the defence of our freedom and security. Our profound thanks should go to every man and woman who serves our nation, and we pray for those still serving for their safe return to our shores. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.
I move:
That the House:
I thank the honourable members for their indulgence. The purpose for the adjournment of the previous debate was to enable me to move this motion. I understand that other members will make short contributions too.
I recall that in 1999 I spoke in support of a motion brought to the House by the then Attorney-General on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Geneva conventions. The Hon. Daryl Williams moved that motion. Of course, much has occurred since that time in the field of international humanitarian law that should be recognised on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the conventions. Tragically the world continues to experience armed conflict. Dr Jakob Kellenberger, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, has said:
We sadly live in a world in which reports of direct attacks against civilians, of forced displacement, and of mistreatment of persons detained in relation to an armed conflict and the denial of their basic rights, judicial guarantees and procedural safeguards, are all too common.
A survey published just last month by the International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed that war and armed violence take an alarming toll on civilians in conflict-affected countries across the globe even today. The survey revealed that displacement, separation from family members and lack of access to basic necessities are among people’s most common experiences and biggest fears. It confirmed the tragedy that more and more innocent civilians are the victims of armed conflict. Acts of terrorism designed to spread terror amongst the civilian populations have continued to send shock waves throughout the world. Our own region has been affected by terrorism, which has exacted a heavy toll on both local people and foreign visitors, including Australians.
Against this backdrop it is sometimes difficult to find positive signs, but nevertheless there are some encouraging developments to report. When Nauru ratified the Geneva conventions in June 2006, the conventions became the only international instrument to enjoy universal ratification—that is, every member state of the United Nations is party to them—a truly momentous achievement and one for which the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and in particular the International Committee of the Red Cross, as guardian of the conventions, can be justly proud.
On 1 July 2002, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force, having been ratified by 60 countries, including Australia. This parliament enacted comprehensive legislation to implement the obligations in the statute in Australian law, in the International Criminal Court Act 2002. Again, I recognise the contribution of the Hon. Daryl Williams. At the same time, parliament enacted the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Act 2002, which provided that all crimes within the jurisdiction of the court—namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes—are crimes under Australian law and thus can be dealt with in Australian courts, wherever they are committed and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator. Today the statute has 109 states that are parties, and the court has started its first trial. It is investigating crimes allegedly committed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic and Sudan.
In December 2005, a diplomatic conference held in Geneva adopted the text of a third additional protocol to the Geneva conventions. That third additional protocol creates a new distinctive emblem of the Red Cross movement, known as the Red Crystal, to be recognised alongside the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. I am pleased to report that the government has today announced Australia’s ratification of that third additional protocol.
In Australia our own national Red Cross society continues to works tirelessly to promote the ideals of international humanitarian law and to develop understanding that even wars have laws. This morning I was honoured to take part in a moving ceremony in which I accepted, on behalf of the parliament, a bound copy of the Geneva conventions, which I have with me today. I will provide this copy to the Parliamentary Library for the future record and for the reference of members of the House. I thank the Australian Red Cross for affording me the privilege of taking part in an occasion that symbolises the close relationship between the government, the parliament of Australia and the Red Cross movement.
One of the notable achievements of the Red Cross in recent times has been the publication of a handbook for parliamentarians entitled Promoting Respect for International Humanitarian Law. The handbook serves as an invaluable reference not only for parliamentarians but for a wide variety of audiences. Other valuable work being done by the Red Cross includes engaging with journalists and assisting reporters sent into areas of conflict to understand the importance of international humanitarian law and to support them in their very brave but vitally important work. I know that the Australian Red Cross has reinvigorated its work in the field of international humanitarian law following an evaluation of its program conducted by Justice Alastair Nicholson. I record the government’s appreciation for the contributions made by the many Red Cross members, volunteers and staff and, in particular, for the valued leadership of Mr Robert Tickner, the chief executive officer and a former distinguished member of this House and minister in the Hawke and Keating governments.
Australia has itself been involved in a number of armed conflicts, which I referred to earlier, most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia’s record in involvement in conflict in United Nations mandated peacekeeping operations and missions, such as those in which Australians are serving in East Timor and the Solomon Islands, is distinguished by respect for the principles of international humanitarian law displayed by members of the Defence Force and others who have answered the call, including members of the Australian Federal Police. I recall having a conversation with the Chief of the Defence Force in which he mentioned with pride the number of occasions when Australian pilots had come back with their aircraft laden with bombs not being satisfied that discharging those bombs would not have affected the civilian populace. He was proud of the extent to which Australian troops recognised their obligations under international humanitarian law.
The government notes with pride the record of the Defence Force and records its appreciation for the efforts of all Australians who have served. The reality is that over the centuries thousands upon thousands of young men and women have died face down in the dirt and will continue to do so, not as a result of decisions they have made but as a result of decisions of their political masters. We, of course, serve in that capacity. More often the decision of those political masters has been a result of failings—failings to achieve compromise and resolve differences between nations by peaceful means. In the worst case scenario, those actions and aggression have been inflamed and perpetrated in an endeavour to improve political aspirations. Be that as it may, it is the young men and women who serve in our defence forces and who serve in other defence forces who are called to serve. And, of course, when the demons of war are let loose, civilian populations suffer and suffer horrifically. We see that, and I have noted especially the role of journalists in reporting that to us. These Geneva conventions bring to that horror principles of humanity. They are vitally important documents and we recognise the achievement of the international community and, specifically, the Red Cross not only in creating those instruments but in ensuring that they continue to stay front of mind to governments and all those who are involved in, regrettably, too much armed conflict.
In conclusion, it is entirely fitting that this House commemorate the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Geneva conventions, that it recognise the role of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent movement in international humanitarian law and that it note with pride Australia’s record in this field. I commend the motion to the House.
The coalition supports this motion that recognises the 60th anniversary of the four Geneva conventions of 1949, which are the foundation of modern international humanitarian law. After the horror of World War II and the devastation that occurred in many parts of the world, the international community agreed that every effort should be made to ensure that the degradations inflicted on soldiers and civilians should never again be allowed to occur. The Geneva conventions lay a foundation for how civilised nations conduct themselves during war and other types of conflict. The early impetus for international humanitarian law is credited to a Swiss merchant named Henry Dunant, who was horrified by the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino in north Italy in 1859. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, Dunant pleaded with local civilians to help him assist the tens of thousands of soldiers who had been left to die on the battlefield. His experiences led him to write a book, A Memory of Solferino, published in 1862. In his book, he called for relief societies to be formed which would come to the aid of wounded soldiers and for the nurses and medical staff to be protected through international agreement.
Representatives from 16 countries and four organisations are reported to have gathered at a conference in Geneva in 1863, and the Red Cross was founded. Another meeting in 1864 led to the development of a treaty titled the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded Armies in the Field. This is regarded as the first treaty for international humanitarian law. While there were subsequent meetings and further development of the convention, including its extension to battles on the sea and to prisoners of war, it was a 1949 conference that made the greatest leap forward by extending protection to civilians. As history records, civilian populations suffered indescribable horror during the Second World War.
The development of new types of devastating weapons and new forms of warfare led to a series of international conferences in the 1970s and the adoption of two new protocols in 1977. Protocol 1 enhanced protection for civilian populations in recognition of the increasing impact on them. As the then Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, pointed out in his speech to this House marking the 50th anniversary of the Geneva conventions, it has been estimated that at the start of the 20th century 90 per cent of those killed during war were military personnel but that by the end of the 20th century 90 per cent of casualties were civilians. The world continues to be outraged by attacks on civilians as part of, or in consequence of, terrorist activities across the globe. Protocol 2 recognised the disturbing development of conflict increasingly conducted between armed groups within a nation.
Australia has a long and proud history of ratification and acceptance of the principles of the Geneva conventions. I join with the Attorney-General in mentioning, for example, Australia’s support for the International Criminal Court established in 2002. The idea of an international criminal court had been mooted at various times throughout the past 100 years, the 20th century being one marred by a litany of inhumanity and cruelty on a massive scale—possibly the most bloody and violent century in recorded history. After the international community supported tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo in the aftermath of the atrocities committed in the Second World War, a body of international law evolved with the Geneva conventions in 1948-49 and more recently in 1984. But there was no permanent international mechanism to enforce this body of international law. It was after the ad hoc tribunals regarding Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia that the international community met in Rome in 1998 and 120 nations, including Australia, supported a draft statute to establish a permanent international criminal court. Australia chaired the like-minded group of countries who were committed to the early establishment of the court. Foreign Minister Downer and Attorney-General Williams were unswerving in their commitment to the court and in 2002 Australia ratified the Treaty of Rome. As chair at the time of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I was satisfied then and still believe that the ratification of the International Criminal Court is in Australia’s national interest because not only is it in Australia’s security interest for us to support efforts by the international community to maintain international peace and security across the globe but also it is in our national interest for a society such as ours, committed to freedom and human dignity, to uphold the establishment of a court such as the International Criminal Court.
I pay tribute to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who have served this country in conflicts overseas, particularly as part of United Nations campaigns. The Attorney mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan. Recently the Leader of the Opposition and I were privileged to visit, in the company of the shadow minister for defence, our troops serving in Afghanistan. There is absolutely no doubt that the men and women of the Australian defence forces are individually and collectively committed to their obligations under international humanitarian law, and I recognise their efforts. I pay tribute today to the efforts of the Red Cross in Australia and to their continuing efforts to ensure that Australia upholds the values of international humanitarian law. I commend this motion to the House.
I rise to support the Attorney-General’s motion, which recognises the 60th anniversary of the Geneva conventions of 1949. This motion reaffirms Australia’s strong and enduring commitment to the law and spirit of the conventions and to the international humanitarian laws of which the conventions are the bedrock. The conventions provide protection for those who are most vulnerable in times of armed conflict: civilians, particularly women and children, the sick and wounded, prisoners of war, and medical and religious personnel. The conventions uphold absolutely that all protected people are entitled to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They remain the cornerstone for the respect and protection of human dignity in armed conflict.
The conventions also regulate the means and methods of warfare. As the technologies and tactics of war have become more sophisticated, the conventions have created necessary limitations on their use. The nature of armed conflict has changed over time, but unfortunately abuse in armed conflict continues. The types of war crimes we witness in contemporary armed conflict—attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure, hostage-taking and torture—show the enduring relevance of the Geneva conventions and the protections they contain.
Australia is a strong supporter of the law and the spirit of the Geneva conventions. In this regard I am pleased that the Attorney-General has been able to advise the House of the decision of the government to recently ratify Additional Protocol III to the Geneva conventions. This protocol establishes a third neutral emblem for use by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, the red crystal. The red crystal, along with the red cross and the red crescent, is an international symbol of protection identifying persons and facilities providing medical or humanitarian aid in armed conflict and natural disasters. The new emblem will enable Red Cross societies who do not prefer to identify with either the cross or the crescent symbol to instead use the crystal to identify them as members of the Red Cross-Red Crescent movement. Such an emblem will be of immeasurable benefit in combat zones in helping secure the safety of the eligible humanitarian workers in all countries regardless of their location or political situation.
Australia’s commitment to the protection of civilians and the elimination of inhumane methods of warfare was demonstrated when we became one of the original signatories to the Cluster Munitions Convention in December 2008. The convention prohibits the use of those inherently unreliable munitions, which cause unacceptable suffering to civilians. It also obliges states to clear areas contaminated with unexploded cluster munitions and to provide assistance for victims and their communities. As my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, has said, the Cluster Munitions Convention is a remarkable humanitarian achievement.
I have had the welcome opportunity to meet on two occasions with Dr Jakob Kellenberger, the President of the ICRC. On both those occasions I was struck by the breadth and depth of work of the ICRC in defence of the conventions, in particular in what Dr Kellenberger identified to me as their three current priority regions: Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories and the Horn of Africa.
I have also had the opportunity of meeting with the representatives of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, including a very senior Australian working at the top level in that organisation. Those two organisations, together with the Australian Red Cross, do remarkable work of which we should all be proud. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the tireless humanitarian work of those organisations and particularly the International Committee of the Red Cross as the guardian of the Geneva conventions, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and the Australian Red Cross.
In 2009, Australia has so far provided over $20 million to support these humanitarian organisations to protect and assist civilians affected by conflict and natural disaster. The dedicated staff of these organisations work in some of the most remote and dangerous parts of the world to promote and strengthen international humanitarian law. On the 60th anniversary of the Geneva conventions, we commend their efforts. I support the motion.
Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the motion be referred to the Main Committee for further debate.
Question agreed to.
On indulgence, I wish to add a small matter to an answer that I gave on 4 June 2009.
Indulgence is granted.
On that day, I tabled information that was published by Wheat Exports Australia which dealt with the difference in prices between east coast wheat, west coast wheat and the Chicago Board of Trade nearby swap price. There has been some questioning of some of that information as to the interaction between the three of those. I sought further advice from my department to get some of the raw data on which that fact sheet was based. I will quote from the information I have now been given, which provides a further update on some of those figures to the House.
Drawing from WEA data, the peak difference between the Fremantle APW1 price and the Newcastle APW1 price was $35 per tonne on 28 October 2008. The peak difference between the Fremantle APW1 price and the CBOT price was $29.62 per tonne as opposed to the $35 on 28 April 2009 that I quoted that day. To assist the House I will table the advice that I received to that effect.
Debate resumed.
Supporting Australian veterans is vital. It is something I am passionate about. I have many veterans in my community and to me, representing Australia’s only garrison city of Townsville, it is particularly important. Many of the soldiers who pass through Townsville are ultimately Australia’s veterans. With now up to 40,000 soldiers having been deployed over the last several years in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Timor and the Solomons, the numbers of veterans are significantly increasing.
The coalition has given its support to this particular bill, the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009, and certainly it has my support. The bill makes three changes to current measures relating to veterans pensions payments, access to the Defence Service Home Insurance Scheme and to dependants’ pensions.
The first change enables Veterans’ Affairs pensions and allowances to be paid into overseas bank accounts. Under the current provisions, anyone who lives outside Australia and receives a pension or payment under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act must have an Australian bank account. These payments were only able to be made into a bank or financial institution account in Australia. This measure in this bill is a sensible measure in that it allows payments to be made to an overseas bank account. It moves with the times. It recognises where we are these days and how we operate in the world. It will reduce the financial burdens for veterans who live overseas and will provide greater support and flexibility for them, so it has my support. It will certainly bring the payment of veterans affairs pensions into line with other Commonwealth payments.
The bill also extends the eligibility for the Defence Service Home Insurance Scheme. This measure will now allow members of the ADF who are entitled to receive assistance under the new Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme to access building and contents insurance. I believe that about 7,500 Australian Defence Force and reserve members will be able to gain access to the insurance scheme. That is a good outcome and it supports our Defence families. This measure will support the ADF. It is very important. It will assist particularly with retention of Defence Force personnel by providing them with even greater support.
The final change in this bill is to cease payment of a majority of dependants’ pensions. Previously, dependants of a veteran who were receiving a disability pension for incapacity were, in some situations, also eligible for a pension. The maximum payment has been $8.42 per fortnight for a partner or widow and $2.86 per fortnight for children. The minimum payments are as low as 84c for partners and 29c for children per fortnight. These pensions have not increased in many years, and there have been no new grants since 1985.
Under the measures in this bill, the dependant pensions will cease and those currently receiving such pensions will be given a lump sum equal to three years of the payments. The dependants pensions will cease on 22 September 2009 and the lump sum payment will be made on 24 September 2009. That payment will be exempt from income tax. Any existing war widow or war widower and orphan pensions are not affected by this change and their payments will continue. As the payment level for dependant pensions has been so low, a lump sum payment in September this year may be more beneficial to many families—I believe it will be.
The coalition supports these measures; however, it is important that the Rudd government clarify several issues relating to the dependants pension. It must be made clear how many people will be affected by the payments ceasing. These people must be told by the government whether those currently receiving a dependants pension will receive another form of compensation after the three-year period of the lump sum ends. That is important to the veterans community, and they will be looking for that explanation from the Rudd government.
We have seen in recent months that the Rudd government has been engaged in reckless spending. This is having a significant impact on veterans. The Labor government had made very few announcements for veterans. They promised reviews, but two very important reviews have been given a lengthy two-year time frame for completion. The two which have been delayed are the review into the cost of pharmaceuticals for war-caused conditions and the review of the operation of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The member for Paterson very clearly articulated this in his contribution in relation to this debate. Two other important reviews have been undertaken—the Clarke review and the military super review—but no announcements by the government have been made for either, and we certainly need that information to come forward. The veterans communities are very eagerly looking forward to that, and I think that they are starting to realise that they have been let down by commitments made by the Rudd government in the run-up to the last election.
It is very interesting. I was having a look at the promises broken by the current government yesterday, and it is quite extraordinary to see the number of very important and significant promises and expectations that were given to the community at the time of the last election that have been either ruled out or, in fact, forgotten about.
Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting
I am filibustering, yes. It is very disappointing to the electorate, and unfortunately I think that the community will mark the government down for misleading the electorate at the time of the last election. Labor said they would deliver for the veteran community through reviews. With four crucial reviews still outstanding, it is clear that they have not delivered.
The Dunt report examined mental health issues in the Defence Force, and the report has not delivered major outcomes and programs for veterans. In response to issues raised in the study into suicide in the ex-service community, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs announced $9.5 million of funding over four years, but for such a serious issue this is a small amount. The Rudd government needs to show a real commitment to delivering outcomes and programs for veterans and former serving members of the Australian Defence Force.
I support this particular piece of legislation. The changes provide—
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Oh, no! Give me the EM or something.
I think the honourable member for Lindsay should—
Herbert.
For Herbert. He should continue his contribution.
Yes, we have no speaker to continue. I certainly support this legislation, but the Rudd government cannot stop here. Issues which concern veterans must be considered and acted upon by the government.
Might I say, in relation to representing the veterans community in Townsville, that I want to pay a tribute to Rod McLeod and his group at the Townsville RSL. Rod is the president; he has been president now for a few years. The RSL just goes from strength to strength in supporting our community. The facility that we have on Charters Towers Road in Townsville is a magnificent facility. It is used by many veterans and, indeed, the wider community. It is a focus for our community. It is a place where the community can, in fact, get together and discuss military and veterans’ issues but also address wider issues. That particular organisation needs to be commended for the terrific work that it does.
When the minister made his second reading speech on this particular bill, I note that he noted that this legislation further improves the operation of Australia’s repatriation system. He says it is in line with the government’s election commitment, but I have indicated in this contribution that there are several very significant matters that are outstanding as far as the veterans in this country are concerned. In introducing these two budget measures to assist veterans, the minister claims—and I believe he is right—that veterans, members and their dependants will have their access to and the effectiveness of their repatriation pension system improved.
There is a third measure, of course, that will assist members in relation to veterans and defence communities, and this is in relation to the insurance matters. Veterans will have been unsettled by the move to cease these—
The honourable member for Herbert should continue to proceed manfully. I thank, on behalf of the chamber, the member for Herbert for assisting the House in its proceedings as we await the next speaker on this bill.
The honourable member for Herbert is considering drawing the chair’s attention to the state of the House if something does not happen shortly! Claressa, you might have to come up and speak if that is okay! We have very good clerks in this place.
In relation to the veterans’ concerns about the small payments being replaced by lump sums, yes, there has been some concern in the veterans’ community about that. That has been expressed but I do not think the veterans community needs to be concerned about that. I think that what we really need to be looking at is what will replace the lump sum payment in due course. That is something we need to hear from the government about and something that we need to be mindful of. Certainly, the veterans community will be looking for that.
The Defence Services Homes Insurance Scheme—this is for people eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008—currently provides home insurance to eligible Australian veterans and members, peacekeepers, widows and widowers. This measure will extend eligibility for home insurance to those serving and former members and reservists eligible under the Home Ownership Assistance Scheme introduced in 2008. The extension will provide eligible persons access to cost-effective insurance designed specifically for the service and ex-service community. I note that included peacekeepers. The Australian Defence Force is not only a force of war fighters. It is a force of peacekeepers, of humanitarians and of people involved in training and regional assistance. They do a wonderful job for our country, in our name, for those less fortunate than us.
Last night I was privileged to be with senior officers of the Australian Defence Force. They told me that in Afghanistan, for example, it was not so long ago when no young female was allowed to go to school. They were kept illiterate. Could you imagine a policy like that in Australia—that females should be kept illiterate? I think that we all understand how out-of-date that kind of policy is. I was recently in Pakistan, where it pains me to have to say that the only thing lower than a dog is a woman. How could that be? But the point that we were discussing last night is that there are now some 5 million young women going to school in Afghanistan. What a great outcome, and part of that is being delivered through the ISAF contribution and also through the will and commitment of our mentoring task force on operations in Afghanistan. We can thank the men and women of the Australian Defence Force for that particular contribution.
I would also like to inform the House that there was a discussion about our Bushmasters that we use in Afghanistan. The Bushmasters are just tremendously capable vehicles, making sure that we can operate safely with our troops. When their V-shaped hull hits an improvised explosive device the blast is shot off to the sides. The front wheels of the vehicle can be blown 100 metres on either side of the vehicle but the people inside are kept relatively safe, and that is a tribute to our Australian designers in providing a mobility vehicle for the ADF that keeps our troops safe. I say thank you to the people of Thales in Bendigo for what they do and thank you, too, to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. We can guarantee that both sides of the parliament will do what we can to look after the veterans of our country now and in the future.
There has been some confusion in the list, but I notify the Labor speaker that I will not necessarily take up the full 20 minutes.
This bill gives effect to three Veterans’ Affairs portfolio budget measures: to provide the payments for veterans’ affairs pensioners’ allowances into overseas bank accounts, to extend the eligibility for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to persons eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 and to cease payment of the majority of dependents pensions. The issues there are fairly clear-cut and give me the opportunity, nevertheless, to discuss some of the issues relevant to veterans affairs and its importance in this parliament.
I had the privilege of being a shadow minister for veterans’ affairs and writing the policy that the Howard government implemented over time. There are many issues that were outstanding at that time which we consequently addressed. Some of these related even to the provision of medals, where there were some very peculiar views. I do not blame the previous government—they had an inquiry into it—but the decision makers were the Defence establishment, who took a very conservative view of the rights of people to be recognised for their service, more particularly overseas. We were still operating under a system where there was no service medal available for soldiers who had been in areas of danger unless they had been there for six months. Some, of course, unfortunately, did not survive six months; they were in a place of danger from the date of their arrival. I give that only as an example of my long interest in these measures.
Furthermore, I note that this morning another measure was introduced which purported to give veterans a $30 increase in their pension. Of course, that is to be criticised simply because it is not $30; it is $30 less $20 because the $30 subsumes the annual amenities allowance arrangements, which were about $1,000, and therefore represented $20 a week. But we will get an opportunity to make these points at a later date.
The minister also drew it to the attention of the House that deposits to bank accounts will be made, and I believe that has some merit for people. He made the point that currently Veterans’ Affairs beneficiaries who live permanently overseas must have their Veterans’ Affairs payments paid into an Australian bank account, often incurring relatively high bank fees when transferring money internationally. In comparison, most other Commonwealth beneficiaries who live in overseas countries with reliable banking systems can receive their pension directly in an overseas bank account. In 2008 the Prime Minister made a commitment to review this. This of course is the result of that review, and the coalition supports that arrangement. It will make some difference.
It also highlights the circumstances of veterans from overseas who live in Australia, who in the case of British veterans do not necessarily get increases to their pension on the same basis as they would if they had remained in the United Kingdom. There is a freezing of those pensions, and I think that is very bad for them. They suffer from the fact that exchange rates can be either beneficial or very negative. These issues have been debated between the United Kingdom and Australia around these sorts of benefits for decades and nobody has yet been able to convince the United Kingdom that pension increases made available to their citizens there should be available to eligible pension holders here in Australia. The changes made by part 1 of schedule 1 will enable the Repatriation Commission to make arrangements for the payment of pensions, allowances or other pecuniary benefits payable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act or the MRCA into an account with a bank or similar financial institution that is outside Australia. That is to be applauded.
The issue of pensioner benefits, in my mind, also suffers—because it is lumped in with the age pension and other matters in many respects—from a wider issue. That issue is that the consumer price index is still utilised as part of the adjustment program. I specifically wanted to take part in this particular debate to make the point that, across the board, if that process is to be maintained, we virtually need what I might call a ‘retiree CPI’. The CPI as we know it takes account of a multitude of price increases, many of which are not applicable to pensioners. There have been adjustments to the effect of home mortgage interest, but pensioners typically do not have mortgages; they certainly seek to avoid them. But, on the other hand, they have deposits, and, as such, a decline in interest rates is not beneficial to them. They suffer badly from the decline in interest rates or the collapse of the stock exchange as many rely on the escalation of share values to finance their retirement.
I believe that government—and this parliament, more particularly—should look closely at this. Maybe it should be the responsibility of one of our standing committees, appropriately associated, to look at what a retiree’s index is. It varies in many respects and as such should be considered in this place so that those expenditures that mostly affect people who are in retirement can be better accounted for. I do not think that the dual assessment process has been an improvement. I do not think the process of using a percentage of male total weekly earnings, MTWE, has improved circumstances because it has kept beneficiaries of these entitlements somewhere in line with what is happening, but there are still other aspects to it—most notably in terms of the retiree’s own residence. It is often not understood that a family with children will have a largish residence somewhere, and in recent times that has appreciated in value. But as the children have left and they are no longer dependent on the family home, there is a good reason for pensioners to scale down the size of their house and possibly achieve a cash financial gain in the process.
The reality, unfortunately, is that there are, particularly, the state governments’ various stamp duties and other charges involved—and, of course, when you sell the premises, you typically use an agent and there are significant commissions to be paid. At the end of it all the family sits down and they realise have got premises that are far too large. If they have some disabilities, it may be very difficult to look after large gardens and all of those sorts of things. But they are locked into it due to the fact that they can actually incur a negative outcome in scaling down to an apartment or something like that. When I say ‘scaling down’, I mean scaling down in size. They put the property on the market. It is not new. It nevertheless probably has quite a good value. The commission for the sale reduces that value, and then, when they go to buy the alternative property, the state governments rip them off for a very substantial amount of money—and with figures that have never been properly indexed. When they add all of that up, they find that they cannot afford the new premises. They certainly do not want to incur a debt, so they stay with a property that is far too big and which creates all sorts of difficulties for them physically. They typically find it very difficult. I have had representations over time on that very matter.
Those were the issues I wanted to take the opportunity to deal with today. The legislation otherwise makes for sensible measures and it has my support. I thank the House.
I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009. The measures introduced by this bill will improve the arrangements of veterans currently operating in Australia. Members of the nation’s service and ex-service communities will receive substantial benefits from these measures. The bill will deliver greater simplicity and greater levels of support in three important areas. The first of these provisions will extend the eligibility criteria for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme. This will allow a greater number of serving Defence Force members and ex-service people to get access to cost-effective home insurance. The second provision provides a far more convenient and cost-effective way to pay pensions and allowances into the bank accounts of defence personnel living overseas. The third set of amendments will cease payments from the old and outdated dependants pension scheme—a scheme that has outlived its usefulness to members.
Before I speak about the details of the reforms before the House, I wish to say that many veterans and their families living on the Central Coast of New South Wales will welcome the measures laid out in this bill. The Central Coast, where my electorate of Robertson is situated, has long been a favoured retirement destination for people from Sydney. This was especially the case in the decades following World War II. As a result, the electorate of Robertson today is home to a very large population of veterans, their families and their dependants. In fact, in April 2009 the Gosford City local government area, which is almost contiguous with the area of my federal electorate, was home to 5,282 Department of Veterans’ Affairs pensioners and cardholders. This is by far the highest veteran population of any local government area in New South Wales. The number is exceeded only by four local government areas in South-East Queensland, making Gosford City the fifth-largest concentration of veterans in Australia. As at April 2009, there were 4,545 people in Robertson receiving a Department of Veterans’ Affairs pension or allowance or holding a DVA treatment or pharmaceutical card. This group includes nearly 1,500 disability pensioners and more than 1,400 war widows. They have an average age of just under 80 years. It is clear from these statistics that reforms to the way veterans’ entitlements are assessed and delivered have a direct and important impact on many thousands of my constituents.
There are 20 separate veterans associations represented in my electorate. These include a wide range of DVA benefit recipients, including the War Widows Guild, several RSL sub-branches, the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association, the ex-POW welfare associations and two ex-servicewomen’s associations, just to name a few. I have the great honour of being a patron to the local branches of both the National Servicemen’s Association, the ‘nashos’, and the Vietnam Veterans Association. I am also an honorary member of the Gosford branch of the World War II Veterans Association. I have worked very closely with all these associations to ensure their concerns are brought to the attention of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and I have to say that, in turn, they have been extremely responsive. Rick Johnson from the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association is a Central Coast local and a tireless campaigner for his members. Rick has had many dealings with my office and we have assisted to the best of our ability in his struggle to better the lives of Australia’s nuclear veterans.
This year, we assisted Richard Gray from the Vietnam Veterans Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Association with funding for a memorial that was unveiled on the waterfront at Ettalong Beach. Another grant was secured for the Malaya and Borneo Veterans Association to erect a memorial at Woy Woy Memorial Park. One of my greatest pleasures throughout this year was hosting the presentation ceremony for the Australian defence medals at the Gosford RSL club. This new honour for past and serving Defence Force men and women has proved a great success over the past two years. It is an opportunity for the people of Robertson to recognise and reward those in our community who have given so much to make this country a better place.
The attendance at Anzac Day ceremonies across the Central Coast has been on the increase over the past few years as well. It seems that the people of Australia are now understanding and embracing fully the contribution that serving and ex-service men and women have made to this nation. In March this year, I also had the great pleasure of participating in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program in East Timor. I spent five days in uniform in East Timor and went on foot patrol at night with ADF members of the International Stabilisation Force. An ADF recruit from the Central Coast was part of my section, which was very interesting for me. I was also lucky enough to fly on a reconnaissance mission in a Black Hawk helicopter, which was pretty exciting—even for me, used to the ups and downs of parliamentary life. Another memorable experience was visiting and talking with village leaders and local policemen in remote settlements. This visit was a great way for me to familiarise myself with the conditions our soldiers experience on the ground, including the difficulties and hardships they undergo on a daily basis in the field.
The trip was also important because it was a strong demonstration of support from the federal parliament for our troops serving abroad. I can say from my experience in East Timor that they are doing a terrific job in very difficult circumstances. The service men and women I spent time with will be the veterans of tomorrow. That is why I am pleased today to be speaking in support of this bill. Even today, our currently serving defence personnel will gain some significant benefits from the measures being brought forward in this legislation.
The bill before the House introduces new arrangements in three main areas, as I have said. Firstly, the eligibility criteria for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme will be extended. This will allow a greater number of serving Defence Force members and ex-service men and women to take out cost-effective home insurance. Under current laws, veterans, currently serving members, peacekeepers, widows and widowers can obtain building insurance through the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme. This scheme provides insurance for their home, right of residence in a retirement village, land, building materials, home improvements and home contents. There are currently 80,000 policyholders in this scheme, but numbers are reducing by about four per cent per year. To improve the scheme’s long-term viability, a 2007 review recommended that the scheme be extended and its range of products expanded. In response to this review, the Department of Defence created a new home loan subsidy scheme called the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme, which began operation on 1 July 2008.
Under the new measures in the bill, members of this scheme will be eligible for defence service homes insurance. This will mean greater access for many Australians to a home insurance scheme that has been designed specifically for the defence service and ex-service community. It offers discounted insurance products to eligible persons. It is estimated that approximately 7½ thousand ADF and Reserve members will be eligible to take out this cost-effective insurance option. The home loan subsidy scheme was initially introduced as one of the measures designed to improve the recruitment and retention of ADF personnel. Achieving this goal will be made easier by the extension to these personnel of a competitive home insurance scheme as well. This package, which now includes subsidised home insurance in addition to the existing subsidised home loan, will bring benefits to both serving and ex-service personnel. It will also help to ensure the long-term viability of the scheme itself.
The second area of reform the bill addresses is the arrangements for paying pensions and allowances into the bank accounts of defence personnel living overseas. A more convenient scheme in this area will greatly assist veterans and other DVA income support pension recipients. These include war widows and widowers, service pensioners and disability pensioners who live permanently overseas. Currently these people must have their DVA payments deposited into an Australian bank account. Money subsequently transferred from that account overseas can then incur relatively high bank transfer fees. The bill puts in place a mechanism through which clients can have their money paid directly into an overseas account, thereby avoiding these fees. This convenient and money-saving scheme is very similar to the way Centrelink supports its overseas clients.
This reform is a practical and supportive measure that will assist approximately 2,000 overseas clients currently residing in 70 countries around the world. This measure delivers on a promise by the Prime Minister in 2008 to review and improve payment structures for veterans living permanently overseas. It is expected that direct payments to DVA clients’ overseas bank accounts will be available from March 2010, with payments and transfers being handled by the Reserve Bank of Australia. This will ease the burden on a sizable group of Australian ex-service men and women and will reduce the economic hardship of relatively high bank transfer fees.
The third major area of reform contained in this bill relates to the cessation of the dependants pension. This scheme is an outdated and barely functioning arrangement which has outlived its usefulness and delivers diminishing benefits to clients. The purpose of the payment when it was introduced in 1914 was to provide financial support to the dependants of veterans. The dependants pension is not indexed and, as a result, the rates paid to dependants of veterans or members on a disability pension have not changed in decades, except for some GST compensation in 2000. For example, fortnightly payments to children have not changed since 1952, 57 years ago, and today range from a top payment of $2.86 down to a minimum rate of just 29c. That is not going to buy you a lot in this day and age. Fortnightly payments for partners and widows have remained unchanged since 1964, or 45 years ago. Fortnightly payments for partners and widows range from a top rate of $8.42 down to just 84c. These payments are clearly of little real value in today’s terms.
New entrants to the old dependants pension scheme were suspended in 1985. Clients still in this scheme at that time were given the option to cease their payments in exchange for a lump sum equal to three years payment. Some clients took up this option but some 26,000 recipients remain in the scheme today. The dependants pension goes nowhere near meeting the original aim of the scheme. It clearly fails to adequately support the dependants of veterans in today’s economy. Indeed, the scheme’s function is largely redundant, having been superseded by other, better targeted means of income support. Clients are now far better served by the income support provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Social Security Act 1991.
It is proposed that the dependants pension scheme be phased out on 22 September 2009, but the 26,000 people remaining in this scheme will not be worse off than they are at present. The small pension payments will cease, but these amounts do little to support dependants due to their diminished real value over time. The value of these payments is expected to be further eroded in the future, which would make the scheme increasingly inefficient and costly as time progresses. The clients will instead be offered a lump sum payment on 24 September this year which will be equal to three years pension payment. A lump sum payment will be of more use to many of those pensioners than a rapidly devaluing fortnightly amount. The lump sum payment will be exempt from income tax. War widow and widower pensions and orphan pensions will not be affected by this measure. Dependant pensions granted to people without adequate means of support are not affected by these measures.
The three measures contained in the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill will do much to improve the economic and social welfare of DVA pensioners, veterans and currently serving ADF personnel. The more efficient transfer of DVA payments to overseas recipients is long overdue and was promised by the Prime Minister, and I am pleased to see that this bill delivers it. The cessation of the outdated pension system for veterans’ dependants will bring to a close a rapidly diminishing payment that has outlived its usefulness. The opening of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to larger numbers of current service personnel is a step forward. It will encourage new recruits to the Defence Force and retain those already serving. I feel confident that the reforms contained in this bill will be beneficial to all members of the defence and veterans communities.
To the many veterans who live in the electorate of Robertson, I say thank you for your contribution towards making Australia a better place. Your contribution to the community of the Central Coast is notable and I very much speak on behalf of everyone else who lives there in saying thank you. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise today to record my support for the measures contained within the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009. This bill proposes a number of common-sense measures that will improve entitlements for veterans. This bill provides for the payment of entitlements, under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986, to a person resident overseas into an overseas bank account. That is a common-sense measure which will bring those arrangements into line with other major Commonwealth agencies, and indeed all of the families of veterans who are overseas report to me that that measure is more than welcome.
However, I do want to particularly commend the extension of access to the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme. This bill will extend access to those persons who are eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme and around 7,500 extra people will now be eligible for that insurance scheme. Coming from an electorate which is close to the Richmond RAAF base, where I have a number of people who are eligible for defence housing, plenty of suburbs in my electorate have defence housing, including Beaumont Hills and Kellyville, particularly for RAAF personnel. This extension is important and it is something that I want to particularly record my support for.
If personnel qualify and are eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme then it is only logical that they ought to qualify for insurance as well. Defence personnel are often away from their homes. They are often in circumstances which prevent them from spending a lot of time concentrating on their dwellings or their household arrangements because we ask them to serve in faraway places, to go on exercises for prolonged periods, and to engage in activities that add extra stress and burden upon their families and their family homes. Therefore, this measure will be particularly welcome, and I think it is accurate to say that it will help with retention, recruitment and other benefits.
It is the case that many serving personnel and people who are considering service careers do consider the incentives and the attractions that are available to them to enhance their service and their career prospects. I recently had the opportunity to spend time on the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program speaking with all ranks of the military and all services from troops on the ground to service chiefs and vice chiefs. There is a very real sense that the entitlements and the incentives that the government provides to service personnel are deemed to be very important. This extension of the Defence Service Home Insurance Scheme to an extra 7,500 people is a good measure. I want to note in this place that, when you examine the cost, it is completely negligible compared with the amounts of money that we have been discussing in this place recently. For example, in 2009-10 the estimated financial impact to the Commonwealth is $0.2 million. In 2010-11 it is $0.2 million. In 2011-12 it is $0.3 million and in 2012-13 it is only $0.3 million as well.
Speaking to that point for a moment, the entire impact of this legislation that we are considering today is indeed quite negligible and I want to encourage governments of all persuasions to understand that the measures they take in relation to veterans are very important. Defence is a primary function of government. It is a proper function of government; therefore, veterans entitlements are a proper function of government as well. I think it is incumbent upon us in this place to ensure that we allow for the proper provision for people who serve us overseas.
When I visit various aged-care facilities in my electorate I find the most amazing veterans who served in World War II. I recently met an original Rat of Tobruk. It is a very profound experience to hear about their service and what they did. More typically today you will find personnel of the Vietnam veteran era moving through the entitlements system. We now have some challenges as a Commonwealth government with an entirely new generation of soldier who has served in new theatres with new methods of war including in the Middle East, including counterterrorism operations and including insurgency. This will create new challenges for those veteran categories.
I am pleased to say that within my electorate I have a very large veteran community, and the Castle Hill RSL does a fantastic job in organising that veteran community. Of course, with the proximity to the Richmond RAAF base we do see a lot of defence issues and defence housing issues. So that is all the more reason I think the extra access to the Defence Service Home Insurance Scheme is a good measure and something which I am pleased to be rising to support.
I do want to note while we have the opportunity that I think the third measure proposed by this bill, which is to wind up and pay out the dependants pensions paid to dependants of veterans, is a cost-saving measure and that is acceptable in some regards. It is an outdated scheme. I accept the arguments that have been put forward by members in this place, and when you examine the amounts and the lack of change over many, many decades there is a strong argument for this. I also do feel very strongly that in areas of defence and veterans affairs we ought not to be looking for cost savings in general and we should seek to ensure that those entitlements are properly accounted for in other ways.
Indeed, I was very impressed that when the Howard government first came to office in 1996 with an enormous budget deficit it quarantined Defence from any particular cuts. I thought that was a very impressive measure and something which all governments of all persuasions should seek to do. Defence and veterans’ affairs are areas where cuts and cost savings are perhaps not the best way to proceed in terms of governance, although we should look for efficiencies. It is certainly the case that the dependants pension system—which is referred to in this legislation and which is to be wound up—is out of date. You can see that when you consider that the maximum payments per fortnight for a partner and widows can be as low as $8.42 per fortnight or $2.86 per fortnight for children. Indeed, with minimum payments as low as 84c or 29c, clearly there is a need to restructure. I simply encourage the government to ensure that there is no loss of entitlement over time to dependants or to people who are dependants of veterans. Indeed, some of the information on how many people are affected or what kinds of people are being affected could be better explained in this legislation.
However, the scheme is obviously in need of a revamp. Everyone in this place will have no trouble supporting it. I simply note that it is very important that we continue to have a strong focus on the area of veterans’ affairs with whole new cohorts of young service men and now women moving through who have served in critical areas all around the world. We will have to have an intensified look at how we best deliver medical and practical outcomes to them with a whole new range of challenges. It is interesting to note that there are currently several critical reviews of veterans’ affairs, including a review into military superannuation.
When you speak with long-serving warrant officers in the Army, Air Force or Navy, they will recall to you that military superannuation is an issue of grave concern to service men and women. I would encourage the Rudd government to get on with ensuring these reviews are conducted speedily and that outcomes for serving personnel and veterans are looked at as soon as possible. People do see the defence forces as a difficult career. They see it as a big sacrifice and a big commitment. It is important that we structure the incentives and arrangements to allow them to do their job and to make a career of it. Much of the feedback that we received from the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program was that those incentives that had been removed, or those that over time had eroded in value, were becoming an impediment to careers within Defence. That is something that I want to record in this place.
Looking at the specific provisions in this legislation, on behalf of the veteran community in Mitchell I have received only positive feedback about these measures because they are simply common sense. They are allowing for existing Commonwealth arrangements in relation to bank accounts to be applied to veterans. They are extending the Defence Homes Insurance Scheme, which is a logical and welcome measure, and of course we are winding up a scheme which is no longer current. I simply record in this place my support for the legislation.
There are many indicators on which a just and civil society can and, indeed, should be judged. One of those surely has to be how we assist our veterans and their families. We ask a great service of them and, in turn, we owe them a great debt. That is why I am pleased to rise today to add my voice to that of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Hon. Alan Griffin, in support of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009. Minister Griffin is indeed a friend to the veteran community. This legislation highlights the level of attention and consideration he has paid to veterans and their families since assuming his current role. This attention and consideration is in stark contrast to those opposite who had more than a decade in office, during which time they ignored repeated calls to enact the seemingly minor changes this legislation sees made.
The Rudd government’s second budget saw a number of measures put in place to assist our veterans. Just this week, Minister Griffin informed the House about the detail and impact of the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform) Bill 2009. That bill increases various income support and war widows pension rates; enacts structural reforms with a new pension supplement, a new seniors supplement and a new veteran supplement to replace a variety of current allowances; introduces revised pension income test arrangements, revised pension indexation and benchmarking arrangements using in part a new pensioner and beneficiary living cost index to complement the consumer price index; introduces transitional arrangements to ensure pensioners affected by the pension income test changes are not worse off; and closes the pension bonus scheme to new applicants, sees changes to advance payments and increases the pension age for non-veterans. This legislation—the Veterans Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009—complements these initiatives and gives effect to three portfolio budget measures of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. These are the extension of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to persons eligible under the Defence Force Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008, the cessation of dependants’ pensions and the payment of pensions and allowances into overseas bank accounts.
Under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, eligible persons may obtain building insurance through the Defence Service Homes (DSH) Insurance Scheme for their home, right of residence in a retirement village, land, building materials and home improvements. Home contents insurance is also available. Currently, persons eligible to access the DSH Insurance Scheme are Australian veterans, serving members or peace keepers or widows or widowers of any of these persons. Under the proposed amendment to the Defence Service Homes Act, Australian Defence Force members who are eligible for the new scheme will also be able to access discounted insurance products offered through the DSH Insurance Scheme. The extension of the scheme is a positive initiative that will provide ADF members who are eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme with an additional benefit. The initiative complements Defence’s new home loan subsidy scheme and creates an attractive package for ADF members.
There are currently about 80,000 building and contents insurance policyholders under the DSH Insurance Scheme. These numbers are reducing at around four percent a year. In 2007, a review of the DSH Insurance Scheme found the scheme should continue for the benefit of its policyholders but recommended an expansion of the scheme’s eligibility and product range to improve its longer term viability. It is expected the additional client numbers and premium revenue generated from amending the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 will enhance the sustainability of the DSH Insurance Scheme.
An estimated 7½ thousand Australian Defence Force and Reserve members will benefit from cost-effective home insurance. The extension of the DSH Insurance Scheme will be self-funding through premiums. This is good policy which will benefit those hardworking men and women of the Defence Force.
The cessation of dependants pensions will see the majority of existing payments of dependants pension cease and a lump sum equal to three years worth of the payment paid to each recipient. Around 26,000 people will receive a lump sum payment of up to $656.76. The dependants pension has not increased since 1952 for children and 1964 for wives, except for a small one-off increase for GST compensation in July 2000. The real value of these pensions has diminished over time and will continue to erode. The lump sum payment is scheduled to be made in September 2009 and will be of more benefit to most recipients than the small fortnightly payment.
The purpose of the payment, when it was introduced in 1914, was to provide financial support to the dependants of veterans. Other government programs, such as income support, available through the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Social Security Act 1991, provide this more effectively.
The minister and the government also announced the initiative to provide payments to an overseas financial institution where the recipient of a payment under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 is residing overseas. At the moment, payments provided to a VEA recipient residing overseas have to be made into a bank account in an Australian financial institution. Then the individual has to arrange the transfer of the funds to themselves overseas. By comparison, most Centrelink pensioners who live overseas in countries with reliable banking systems can receive their pension directly into an overseas bank account.
This measure delivers on a promise by the Prime Minister in 2008 to review the payment arrangements for Australian veterans and war widowers living overseas. This government is a friend to the veterans community and I would again take this opportunity to commend the minister on his legislative agenda and to thank him for his continued support of the veterans community in Northern Tasmania.
I had the pleasure of hosting the minister in Scottsdale, where he unveiled a carved statue of Anzac icon Simpson and his donkey. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the President of the Scottsdale RSL, Mr Bruce Scott, for his organisation and assistance on the day. I would like to pay a particular tribute to Mr Eddie Freeman for his superb craftsmanship of Simpson and his donkey, which he handcrafted out of macrocarpa, which is a fine timber.
The government is committed to maintaining and enhancing services and support to Australia’s ex-service community. As Minister Griffin has said, this legislation continues the progression we have made since coming to government to ensure that the support available through the veterans’ affairs portfolio is effective and equitable. I commend the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009 to the House.
I am taking this opportunity today to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009 so that I can reflect on the circumstances facing Australian veterans. The coalition supports this bill, and I support this bill because these amendments are effective and appropriate changes. As a former major in the Australian Army I welcome the changes, which assist veterans and recognise the role veterans have played in this nation’s past and the important role veterans continue to play in our community. This bill will achieve changes in three areas: firstly, regarding the use of foreign bank accounts by veterans; secondly, providing further insurance options for certain veterans; and, finally, updating matters relating to the dependant pensions scheme.
Within Cowan there are two Returned and Services League sub-branches. There is the Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL and the Ballajura RSL. I would also make mention of the North Perth Naval Association, which operates in Cowan as well as Moore. Before moving on to the specifics of this bill, I would like to pay tribute to the work the RSLs and the Naval Association undertake and the effort the executives put into those branches.
Everyone knows that the service clubs and associations are responsible for the commemorations which take place in the community. While those commemorative services take long hours and great commitment to organise, that is not all of the job; the clubs have other very important functions. Apart from the regular meetings and providing fellowship between veterans, there are also the important welfare and advocacy roles performed by members. Veterans take each others’ health and welfare very seriously; therefore, if a member is in hospital, regular visits will be arranged. No-one is forgotten, and it is easy to appreciate that the values learnt in times of conflict are not easily forgotten or put aside. In speaking to this bill today, it is somewhat disappointing that there are not also some more substantial elements to the veterans’ affairs legislation that we are debating or supporting. I will come to that later.
The essence of this bill has been conveyed to the Ballajura RSL, and they welcome the amendments. The sub-branch is ably overseen by Mike Gilmour, the President; Scotty Alcorn, the Secretary; Barry Burling as Treasurer; Brian Rose as Warden; and Les De Bonde as Pensions Officer. It has been my privilege to have worked with the Ballajura RSL since my election as the member for Cowan, and I observe that the work they undertake, as with all sub-branches, is done with enormous commitment and care for their members.
The Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL, which I am honoured to call the branch of my own membership, has John Xuereb as President, Ron Privilege as Immediate Past President, Wendy Tuffen as Junior Vice President, Rob Frencham as Secretary, John Duffy as Welfare Officer and John O’Keefe as Pensions Officer. Many other committed members who make up the team of hardworking veterans of this sub-branch also welcome the amendments in this bill for the additional support and recognition of veterans both here and overseas. The Perth North subsection of the Naval Association is led by Jack Le Cras, who is also president of the state section of the Naval Association. Doug Valeriani, likewise, is the secretary of both the state section and the Perth North subsection. Both are constituents of mine, I am very proud to say, and both are very busy and dedicated men working for veterans in our state of Western Australia.
I will now address the legislation in some detail. Firstly, the bill changes the law so that veterans pensions and allowances can be paid into overseas bank accounts. I welcome this change, and I know the veterans community also welcomes this change. I understand that this will bring payments from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs into line with other government agencies such as Centrelink. It is a point worth making that veterans served this country, and that service to our nation’s future can never be put aside. If they move to a different country, that does not and should not in any way limit our gratitude or obligation for their service. It is certainly my view that veterans, above all others, should have this form of consideration. I say that this change is good and appropriate. The second significant part of this bill is where those serving and eligible former service men and women who are able to receive the subsidised loan under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 will be able to access home insurance. I understand it is estimated that opening up the system to a greater number of serving and former service men and women will generate, over four years, $1 million through the receipt of premiums in excess of payouts for insurance claims.
Finally, the third element of this bill will see the cessation of the majority of dependants pensions. Under previous repatriation legislation, if a veteran or member was receiving a disability pension for incapacity, in certain circumstances the veteran or member’s dependants were also eligible for a dependants pension in respect of the veteran or member. Amendments to the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985 changed aspects of dependants pensions. For example, previously, upon the death of a veteran, certain dependants other than a partner or child may have been eligible for a dependants pension—sometimes the dependent could be a family member such as a parent, sibling or even grandparent—but the changes to the legislation many years ago meant that future grants of dependants pensions would be made only to an eligible partner or child of a deceased veteran or member.
Of course, those already in receipt of the entitlement retained that entitlement. But changes to the act mentioned above, and other amendments, have meant that there have not been any new grants of this pension since 1985, nor have there been any rate increases for partners since 1964 and for children since 1952. It is a small payment being received by the recipients—for example, the maximum payment has been $8.42 per fortnight for a partner and widows and $2.86 per fortnight for children, with the minimum payments being 84c per fortnight and 29c per fortnight. Clearly it is not efficient or financially sensible to continue to administer this pension, and therefore the coalition supports the move to provide those people still in receipt of this dependants pension with a lump sum. This will be equivalent to three years worth of pensions, or 78 fortnights, and will be exempt from income tax.
While the coalition supports these amendments and this bill, it is unfortunate that there are in reality few new announcements which can be conveyed to our veterans, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, or even promises simply honoured. Even 20 months into its term the Rudd Labor government’s reckless spending has impacted on veterans by delivering few new announcements. What happened to the election promises? Twenty months is a very long time to keep reviewing the reviews. But that is what we have come to expect from this government. Having spoken to the veterans in my electorate of Cowan, I can say that amongst some of them there was an expectation raised by Labor when they said they would deliver on a number of reviews important to the veterans community. Two reviews remain outstanding. Instead of the extreme profligacy exercised by this government, it might have been more appropriate for them to have devoted some attention to the promises they made to veterans. I make reference to the Clarke review and the review into military superannuation. The Clarke review and the review into military superannuation have been undertaken, but no announcements have been made to date. In fact, what we are wondering on this side, and indeed what many veterans are wondering, is whether further consideration of the Clarke review has actually been completed, or whether it is just sitting somewhere, with some minister perhaps, waiting for some attention.
The government knows there is not going to be any money left. They are busy frittering away the money, putting up walls so that plaques can be put on them. The legacy of the coalition’s $22 billion surplus is well and truly spent. But time frames are being extended further and further for government action, so they do not have to admit they cannot deliver to our veterans—or worse, they are not approaching with an appropriate sense of urgency the reviews which have been undertaken and which require attention, consideration and announcements. Labor should pay more attention to the men and women who served this country in our defence forces, and they and should stop this embarrassing charade of ignoring important reviews and allowing lengthy delays for their conclusion, flying in the face of the promises that were made at the last election. I am extremely concerned that veterans will be another casualty of this most recent era of Labor’s reckless spending and the return to Labor basics—a big debt government—and there will simply not be any money available. While I support the bill before the House today and the three amendments which will provide some little assistance and benefit to veterans, I remain concerned that any big issues of concern to them will remain unaddressed in the foreseeable future under this government.
in reply—The Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009 will benefit the ex-service and defence communities and enhance the effectiveness of the repatriation pension system. The first measure provides more convenient payment arrangements for Veterans’ Affairs pension recipients who live permanently overseas. Currently Veterans’ Affairs payments must be paid into a bank account in Australia and the recipients incur bank fees when transferring money internationally. This measure delivers on the Prime Minister’s commitment to review this arrangement and will enable Veterans’ Affairs recipients to have their pensions paid directly into bank accounts in those overseas countries with reliable banking systems.
The second measure will extend eligibility for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to persons eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008. The Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme currently provides home insurance to eligible Australian veterans and members, peacekeepers, widows and widowers. Eligibility for Defence Service Homes Insurance will be extended to those serving and former members and reservists eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme established in 2008. This extension will provide eligible persons with access to cost-effective insurance designed specifically for the service and ex-service community.
The final measure will cease payment of an outdated dependants pension and will pay existing pension recipients a lump-sum payment. This lump-sum payment will be equivalent to three years of pension. Under previous repatriation legislation, certain dependants of veterans or members on disability pensions were eligible for a dependants pension at a rate which reflected the rate of the disability pension paid to the veteran or member. The purpose of the payment when it was introduced was to provide financial support to the dependants of veterans. Other government programs, such as the partner service pension and social security payments, now provide this support more effectively. The maximum fortnightly payments are $8.42 for partners and widows and $2.86 for children. The minimum payments are 84c and 29c respectively. This small pension has been virtually frozen for many decades and new grants of the pension ceased in 1985.
The government will pay a one-off payment equivalent to three years of payments to current recipients. Entitlement to the dependant pension will cease on 22 September 2009. We anticipate the lump-sum payment will be made on 24 September 2009. It should be noted that dependant pensions that were granted on the basis that the person was without adequate means of support are not part of this measure and continue to be paid at existing rates. I also want to make it quite clear that existing war widow and widower and orphan pensions are not affected by this measure.
This bill continues this government’s commitment to an effective and equitable repatriation system that responsibly supports Australia’s ex-service and defence communities. I will take this opportunity to address some of the issues raised in the debate across the House. I thank the House for the broad support for these measures from both the opposition and, of course, the government, but I think it is only fair to pick up on some of the points that have been made with respect to some of these issues. I will start off with a couple of broad points.
What we are seeing from the opposition today is a situation where they are endorsing measures that they had over a decade in government to act upon. We are now seeing a situation where the opposition all of a sudden have had an epiphany on so many issues in the veterans’ affairs area and now they are concerned. I will give you an example. The first measure I mentioned was around the question of convenient payment arrangements for pensioner recipients who live permanently overseas. This was a matter raised by Legacy in their budget wish list every year for quite some time—certainly for all the years that I was the shadow minister and before that. The previous government ignored it. The previous government would not act upon it. It is good to see them today in a position where they did not do it but can approve the fact that we have done it. But when they had the chance they did not do it—they did not for over a decade.
It does not stop there. Let us go through some other issues. Previous speakers have talked about some of the reviews that are underway. It is passing strange that what we have got here is an opposition who, when they were in government and had an opportunity to act on some of these issues, refused to do so. Let us take for example the issue of the Clarke review. The Clarke review made a series of recommendations which the previous government refused to act upon. They refused to act upon them. Now they are complaining that we are taking too long to act on things that they either refused to consider or rejected.
Let us go to another issue: the F111 deseal-reseal, which was mentioned by at least one of the previous speakers. I made a commitment in opposition to ensure that a parliamentary inquiry through one of the committees took place to consider some of the outstanding issues—because there were outstanding issues. On the very day I made that commitment, the then minister, the member for Dunkley, refused to act. No-one on that side of the chamber—or, at that stage, when they were on this side of the chamber in government—was prepared to act. Now they are saying that we are taking too long.
Superannuation is another issue that was mentioned. Let us again be clear on that. The government are taking quite some time—absolutely—to ensure that we get the issue of military superannuation right and the question of reviewing indexation issues through the Matthews report properly considered. But there are two points in relation to the previous government. Firstly, on the issue of indexation, they would not budge. They did not budge for more than a decade. They would not act. They did not act. They refused to even consider it.
Then we go to the question of military superannuation. The report was received by the then government in something like July 2007 and they refused to release it. They would not even allow a situation where people could see what that review proposed. They would not provide a government response and they would not even tell people what was in the report. They would not consult with the ex-service community or other interested parties. They just sat on it. We have gone through a process and we are considering that within government and a response will follow in due course. But it is a bit rich for people who refused to even release the report publicly to come out and say, ‘What are you doing?’—when all they did was hide.
I think probably the biggest issue, which was mentioned by the member for Paterson, relates to pension reform, particularly the question of the special-rate TPI pension. The member for Paterson quoted from a letter from the national president of the TPI federation. Let us get the context right so that people can understand this. The government’s response to pension reform, based on the issue of income support pensions, came out through the budget after the Harmer report. It produced a series of figures which related to the circumstances around those who are reliant on income support payments from government. It is true that that does not cover disability pensions as provided through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for war-caused disabilities. Those are compensation payments. They are separate from the question of income support—and so they should be. It is a longstanding principle. But the interesting thing here is that we have some on the other side suggesting that they might be interested and potentially willing to support some increases in relation to that area. Again, it is amazing what happens when all of a sudden you cannot make a decision. All of a sudden they are thinking about making them or they are suggesting they might or they are intimating they will.
It needs to be remembered what the position of the now opposition has been around the question of income support reform during this term. Let us give them some credit—they at least had a policy in this area. Members remember that under the previous Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, the member for Bradfield, the circumstances were that they made an announcement in the lead-up to that reform process about a $30 a week increase in the single age pension. There is a problem with that, isn’t there? It excludes a whole range of other pensioners and income support recipients, including those within the veteran community who are on service pensions. The RSL raised this question and said, ‘We’re sure that the opposition means to include service pensions and we can’t believe that they don’t.’ Guess what—they did not. Their initial proposal did not include service pensioners. It did not even include aged service pensioners.
Then what happened? There was a change of leadership. I am talking about the last one, not the one that is about to happen. In that change of leadership, the circumstances were that there was a change in the position and they added in service pensioners. They still excluded a whole range of others who were on income support payments and they still excluded a whole range of deserving people within the veterans community, but they did at least finally include aged service pensioners in their proposal. They never at any time included disability pensions through veterans affairs. So on one of the few occasions when we actually had a policy from the opposition, it specifically excluded those for whom they are now suggesting they may be interested in providing some support.
They have a track record on this. You have to look at what they did with respect to this area when they were in government. When they were in government, they presided over a massive erosion of the value of the special rate pension in relation to male total average weekly earnings. Until the very throes of the last election, they never ensured that the indexation system in place allowed for maintenance of value for those pensions under male total average weekly earnings. They only did it and announced it in September of 2007 and they only did it after we announced our policy at the time of the May budget in 2007, when we committed as an opposition to act according to that approach in government.
That is what we did. We supported that approach when the government finally agreed to put it forward in the shadows of the election, we endorsed it, and we carried it through in government. But it took them 10 years to take action to address that anomaly, and now they are suggesting that—just maybe—they will do something about it now. That is what we are seeing right across the board here. Less than two years ago, they were in government, they were leaders of power. They had 10-plus years of opportunity to fix all these outstanding issues. Now this government is acting on some of those issues, reviewing what was not done, working out the best way forward and considering issues that they ignored over so many years. Now they are basically encouraging us to act quickly on matters and issues that they refused to act upon, matters and issues that they rejected, and matters and issues on which they acted inconsistently when in government but have now all of a sudden had some sort of conversion on the road to Damascus. Frankly, it is amazing, it is galling and it does them no credit whatsoever.
This bill deserves to be supported, because it addresses some longstanding issues. I will pick up another one. We had the member for Lindsay talking about the fact that under the mental health funding in the budget there is only some $9.5 million to deal with these issues within veterans’ affairs. He said he did not think that was enough. Let us go back through that. That $9.5 million comes as a result of recommendations that came from Professor Dunt’s report into suicide in the ex-service community. It is part of a package which relates to another $83 million over the forward estimates with respect to mental health issues inside Defence and in the transition out. All of this relates to the issues dealing with the ex-service community, both those who are ex-service now and those who will be in the years ahead. But let us remember the genesis for this: the commitment that we made, while in opposition, to an inquiry into suicide in the ex-service community. Guess what—again this was a proposal put forward to the previous government and rejected. This was a proposal to which the previous government said, ‘No, it won’t produce results; it is not necessary.’ What it led to under this government is the series of recommendations we are now dealing with that will address some of the neglect that has occurred in this area. It has led to some $90 million-plus across two portfolios to deal with these sorts of issues.
We have members of the opposition saying that this is not enough—in a situation where their own government rejected having the inquiry that is the basis for this increase. They did not think there was such a problem that it was even worth looking at and now they cry crocodile tears, suggesting that it is not enough money. I ask where the member for Lindsay, the member for Paterson and the member for Greenway were when their government was rejecting taking this action in the first place. Where were they when these matters should have been looked at under the previous government? Anyone who thinks that these matters have cropped up in only the last two years is on I do not know what planet, but I do not think it is Earth. I commend the bill to the House.
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.
I move:
That order of the day No 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Ms Gillard:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise again to speak on the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2]. It is with a sense of disbelief that I find myself speaking yet again on this bill, one that has been reintroduced in exactly the same terms as the original bill that we debated last year. Its reintroduction in exactly the same terms as those which the Senate failed to pass last year is another sign that this government and this minister have been seized by a level of arrogance and hubris that really beggars belief. It is further evidence that this government views the role of the Senate and this parliament as merely a rubberstamp for Labor policy.
The Labor Party believe that it is ‘my way or the highway.’ This is policymaking at its very worst. We have seen a good example of that this week with the ETS scheme and the Labor Party’s complete inability to countenance that anybody but themselves can have good ideas or should even be engaged in the debate. It is a display of contempt not only for this parliament but also for the relevant stakeholders, who are the ones actually affected by this bill. Of course these stakeholders have expressed serious reservations about the Safe Work Australia Bill in its present form.
As history will show, this bill was laid aside last year after the government refused to accept the amendments made by the Senate. I will remind the House what those amendments were, because they were eminently sensible. The amendments improved the bill by outlining the objects for the new body, Safe Work Australia. There seemed to be a significant oversight in the drafting of the bill in that there were no objectives for the new body contained within the bill. The Senate rectified that when the coalition moved the amendments. The amendments restored effective levels of representation to employer and employee representatives on Safe Work Australia. It seems remarkable that the people who are ultimately affected by occupational health and safety—the workers and employers themselves—have less say on this new body than do state government bureaucracies. We moved amendments that introduced a balanced voting process designed to engage and include the very people actually affected by safety laws—workers and industry. We moved amendments to ensure that workers and industry were effectively and ably represented by the appropriate peak representative groups. We freed the peak representative groups from excessive ministerial interference when it came to appointing their own representatives. We freed the CEO of Safe Work Australia from excessive ministerial interference in the management of the new body. Finally, this bill was amended to establish an audit committee to examine the finances and expenditure of Safe Work Australia. None of this, I would have thought, is particularly controversial.
To amend a bill in the Senate, you need to not only use the numbers contained in either one of the two major political parties—neither have the numbers to amend legislation by themselves in the Senate—but also make your argument and get the support of other senators. It is worth noting that the amendments made to this bill were supported by every other non-Labor Senator. These amendments were supported by Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding, and they were also supported by all the Australian Greens senators. These amendments were also supported by substantial interest groups outside the parliament, not least of which were the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
If the House could just reflect on that for one moment: we have amendments that were supported by every other non-Labor Senator—including Senator Xenophon, Senator Fielding and the Australian Greens—and outside the parliament by the ACTU and ACCI. When all those diverse groups can find common cause to improve government legislation, you would think that might give the government pause and lead them to reconsider their approach. They might say: ‘Hang on, maybe we don’t have all the good ideas. Maybe these amendments supported by such a diverse group are worth considering.’ But of course they refused to do that. This minister is far too arrogant and is filled with her own self-importance. She will not countenance that amendments supported by such a diverse group could be worth considering; hence we see the bill reintroduced in exactly the same form as it was originally introduced.
We all recognise that achieving a national OH&S system is a very desirable outcome. Indeed, all the senators who supported the amendments support the creation of a national OH&S system. Everybody recognises that ensuring that workplaces across the country have the same rules for safety will deliver better and more effective outcomes for workers and for enterprises. We all recognise that in order to ensure a national system can be rolled out effectively, Safe Work Australia would need to be established to allow true representation of the social partners—those representing workers and enterprise—on the committee.
Those who hold a genuine interest in OH&S know that this bill and the agency it seeks to create is not the be-all and end-all in achieving this national reform. Those following this debate will know that a review has taken place into a model set of national OH&S laws. This review was charged with the enormously challenging task of determining a model framework upon which OH&S laws could be applied consistently throughout the country—as I said, a goal long held by the opposition and by other senators who moved to amend this bill in the Senate. The review panel continued its work and, fortunately for all those concerned, it has undertaken its work seriously and earnestly. By and large, the opposition considers the panel’s work sensible and balanced. Importantly—unlike the government and the minister—the review panel actually went out and listened to the views of workers and enterprise, and recognised that it is these stakeholders who are more important to delivering occupational health and safety outcomes than state government bureaucracies.
Even when reintroducing this bill, the minister gave as the primary reason for doing so her obligation under the intergovernmental agreement. So it is not that she wants to improve occupational health and safety, it is not that she wants workers to be better protected and it is not that she wants a more efficient system for private enterprise; it is that she has obligations to the state governments. That was her primary reason for reintroducing this bill and that is why we are discussing it again here today.
Despite that, we in the opposition have been very heartened by the sensible approach to occupational health and safety that has been taken by the review committee. The danger, which we were always concerned about, was that the New South Wales occupational health and safety system would be rolled out across the country, which would have been disastrous for all concerned. For those who are not aware, the occupational health and safety system in New South Wales is recognised—as are so many other things in the New South Wales administration—as being the worst in the nation. It has been widely criticised by many stakeholders for many years as being archaic, unwieldy and nothing more than a punitive legislative instrument, as opposed to an instrument that encourages better occupational health and safety outcomes.
Within the New South Wales system there is an automatic and inescapable presumption of guilt. This has long breached the fundamental right in systems of justice that people are innocent until proven guilty, something which we are all entitled to. The New South Wales system is unfair to workers and unfair to enterprise. There are a lot of examples from New South Wales of people being unfairly convicted of work safety breaches over which they had absolutely no control or influence. To make matters much worse, there is no right of appeal against these criminal convictions within the New South Wales system. Astonishingly, if the prosecution is undertaken by a trade union then half the penalty from the prosecution will be paid to the prosecuting union.
There is absolutely no doubt that the New South Wales system acts as a disincentive to growth and development within that state. It is one of the reasons why we find things always lagging in New South Wales and why it is recognised in so many areas that the New South Wales administration is the worst in the country. When I have had discussions about occupational health and safety with people around the country, they have often said to me that things could be much worse; we could be in New South Wales. The New South Wales system is really a ball and chain that is dragged along by that state and is one of the reasons why unfortunately we find New South Wales lagging in so many areas of economic development.
So it has been a great relief to the opposition that the review panel recognised the unworkable nature of the New South Wales regime and drafted a model framework that is loosely based on the Victorian system. The review panel has sensibly recognised that you get better occupational health and safety outcomes from an approach of encouragement, support and education of stakeholders, not from a legally questionable and penalty based regime such as that in New South Wales.
An even greater relief to those who are genuinely interested in occupational health and safety reform is the knowledge that the Workplace Relations Ministers Council has, in general, adopted the recommendations of the review panel. This means that national laws which provide consistency, certainty and the hope of achieving real and genuine outcomes for occupational health and safety around the nation can now be adopted. It means that workers and enterprise can now get on with the business of genuinely improving safety in workplaces throughout Australia.
Despite these positive developments—and I am pleased to report to the House that the opposition believes that these developments are positive—the coalition still holds reservations about this bill, as it has been reintroduced in its original format. We have extensively debated these concerns in this House and in the Senate and we have primarily focused on why this government believes that state government bureaucracies should have a greater say in this system than workers and enterprise. We firmly believe that the amendments we moved previously, which were accepted by the Senate, would have made Safe Work Australia a better body and put it in a much better position to facilitate the move to a national occupational health and safety system. It makes sense to get this reform right from the very beginning. However, we have always recognised that this is a very important national reform. We have long supported the efficiencies and the better outcomes that will be gained through a national system. With the positive developments in the creation of a national system in mind, I can confirm that the coalition will no longer press our previous amendments. We recognise that what is important here is achieving a national occupational health and safety system.
Unlike Labor, the coalition does not hold the view that it is ‘my way or the highway’. We believe that it makes sense to actually sit down and talk to people about how we might improve legislation in this House—clearly something that Labor does not believe in, as has been reinforced by events in the House this week. We do not see parliament just as a rubber stamp; we see it as a forum for debate that can improve legislative outcomes. But we see the government as contemptuous, belligerent and arrogant. Their approach is always: ‘Do it our way. We are not interested in talking to you, we are not interested in compromising and we are not interested in improving the bill, regardless of how many people are telling us that it can be improved.’ This will be noted by all who have observed this and other debates in the House this week.
Although the road to achieving nationally consistent occupational health and safety reform will be a little longer due to the inadequacies of this bill and Labor’s belief that state bureaucrats are more important than workers and employers, at least with the passage of this bill we will be moving down the path to a national OH&S system—something the opposition has always believed is desirable. Therefore, as I said earlier, we will not be pressing forward with our amendments.
I rise to speak in favour of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2]. It beggars belief that the member for Stirling went on about arrogance and about not listening. As the member over here just said to me, they seem to forget about Work Choices and how they steamrolled that through without much consultation. There was a certain amount of arrogance present in that debate. Anyway, moving on, I rise to speak in favour of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2].
The government has set itself the task of creating a seamless national economy unhampered by unnecessary state duplications, overlaps and differences. We do this because we care about building a better Australia now and into the future. Occupational health and safety is a prime candidate for this sort of reform. It is a fact that 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 from death or injury has been estimated at $34 billion per year. The cost to those injured and to their families, workmates and friends is inestimable.
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 (1) undertaken a review of the Comcare scheme, (2) set up an independent panel of experts to conduct a national OHS review and (3) developed a landmark intergovernmental agreement with our state and territory counterparts to harmonise occupational health and safety legislation nationally. 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. It is 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, which was 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. Safe Work Australia will (1) develop national policy relating to OHS and workers compensation, (2) prepare, monitor and revise model OHS legislation, (3) develop a compliance and enforcement policy to ensure nationally consistent regulatory approaches across all jurisdictions, (4) develop proposals relating to the harmonisation of workers compensation arrangements, (5) collect, analyse and publish occupational health and safety and workers compensation data and undertake and publish research and (6) drive national communications strategies to raise awareness of health and safety at work.
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. The purpose of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2] is to establish Safe Work Australia as an independent Commonwealth statutory body to improve occupational health and safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements across Australia.
The bill will play a pivotal role in realising the government’s commitment to working cooperatively with state and territory governments to improve occupational health and safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements in Australia by empowering Safe Work Australia to (1) develop national policy in respect of OHS and workers compensation, (2) prepare model OHS legislation and model OHS codes of practice for approval by the Workplace Relations Ministers Council and adoption by the Commonwealth, the states and territories, (3) develop a compliance and enforcement policy to ensure that a nationally consistent approach is taken to compliance and enforcement, (4) develop proposals relating to the harmonisation of workers compensation arrangements across all jurisdictions and proposals for national workers compensation arrangements for employers with workers in more than one jurisdiction, (5) build expertise across OHS laws and workers compensation schemes that will be readily accessible across jurisdictions and industries and will reduce the complexity and costs for businesses, including businesses that operate across state boundaries and (6) undertake data collection and research and publish findings to ensure that all jurisdictions and industries have access to up-to-date and industry specific information that will enable employers and workers to adopt practices that will reduce instances of risk and injury in workplaces across Australia.
Safe Work Australia will be a reform focused body with the power to make recommendations directly to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council. Safe Work Australia will be funded by both the Commonwealth, 50 per cent, and the states and territories, also 50 per cent. The bill will also create and maintain mechanisms for review and revision of the effectiveness of Safe Work Australia in performing its functions. This will ensure that the body is active and operating efficiently and responsively in meeting its strategic and operational goals.
Finally, one of Safe Work Australia’s primary functions will be to develop national policy relating to OHS and workers compensation. National policy developed by Safe Work Australia will be used to drive harmonisation initiatives such as the adoption and implementation of model OHS legislation and consistent enforcement and compliance strategies, and the harmonisation of workers compensation arrangements across the Commonwealth, the states and the territories. I conclude by commending this bill to the House.
As the shadow small business minister, I rise to speak to the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2], the reintroduction of Labor’s bill with respect to the formation of Safe Work Australia from its original iteration as the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008. The bill, as many speakers in this debate have highlighted, will actually create and establish Safe Work Australia as the national body with responsibility for ensuring safe workplaces. It is, in effect, creating a national occupational health and safety system. Although the bill itself does not go to the framework of the legislation, it does of course establish the agency responsible for it in the form of Safe Work Australia.
Previously, I and other members of the coalition spoke in strong terms against the legislation as it stood at the time because of a number of key concerns that we had about how it would ultimately impact on workplaces all across Australia. Our concerns were supported in various ways by the Greens, Family First and Senator Xenophon in the other chamber. In the other place, the bill was defeated. It was defeated for good reason. It was defeated because the legislation contained a number of myopic attitudes with respect to the nationalisation of Australia’s OH&S system. Nonetheless, the coalition, with the passage of time, take the view that it is time to move forward.
Not everything about the bill is bad—that is for certain. I am happy to put that on the record. There are certainly principles and endeavours contained within the government’s legislation to try to establish a national framework that we are supportive of. In that vein, the coalition will let the legislation go through because, from our perspective, we do need to continue to move forward and not become overly stagnant in our approach to this type of legislation. More importantly, we recognise that, flawed though it may be, this Labor bill needs to go through to ensure that we take some steps towards a nationally harmonised system of occupational health and safety.
I reassert, as I have previously, that OH&S is not something that the Australian Labor Party has a monopoly on. I know those members opposite like to consider themselves the only friends of the worker in Australia—although you would have to question that, given how many fewer people actually have jobs these days than before the Labor Party was elected. Nonetheless, the reality is that the Australian Labor Party likes to hold itself out as having a monopoly when it comes to concern over safe workplaces. But, contrary to that opinion held by the Australian Labor Party, they do not have a monopoly. In fact, employees and employers working together have a dual responsibility to ensure safe workplaces. It is crucial that there is a bipartisan approach from those groups to ensure that workplaces are safe places to work and that Australians do not lose their lives or become in some way disabled as a result of the activities that take place in their workplace. That is especially the case with respect to accidents that unfortunately will occur.
In that respect, nationally consistent legislation does have merit. It has merit because it does provide for productivity gains for those businesses that operate across various jurisdictions. As I have outlined previously, my concern about the quest for nationally consistent legislation is that, outside of the operation of this bill, as part of the push by the Australian Labor Party to develop a nationally consistent framework, we will see the inverse of the lowest common denominator. What I mean by that is that the actual imposition of an OH&S system across workplaces all around Australia means they will effectively adopt a high-water mark when it comes to safe workplaces.
There might be many Australians who will say, ‘What is wrong with that? Why would we be concerned about having workplaces that might be considered’—for lack of a better term—‘too safe?’ Of course, you cannot have a workplace that is too safe. But what you can have is a workplace so shackled by red tape and bureaucratic requirements in the quest to develop safe workplaces that there is in fact a crimp in productivity, employment and the profitability of businesses all around Australia. As the shadow small business minister, that is at the core of my concern with respect to the ultimate framework that is laid out as part of a national OH&S system.
Unfortunately, the Labor Party just does not understand that, or if they do understand it they are not willing to concede it. It manifests itself in a number of ways in the legislation, We have seen a reduction in the membership of Safe Work Australia of private employer bodies like, for example, ACCI. This was a view that was also shared by those on the other side of the coin in terms of the trade union movement. Both these groups have something valuable to contribute as part of the discussion about what will take Australian workplaces forward to ensure that they are safe environments, yet both have largely been sidelined, in my view, as a result of this legislation that is before the House. It does require some panelbeating, and I look forward to being part of a coalition government that will ensure that we do apply an appropriate panelbeating technique to get this legislation—and ultimately Safe Work Australia and the national OH&S system—into a better form than is currently before the House.
The coalition have said that we are prepared to be pragmatic with respect to this piece of legislation. We want to ensure that we do not require the House to look at the amendments that were previously adopted by the Senate during the debate on the original bill. As I said, recently we were heartened by the response of the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council to the recommendations as part of the national review into model OH&S laws that concluded in January this year. This review had the challenging task of recommending a framework upon which a nationally consistent OH&S will be based. There are a number of recommendations which, in the coalition’s view, represent a balanced and reasonable approach to OH&S. Through the WRMC, the nation’s workplace relations ministers have assured their agreement on a number of the recommended principles for the new national OH&S laws. This consistency is certainly to be applauded in that respect. Modelling the laws broadly on the Victorian style OH&S laws, and not those of New South Wales, was a big step forward. That lay at the core of some of my concerns when I spoke about having an overly bureaucratic approach to ensuring a safe workplace.
As I travel around Australia, New South Wales is consistently cited as being the very worst example of what can happen when OH&S laws get out of control. New South Wales OH&S laws have certainly been a major impediment to the creation of employment in that state. One small business person after another has raised that concern with me. Their concern was that the OH&S system imposed by the state—not to mention the reversal of proof—was so onerous that it put a crimp in employment. At a time when cash-flow is a concern for 93 per cent of small businesses, when they are making decisions on a marginal basis about whether to employ someone or even to hang on to the employees they have got, this approach could have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. So I welcome the decision of the WRMC in that respect.
We continue to have some concerns with this bill, as I have outlined. The objects of the new body would certainly be an improvement to the bill. Restoring effective levels of representation to employee and employer representatives, the so-called social partners that I outlined previously, in the form of the trade union movement and ACCI, would be an improvement. Introducing a more balanced voting process that is designed to engage and that actually includes those people in our community who are directly affected by safety laws—that is, workers and their employers—would be an improvement. Ensuring that we do not have ministerial interference when appointing social representatives would be another step forward, as well as ensuring that workers and industry are effectively and ably represented by the peak representative groups that this bill refers to. I also believe—and this is the position of the coalition—that the CEO of Safe Work Australia needs to be able to operate without interference by the minister with respect to the management of Safe Work Australia. Finally, as has been outlined, an audit committee should be put in place to examine the finances and expenditure of Safe Work Australia. These are all sensible amendments that are designed to facilitate a move towards a fairer and more effective OH&S system, and we believe the government would be well advised to look very closely at incorporating these amendments into the legislation.
I make no apology for the fact that the coalition continue to harbour concerns about the approach that the Labor Party have taken. As much as they window-dress this legislation and try to say that it is purely and simply focused on safe workplaces, the reality is that we all know about that. We are all concerned about safe workplaces. But this side of the House is also concerned about good laws and ensuring that safe workplaces are developed in partnership with the goal of creating employment opportunities for young Australians and ensuring that we do not in any way threaten the viability or, indeed, the appetite of businesses, especially small businesses, to employ more Australians.
At its core, this legislation will not face any frustration from the opposition, but we certainly urge the government to be apprised of the fact that there are a number of deficiencies in the legislation as it currently rests. Although the ultimate goal is worthy of support—and that is why we will provide that support—there should be more done to ensure that this legislation more appropriately takes into account the very genuine and sincerely held view of many small business owners across this country that there are ways to improve this legislation.
I rise to speak on the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2]. This is a very important bill for the Rudd Labor government and the Labor Party. As the party that has stood up for working people for over 100 years, there are three key issues that we have stood on and continue to fight for: wages and conditions, job security and worker safety. Few political organisations across the world could boast the success that the Australian Labor Party has had with respect to wages and conditions. Just ask American workers, ‘What is annual leave?’ I suspect that many would not be able to say what it is and certainly many would not be able to cite examples of paid annual leave.
The second area in which the Labor Party have a long and proud track record is job security. Again, we have been very successful in ensuring that Australian workers have strong protections and measures in place to protect the security of their employment. No other issue played a bigger part at the last election than job security. The Work Choices regime took job security away and put in place a regime that allowed workers to be sacked anywhere, for any reason and with no comeback. The Labor Party ran a very strong anti-Work Choices campaign focused on unfair dismissal. This was absolutely central to getting rid of the Howard government and restoring job security for workers across Australia.
Job security and wages and conditions are very important aspects of the work that we have undertaken historically in this place for working Australians, but even more important than those issues is the question of worker safety. Every Australian has a right to be safe in their workplace. Every working Australian has a right to return home at the end of the day safe and sound. That is what this bill is all about. The purpose of this bill is to establish Safe Work Australia as an independent Commonwealth statutory body to improve occupational health and safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements in Australia. The bill establishes the operational arrangements to support SWA, 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 WRMC. It enables the chair to constitute committees to draw upon a wide range of expertise for the performance of those functions.
The list of tasks that I have just read out which Safe Work Australia is bound to carry out is indicative of the level of sophistication Australia is now getting to on the question of workplace safety. This is a tribute to how the Labor Party and our affiliate unions have campaigned in workplaces, in communities and in this parliament to achieve gains for working Australians. The benefits are not confined to individual working Australians and their families; the benefits are for the whole nation. Thank goodness we have got past the mentality of many employers of yesteryear, where they thought they could send young people down the mines and those sorts of things. Today every employer understands that it makes good economic sense to have safety in the workplace and that it protects the interests of not only their organisations but the people who work for them.
Before getting to the detail of this bill, I would like to go through some basic statistics on safety in Australian workplaces. These statistics are from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and I believe that is the best place to access such information. Broadly the picture is as follows. Of the 11 million working Australians, over 700,000 people experienced at least one work related injury or illness. The work related injury rate is around 64 per 1,000 people employed. More men than women experienced a workplace related injury. Differences in age make a difference. Studies have shown that younger workers sustain work related injuries at a higher rate than older workers. Factors contributing to this include their employment in industries with high injury rates, such as the service and retail sectors, possible lack of awareness of workplace safety, inexperience on the job and a lack of adequate training provided by employers. Older workers, aged 55 years and over, experience the lowest work related injury rates, somewhere around 50 per 1,000 people employed.
Injury rates differ depending on the industry. People working in industries involving physical work are at higher risk of experiencing a work related injury. Industries recording the highest injury rates are agriculture, forestry and fishing, which come in at somewhere around 109 injuries per 1,000 people employed. Manufacturing has a high proportion, with around 87 injuries per 1,000 workers, and construction has 86 injuries per 1,000 workers. Industries with the highest work related injury rates for women are accommodation, cafes and restaurants. Those statistics come in at somewhere in the vicinity of 98 injuries per 1,000 women employed. The statistics go on and on.
I want to talk a bit about the costs as well. As we know, the workplace injury cost to Australia, although we are driving it down, is still immense. A work related injury may involve a number of costs, including loss of income, medical expenses and loss of productivity. There may also be compensation for a reduced quality of life or for treatment of long-term injury or illness. In some cases, as we know, there may also be legal fees and investigative costs or fines and penalties. In 2004 the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission estimated that the total cost of work related injuries for the financial year 2005-06 would be at least $34.9 billion. The great challenge we have is to bring that figure down and bring workers home to their families safely at the end of the day. That is what is behind this bill.
Safe Work Australia, SWA, will be a reform focused body with the power to make recommendations directly to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council. SWA will replace the Australian Safety and Compensation Council. SWA will be funded by both the Commonwealth, with around 50 per cent, and the states and territories with the balance. SWA will be a tripartite body comprising 15 members, including an independent chair and nine members representing the Commonwealth and each state and territory. That is fantastic.
A specific charter of responsibilities has been developed for SWA. Safe Work Australia will develop a national policy relating to occupational health and safety and workers compensation. It will prepare, monitor and revise model occupational health and safety legislation. It will develop a compliance and enforcement policy to ensure nationally consistent regulatory approaches across all of Australia’s jurisdictions. It will develop proposals relating to the harmonisation of workers compensation arrangements throughout Australia. It will collect, analyse and publish OH&S and workers compensation data and undertake and publish research. It will drive national communication strategies to raise the awareness of health and safety at work. It will further develop a national occupational health and safety strategy beyond where we are today.
The bill will also create and maintain mechanisms for review and revision of the effectiveness of SWA in performing its functions. This will ensure that the body is active and operating effectively and responsively in meeting its strategic and operational goals. SWA will replace the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, which was set up and administered by the previous government as an advisory council. In contrast to that body, SWA will be funded by both the Commonwealth and the states and territories, and it will provide a central role in occupational health and safety and workers compensation reform.
The Rudd government is moving to reform the national economy in a number of ways. We want to get rid of the state duplications that have existed historically within Australia. SWA will have a critical role here. There is no doubt that national companies have an additional burden in sorting through the different state compensation regimes and occupational health and safety rules. Workers have the same problems across this nation. If you are a worker from WA you often have to learn about new safety laws if you move to Victoria. In my view, this makes no sense. It makes no sense for employers and it makes no sense for workers to have to learn two different sets of safety rules and procedures for undertaking the same job. I hope SWA will play a leading role in reform on this front.
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 being elected, the Rudd government have undertaken a review of the Comcare scheme, set up an independent panel of experts to conduct a national occupational health and safety review and developed a landmark intergovernmental agreement with our state and territory counterparts to harmonise occupational health and safety legislation nationally.
In July 2008, there was a historic meeting that should be noted in this debate. For the first time, all state ministers and the Commonwealth sat down and agreed on harmonising occupational health and safety legislation. It was an historic day that workers from just a few decades ago could only have dreamed of. This bill is one of the big steps in moving towards that great vision. The day that this vision is brought to fruition will be a very good day for Australia, and I do not think many people on any side of politics would disagree with that. I am hopeful that this bill heralds the first chapter of real substance of a very important new era of cooperation between the states and the Commonwealth on occupational health and safety and compensation.
Safe Work Australia will replace the Australian Safety and Compensation Council established by the previous government. Safe Work Australia will develop national policy relating to workers compensation. These reforms are historic. I would like to congratulate the minister for workplace relations, Minister Gillard, on the great work that she has done to get this bill, and the process, to the stage it is at today. In the past, people said that reform like this would be impossible. The minister has shown that with hard work, compromise and goodwill it is possible. This is another great Labor reform for workers and a great reform for business.
I would like to conclude on this point: we have come a long way but there is still a long way to go with workers occupational health and safety and compensation arrangements. More than 300 Australians are killed every 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, as I mentioned earlier, has been estimated to be $34.9 billion per year. The cost to those injured and to their families, work mates and friends is inestimable. This bill, I believe, is the next big step we need to take to tackle those statistics, to get more people home uninjured from their workplaces and to get more Australian businesses to be even more productive and safe places to work. I commend this great Labor bill to the House.
The Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2] is important legislation. In the Australian workplace today the harmonisation of the rules under which it operates are always to be commended. The problem is that so often, to achieve that, central government is forced to accept what one might term the lowest common denominator, and in the case of occupational health and safety we are talking about the most draconian type of proposal. I am encouraged by the advice I have received from our shadow minister that in this case the disastrous legislation that exists in New South Wales will not be the format considered by Safe Work Australia. Safe Work Australia will not be the administrator. Safe Work Australia will just be the oversighting agency, obviously with an expectation that there will be cooperation between the state agencies in the harmonisation process.
New South Wales is, of course, the economic basket case of Australia. It enjoys the largest population and some of the largest agricultural areas and has many other attributes, including considerable mineral reserves in the case of coal, and yet it is broke. The case arose of a New Zealand based company being charged with a crime and found guilty because they had to prove their own innocence. A board of directors sitting in New Zealand I presume was no longer able to visit Australia for fear of arrest because one of their employees in Australia had been injured at work. That must be identified as the highest degree of farce, but it is a very clear message: if you want to start a business, do not start it in New South Wales because you might go to jail for something of which you did not even have any knowledge. Quite clearly in the decentralised and national type businesses of today the thought that a director or a managing director who might occupy an office in one state could be found to be criminally negligent in another state, without the opportunity of defence, is ridiculous. It just goes too far, and one can only anticipate that those appointed to this board will take the view that the Australian legal principle of innocent until proved guilty must be a substantial component of any such legislation.
It will also be a challenge for this new body to ensure that occupational health and safety is policed by officers of the Crown and not by trade unions. Again in New South Wales it was virtually a sport: if you could get somebody convicted you got half the fine. There was a profit in occupational health and safety and the protection of workers. The major profit for the trade union movement around Australia has been canvassing for members. I have no belief whatsoever in the likes of Joe McDonald of the CFMEU in Western Australia, who wants to walk onto worksites and abuse people and threaten them with physical violence and all sorts of other things because he is there for their personal safety. I guess if you get a bunch of fives in the mouth from McDonald or one of the heavies who follow him around that is an occupational health and safety issue you are supposed to cop. But the reality is that trade unions are there primarily to look after the wages and conditions of workers, and if government is to legislate for the occupational health and safety of people as it should, it must provide the inspectorate services and they must be exclusive. A union, of course, as with any individual, has the responsibility, as they have with other events where there is a breach of the law, to report that to the appropriate authority. But it will be a very sad day if this legislation is used for the purpose of giving trade unionists access for the purpose of canvassing membership on the device that they are of the view that there is some form of breach of safety standards. That is why these matters have got to be put on the record.
The member for Corangamite, who has gone, listed in the area of work related injury the forestry industry—or what is left of it, as it has been demolished by green activists. Funnily enough, an issue of considerable improved safety for workers, be it in a plantation or in a native forest, is the process of clear-felling. Clear-felling leaves the worker on clear ground. Historically, when one had selective felling, you went through and you put a ribbon of some nature on tree X and then walked through the scrub to another tree and put another thing on that. Workers then went in there on foot, surrounded by scrub, and had to use a chainsaw to cut down a single tree. The fact of life was that it was extremely dangerous. When, as I said, they work from clear ground it is not nearly as dangerous. It was one of the most basic reasons for the clear-felling so criticised by green activists. In fact, there are excellent reasons to do so from an environmental perspective because when you clear-fell an area the regrowth is representative of the entire forestry infrastructure as compared to going through and cutting down the best trees and letting lesser quality material take over because it is left standing. I thought it was worth making that point.
The reality is that some quite sensible amendments to this legislation were proposed previously by the coalition. They were rejected notwithstanding the fact that most other senators also saw their merit, as I understand did the trade union movement and the employer organisations. They have been rejected, and in the interest of achieving the fundamental outcome, which is the harmonisation of an occupational health and safety standard around Australia, the coalition is not this time making such amendments. We will concede that the bill is going to be necessary. It appears that the only people to lose from the failure of these amendments are the very people that matter most, the people that will be controlled by this matter, and that is workers as employees. But that will be dealt with presumably over time.
There is not much else to say about this legislation other than that I hope that putting together the policies of the future Safe Work Australia will create a circumstance where the responsibility to protect yourself resides as much with you as it does with your employer. I was an employer for many years and as such was astounded on occasions at how little respect the average worker had for their own safety. It is now the case that if an injury occurs on a worksite the employer somehow or other is always considered responsible. These are issues that I hope will be taken into account when this body has formed.
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 member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the very distressing news about the aeroplane crash in New Guinea and the fate of the passengers on board, including Australian citizens. Would the Prime Minister please update the House on the latest news of this accident?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is my sad duty to inform the House that we have some very bad news from Papua New Guinea about this plane crash. At a little before 1 pm today, Australia’s High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea advised the foreign minister that he had been informed by Papua New Guinea officials on the ground at the crash site that they had concluded that there were no survivors from the crash. This is distressing news for the families of those concerned. Just before question time, the foreign minister advised me that all eight families have been contacted by Australian government officials to inform them of this tragic turn of events. There were nine Australians killed in this crash. Two of them, a father and daughter, came from the same family.
I am sure I speak on behalf of all members when I say that there is a horrible tragedy involved when families send off their loved ones for what they expect to be the experience of a lifetime only for it to turn into a tragedy such as this. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I say that our thoughts and our prayers go to the families, friends and loved ones of those who tragically lost their lives in this disaster in Papua New Guinea.
Order! I think it would be appropriate that I ask, as a mark of respect, that members rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
On indulgence and before proceeding to the question on the major matter for debate today, can I say that the opposition shares with the Prime Minister the very great sadness occasioned by this terrible aeroplane accident in Papua New Guinea. Many of us have lost loved ones in aeroplane accidents. My own father, 27 years ago, was killed in a light plane accident where the plane got caught in cloud in mountainous country. I know very keenly all these years later how the loved ones and the families of those who have perished in this accident are feeling. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all, and God bless them.
I refer the Prime Minister to his previous comment:
The bulk of government legislation is negotiated through the Senate. That is the way in which it works.
I ask the Prime Minister why his government is determined to ram through a flawed emissions trading scheme rather than negotiate in the Senate to enable the passage of a greener, cheaper and smarter scheme.
I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for his question. When it comes to government legislation on climate change, as the Minister for Climate Change has said consistently, she is prepared to review considered amendments by the opposition. I am sure that would be the case when it comes to the Senate.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the work of Australian High Commission staff in the search and rescue efforts in Papua New Guinea and on support being offered to the families of the nine Australians aboard Airlines PNG flight CG84864?
I thank the member for her question. I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing our deep sympathy and condolences to the families of the nine Australian victims.
On a number of occasions at this dispatch box, I have said that, when Australians find themselves in trouble overseas, there is often a limit to what the Australian government can do for them. On this occasion we were able, in our view, to do a lot to assist the Papua New Guinea search and rescue effort. Unfortunately, on this occasion it was with a terrible and tragic outcome. From the moment that we received advice of this terrible accident, our officials in Papua New Guinea at our High Commission in Port Moresby and our officials in our consulate division in Canberra have worked around the clock to seek to ascertain the state of circumstances in Papua New Guinea and to render as much assistance as possible to families in terrible circumstances.
I have to advise the House that I have had a number of conversations in my time as foreign minister with our High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea, Chris Moraitis, and I have had a number over the last 24 hours. It was with a very heavy heart that he advised me shortly before one o’clock that he had received information from Papua New Guinea authorities that PNG police on the ground had confirmed at about 12.30 today that there were no survivors. I indicated to the House earlier today that, when we came into receipt of further information, once the families were advised of that we would advise the House, and I was in a position shortly before question time to advise the Prime Minister of the terrible news.
Our officials in Canberra have worked effectively around the clock. The head of our consular section told me he got less than an hour’s sleep last night. I spoke to him on the last occasion last night sometime after 10 and spoke to and saw him on the first occasion this morning before 6 am. That reflects the dedication of our officers in the face of these difficulties. In the face of this tragedy, I want to pay a great compliment to the high commissioner and his officers in Papua New Guinea and to the department and its consular staff in Canberra. They have now had to perform the very difficult task of advising eight families on four separate occasions of worsening news and now the worst news possible.
Can I just take this opportunity to thank the shadow minister for foreign affairs for her cooperation in this matter, and can I thank the House for the indulgence that they have given on more than one occasion over the last 24 hours.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of the seventh delegation from New Zealand, who are visiting under the auspices of the Australian Political Exchange Council. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the comments of Matthew Warren, the Chief Executive Officer of the Clean Energy Council, who stated:
Any further delay in legislating the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme should result in the immediate decoupling of the renewable energy target to unlock immediate and pent-up investment in renewable energy.
Will the government now stop delaying renewable energy, give certainty to the solar sector and decouple the renewable energy target legislation from its flawed emissions trading scheme?
The government’s concern has not been to provide additional compliance burdens for business. Hence the regimes to support, by way of adjustment, affected industries under both the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the renewable energy target are complementary, and that is why we have embarked upon this process in the way in which we have. If those opposite intend to vote against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the Senate—I would ask them not to, but if they propose so to do—could I suggest to those opposite that they therefore have an obligation to advance what alternative scheme they have by way of compensation regimes under the renewable energy target. We do not have those before us at the moment. Those which are contained in our legislation are in fact complementary to that of the CPRS, and we have done so with a view to ensuring that the regimes minimise the compliance burden for business.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Would the minister update the House on the response of the Australian transport safety agencies to the aircraft crash in Papua New Guinea?
I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. The Australian government is providing all possible support to the PNG authorities in responding to the accident, and our transport safety agencies are playing an important role. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s coordination centre has worked with the coordination centre in Port Moresby to provide assistance with search planning. AMSA yesterday deployed a Dornier specialist search and rescue aircraft from Cairns to Port Moresby. This aircraft, of course, undertook some of the searches that were undertaken late yesterday and this morning. It will continue to be involved in operations in PNG today.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau will be deploying four specialist investigators this afternoon at 3 pm on a Defence aircraft from Richmond. The ATSB investigators will include two aircraft engineers, a materials failure specialist and an operations pilot specialist. Under international arrangements, they will act as accredited representatives to the investigation and will provide assistance to the local investigation personal both at the accident site and in relation to the collection and analysis of other relevant evidence. As this situation develops, of course, Australia’s transport safety agencies stand ready to offer any further assistance whatsoever as requested by the Papua New Guinea government.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to recent remarks from the United Nations’ top climate change official where he said there was no need for Australia to legislate an emissions trading scheme ahead of the Copenhagen talks. I quote:
What people care about in the international negotiations is the commitment that a government makes to take on a certain target … that’s what’s important to the international community.
Prime Minister, why is the government insisting that the parliament pass its flawed emissions trading scheme now while dismissing any alternatives or improvements?
I thank the honourable member for her question. The first part of the answer lies with the need for the business community to have business certainty. I would draw the honourable member’s attention to comments from the BCA, the Australian Industry Group, and Shell Australia and a range of other businesses calling for certainty on the CPRS so that they can plan their investments. The chairman of Shell Australia has said:
… we believe a far greater risk is that Australia misses the opportunity to put a policy framework in place to deal with this issue. This would create a climate of continuing uncertainty for industry and potentially delay the massive investments … required …
I would also refer to comments by the Australian Industry Group, who have said:
Business also needs to be making some very big decisions if we’re going to be able to make the transition to the CPRS, and to do so they need certainty. Uncertainty is death for business.
Furthermore, I refer to a comment from the Business Council of Australia:
To drag on the debate whilst we have got this global financial crisis is just one more complexity that business has got to factor into its planning cycle, and for some businesses it could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back
And furthermore, I would draw the honourable member’s attention to comments just the other day by the executive director of the UNFCCC secretariat, who stated, ‘I think it helps Australia’s credibility to say that this is the target Australia is willing to commit to and this is how we are going to achieve it. And that will be good for the country’s credibility.’
I would also say to the honourable member that the Leader of the Opposition had earlier said the following:
…”our first-hand experience in implementing … an emissions trading system” would be of considerable assistance in our international discussions and negotiations aimed at achieving an effective global climate change agreement.
I would also note that the previous position of the opposition was that they should move to the implementation of such a regime irrespective of what international action was being contemplated.
Again, I would refer to an earlier statement by the Leader of the Opposition, where he said:
… the Howard Government’s policy last year, was that we would establish an emissions trading system not later than 2012. It was not conditional on international action. … John Howard decided and the Cabinet decided last year that we would move on an emissions trading scheme come what may.
Therefore, in response to the honourable member’s questions, there are two sets of considerations here. One is business certainty, and I have referred to three principal spokesmen of business. The business community is looking for certainty on what is an important set of reforms for the economy for the future. Secondly, I draw the honourable member’s attention both to the previous government’s and the current Leader of the Opposition’s statements on the need to act as underpinning Australia’s international credibility, and furthermore to the recent statement by Mr Yvo de Boer, the executive director of the UNFCCC secretariat.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. Can the minister provide an update on the Australian Defence Force assistance in the tragic aircraft crash in Papua New Guinea?
I can update the House in relation to this issue. The Australian Defence Force is making assets available under Operation Kokoda Assist to aid the Papua New Guinean authorities in relation to this tragedy. This assistance includes HMAS Success with an embarked Sea King helicopter that has been diverted from its current location near the Torres Strait. The Sea King helicopter arrived at Port Moresby this morning and HMAS Success will arrive this afternoon.
I am informed that the Sea King departed Port Moresby for the accident site at 10.35 am this morning with a number of people on board, including two police officers and an Australian consul. A Caribou aircraft is currently available in Port Moresby for a separate activity, and was available for tasking from 7 am this morning. The Caribou departed for Kokoda village at 11 am today, carrying a PNG Defence Force infantry contingent and the Australian Deputy Head of Mission. Additionally, a C130 Hercules has departed RAAF Base Richmond this morning with the following capabilities: firstly, a command element led by Wing Commander David Howard; secondly, a medical team; and, thirdly, a six-person mobile air load team, which will be utilised as an incident site support party to assist. Three members of the Australian Federal Police are also on board from the disaster victim identification team.
In addition, two Army Black Hawk helicopters from the Sydney area are currently being prepared for movement today by a C17 Globemaster. They are expected to depart Richmond this afternoon if the request is made. Also on this flight will be the remaining 10 members of the Australian Federal Police disaster victim identification team and four members of the Australian Transport Safety Board. Additional Australian Defence Force manpower, including engineering support, may be available if it is required from personnel who are currently deployed to Papua New Guinea. Obviously, the ADF will make every effort to assist the PNG authorities in relation to this tragedy.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon four Mirra traditional owners from Kakadu, who are in Parliament House today concluding important business on behalf of their people. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to them.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism. I refer the minister to the Frontier Economics report released yesterday. Frontier’s analysis shows that, under the government’s emissions trading scheme, power bills for the average household will rise by up to $240 per year more than under Frontier’s proposal. Minister, why is the government so determined to ram through a flawed emissions trading scheme rather than discuss alternatives which will keep power bills for households lower?
I thank the honourable member for the question. In doing so, can I say that the issue of a balanced carbon pollution reduction scheme in association with the Renewable Energy Target has been subject to serious deliberation by the government and the broader community for a considerable period.
I am pleased to note that the member for Groom has finally noticed the debate that is occurring in the community at the moment and the requirement for us to actually put in place a system which makes progress on the environmental front whilst also ensuring energy security for Australia. In that context, the operation of the electricity system is of primary importance to the government because energy security is the key to economic activity and growth in the future.
I might also say that it is about time the opposition appreciated that they, in government, previously indicated that an introduction of an ETS involved a price on carbon and a rise in the price of electricity so as to change the behaviour of the Australian community, both in households and in the business community. It is for those very reasons that the government have been in detailed discussion with the generators for the purposes of ensuring that we can guarantee energy security in the future and putting in place compensation, which will assist in changing the behaviour of the broader community whilst also minimising the impact on families and people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners.
In that context, can I say that if the honourable member for Groom is serious about getting the electricity system right in Australia in respect of the danger of lights going out in the future then he should be arguing in the coalition party room that it is time for us to end this debate so that we finally put in place a price on carbon in association with renewable energy targets. I say that because, as the previous minister, he understands that there are major decisions to be made in Australia in terms of future investment for the purpose of generation capacity which will guarantee energy security in Australia. At the moment, the business community is unable to make those decisions as it has no guarantee as to the investment horizons that will exist in the future because of the failure of the opposition to be serious about this debate.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is relevance. The question was not about energy policy in Australia. The question was about the cost of electricity—
The member for Groom will resume his seat. The minister will respond to the question.
Can I say in response to the honourable member that the cost of electricity in Australia is very much related to the security of energy, because we are fast approaching the position of peaking in respect of our energy capacity in Australia. That goes to the very requirement to finalise this debate this week. As Minister for Resources and Energy, I require a price on carbon to be determined sooner than later, and I also require a renewable energy target to be in place so as to bring on a further economic stimulus package for a potential huge investment in the renewable energy sector in Australia. By resolving those issues we will not only get security in place but also have a capacity to put in place the necessary compensation to assist low-income families and people on fixed incomes as part of enabling us to make this adjustment to a low-emissions economy.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the government’s response to the conviction and sentencing of Burmese democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi?
I thank the member for Fremantle for her question and for her interest in this matter, an interest which I know all members of the House share. As members would be aware, Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi was convicted yesterday under the so-called Law Protecting the State Against the Dangers of Subversive Elements. She was sentenced to three years detention with labour, and that was reduced to 1½ years home detention. That sentence, of course, removes any prospect of her taking place in the proposed Burmese 2010 elections and will further detract from the credibility of those elections. Aung San Suu Kyi now faces a further period in detention, having spent almost 14 of the last 20 years in detention.
Australia condemns this verdict and this sentence. Yesterday and today we have again called upon the Burmese regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as the 2,000 other political prisoners in Burma, from detention. That should be done unconditionally and immediately. I relayed these messages to Burmese Foreign Minister Win in person when I saw him in Phuket, Thailand recently for the ASEAN related meetings. I emphasised Australia’s disappointment that Burma was again seeming to go down a path of further isolation from the international community. The Burmese foreign minister heard this message not just from me but from other ASEAN foreign ministers and from those foreign ministers who attended the ASEAN Regional Forum, some 26 foreign ministers, and the European Union.
We welcome overnight the unanimous international condemnation of the decision. On my instruction today the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade called in the Burmese ambassador at lunchtime and relayed these strong messages on behalf of the Australian government and the Australian people. Our ambassador in Burma is doing likewise. When I met the Burmese foreign minister, I told him that Australia very much regretted Burma’s continuing isolation because Australia and the international community wanted to assist Burma’s economic and socially deleterious circumstances. But it is of course impossible to effect that unless Burma moves back to democracy. As a first step, I will contact my Thai counterpart, Thai Foreign Minister Kasit, in his capacity as ASEAN chair, to speak about the action which the international community can take.
Australia, of course, in addition to supporting international measures, has for some time taken autonomous measures. Australia will soon renew its autonomous financial sanctions, introduced in 2007 and updated in 2008, that target senior members of the regime, their associates and their family members. As a result of Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial, conviction and sentencing, when these sanctions are updated I will now give consideration to including senior members of the judiciary as being subject to these sanctions.
Since 1991 Australia has maintained and supported a ban on defence exports to Burma. Australia would support any action before the Security Council to place a global arms embargo upon Burma, as urged by the United Kingdom Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. I am also considering other policy responses on behalf of Australia to place additional pressure on Burma.
Last night the Prime Minister announced that, in solidarity with Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese people, the government and Radio Australia had agreed to establish a Burmese language service to open up a new channel of international contact for the people of Burma. This is a further demonstration that Australia, now and for a considerable period of time under governments of both political persuasions, has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Aung San Suu Kyi and has stood shoulder-to-shoulder for the restoration of democracy and respect for human rights in Burma.
I commend the initiatives that I have outlined to the House and I know that they will have the support of all members of the House, all members of the House having for a long period of time supported Australia’s efforts on this matter.
On indulgence: may I, on behalf of the opposition, associate the opposition entirely with the comments of the foreign minister on behalf of the government. The world can only ponder how much better the lives of the Burmese people would have been had Aung San Suu Kyi been allowed to take the prime ministership of that country after the 1990 elections, when her party won almost 90 per cent of the vote in the election. This recent action on behalf of the Burmese regime effectively removes Aung San Suu Kyi from the next election, thus delegitimising that election. I applaud the government on the steps it has taken and the announcements it has made in terms of sanctions against the regime, and the activities in relation to Radio Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the legislation before the congress in the United States which excludes United States farmers from an emissions trading scheme but allows them to earn extra income from offsets. Prime Minister, why is the government determined to ram through a flawed emissions trading scheme that leaves Australian farmers far worse off than their United States competitors?
I thank the honourable member for Goldstein for his question. He is right to point out that we currently do not allow offsets from agricultural soils into the CPRS. He is right to point that out. We have also indicated, I believe, through the minister for climate change, that we would consider this further when there were changes to the international carbon accounting rules which would allow these credits to contribute to our international obligations under the Kyoto protocol. They do not at present. That is the problem. And—if those opposite would understand the difference—we, the Australian government, have ratified the Kyoto protocol. The United States government has not; it is a different regime. That is, therefore, underpinning the difference between us in our treatment of agriculture. Furthermore, it underpins the position which we articulated clearly at the time of the climate change white paper: that these matters would be reviewed generally in 2013 with a view to including agriculture in 2015. The specific reason for the honourable gentleman’s question lies with the fact that, under Kyoto, which we ratified, this is not currently counted. The United States have not actually ratified Kyoto and therefore they are, in that sense, outside the regime. That underpins our position and, as I said, the flexibility we have left ourselves for the future on that.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on consumer confidence data released this morning?
I thank the member for Braddon for his question, because the Westpac and Melbourne Institute consumer confidence data today shows that consumer confidence rose again in August, up another 3.7 per cent. Over the past three months consumer confidence has increased by 27.8 per cent—the biggest three-month gain in the history of the series. So the government certainly welcomes this substantial lift in confidence and, of course, the impact it has had on our prospects for recovery. It is a heartening sign that, despite the massive global challenges we all face, Australians are pulling together and looking to the future with confidence. I will just quote some of the lines from the report this morning from the senior economist. He has this to say:
The rise extends what had already been an extraordinary rally in confidence over the previous two months.
He goes on to make this comment:
The current surge … has seen sentiment rise back into solidly optimistic territory. The Index is now up a staggering 43.6% from its 2008 low, to its highest level in nearly two years. Remarkably, sentiment is now just 1.6% below its 2007 average.
If we look at some of the other data, I think we can see the impact of economic stimulus. Retail sales have increased by 5.2 per cent since November last year, and, of course, in other countries they have fallen. The first home owner boost is providing important support to the housing market. Finance for the construction of new houses has increased by 55 per cent since October. And in recent months first home buyers have made up a record share of the housing market. These are the direct impacts of the government’s stimulus packages.
But we know what makes the stimulus greater than the sum of its parts, and that is the indirect impact that it has on confidence, and I think that is what we are seeing today. As Westpac’s Chief Economist, Bill Evans, said last month:
The key is not the direct impact of increasing spending capacity … The key is to restore confidence—
and everybody has a role to play in building confidence and working together to meet all of the challenges that are imposed on our nation by this global recession. Ultimately, it is the confidence of Australian consumers and businesses that will provide the spark for the sustained economic recovery. That is why the second and third phases of the government’s stimulus package will support this recovery, by providing much-needed infrastructure investment in health, education, transport and clean energy. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is pleasing to see the impacts of these investments on business confidence as well. That is particularly the case in the construction and manufacturing sectors.
I have made the point before that we will receive much more news in the weeks ahead. There will be good news and there will be bad news before this crisis is behind us. There will be a bumpy road ahead. But it does remain the case that the lift in confidence we see today gives us some heart that Australians have the capacity—that Australians have the resilience—to withstand the worst that the world can throw at us.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you agree to join me and personally visit the Port Macquarie Base Hospital for the following four outcomes: (1) to gain a major regional teaching hospital’s perspective on your health reform package and to see how the three towns of Kempsey, Wauchope and Port Macquarie are developing a ‘one hospital on three sites’ response to the growing health demands within our nation; (2) to consider the specific infrastructure needs around the hospital’s emergency department and intensive care unit that is operating at double its maximum capacity on a daily basis; (3) to explore opportunities to expand our cancer services with the already announced but yet to be allocated money from this year’s health budget; and (4) to explore a proposal by the local division of GPs to establish a GP superclinic or equivalent as close as possible to the overstretched emergency department at the hospital?
I thank the honourable member for Lyne for his question. The short answer to his question is yes. The Minister for Health and Ageing and I at some stage over the next couple of months will work our way to Port Macquarie and do as we have done most recently at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, the Flinders Medical Centre in Adelaide, the Townsville Hospital and the Cairns Base Hospital—that is, sit down with the honourable member’s local health and hospital community and road-test the recommendations which have been put forward by the Bennett commission of inquiry on the future of the health and hospital system.
I noted in particular the contents of his question went in part to the state of accident and emergency and to the state of intensive care. I noted also his question went to the equitable provision of cancer care services and also to the need for better primary health care, and he raised in particular the point concerning GP related services and the possibility of GP superclinics. I am sure the honourable member is now familiar with the contents of the recommendations of the Bennett health reform commission report, and it goes to each of these categories. It goes to: how do we provide better primary health care across the country with more flexible hours and with more GP related services in order partly to take pressure off the acute hospital system, acute care beds and accident and emergency by having more of those concerns, which families legitimately encounter, dealt with in the community through the provision of those services? That is one aspect of it. The second, of course, goes to the proper provision of resources for accident and emergency.
The health minister, as the honourable member may be familiar with, recently negotiated a new agreement with the states and territories of some $750 million to provide better access to accident and emergency across the country for the immediate period ahead. I am advised this is the first time that the Commonwealth has so engaged in a specific purpose payment with the states and territories specifically targeted at A&E. We did so about 12 months ago in relation to elective surgery, the first time the Commonwealth has engaged in a specific purpose payment to increase the number of elective surgery treatments. I understand from the health minister that that agreement with the states and territories resulted in an additional 40,000 elective surgery procedures across the country.
Ms Roxon interjecting
She advises me that half a million dollars of that was invested into elective surgery arrangements at Port Macquarie.
On cancer related services, the honourable member will be familiar with the fact that in the budget we announced some $1.2 billion worth of cancer related services, because we are deeply concerned about the proper provision of what are called comprehensive cancer care services not just in our large cities but across the country. The honourable member will be familiar with the support which the government has so far provided to what will become the Chris O’Brien centre in Sydney. In Melbourne there has been considerable investment also on our part—in partnership, I believe, with the government of Victoria—in the MacCallum centre, which is being built at Parkville. On top of that, there are investments of a more comprehensive nature in various other health regions across the nation. He is right to say: what is the proper provision of cancer related services in his part of New South Wales? I am sure the consultations which we will undertake in and around Port Macquarie hospital will help inform decisions which are taken in the future on the proper provision of those services as well.
We fully understand, based on the advice provided to the government by Dr Bennett’s health reform commission report and the 123 recommendations contained within it, that our health and hospital system across the nation is increasingly at a tipping point. The reason for that is that, firstly, we have an increasing population, particularly in the region where the honourable member lives but also in parts of Queensland where I have just been as well—in Far North Queensland, in North Queensland and elsewhere. Secondly, we have, of course, the ageing of the population. We have, thirdly, the increased cost associated with individual medical and hospital treatments and, fourthly, the increasing cost of pharmaceuticals. We therefore need to look at how we better design this system for the future for all Australians, wherever they live—in metropolitan Australia, in regional Australia and in rural Australia, and in remote Australia and our Indigenous communities as well.
I commend to all honourable members the report delivered by Dr Bennett and the recommendations contained within it. We will be road-testing those across the country. We look forward to the opportunity to visit the honourable member’s hospital at Port Macquarie to specifically get their responses, as we have done most recently in Cairns, Townsville, Adelaide and Sydney, to the recommendations contained in the report. I look forward to organising the details of that with the honourable member through the health minister’s office.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How have the direct payments to Australian pensioners and families helped cushion Australia’s economy from the impact of the global recession?
I thank the member for Longman for his question and, in particular, for the advocacy that he shows for the pensioners and families in his electorate. He certainly does understand the benefit that has gone to more than 43,700 pensioners and families through the payments that were made as part of the economic stimulus strategy back in December and the more than 17,000 payments that were made as part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan in March.
Australia’s pensioners, carers, veterans, people on the disability support pension and families have played a very important role in helping Australia during these very difficult economic times. The latest economic data does tell us that these direct cash payments have helped to cushion the Australian economy from the worst impacts of the global recession.
In December the payments went not only to all of the pensioners, carers and families in Longman but to people in other parts of Australia, four million pensioners and around two million families. Then in March the stimulus payments went to around two million families. We certainly know that both pensioners and families did their bit to help people in the retail sector and in other parts of the economy.
I have had many letters from and discussions with people about what they did with their stimulus payments. Many pensioners indicated that they were able to visit their families, particularly for Christmas. They were able to visit them interstate and I know that has helped somewhat with the local tourism industry. There were some wonderful pensioners that I met in Parramatta. One lady told me that she employed some local tradies to clean up her garden, fix her fence and do some landscaping. Plenty of other families have indicated to me that they spent the money on whitegoods, a washing machine or a drier, and it was particularly the case that I had many pensioners telling me that they were able to afford extra presents for the grandkids before Christmas.
We are now seeing that flow through in the latest information from the Bureau of Statistics. That is telling us that between last November and June this year retail turnover has in fact increased by 5.2 per cent. While we are seeing our retail turnover increase by this substantial level in comparison with similar countries, many other advanced economies have seen their retail turnover fall over the same period. It does demonstrate to us that these direct cash payments have helped. They were timely as we have been told by the International Monetary Fund, but we do know that we have a long way to go. That is why it is very important that the next stage of our stimulus payments are being put into place and that is important for those low-income households who are now benefiting from the significant investment that we are making in social housing. It is important for the low-income families but it is also very significant for the building and construction sector.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. On 15 June this year in response to the government’s capping of the Medicare safety net for IVF procedures the minister stated:
Patients who see specialists who charge $6,000 or less for a typical IVF cycle will not be worse off under these changes.
Does the minister stand by this guarantee?
Thank you. It is nice to have a question about health from the shadow minister for health given he has been so absent in this debate. I do not have the precise quote that the minister is referring to; however, I can make absolutely clear to the member and to the House that we are committed to pursuing the measures that we announced in the budget. Some of those are tough measures which are seeking to—
Do you stand by your statement or not?
If the shadow minister would give me the courtesy of letting me finish the answer, he might get an answer. As I say, the government stands absolutely committed to the measures that were announced in the budget. Those measures include some tough decisions and this is one of the decisions that was tough because it changes some existing entitlements. The existing entitlements affected by this, however, are the incomes of the specialists not the benefits to consumers. We absolutely stand by our determination—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order to do with relevance. The exact words—
The member for Dickson will resume his seat. I am aware of the question. The minister is responding to the question.
I am answering the question and the point that I am making is that the measures that we stand by are those we announced in the budget. The reason that we stand by them and we seek the support of the Senate, of the opposition, is that these are changes that affect the income of specialists. If those opposite intend to defend the profits of specialists who are highly paid instead of supporting the patients who need services then we will be disagreeing.
This is a matter that has been before a Senate committee. We are prepared to look at the recommendations that come from that Senate committee. These are matters, however, that we are determined to pursue because—and the Prime Minister has already commented in his answer to the member for Lyne that we are in a debate about long-term health reform—they do require choices to be made—one of which is whether we are going to defend benefits for patients or protect exorbitant incomes for specialists. We are intending to pursue this measure and, as I have previously said in this House, given that the opposition has committed to supporting all budget measures other than the private health insurance measures, we would expect them to back it.
My question is to the Minister for Education. Will she update the House on the government’s national reform agenda for school education?
I thank the member for Werriwa for his question. Earlier this week, on Monday, I met with Dr Ken Boston, a former director-general of education in New South Wales and South Australia and head of England’s Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Dr Boston is travelling around the country at the invitation of the Australian Primary Principals Association talking to primary principals about the national debate that is now underway—sparked by the Rudd government’s education revolution—on school transparency.
This nation has many excellent schools, but international comparisons show that we can do better. For too long, this nation has tolerated an assumption that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are somehow destined to do worse at school. I absolutely reject that assumption, and so should the nation. Every child in every family in this country has the right to achieve highly at school and to get a great education. To do that, we need great teaching, a great curriculum and great family and community support. We know these things can make a difference. But, if we are going to deliver on this potential as a nation, we have to have an honest, open and accurate picture of what is happening in our schools, which school students are in which schools and the differences in our school communities and their needs.
Since the Prime Minister called for a new era of transparency late last year, state governments and the non-government school systems have shown that they are ready to take up the challenge. The Tasmanian government has published data about the performance of its schools. It is there for all to see. The Queensland government has published a school report card. The New South Wales government has taken a courageous stand against legislation banning the publication of this information by newspapers and media organisations. We are now in the midst of this, and we need to have an open and fierce debate about where disadvantage lies in our education system. Many Australians would be shocked to learn how little real information is currently available about disadvantage in our education system. To identify which schools are struggling, we need more detailed information about schools and the communities those schools serve.
When we were elected, we inherited a system where the federal government did not have accurate data about state schools and disadvantage in those schools. There was information on non-government schools—the SES index—but no comparable information on state schools, even though two-thirds of Australian children are educated in state schools. We are determined to fix that problem. We need to be able to obtain and publish rich, accurate information about our schools—real data about resources, about the background of the student population, about parental income and about literacy and numeracy results. It should not be a matter of a guesstimate as to where disadvantage lies; it should be a matter of indisputable public record. It should not be a matter of convoluted demography and statistics; we should know for sure where we should be investing additional resources, if we care about disadvantage.
We will build this transparency system, and new information will be available from 1 January next year. But, to quote Dr Boston, ‘Kids only get one chance at school.’ Disadvantaged kids have already waited too long for a better education, and we are not going to keep them waiting any longer. That is why we are determined to start delivering our $1.5 billion of new resources to disadvantaged schools. In order to be transparent about how low-SES schools are to be defined and selected to share in the funding of this program, it was agreed by governments to use the information we now have, which is the Australian Bureau of Statistics index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage. That was to be the basis of selecting the initial list of schools for inclusion in the low-SES national partnership. It was also agreed that states would have the flexibility to nominate schools from outside the list if they could provide more accurate information about the nature of schools and where disadvantage was.
Using this ABS data, the best we have at this stage, the New South Wales government has published a preliminary list of schools selected to participate in this new partnership. The Rudd government has been clear that this is a list for consultation. Clearly, the limitation of the data available through the ABS is shown by the fact that schools like Claymore and Macquarie Fields are not on this list. It is obvious to everyone who has been to those schools and to those communities, as I have—and the member for Werriwa is intimately familiar with Macquarie Fields—that this data is not giving us the full picture and that these schools and communities need assistance, need our partnership and need our help.
We can do better, and we must do better, by pushing ahead with the transparency reforms that are part of the Rudd government’s education revolution. Every element of our reform agenda—from transparency to a national curriculum, national testing, teacher quality, literacy and numeracy—is interconnected and absolutely directed to addressing educational disadvantage. There has never been a government in this nation’s history more concerned about and determined to address educational disadvantage than this government. Caring about educational disadvantage, and acting to correct it, is a revolution.
My question is to the Minister for Education. I refer the minister to the Auditor-General’s announcement, following his preliminary investigation, that he is now conducting a full performance audit into the Building the Education Revolution. Does the minister welcome the Auditor-General’s intervention and does she agree that it confirms the concerns that many sections of the community have had about waste and mismanagement in the schools stimulus debacle?
I thank the shadow minister for his question. I am very happy to welcome the Auditor-General’s performance audit. I am very happy to welcome any level of scrutiny on the Building the Education Revolution program. What proper scrutiny of this program should show, and will show, is that schools around the country are welcoming this program, as schools have been limited in their teaching abilities because of poor school facilities. This is the biggest school modernisation program in the nation’s history. When you speak to principals and school communities, they tell you not only of their level of excitement about the new facilities but also what a difference to teaching practice those new facilities will make. For example, during the winter recess I was able to travel to Western Australia and hold two principal forums over there—and they were not the only principal forums I held in that period. I will give you some examples from the Western Australia forums—and I can hear the member for Hasluck, who was in attendance at one of them. There was a principal who said he had been in teaching for 40 years and would always remember this as the most exciting time of his teaching career. A female principal who came to one of those forums said that, to date, her school has been ‘a school in the community’ but this money is going to mean that it can be ‘a community school’, as the new facilities will be used not only for educating students but also, under the community use obligations of the Building the Education Revolution guidelines, to teach parents as well.
I welcome any level of scrutiny about this program. It has been my wish that a newspaper would interview all 9,500 principals in this country and publish every word they say. It has been my wish that a reporter from a TV station would go to every one of the 9,500 schools and interview the parents and the children and see what they say. It has been my wish that people would sit with teachers and actually talk to them about the difference in teaching practice these new resources are going to make. This is a part of our education revolution. Building the Education Revolution supports jobs today whilst we build the infrastructure we need for tomorrow.
Of course, Building the Education Revolution comes with revolutionary changes throughout education. Transparency has been talked about for decades and is now being delivered. That new transparency is being used to drive new resources into disadvantaged schools. That new transparency and new resourcing for disadvantaged schools is a companion to our new initiatives in teacher quality to bring the best performing teachers to disadvantaged schools. Our new investments in literacy and numeracy will bring new resources—once again, this is driven by transparency so that we know where the biggest problems are—so that kids get the basics in life. This is allied with our agenda in early childhood so that kids come to school better prepared. It is allied with our agenda in vocational education and training and universities, with new money to drive enrolment and educational outcomes, particularly for the most disadvantaged. It is an education revolution throughout, and I welcome every minute of scrutiny of it.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. How is the government providing certainty to business so they can commit the investment needed to transform the economy to a low-carbon future under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme?
I thank the member for Brisbane for the question. Providing certainty for business investment is a critical element of the government’s response to climate change. In the Business Review Weekly just a week or so ago, on 6 August, the Chairman of Shell Australia, Mr Russell Caplan, said delays in putting in place the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would ‘create a climate of continuing uncertainty for industry and potentially delay the massive investments that are required’. The point there is that a delay in the implementation of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will create uncertainty for business.
The CPRS, as the House is aware, will be voted upon in the Senate tomorrow, and that is an opportunity for the opposition to take responsibility and support this important reform. Instead, as I think is evidenced by some of the questions in question time today, the opposition is still holding onto the report released earlier this week by Frontier Economics to justify further delay in its opposition to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. As we know, that report is not even coalition policy and it is flawed. I would like to draw the attention of the House to one particular example contained in the report, and that is its treatment of coal fugitive emissions. The member for Goldstein has been reported as saying that Frontier’s scheme would give 100 per cent protection to coal for their emissions. We can only interpret that comment as implying that all emissions would receive 100 per cent free permits. But when one looks at the Frontier Economics report, it says that the 100 per cent protection is at a best-practice benchmark, and that is that all mines get the same rate of assistance at the best-practice benchmark—somewhat inconsistent with what the shadow minister has remarked.
I think it is a safe assumption that best practice means the lowest level of methane emissions in a coalmine, but the report is unclear on this question. If best practice is the least gassy mine, that would represent a carbon liability of just 2c per tonne of saleable coal. The fact of the matter is that some mines have over $20 per tonne of saleable coal in their carbon liability. The question therefore posited is: is it being proposed by the opposition that a gassy mine facing a cost of over $20 per tonne of saleable coal would simply get the baseline 2c assistance? Of course, that would leave many coalmines with a substantial carbon liability. The alternative, if a higher benchmark were set, would be that there would be windfall gains for the least gassy mines.
The fact of the matter is that the Frontier report is not transparent on these questions, costs are not provided and it will create more uncertainty. The government’s position in relation to this issue delivers certainty for the coal industry. In these circumstances, it is little wonder that the Business Council of Australia is quoted in the Australian today as saying that the scheme proposed by Frontier Economics would ‘bring with it a substantial cost that will impact on business operations and particularly government revenues’. Other businesspeople have been in the media today critical of the Frontier report for this reason—it generates further uncertainty in the investment environment.
On the verge of the vote in the Senate, I urge the coalition once again to support the government’s legislation to tackle climate change and to contribute to the generation of certainty for the business community in the investment environment by doing so.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. I refer the minister to reports that small business firms are unable to navigate the bewildering set of standards and policies imposed as part of the schools stimulus debacle without spending at least $10,000 on a consultant. How does this fit with the government’s claim that the schools stimulus package would create local jobs for small business men like tradies, chippies and sparkies? Or is the government simply content to see contracts go to large government-favoured firms?
I presume the member is referring to some publicity about state government contracting obligations. Can I say in respect of that that various state governments do have obligations for people working on schools. They include things like doing the working with children check—and I presume the member would agree that people who are working in proximity to children ought to acquit such a check. They include checks about things like your occupational health and safety accreditation—once again, things that are appropriate.
Can I say to the member, if he is in any doubt about the small business people who are working on schools under this program, I am very happy for him to come with me one day and meet some of them, because as I have gone to schools around the country I have found people from small businesses who are engaged in the rollout of our National School Pride program—of course hitting the ground first—and increasingly engaged in the delivery of rounds 1 and 2 of Primary Schools for the 21st Century, the construction of the major buildings in our primary schools, which are part of the biggest school modernisation program the country has ever seen.
We want small business people to be able to access these opportunities. We are working with state governments and block grant authorities as this rolls out. Yes, there are levels of checks and credentials to make sure that people who are working in Australian schools come from reputable businesses and have acquitted necessary checks like the working with children check. I would have thought all members of the House support that.
My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport. Would the minister explain to the House the significance of International Youth Day and how the government is responding to the challenges facing young Australians?
I thank the member for Kingston for her question. Can I also take this opportunity to acknowledge members of the Australian Youth Forum steering committee who join us in the gallery today. We thank them for their hard work.
While I would like to take this opportunity to outline the importance of International Youth Day and this sector of policy, can I first, with some indulgence, just make some comments on why today is also a very sad day, with the news of the passing of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who was the founder and honorary chairperson of the Special Olympics. Eunice founded the Special Olympics in 1968 from her belief in and passion for sport. She understood the power of sport and the rewards that participating in sport could bring to those with an intellectual disability. I am sure that I join with all members of the House, and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, in giving our condolences to her husband, her five children and her 19 grandchildren, as well as those at Special Olympics Australia, who are grieving a lot today.
On a happier note, it is International Youth Day and it is another opportunity for us to acknowledge that, if we are to govern in the long-term interest and prepare this nation for the challenges of the future, youth policy is particularly important. We recognise this. That is why we have acted for young people with issues like the youth compact and in areas like the economy, jobs, training, health and homelessness, just to name a few—because we get that investing in young people is part of our core business as a government.
Today I was pleased to release a snapshot of some issues which are of particular relevance to young people, issues which have not traditionally got the attention within our parliaments that they warrant. I would like to briefly share with the House a couple of the findings in the report that I released today, the first ever State of Australia’s young people. Specifically the report revealed that one in four young Australians aged 16 to 24 have a mental health disorder, with young people, especially girls, now highlighting self-harm and unhealthy body image as huge emerging issues amongst their generation. It may be very difficult for us to get a grasp on what sort of psychological distress must accompany this behaviour, but what we do know is that 25,000 Australians are admitted to hospital every year after conducting self-harm. We also know that the level of hospitalisation rates for intentional self-harm amongst young Australians increased by 43 per cent between 1996 and 2006, with this increase particularly noticeable amongst young women, with a 51 per cent increase.
This is our young Australia. These are some of the real statistics that we have to pay attention to. They are so lost, so isolated, so frustrated that they take to slashing their own flesh or engaging in other forms of self harm and mutilation. These are calls to arms, if ever there were, that governments need to take very seriously the specific issues out there impacting upon young people. Amongst the other findings, we saw that more than a quarter of year 8 Australian students today report that they know somebody who has been cyberbullied, which was another reason why this government recently announced a $3 million pilot to address cyberbullying in our schools. Our report found that teenagers aged 15 to 19 years had the highest hospitalisation rates for acute intoxication from alcohol amongst all age groups, which is another important reason why this government is so committed to our binge-drinking strategy.
It is not all doom and gloom. We have a remarkable generation of young people, but I think what these findings show is that it is important that governments make sure that they pay special attention to the new and emerging issues which may not have affected me and may not have affected other members of this House but which are playing a huge role in the lives of young Australians today. We on this side commit to being a government for all Australians, which means that we recommit on International Youth Day to addressing these important issues.
Mr Speaker, with your indulgence for a moment before I ask my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, I recognise that this is a terrible day for Moe, Hazelwood North and Morwell and for the families that have been affected by the Papua New Guinea tragedy. I commend the government for all that they have done in response to this. We recognise the whole-of-government response has been amazing and excellent. With those few words, the work of the House goes on.
I refer my question to the Deputy Prime Minister in her capacity as the Minister for Education. I refer to the findings of the Victorian parliamentary inquiry into geographical differences in the rate in which Victorian students participate in higher education and I specifically refer to the comments made in relation to the proposed changes to the criteria for eligibility for the independent rate of youth allowance. The report says:
The Committee believes that this change will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas.
Given the all-party inquiry was chaired by Ballarat Labor MP Geoff Howard, does the minister agree that the changes proposed by the Rudd government will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas?
I thank the member for his question. No, I do not agree. What I do know is this: if we look at what happened with participation in higher education over the last decade, the percentage of kids from regional and rural Australia participating in uni went down. Anybody who is advocating the current student-financing model should recognise they are not advocating a system that supported regional and rural participation, because the statistics tell you the reverse. The statistics tell you that under that system regional and rural participation went down. When you see statistics like that, I think you have to ask: how can we do better? I think, too, that you have to ask how we can do better when the Bradley review into higher education found that 36 per cent of students who were living at home and receiving youth allowance and were considered independent from their families were in families with incomes of more than $100,000 and 10 per cent of them were in families with incomes of more than $200,000.
I understand that the member shares my concern. I suspect he truly does share my concern, and in the face of statistics like that what we have to ask is: how do we get those dollars to students who need them more and for whom it would do more good? As he comes from the electorate of McMillan, I know that his concern is for those students who need to move away from home in order to access an education. What I can say to him in terms of these student-financing reforms, because I am also familiar with the income profile of his electorate, is that what we have done with the family income profile will mean that more families in his electorate will find that they are eligible for student income support for their young people than under the old system, and consequently the need to rely on the independent status is not the same. The independent status became all-important because the family income cut-off points were so low that hardly anybody qualified. We have changed those family income cut-off points. Can I say to the member opposite that for concerned constituents there is an estimator on our departmental website which enables people to put in their family income, and many find when they do that that they are eligible on the basis of family income without needing to worry about the independence criteria.
Can I also say to the member opposite that the scholarship arrangements that we have engaged in mean a huge difference to the number of students that will get a scholarship. Let me give you just one figure. Our student start-up scholarship will go to 146,000 students. The old scholarship went to 12,700 students—that is, it was capped. The number of students who got it were capped and there were students who missed out and got nothing. We are talking about an increase of around 133,700 students getting our start-up scholarship. In addition to that, we are talking about new relocation scholarships. Under the old scholarship arrangements those scholarships too were capped, which meant that some students missed out on them, whereas under our scholarship arrangement people who need to relocate and have qualified for youth allowance will be able to access the relocation allowance. Working through these changes, it means tens of thousands of extra students will benefit, will get student income support for the first time and will get more income support than they would have under the old arrangements.
Can I say to the member opposite that if he is concerned about these matters I am more than willing to sit down with him and work through the details. I have done that with other members opposite—
Mr Haase interjecting
and we have looked at individual circumstances from their electorate. Often when the debate is driven down to individual family circumstances of their constituents and we work through it, we find that, despite all the campaigning and imagery to the contrary, people will qualify under the new arrangements. More people are going to qualify, more people are going to get scholarships than before. This is a package that is there to deliver for the lower income parts of the country. We know the lower income parts of the country tend to be regional and rural Australia. I know that the member is concerned about his electorate and I would really open the door to him coming and working through individual examples, because this is a system that will be better for many of his constituents.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Robert Tickner, a former member of this place and a former minister, but, more importantly for today’s events, the chief executive officer of the Australian Red Cross, on this the 60th anniversary of the four Geneva conventions of 1949. On behalf of the House, I extend to Robert a warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. How is the government improving electronic verification to assist in the prevention of money laundering and the financing of terrorism?
I thank the member for Canberra for her question and her ongoing concern in regard to terrorism and organised crime. I think everybody in the House would share the government’s concern about tackling these very important challenges. Critical to our ability to disrupt terrorist activities and to tackle organised crime is our regime to prevent money laundering and indeed prevent financing of terrorism. This regime relies upon the goodwill and the good work of the private sector, especially the banks, the bullion dealers, the gambling sector and the remittance dealers, who have to ensure the integrity of their arrangements with clients. In reporting suspicious transactions they play a crucial role in identifying the people trying to launder money or indeed trying to finance terrorism. These businesses therefore have to be sure that they identify a customer accurately, that they identify but also verify that identity.
I think we all know that identification and the verification of that identity is critical, particularly when this has been processed electronically. Everybody in this chamber and indeed everyone in the country knows that you cannot take an email at face value. Due diligence is required. With respect to business, to establish identity electronically a business must collect the customer’s full name, residential address and birth details and then verify that information from separate data sources. It is therefore incumbent upon governments, and indeed this government, to make sure that the responsibilities we are asking of the private sector are not too onerous. But can I say that industry has been calling for access to credit reporting data for the purposes of identity verification. In its submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission review of the Australian privacy law, ING Bank has said that it provides a source to strengthen the match of customers’ identity. Veda Advantage submitted that it has a clear public benefit in protecting consumers and businesses from harm. GE Money have suggested it will greatly enhance credit providers’ ability to detect and prevent money laundering and fraudulent activities.
The Australian Law Reform Commission has recommended that the law be amended to allow businesses to have access to credit reporting data for the purposes of identity verification for counterterrorism and for financing regimes. The government agrees with the commission’s recommendation, and I am pleased to announce that we are taking the first steps to give it effect. We are now talking with the privacy groups because we need to get the balance right. We are talking with industry stakeholders to see how we can allow electronic verification whilst continuing to protect people’s privacy.
This is just another example of how the government takes terrorism and organised crime very seriously. It shows how we are concerned that the government is working with others, listening, taking advice and taking the time to ensure we get the electronic verification right, and then acting.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday when the lights went out in this building there was rather a lot of rancour and I noticed that your microphone was not working when other microphones seemed to be working. I am not suggesting you lost control at all, but I am suggesting that you were standing on your feet while members were still speaking and calling out across the room. Has there been a change of standing orders in that when the Speaker is on his feet you can still continue to debate across the room?
To allow this to be in order with my previous pronouncements on questions of administration, I will go to the administrative matters first. At about 1458 yesterday, Parliament House suffered a large voltage dip. This was caused by heavy lightning storm activity in the Canberra area which affected Telopea Park substation. The dip caused numerous equipment and lighting outages in the building, including the House of Representatives chamber lighting. During the outage, all emergency lighting in the chamber was functional and the chamber was able to continue operation with some minor disruptions. All lighting was restored within a 10-minute period. Recording and broadcasting of the chamber proceedings continued throughout the voltage dip with the exception of the Speaker’s microphone, which failed and had to be replaced. There was no impact on the Hansard record. I was unaware that I did not have a microphone. The question of emergency generators was raised. They do not kick in until an outage of at least one minute. The problem yesterday was that it was not an outage but a dip in power. If generators are required, it takes about a minute for them to synchronise and start working.
As to whether it is out of order to speak across the chamber—a question about procedure—I thank the member for McMillan, as a senior member of the chamber, for raising his concerns. In normal circumstances, of course, when I am on my feet I would expect that people quieten down and sit in silence. The circumstances were such that, if you look at the photos in the media, I appear to be the person that was well and truly in the dark. I was a little surprised that my regrettable increase in girth did not mean that people were able to see me. On the point that he makes, there has been no change. It is a tool of last resort used by occupants of the chair to try to gain control, and I would hope that, in other circumstances different from those of yesterday, members of the House would recognise that.
by leave—This week the Senate will vote on the most important piece of environmental and economic legislation that has ever been introduced into this parliament—the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is important at this stage to remind ourselves why the government is introducing this significant reform. The scientific case for action on climate change is clear. The climate system is warming. Human induced emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the warming. Warming will continue, and unless the world dramatically reduces global greenhouse gas emissions changes in the climate will have serious consequences for society, economy and the environment.
This science has been thoroughly tested and verified. These statements are based on careful analysis of hundreds of papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature. They are supported by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 2009 Copenhagen conference, the United States Global Change Research Program and the world’s leading scientific societies, including the United Kingdom Royal Society and the United States National Academy of Science.
Those who wish to dispute these findings must do so in major peer reviewed journals if they want their opinions to have weight in the scientific community or to persuade policy makers. Publication in newspapers and blogs is not a substitute for the careful processes of scientific rigour. The challenge we have is serious and there is no excuse for inaction.
Greenhouse gases
The basic physics of the greenhouse effect have been well understood for more than 100 years. Greenhouse gases are a natural part of the atmosphere. Without the natural greenhouse effect, average surface temperatures would be 33 degrees Celsius lower. Carbon dioxide concentrations varied between 172 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years. The records demonstrate a close relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature.
Burning of fossil fuels, destruction of forests and agricultural practices have caused carbon dioxide concentrations to rise by 37 per cent, methane by 150 per cent and nitrous oxide by 18 per cent. Most of this increase in greenhouse gas concentrations has occurred during the lifetime of those sitting in this House. In 2008 carbon dioxide concentration reached 383 parts per million, which is far in excess of anything observed during the existence of humans on the planet.
Observed warming
Over the past century the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74 degrees Celsius. Temperature rises have occurred on all continents and over the ocean. Thirteen of the 14 warmest years on record occurred between 1995 and 2008. In Australia there has been a warming of 0.9 degrees Celsius since 1950. Warming would have been greater had not small aerosol particles in the air from industrial pollution caused some counteracting cooling of the atmosphere.
Air temperatures are subject to natural variability due to influences such as El Nino cycles, variation in solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Because of this natural variability, it is not possible to draw conclusions about long-term climate change trends from 10 to 15 years of data alone. Claims that global warming has stopped because no trend in air temperatures can be observed in the period since, say, 1998, which has been asserted by some in recent times, are scientifically and statistically invalid. Further, when we consider warming we must look at the entire climate system. The climate system includes the atmosphere, the oceans, ice and snow, and the land.
Most of warming since 1960—about 85 per cent—has happened in the oceans. In the period from 1961 to 2003 the heat content of the ocean increased by 160,000 trillion megajoules. This is a very large amount of heat, enough to melt 479,000 billion tonnes of ice. There have already been massive changes to sea ice, ice sheets, snow cover and frozen ground. Arctic sea ice extent has declined since 1979, while summer sea ice extent has decreased dramatically. The average Arctic sea ice extent for July 2009—last month—was 8.81 million square kilometres, about 87 per cent of the 1979 to 2000 average for July, representing a loss in area the size of the Northern Territory.
Sea ice extent in Antarctica has increased by one per cent per decade due to changes in wind patterns linked to ozone depletion and climate change. This is likely to be a short-lived increase with models projecting Antarctic sea ice will reduce by almost a quarter in total extent and a third in total volume by 2100. Most of the world’s ice is in the vast ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. Greenland is melting rapidly, losing ice at the rate of about 200 cubic kilometres per year. Antarctica is also losing mass, though not yet as rapidly. Warming of the oceans and melting of land-based ice causes sea levels to rise. In the last century average global sea level rose by 17 centimetres. Sea levels have continued to rise over the last decade, at an increased rate.
Finally, warming of the climate system can be seen in changes to temperature-sensitive natural ecosystems. Already, Australia is experiencing shifts such as encroachment of eucalypts into subalpine grasslands and early flowering dates for many plants. This wide and diverse body of carefully documented evidence has led scientists to conclude that warming of the climate system is ‘unequivocal’.
The warming is caused by human activities
The warming of the last 50 years cannot be explained by natural factors. On the contrary, the science shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities very likely caused most of this observed warming. Some have suggested that the current warming is a ‘bounce back’ from the Little Ice Age—a period of cooler temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere from the 17th to early 19th centuries. It is questionable whether this qualifies as a scientific explanation, since it offers no physical explanation for the warming. In any case, the Little Ice Age in that time was a regional phenomenon, not a global one (there is no evidence for a Little Ice Age in the Southern Hemisphere at all).
Others have suggested changes in solar irradiance are responsible. However the ‘warming power’ of the additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities is about 20 times greater than that of the increase in total solar irradiance from the year 1750. Similarly, there is little evidence to support suggestions that changes in cosmic rays are responsible for warming. There is no demonstrated physical mechanism by which cosmic rays could influence climate. And there is no correlation between cosmic ray intensity and recent temperature change.
In summary, despite prolonged and careful examination by scientists, no natural causes can explain the observed warming. Indeed, if only natural changes were considered, it is likely the Earth would have cooled during the 20th century. In addition, the amount of warming observed to date is consistent with the additional greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere due to human activities.
Climate scientists use a range of indicators or ‘fingerprints’ to study the human influence on climate. These are characteristics we would expect to see if warming were caused by an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations but not if other causes were responsible. For example, increased greenhouse gas concentrations should lead to warming of the lower atmosphere (or troposphere) and cooling of the upper atmosphere (or stratosphere). This is exactly what has been observed. On the other hand, increased solar irradiance should lead to warming of the upper as well as the lower atmosphere. We can therefore say with a very high degree of confidence that greenhouse gases have been the main driver of the global warming trend since the mid-20th century, while a range of natural processes have affected—and continue to affect—shorter term variability. For practical purposes we can be sure that human activities are responsible for warming.
The future
The massive stores of heat in the world’s oceans mean climate change cannot be reversed for many centuries. Even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilised at their present levels, a further warming of the atmosphere of at least 0.6 degrees Celsius would inevitably follow. However, if we fail to control global greenhouse gas emissions, global average atmospheric temperature could rise by up to five or six degrees Celsius above 1990 levels by the end of this century, an alarming figure.
These are very dramatic temperature increases. To provide a point of comparison, the difference in average global temperatures between the last ice age and today is only about five degrees Celsius. These temperature changes would be accompanied by significant and ongoing rises in sea level, heat waves, bushfires and droughts, disruptions to ecosystems including the extinction of many species, disease threats and social and geopolitical destabilisation.
Sea level impacts
Sea level rise is directly related to increased temperature through thermal expansion of the ocean and melting of land-based ice. In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that sea levels could rise between 18 and 76 centimetres by the year 2100, allowing for the break-up of land-based ice sheets. Further research over the last two or three years suggests this may be an underestimate. Sea level rise of up to one metre by 2100 cannot be ruled out.
Increased sea levels will combine with storm surges and other extreme events such as king tides to flood low-lying coastal areas and erode coastlines. Even an apparently modest sea level rise of 50 centimetres would cause extreme sea level events to occur hundreds of times more frequently along many parts of the Australian coastline. More than 700,000 residences across this country are estimated to be at threat from the effects of climate change including storm surges and extreme weather events. Globally, megadeltas and low-lying islands are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and could be uninhabitable by the year 2100. Many of the most vulnerable of these, of course, are in our neighbourhood—the Asia-Pacific region.
Heat-related impacts
The heatwave in south-eastern Australia in January and February this year illustrates clearly how our vulnerability to extreme heat events exists. This heatwave set new record temperatures and had observable impacts on human health, infrastructure and ecosystems. During this heatwave, the Basslink Interconnector experienced shutdown when temperatures exceeded its design limits, reducing power supplies to Melbourne. Rail lines buckled for the first time, causing delays in transport. In Victoria there were 374 additional deaths. Climate change will result in more heatwaves. Bushfires are expected to become more intense, and the interval between them will shorten. The megafires in Canberra in 2003 and Victoria in 2009 are consistent with these expected changes in fire regimes and, of course, with dreadfully tragic consequences.
Impacts on water resources
Climate change is already affecting our water resources and larger impacts can be expected in the future. Rainfall in south-west Western Australia dropped by about 15 per cent in the 1970s and has not recovered. Stream flow into Perth’s dams between 1976 and the year 2000 almost halved as a result. There is evidence that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are responsible for half the decline in rainfall in south-west Western Australia. There is also evidence that reduced rainfall in south-eastern Australia—Victoria and the southern part of South Australia in particular—cannot be explained by natural factors alone.
Projections indicate that water availability will continue to decline in major areas of Australia. This has large implications for water availability in our major cities and agricultural centres including the Murray-Darling Basin. Under a worst case scenario irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin would virtually disappear by 2100.
Ocean acidification
About one quarter of human emissions of carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans. While this provides a brake on the rate of climate change, it has serious consequences for marine ecosystems because the dissolved carbon dioxide acidifies the oceans. Coral reefs face the double threat of increasing sea surface temperature causing coral bleaching and acidification reducing their ability to grow. Increasing acidification will cause severe disruptions to marine ecosystems in general, and will endanger many of the world’s fisheries.
World Heritage properties
Seventeen of Australia’s World Heritage properties, listed for their outstanding cultural and natural values, will experience increased risks from climate change as well. The threats to our largest World Heritage area—the iconic Great Barrier Reef—from increased ocean temperatures and acidity due to carbon pollution are severe. The Great Barrier Reef is home to important biodiversity and contributes around $5 billion and around 60,000 jobs to Australia’s economy.
Kakadu National Park represents a unique combination of outstanding ecological and cultural values, both of which are threatened by climate change. Rising sea levels are already causing salt water intrusion into low-lying freshwater wetlands at Kakadu.
Human health
Climate change will also have numerous and far-reaching health impacts in our population. Assuming no adaptation, there could be an additional 5,000 heat related deaths in our five largest cities by 2050. Climate change will also change the geographical range of mosquito-borne infectious diseases. Climate change and population growth are likely to increase the number of people living in areas suitable for supporting dengue fever by up to 1.4 million by 2050.
Economic impacts
Climate change impacts will also have far-reaching economic implications. It is not possible to calculate the full economic costs of future climate change impacts. However, the 2008 Garnaut review provided a partial estimate. Garnaut concluded that the limited range of impacts he was able to consider would result in costs amounting to eight per cent of gross domestic product by the end of this century in the event of unmitigated climate change. The full cost to the economy from the entire range of climate change impacts and their flow-on effects would be much higher.
Feedbacks and tipping elements in the climate system
Of major concern is the growing realisation that climate change can be accelerated beyond current predictions by reinforcing ‘climate feedbacks’—that is, climate change feeds on itself to enhance the rate of warming. One feedback of concern is the possible release of hitherto stable carbon stores to the atmosphere, for example, by the thawing of carbon-rich frozen soils.
A tipping point is where the climate is effectively flipped into a new state with no way to recover. Some of these flips can occur rapidly with little advance warning. It is possible that a temperature threshold will be crossed later this century that will see the eventual disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet. If this happened, it would lead to seven metres of sea level rise. Such a change would be irreversible in any timeframe meaningful for human societies.
Conclusion
In March this year over 2,000 leading scientists gathered at a conference in Copenhagen found that many aspects of climate are changing near the upper boundary of IPCC projections. Unabated emissions will cause major societal and environmental disruptions for our children and those that follow.
In July in Italy, leaders of the world’s 20 largest emitting economies, including our own Prime Minister, agreed that the science is compelling and that urgent action needs to be taken. These were the leaders of the world’s 20 largest emitting economies. The government is helping to shape the global solution in its approach to this issue. We are working to achieve at the UN Conference in Copenhagen in December a new and effective long-term approach on global cooperation. The government recognises that a global agreement stabilising greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalence or lower is in Australia’s national interests.
Even if we do achieve an ambitious new global agreement, the climate will continue to change. The government has therefore put in place the first steps to prepare to adapt to this challenge and there is much more as a nation that we shall need to do to make us resilient to the climate change risks that will confront our society, economy and the environment. To drive the carbon intensity of the economy down and to contribute to the global effort, the government has committed to challenging emissions reductions targets. If there is a comprehensive agreement capable of stabilising greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalence or lower, then the government has committed to a target of reducing emissions by 25 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme constitutes the foundation stone of Australia’s ability to reach those ambitious national emissions reductions targets. There is no soft way forward to confront this issue. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is being supported by other measures, including the expanded Renewable Energy Target and our efficiency measures. Inaction on climate change is inexcusable. The government is committed to action.
The Leader of the Opposition agrees with the climate change science that I have outlined. He apparently agrees that we need a price on carbon in our economy as well. He is also on the record supporting the government’s emissions reduction targets. These are very important commitments. It is now up to the coalition to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the Senate, to support the legislation in the Senate that has been carried by this House on the grounds of the solid foundation of the science and to help this country make its contribution to bring about reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to meet this most serious of challenges.
by leave—I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Flinders speaking for a period not exceeding 21 minutes.
Question agreed to.
I want to begin with three clear principles before addressing both the science, with which we are in agreement, and the solution, on which we have points of disagreement. The three clear principles are these: firstly, that climate change is real and significant and important. This is my deeply held, passionate belief. It is also our clear, precise and strong policy within the coalition. That is our policy. That is my belief. Secondly, at this moment we are at the point of ‘big history’. It is a phrase I used in a speech at the Centre for Independent Studies on 30 November 2006, and we are at that point of big history because of the confluence of two events. What we see is the evidence of an emerging tragedy of the commons, as Garrett Hardin wrote about more than four decades ago. A tragedy of the commons is where individual action, when grossed up collectively, leads to a common problem. In this case we have the accumulation of individual action through the consumption of electricity, through the use of automotive vehicles, through the way in which we treat our land, adding up to a collective problem in terms of the accumulation of C02 in our atmosphere—now at 383 parts per million, on the latest evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and that that in turn is having an impact on our climate. This big history is caused by the tragedy of the commons. It is solved through the incorporation of externalities which have not otherwise been included within our economic system. And that is a principle which is clear, strong and absolute in dealing with the fundamental scientific point established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established during our time in government through the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO, the Greenhouse Office, and the Antarctic Division of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. That is strong, clear and absolute.
This brings me to the third principle: that there are good actions and there are bad actions. Not all actions represent a solution. Not all attempts represent a positive outcome. It is quite conceivable to worsen the global problem by taking the problem of carbon leakage and by sending production to higher-emitting environments which are less efficient. That can in fact defeat the very purpose for which legislation is crafted and have an impact not just on Australian jobs—and profoundly on Australian jobs—but also on the very source question of reducing global emissions. The point here is very simple. The problem is real and significant. It is a moment of big history with which we have to deal, but we have to choose our solutions wisely and, in our view, in dealing with the very science set down by the Minister assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Water, there is a greener, cheaper and smarter way forward which could double the base case of savings in terms of emissions from five to 10 per cent if there were no global agreement. It could be cheaper to the extent of $49 billion or $9,000 per family and smarter to the extent that it would save 68,000 rural jobs or create part thereof. In that situation it is incumbent upon the government of the day to examine with good faith a proposal for a system which is greener, cheaper and smarter and which addresses the very problem which they outline as being in need of action in a more effective and more comprehensive way.
Having made those points, I want to turn first to the science before looking at the four pillars of our solution. In dealing with the science, let me begin by making two brief statements. I am well known and publicly convicted as being of the belief that the science is clear and strong in relation to the contribution of human activity—the release of C02 and equivalent gases—to the increase in levels of CO2 and in turn the impact of climate change on our global environment. That puts me in a position where I can make the statement with clarity that we must never get into denouncing those who have a difference of view. I am a believer in climate science but I stand squarely for the right of those who have a difference of opinion to present their view without fear of being denounced as deniers, without fear of being harassed and without fear of being mocked. Science advances through contestability. Science advances through an open society. Science advances through people being able to present their case without fear of being hounded, harassed and abused. So I make this statement very clearly as one who does believe in the science: those who have a difference of opinion and a difference of understanding have not just the right but the duty to present that view and they have the right to present that view without fear of harassment or denunciation as being deniers.
Having said that, let me say this about the science: I welcome the statement made by the minister today and I thank him for what he put down in terms of the science, although I reject of course the persiflage of the political comments at the start and at the end. In terms of the global science, let me make these points clear: we believe that it is absolutely without dispute that an additional 40 billion tonnes of CO2 or equivalent gases per annum is being put into the skies through human activity. There is very little dispute about that component. We also believe and accept—although there is more dispute around this element—that that has led to the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere to 383 parts per million, which is up from about 280 parts per million during the course of the industrial revolution. But that is largely also not a disputed fact. We also accept that this has had an impact and is likely to have a more significant impact on climate change over and above that which is normal, natural and part of the global movements and cycles. We accept that there is a direct link between the accumulation of CO2 or equivalent gases in the earth’s atmosphere and the phenomena of climate change. There has been a 0.7-degree increase in global average temperatures over the last century. There has been an increase of approximately 20 centimetres in global sea levels over the last century. We also see that there is likely to be an impact of between 18 and 76 centimetres, according to the IPCC, in global sea level rises over the coming century if no action is taken. But I speak from a position where I believe that we will take action and we can take action and there will be an impact. So the business-as-usual case is the worst case scenario; it does not take into account what will happen if we do take the actions that I believe we will take collectively at the global level and within Australia.
I also note that for Australia there are risks of inaction at the global level, because action taken in Australia alone will have no impact. There must be a global solution. Therefore, we know that there are likely to be changes in temperature. We also know, from the advice I had in government from the Bureau of Meteorology and other government agencies, that there is likely to be a change in rainfall patterns such that, if we take a diagonal line stretching from north of Perth to north of Brisbane, there will probably be an increase in rainfall to the north of that line and there is likely to be a decrease in rainfall to the south of that line. Nevertheless, what the Director of Meteorology repeatedly stressed to me was that we should not attribute individual events such as rainstorms, periods of dry and periods of wind to climate change. It will be on average an overview. That is very important. There is a danger and a risk that people will overstate individual activities.
We are, as Dorothea Mackellar told us over 100 years ago, a land of ‘droughts and flooding rains’. That was 100 years ago, before climate change took root. Many of our climatic records date from before climate change had any impact. So there are huge natural fluctuations and huge natural events; that is what weather is. But, the trend we believe is clear and strong and I thank the government for putting down the scientific elements of this statement.
I want to turn to the response to the science, because if this science is the case, I make the point very clearly that there can be good and bad policy responses. The contention presented repeatedly by those on the government side is that all responses are by definition good. That is palpably and demonstrably false. What we are pursuing is an approach based on four pillars of action. Those four pillars are: firstly, green carbon; secondly, a clean energy revolution; thirdly, a price on carbon; and, fourthly, a comprehensive global agreement. Together they offer Australia the best chance of securing its future in terms of the environment to the extent that human activity has an impact on the environment.
Let me deal with the first of those, the green-carbon approach. I pay great tribute to Malcolm Turnbull, who did an extraordinary body of the heft of this work himself. We have set down a clear, achievable objective of 150 million tonnes of savings of CO2 per annum by 2020 through the adoption and implementation of green-carbon practices. What does that mean? It means that the farmers of the Liverpool Plains, with whom I visited last week accompanied by the member, Mark Coulton, and others will be able to sequester carbon in their soil through the changes in practices that they are presently adopting. Biochar, mallee and mulga revegetation, avoided deforestation, avoided degradation of forests and reafforestation can all contribute to this amount. And lest it be thought that this is an overambitious target, Professor Garnaut’s chapter 22 sets out the potential for 800 million tonnes per annum of savings. So we are one-fifth of that which is proposed by Professor Garnaut, but we are a heck of a lot more than that which is embodied within the government’s system because green carbon, other than from the pure planting of trees, is not recognised, unlike in the United States and unlike what is occurring within the European Union. The point here is very clear. We need a system that will reduce the costs to farmers by making it clear that direct emissions from farms from burping cows are not taxed in Australia. It is an almost ludicrous proposition, but it is a fact that the government is proposing to tax burping cows in Australia. Let me make it absolutely clear that we will not contemplate a direct tax on direct emissions from agricultural activity.
We will also seek to reduce the electricity and other input costs. On the upside, we will seek to ensure that there are opportunities for farmers, through soil carbon and the improvement in the carrying capacity of their soils in relation to carbon, to receive credits. Those credits could be traded on the international market, or they could be traded on the compulsory Australian market to companies such as BHP, Alumina or Rio Tinto, who may seek to offset their emissions through purchase of agricultural credits, or they could be traded on the domestic voluntary market that we hope will be established by the government, and, if they will not do it, we will move to do such a thing.
The second thing that I want to deal with here in terms of our four pillars is the clean energy revolution. The clean energy revolution, in dealing with the very issues of science raised by the government, comprises two elements. It is about supply side and cleaning up power generation in Australia and it is about demand side and reducing power consumption in Australia. On the supply side there are two key elements. The first is the embrace of a renewables policy which will see Australia move towards a 20 per cent target of renewable energy by 2020. We clearly, strongly, absolutely support such a target. We clearly, strongly, absolutely would like to see such legislation passed through the parliament, but not at any price—we want that legislation decoupled from the emissions trading scheme. We want to deal on other amendments, we will talk with the government, and we hope and expect that they will decouple that from the emissions trading scheme.
The second element is the process of cleaning up our traditional fossil fuel power generation. There has to be, as the member for Groom and as the Leader of the Opposition have said, a process that will allow us to produce two clean coal power stations by 2020 of industrial scale that are operating, that will test the viability and that are fully functioning. That is what we seek, that is what we will pursue and that is what we think is vital if we are to give Australia a future in its own most abundant resource, whilst also providing clean energy and securing international markets to ensure that our abundant resource is part of a global clean energy solution.
This leads me to the issue of demand. As we have set out and as the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, has set out, on the demand side we believe that 50 million tonnes of CO2 or equivalent gases can and must be saved through energy efficiency by 2020. What that means is the development of smart grid technology, as we see in California and as we can do Australia. It means also that we have proposed an accelerated depreciation mechanism for investment in green buildings—for investment in low-emissions technology for our building stock within Australia. We want to see the rate of depreciation doubled so that we have accelerated depreciation to encourage emissions-saving investment. That is what we seek and what we will do.
We also acknowledge that there has to be a carefully targeted price of carbon. This can be a disaster for the Australian economy or it can be carefully implemented. Therefore, we have proposed a system which is greener, cheaper and smarter. It is greener because it offers a 10 per cent base in the case of no global agreement rather than a five per cent base. It is cheaper because it offers $49 billion worth of savings—or more understandably, and perhaps more importantly, the equivalent of $9,000 per family of four. It would have a $240 per annum impact on their electricity prices—the difference between a $40 and a $280 increase in the rise of electricity bills for families. It is smarter not just because it would reduce the extraordinary churn of dollars but also because it would create a net 68,000 regional jobs in Australia.
Those things must be considered by the government. We say: show real leadership and do what President Obama would do—cross the aisle and negotiate about how to improve the system. If they will not do that then we will not worsen global emissions and hock the Australian economy in order to produce a system which will neither solve the emissions problem nor protect the Australian economy.
The question has been raised as to whether what we have put down in the Frontier Economics report is party policy. There are three key principles in that. Firstly is the principle that green carbon should be encouraged and that agricultural emissions should have an offset capability but not a direct liability. That is already party policy. Secondly is the principle that there must be a level playing field for Australia’s export and trade exposed sector. That is already party policy. Thirdly is the principle that there should be quite different treatment of the power generation sector. The government at the moment are negotiating with the power generation sector, as they know they have a huge balance sheet problem. That is an idea which was greeted with great interest. We will develop that and we want to sit down and talk with the government on that. That is the third of our pillars.
The last of our pillars is about an international agreement. We want to see a comprehensive international agreement which brings China, India, Indonesia and Russia, along with the United States and Europe, to the table with appropriate responsibilities and commitments from each of them. On that basis we could have a real ability to work towards a 15 or 25 per cent target in the case of a comprehensive global agreement, to which we would add the potential for voluntary action.
Lastly, we would like to see a global rainforest recovery program. We will support the government if they pursue with good faith a genuine rainforest recovery program. I go back to where I started: 40 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum leads to the scientific points raised in the government’s statement. Of that, eight billion tonnes comes from deforestation. It is clear that half of that, four billion tonnes, could be saved over the next five years on a per annum basis if there is a genuine global commitment to reducing deforestation. That is the single biggest, fastest, cheapest thing we can do to address the science set out in this statement.
I thank the House and I thank the government for the opportunity to respond. We believe that there is a real challenge, that it is significant, that we have to give the planet the benefit of the doubt but that there can be good and bad responses. That is why we commend a system to the government which they must examine and which is greener, cheaper and smarter. We urge them to cross the aisle to negotiate and make a real difference in addressing the science.
by leave—There is no greater responsibility of any government than to protect the safety and security of its citizens. As the events of recent weeks demonstrate, terrorism continues to pose a real and significant threat to Australia and Australian interests both here and abroad.
The Australian government is committed to ensuring the focus of Australia’s national security and counterterrorism laws remains on preventing a terrorist attack from occurring in the first place—not just waiting to punish those who would commit these heinous crimes after they occur. An effective legal framework is therefore fundamental to our ability to address Australia’s security environment. To that end, I am today announcing the release of a comprehensive discussion paper detailing the government’s proposed reforms to Australia’s national security and counterterrorism legislation.
The amendments proposed in this discussion paper seek to achieve an appropriate balance between the government’s responsibility to protect Australia, its people and its interests and to instil confidence that our laws will be exercised in a just and accountable way.
In December 2008, I announced and tabled our response to a number of outstanding reviews of national security and counterterrorism legislation, including:
At the time, the government stated that it supported the majority of recommendations made by each of these reviews, which largely dealt with the need to provide clarification and in some cases additional safeguards in relation to the exercise of law enforcement and investigatory powers. In addition, the government also committed to publicly release draft legislation implementing the government’s response to these reviews.
While I will not attempt to outline in detail all the measures contained in a very detailed discussion paper, there are a number of key measures that are proposed. They include:
The government has endeavoured to address the concerns and issues raised by recent important reviews of national security and counterterrorism legislation. I note in respect of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and the DSD, the reviews occurred at the time when those in opposition had the majority of the members on those committees, but the work was sound and the members were people of integrity and they have made balanced and sound recommendations. These responses, we believe, will achieve the right balance between strong laws that protect our safety while preserving the democratic rights that protect our freedoms.
The proposed package of reforms represents a significant step to achieve just that. The government’s efforts in this area, however, do not start and finish with the proposed reforms contained in the paper. We heard in question time today from the Minister for Home Affairs of the measures he is taking in the areas of electronic security and the areas of money laundering and preventing the financing of terrorist organisations.
In addition, my colleague the Special Minister of State, Joseph Ludwig, has already introduced legislation to establish a national security legislation monitor to review the practical operation, effectiveness and implications of national security and counterterrorism legislation and that will be done on an annual basis. The monitor will be independent and will consider whether legislation adequately protects public safety, without reducing cherished public freedoms.
The government has also extended the mandate of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to cover agencies such as the Australian Federal Police and progressed recommendations arising out of the Street review enabling greater interoperability between our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Indeed, the recent joint operation witnessed last week in Melbourne is testimony to the enhanced cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies at the Commonwealth, state and territory levels.
In addition, the government is also:
Each and all of the measures I have outlined today are designed to give the Australian community confidence that our law enforcement and security agencies have the tools they need to fight terrorism, while ensuring these laws and powers are balanced by appropriate safeguards and are fully accountable in their operation. As the Prime Minister stated in his National Security Statement last year, maintaining this balance is an ongoing challenge for all modern democracies in preparing for the complex national security challenges of the future. By striking this balance, the Australian community can have confidence in our national security framework.
The government remains committed to developing legislation in a careful and consultative manner and, with that in mind, has already provided the proposed amendments to state and territory governments for their consideration. The discussion paper provides key stakeholders and the Australian public generally with the opportunity to participate in the process of amending Australia’s national security and counterterrorism laws. I table a copy of the report, titled National Security legislation: discussion paper on proposed amendments, and I can indicate also that that discussion paper will be available on the website of the Attorney-General’s Department. The government is committed to developing these laws in a transparent and accountable way. The discussion paper will be open for public comment until 25 September 2009. Engagement with and support from the community is essential to that process being worth while. I certainly look forward to receiving submissions from those in this place and from the community more widely on these important reforms to our national security legislation.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Farrer to speak for 10 minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms Ley speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.
Question agreed to.
I listened with great interest to the statement by the Attorney-General. The opposition shares the government’s acknowledgement that its highest responsibility is to protect the safety and security of Australian citizens. We also share the commitment to ensuring that the focus of our national security and counterterrorism laws remains the prevention of any attack. It was the coalition that took the hard decisions to put these laws in place. We have been very fortunate in that no terrorist attack has been successfully mounted in Australia, but this is a result of vigilance rather than any evidence of abatement of the threat.
As the Leader of the Opposition said in his condolence motion speech in this place this week, the gruesome events in Jakarta on the morning of 17 July were a wake-up call for any who had dared to hope or imagine that the threat of global terrorism was on the wane. I would like to quote briefly from the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks, which illustrate the importance of the task we face:
The appalling agenda of the extremists is of course to sabotage that sense of comity and cooperation in our region, in our world. Their aim is to drive a wedge between peoples of different cultures and faiths. They must not be allowed to believe that they can succeed.
The legislative framework necessarily involves some intrusions on our traditional individual rights and liberties. That is why it is the task of this parliament to maintain a close watch over the framework to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck and, where necessary, recalibrate it. The opposition supports the ongoing process described by the Attorney-General. However, we note that this discussion paper, as just outlined by the Attorney, is not the delivery of the long-promised white paper, and it must be asked why it has taken so long to arrive only at this preliminary point in the process. Nevertheless, the opposition will carefully consider the measures contained in the discussion paper and the public participation that we hope it will generate.
I note that some legislative initiatives have already commenced—in particular, the National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2009, currently being considered by a Senate committee. That bill does not seem entirely consistent with the parliamentary joint committee’s recommendation, but, as I have said, it is the task of this place to subject our suite of national security laws to particular scrutiny, and that process is evidently underway already.
The opposition accepts that it is appropriate to consider extending the scope of the existing laws in a number of respects—for example, expanding the definition of a terrorist act to include psychological harm, creating a terrorist hoax offence, permitting prosecution appeals against bail decisions and expediting court proceedings. However, as the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, has stressed on several occasions, those who seek to expand the reach of laws which are themselves invasive bear the burden of persuasion that existing laws are inadequate. Parliaments must always be on their guard against the ratcheting up of laws by the passage of incrementally more invasive laws unless there is a demonstrated clear necessity for doing so. As well, it should always be remembered that when laws which abrogate or compromise traditional freedoms and immunities are passed in response to extraordinary events to deal with imminent threats to national security, they are not intended, nor would it be desirable, to alter the legal status quo forever. Having said that, the opposition does not consider that the threat posed by terrorism is today any less acute than it was when the Howard government reformed and extended the antiterrorism laws in 2002 and again in 2005.
I note the government’s proposal to revisit the sedition laws to more tightly focus them against violent threats and to protect freedom of speech. The opposition will examine these proposals carefully—in particular, the counter-radicalisation proposals which we hope will be informed by the experience in the United Kingdom. These policies, however, can only form part of our response to the threat of terrorism. As David Burchell in Monday’s Australian newspaper remarked:
In the end it will be for those brave souls in the—
at-risk—
… community to win or lose the fight for the hearts of their own young … I doubt there’s any remedy other than the enforcement of those crude but necessary laws that protect citizens from violence by other citizens.
While the opposition look forward to cooperating with the government in the review and refinement of the national security legislation, we will also continue to hold the government to account in ensuring that the existing laws are properly administered. Draconian laws are no substitute for well resourced national security agencies. In the last budget, the Australian Federal Police’s counterterrorism program was cut by $1.4 million, its intelligence program was cut by $3.2 million and funding of its economic and special operations program was cut by $8.1 million. In our view a commitment to counterterrorism is best evidenced by appropriate resourcing, not by ever more invasive curtailments of traditional rights and liberties. The opposition will examine the discussion paper with care and in light of these principles.
The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Sturt proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to deliver a real Education Revolution.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I present members of the House with a test. I ask them to tell me what the following people have in common: the Auditor-General; the Australian Education Union; the Australian Secondary Principals Association; the Australian Council of State School Organisations; the Australian Primary Principals Association; the Victorian Principals Association; the New South Wales Teachers Federation; the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales; the New South Wales Secondary Principals Council; Infrastructure Australia board member Peter Newman; Reed Construction Data, an industry expert on building costs; Henry Grossek, the Principal of Berwick Lodge Primary School in the electorate of the member for La Trobe; Stuart Daly, the Principal of the Oatlands Primary School in Melbourne; the Head of Curtin University School of Education, Jenny Nicol; the President of the New South Wales Aboriginal Education Consultative Group, Cindy Berwick; Institute of Public Affairs research fellow and author Julie Novak; the South Australian Primary Principals Association; Education Strategies director and author Kevin Donnelly; and the opposition. What is it that the House thinks we all have in common? It is a very unusual group of people to be aligned together. I will tell you. What we have in common is a chorus of discontent about the government’s free-falling, failed education revolution.
That chorus of discontent is rising to a roar, but this minister cannot hear it. This minister cannot hear the roar that everyone else in the parliament, both Labor and Liberal, can hear. Labor MPs are getting the same information in their electorate offices about the failure of the education revolution, but this minister cannot hear the chorus of discontent that is rising to a roar in the electorate. She sees no evil about her programs, she hears no evil, she speaks no evil, and she will have no evil spoken about Building the Education Revolution. I have in my hand a full folder of BER bungles that surround the schools stimulus debacle. Almost all of them of course have come through the educationforaustralia.com.au website that we have established. Why? Because the government has gagged the principals and chairmen of governing councils who would like to speak out and cannot do so. Like Marie Antoinette in the French Revolution, this minister says: ‘Let them eat cake. I don’t see their problems.’ So it was no surprise to me that Ross Fitzgerald, in a column in the Australian on Monday, wrote:
Nor does it surprise that the Auditor-General has announced he will be conducting a full investigation into this spending, a humiliation for the Minister only three months into the delivery of her program. If it were anyone else on the Treasury benches in charge of this debacle, their career trajectory would be in serious freefall.
‘If it were anyone else on the Treasury benches’—but not this minister, not this protected species. Joel Fitzgibbon, the former Minister for Defence, must wonder what he needed to do to survive the crisis that engulfed him. As Ross Fitzgerald said of the Minister for Education, she is all style and very little substance—not everyone would agree with that, of course. He said she is long on rhetoric but short on delivery, all foam but no beer. Minister, isn’t that the reality of your handling of the education portfolio in the last two years?
We can legitimately ask: why is the Auditor-General inquiring into the Building the Education Revolution primary schools component? He first conducted a preliminary investigation where he went to the department and asked them a series of questions. He was obviously dissatisfied with the response that he received, so he has launched a full audit under section 15 of the Auditor-General Act 1997. This must be one of the most humiliating debacles for a minister in the government in the last 22 months. The Auditor-General is conducting a full investigation, a full audit, into the Deputy Prime Minister’s handling of Building the Education Revolution, which is supposedly the centrepiece of what this government stands for.
This government was supposed to be the education government. The Prime Minister stood up during the election campaign and waved laptops about and visited TAFE colleges and promised to end Australian technical colleges and establish training centres. This was to be the education government. How embarrassing it is, how humiliating it is, that they have been reduced to a full audit by the Auditor-General of Australia into their handling of the education revolution. The Auditor-General will find a litany of complaints, a litany of failures. I have a few of them here. I will of course hand over to the Auditor-General every bit of information that I have, and I would urge all my colleagues—particularly my Liberal Party and National Party colleagues, who are well aware of the problem—to do the same. The Auditor-General will find a litany of failure, a litany of waste, mismanagement and an incapacity to deliver value for money to taxpayers.
Taxpayers of course welcome spending on school infrastructure. Who would not think that spending on school infrastructure was a positive step forward? Who would not think that our schools should have the best possible infrastructure, if not the best possible teachers and the best possible IT? Of course they should. But taxpayers expect—and we in the opposition expect—that the government will at least try to deliver value for money for taxpayers’ dollars. It is not the government’s money. It is the Australian taxpayers’ money. It is the hard-earned income of the Australian taxpayers, which they hand over to the government and expect it to manage wisely. They would be sorely tested by this government’s performance in education.
The Auditor-General will find skimming by state governments. He will find that the South Australian government cut their school infrastructure budget by 12 per cent this year, as though the state government had achieved all the objectives they needed to in infrastructure. This year, for the first time in many, many, many years in South Australia, the infrastructure budget for schools was cut, by 12 per cent, a very substantial cut. What they have done of course is remove their spending and let the federal taxpayers substitute effort. The federal government said that they would not tolerate the substitution of effort. The opposite has occurred.
The Auditor-General will find profiteering by business. Most of my colleagues would be able to give and have given examples of overinflated contract arrangements, of people increasing what they would usually have charged because they know that the bureaucracy is so desperate to push money out the door. The chief estimator of Reed Construction Data, which is one of the firms at the forefront of building in schools, has been quoted in the media:
Reed’s chief estimator, Gary Thornley, said an average school hall should cost no more than $1000 per square metre to build.
A three-storey office block could be built for the price the government was spending on halls, he said. “I reckon $3m is a really big hit” …
“Even if we went beserk we’d never come up with that figure. Whoever has produced that figure has taken it out of their earlobe. It’s Versace stuff.”
We hope that the minister has not taken it out of her earlobe, but clearly someone in the departments right across Australia is allowing business to get away with profiteering out of the Australian taxpayers’ money.
The Auditor-General will find that the Queensland state government is paying consultants up to $525,000 for six months of work to manage their projects—to manage, apparently, five to 10 schools. It is an exorbitant amount of money that the Queensland state government is flushing out into the system. Of course, the consultants are deeply into the trough. They have got their snouts deep in the trough. They are getting right into the trough and lolling about in taxpayers’ very satisfying and relaxing money.
The Auditor-General will also find, as was revealed by the Australian on Saturday, examples like X-site, a small business, a small building firm, trying to garner some of the money from the Building the Education Revolution program and get some jobs. The head of X-site, Mr Lester, was quoted in relation to trying to fulfil the bewildering array of conditions that the government has applied to this:
“It’s tough, and it’s expensive,” Mr Lester said.
“You basically have to employ somebody to tell you that you’re abiding by the standard.
“That means you’ve got to get a consultant, which is going to cost us about $10,000, to dot the Is and cross the Ts.
“It will cost several thousand more to get certified. But you have to do it, otherwise you miss the boat, and it’s expensive because you have to pay somebody just to tell you that you’ve met the standard.”
Of course, for the Labor Party $10,000 is a mere bagatelle, $10,000 is nothing. But, for small businesses and small building firms, $10,000 is a very substantial amount of money and it is straight out of their bottom line, straight out of their profits, straight out of their capacity to employ people, to employ other Australians.
Mr Laming interjecting
Exactly! Ten thousand dollars would not even pay for a free lunch with Anna Bligh or any of the Queensland ministers at one of their fundraisers. But this Mr Lester has to find $10,000, as he says, just to prove that he is abiding by the standard that he is already abiding by.
We have good examples like that from my good friend and colleague the member for Kalgoorlie of Perenjori Primary School, where he shows that there have been overinflated costs—an amazing inflation from $527,000 to $950,000 in two months. What does the minister say about that? She cannot hear it. There is nothing wrong with her scheme, nothing wrong with her programs. The minister never makes a mistake. We saw on Q&A the other night, with the young audience, that the minister never makes a mistake. It is always somebody else’s fault. It is the state government’s fault or it is the fault of the other members of the frontbench or it is the opposition’s fault or it is the Australian Education Union’s fault or it is the state Premier’s fault. But it is never the minister’s fault. The young people were horrified that the minister would not take responsibility for these failings. Why won’t the minister hear the chorus of discontent that is growing to a roar in the community about her failure to deliver on any of her programs or any of her responsibilities? No. Like Marie Antoinette, she says, ‘They can eat cake.’
The list goes on. Schools are being forced to build Julia Gillard memorial school halls, complete with $3½ million worth of plaques, when they really want something else. One very brave principal, Henry Grossek from Berwick Lodge Primary School, stood up to the government and he succeeded. They wanted to force him to have a gym, but he already had a gym. They told him: ‘You’ve got $3 million for a gym.’ He said, ‘But I’ve already got a gym,’ and they said, ‘You’ll miss out in the first round if you don’t take the gym.’ He said, ‘Well, I’m going to stand up to you.’
Ms Jackson interjecting
You think it’s so funny, don’t you, you marginal seat members over there from Western Australia. You think it is a complete riot, don’t you, because it is not your money; it is taxpayers’ money, so who cares? Who cares if taxpayers do not get value for money? The member for Hasluck does not care. She has lost before and she has come back. She is in clover. She has won again. She thinks: ‘It’s taxpayers’ money. Let’s live high on the hog.’ ‘Let’s live high on the hog,’ the member for Hasluck says, ‘Who cares about taxpayers’ money?’ That is what you think, isn’t it? Well, we care. The opposition care. Even the Australian Education Union care. You have not even got them in your corner on this.
So Henry Grossek stood up to them and he got them to change their position, and more strength to his arm.
The Auditor-General will also find ideological and bureaucratic hobbyhorse peddling, like the absurd situation where you can have air conditioning in a new building but if you want to put air conditioning in an existing building then you are told that you cannot; you have got to knock the building down. There are examples of schools knocking perfectly good buildings down because they do not have air conditioning and building new buildings so that they can get air conditioning. I am told that, when they ask the bureaucracy why they have to do this, they are told that air conditioning is inefficient, bad for the environment and bad for climate change and ‘We’re not encouraging air conditioning.’ So schools are knocking buildings down so that they can build new buildings with air conditioning. But the minister cannot hear those concerns. They are not really out there. If she pretends it is not happening then it is not really happening.
We have examples in New South Wales, in Queensland and in South Australia of schools that are closing down being granted money, through either National School Pride or the BER, when they are closing down as soon as 2010. How are you going to move the running track? How are you going to move the revegetation, as you claimed was capable of being done?
I finish where I started. Ross Fitzgerald got it right on Monday. This minister is all style and very little substance, long on rhetoric but very short on delivery—all foam and no beer. Ross Fitzgerald hit the middle of the target. The minister should resign and hand the job over to someone who wants to be a full-time minister for education. We do not need a part-time minister for education anymore. She can keep her other portfolios. The minister should hand over her job to someone who wants to be a full-time minister for education—not just a part-time one, using schools and students for her greater ambitions to seek higher office. (Time expired)
Can I say first and foremost: I think Australians deserve a better standard of debate about the most important issue of education. Can I also say: I think Australians deserve better than a part-time shadow education minister. It amazes me that if you go to the member’s website you will find that he has only published one speech on education this year—that was a speech on the Bradley higher education reforms. He has not one published speech on schools this year, not one published speech on VET this year, not one published speech on early childhood education this year. But there are two published speeches on the Liberal Party. So I think what people can conclude from that is that he cares twice as much about talking to his Liberal Party colleagues as he does about debating education issues. And the shadow minister just said to me, ‘What about the press releases?’ Well, if you go to his website you will find that he has put out 41 media releases this year. So, out of 222 days, he has done an average of one press release every 5.4 days. So once every working week, five days of a working week, he has struggled and managed to put out one press release—hardly indicative of a shadow minister engaged in the education debate. ‘But,’ I hear you ask, ‘maybe there are volumes and volumes of policies?’ Well, there are not on the website. And then, if you go to the Education for Australia website, what you find is 182 words under the heading, ‘Liberal focus on education,’ and most of it is paying homage to a program of the former Howard government—not one policy, not one idea for the nation’s future on education. This is not good enough for the standard of debate and an indication that the shadow minister does not take his job seriously—and clearly he puts very little effort into getting it done. In contrast, the government is completely focused on delivering our education revolution, which is both a major reform agenda and an unprecedented focus with new resources across education.
Let us go through the elements of the education revolution. Of course, true to form, the shadow minister has only talked about one—the Building the Education Revolution program. Well, can I say to the shadow minister: the Building the Education Revolution program is the biggest school modernisation program in the nation’s history, and I welcome debate and focus on it. But driving an education revolution—and making true the promise of the best possible start in life that this nation should give to every child—actually requires more than that.
But let us just focus for a minute, as the shadow minister did, on the question of the Building the Education Revolution program. I would have to say that I do not think he has got the support of his backbench, because my attention has been drawn to this journal, published by the Hon. Peter Slipper MP, federal member for Fisher—as we would know, a very longstanding member of the Liberal Party and a member of the opposition. I did read it all, of course, but my attention was particularly drawn to the back page: ‘Recent funding announcements’. Here is a list of recent funding announcements, from Peter Slipper for Fisher. There we can go through a list of funding announcements—all the Building the Education Revolution announcements: $200,000 for Beerwah State High School, $75,000 for Beerburrum State School, $200,000 for Buddina, $200,000 for Maleny, $200,000 for Talara, $200,000 for Unity College, $200,000 for another school in Caloundra, $75,000 for Conondale, $125,000 for Delaneys Creek State School—
They pay taxes. Why shouldn’t they get spending? Do you think only Labor seats should get it?
Government members interjecting—
Order! There will be no discussion across the chamber.
$125,000 for Glenview State School, $200,000 for Golden Beach State School, $200,000 for Kawana Waters State College, $125,000 for Kilcoy State High School and $150,000 for Landsborough State School—claimed by the member as his own work: an endorsement of Building the Education Revolution.
But can I say to the member for Fisher that he is not alone in being someone who endorses Building the Education Revolution. Let us go to the education representatives in this country—the people who have made their life’s work advocating for schools. What do they say about Building the Education Revolution? Therese Temby, Chair of the National Catholic Education Commission, says:
The BER funding allocated by the government is being well spent. Projects are proceeding according to budget and on time, with maximum use of local project management and local building contractors—
Those are the words of the person who speaks on behalf of Catholic schools. Then Bill Daniels says:
I can assure you that those associated with 110,000 independent school communities throughout Australia welcome this additional support and are determined to use the funds efficiently and effectively.
That is the man who speaks on behalf of independent schools. Then Leonie Trimper, the person who speaks on behalf of primary principals, says:
The Australian Primary Principals Association today reiterated its strong support for the Federal Government’s $14.7 billion investment for Australia’s 9200 schools. The magnitude and scope of the Federal Government’s capital investment is unprecedented.
So those who have dedicated their lives to improving the quality of Australia’s education system endorse Building the Education Revolution.
The shadow minister comes into this parliament very frequently long on rhetoric, short on proof, making unsubstantiated allegations about Building the Education Revolution which he has mainly lifted from the pages of newspapers, not having done any original research. He should speak to the people who speak on behalf of schools. If he does he will find the attitudes expressed by the people I have just quoted.
More broadly on the education revolution, of which Building the Education Revolution is just one part, today the education revolution has drawn some unlikely support. Given that from time to time I have been known in this parliament to quote the words of the Australian newspaper not necessarily approvingly, I would today draw the House’s attention to the editorial of the Australian newspaper, which talks about it being crunch time in schools, talks about the Rudd Labor government’s determination on transparency and says:
Ms Gillard has been solid in her determination to lift standards, already doing more in less than two years than the Coalition did in 11 years.
That is the editorial of the Australian newspaper today. A dodgy throat is not helping me today, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for that.
What we did when we came to government is say to ourselves, ‘Should we try and make sure that every Australian child gets the best possible start in life and a high-quality education?’ We answered that question yes—yes as a matter of equity and yes as a matter of future economic development for this nation. Then we asked ourselves the question, ‘Can we?’ We answered that question yes. If you are prepared to invest in the education of the most disadvantaged child in this country, you can make sure that child gets a great education and succeeds at school. Then we said to ourselves, ‘How can we make that difference?’ The first thing we realised is that, after more than a decade of neglect and rhetoric by the former government, you could not even sit here as a federal government and say, ‘Bring me a list of the thousand most disadvantaged schools in this country.’ You could not do that as federal education minister. If you said to the department, ‘Bring me a list of those thousand schools where the kids at them come from low income families, which teach many Indigenous children, which teach many children with disabilities, which teach many children from migrant and refugee backgrounds and which teach kids whose parents themselves did not succeed at school. Could you bring me that list?’, the answer would be no. After more than a decade of talking about school transparency by the Liberal Party, that information does not exist. So piece by piece we set about getting those transparency measures so that not only we, the government, but the community can see where educational attainment is, where disadvantage is, and act to make a difference. That is why our transparency measures are so fundamental to our program. Then those transparency measures will relate to and drive new improvements in educational quality across the board.
What do we know makes a difference to kids’ achievement? It is the quality of teaching. What are we investing in? The quality of teaching. What has this government already achieved? It has achieved, just to start, a system in New South Wales where the best teachers will be paid more money to go to the worst schools, the schools that are doing it the toughest. This is a tremendously profound educational reform delivered by the education revolution. What else have we achieved? We have achieved a new way of getting into teaching as a high-performing graduate, which means as a high-performing graduate you can go and help the most disadvantaged schools by teaching in them. This is, again, a profound reform already in train from this government. And we have created a new partnership, $1.5 billion to bring new resources to the most disadvantaged schools to make a difference for them. In addition to those reforms, we have got new investments in literacy and numeracy to make a difference to those kids who struggle the most with the foundation stones of learning.
This comes on top of the work we are doing on a national curriculum to lift standards around the country. It comes on top of the work we are doing in early childhood education to make sure that kids come to school ready to learn. One thing primary school teachers around the country will tell you is that they can tell the difference in a child who has had a quality preschool program and comes to school ready to learn. And we are going to make a difference post-school by ensuring new investments into VET, which we are already making, and of course new investments into universities. We are funding universities in a way which will create a sustainable and long-lasting partnership between universities and disadvantaged schools. For too long our universities have said, ‘We don’t educate enough students from low socioeconomic status families because they fail out of the school system, and we can’t fix that.’ We have said to universities, ‘You are amongst the brightest people in the nation. Why don’t we create an incentive for you to work with the most disadvantaged schools and actually make a difference to them?’, and we have done that.
This is a profound set of reforms right across the educational spectrum. The reforms work with our focus on the kinds of new skills and new learning that children will need in this century. That is why we have brought the digital education revolution to secondary schools. There are 78,000 new computers already in schools, and a ratio of one to one for senior secondary students will be achieved in 2011.
But the learning skills of the new century will not just be on computers; they will also be in trades, and many children will choose that pathway. But they are not going to do it in 1950s facilities and that is why we are bringing trades training centres to each secondary school around the country.
Many schools have chosen to cluster and build bigger facilities. This has been misrepresented by the opposition as somehow schools missing out. They have chosen to do that. The entitlement is there for schools to participate in this program over the 10 years of its rollout. It has already made a difference, with the allocations of funds for 432 schools and 138 projects.
This is an integrated set of reforms right across our education system, from the education of our youngest children through to the education of people in universities. It strikes me as amazing that the Liberal Party says it wants to contend to be the government of this country but it basically has nothing to say about this profound reform agenda and certainly has no alternative. The nation deserves better from the Liberal Party than that. (Time expired)
You have got to hand it to the Rudd government: they are all about spin. They are big on spin, they are big on cliches, they are big on promises, they are big on hard hats and orange vests but they are small on results. When they coined the phrase ‘the education revolution’, a reasonable person would have believed that they were thinking about a quantum leap in standards or that they were talking about greater access to education for all Australians, no matter where they live. The Australian people should have been able to expect, I believe, that they would receive real results delivered on the ground, not government spin.
When we look at the Building the Education Revolution program and the rollout of this program, it is more an education illusion than an education revolution. We see a program that has been characterised by waste and mismanagement. We see a program that is not delivering services effectively. We see a program that is so much subject to this allegation of waste that the Auditor-General is in fact undertaking a full performance audit. It must be something that should be recorded in the Guinness Book of Recordsa program only three months old and already the subject of a full performance audit, such is the waste by this minister and such is the mismanagement on this minister’s watch.
The education revolution should have as its aim access to education for all Australians and access to education no matter where you live. A true education revolution would have the aim of maximising the potential of our youth. A true education revolution would have as its aim maximising national productivity. Instead, we see Labor’s education illusion being all about hard-hat photo opportunities and spin rather than about improving the prospects for our youth.
I would ask the members opposite: how is denying youth allowance to people in regional and rural areas going to build an education revolution? How is denying youth allowance going to affect the youth of our country? It is going to discourage the youth of this country; it is not going to improve their prospects. The changes that this government proposes to put in place with regard to independent youth allowance will severely disadvantage regional students and rural students. From 1 January next year, this government is proposing to alter the eligibility for independent youth allowance so that students will have to work 30 hours per week for 18 months in order to qualify. These changes will affect all students but will impact most heavily on those students who are required to move away from home to pursue the course of their choice.
Whilst metro students in many cases can do the course of their choice within commuting distance of their homes, regional and rural students often have to travel long distances and incur great expense to access the same opportunities, opportunities that are much more readily available to people in our major cities. The government changes will effectively eliminate the gap year, where many students defer their course to earn enough money in 12 months to qualify for independent youth allowance. This proposed change will greatly affect thousands of students who wish to study in future years.
But its impact will be greatest on those students who are in their gap year this year and who are working towards earning $19,500 so as to qualify for independent youth allowance in 2010. These students have planned their work and their studies but they have been kicked in the teeth by this government. They have been basically confronted with what will effectively be retrospective legislation. Many of these students chose to defer their studies and to work for a year specifically to gain access to that independent youth allowance so that they would be financially able to complete their course, financially able to support themselves, and that has been dashed by the policy moves of this government. They made a decision based on the eligibility criteria. They made that decision in good faith on the criteria that existed at the time they commenced their gap year.
Many will not be able to defer for 18 months and many will not be able to secure the 30 hours per week which is required to qualify under the new scheme. As a result, what is going to happen? The result will be that many students from regional and rural areas will not get the benefits of tertiary training, will not get opportunities to upskill and will not get opportunities to maximise their potential in this country, which should be the aim of the so-called education revolution.
The requirement that students work 30 hours per week totally ignores the difficulties of obtaining employment in regional areas. Employment opportunities are limited in regional areas compared to the city. It is not easy to obtain 30 hours of employment each and every week. It is not an easy thing to do. What is worse, Centrelink is advising students that under the new guidelines—very ‘revolutionary’ indeed—a student unable to secure 30 hours of work in any one week has to go back to scratch with regard to their eligibility and start the process all over again. How realistic is that? The student is precluded from banking hours in the weeks where he or she may do 60 hours a week. He or she cannot bank those hours for the weeks when work may not be available.
It is absolutely outrageous to apply these guidelines in this way, it is absolutely discriminatory and it could not form part of a so-called education revolution. Where does this leave regional and rural students who are in seasonal areas, where work is perhaps available at harvest time, or in tourist areas, where—
Put them on ice!
That is it; they have to go into some form of suspended animation. The reality is that these changes are a retrograde step and discriminate against people from regional and rural areas. This policy totally disregards the plight of students from regional and rural areas, where employment options are limited, work is largely seasonal and it is very difficult to achieve the 30-hour-per-week benchmark. It is a policy that has impacted on students who acted in good faith, who had started their gap year this year and who had their plan in place to better themselves into the future, and they have had those plans dashed. This callous minister, who is out of touch, refuses to consider their plight.
It is interesting to note the comments of the Victorian parliament’s Education and Training Committee, chaired by the Labor member Geoff Howard.
Labor?
Yes, Labor. Geoff Howard is a famous name about this House. He is a Labor member in a committee with a Labor majority.
Mr Pyne interjecting
That is correct, yes. The committee investigated the issue of rural disadvantage in relation to the government’s youth allowance measures. The report was supported unanimously by all participants, and what did they find? What did this committee find? The committee said:
… the Committee believes that the removal of the main workforce participation route will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas.
A disastrous effect!
What sort of effect?
A disastrous effect, Member for Gippsland. This is a committee chaired by Labor, with a majority held by Labor, concluding what this government will not admit: that these changes will have a disastrous effect. The committee went on to say that it:
… will have a detrimental impact on many students who deferred their studies during 2009 in order to work and earn sufficient money to be eligible for Youth Allowance.
So there we have a Labor committee, from a Labor state government, with a Labor majority, concluding that this will be bad for students in regional and rural areas and bad for the so-called education revolution.
So how does the denial of independent youth allowance to so many regional and rural students contribute to an education revolution? How is making it more difficult for regional and rural students to obtain tertiary qualifications and trade skills—when they are more likely to go back into the regions where those skills are required—taking them out of the system or giving them a disincentive going to improve this nation into the future? I would maintain that this is one of the greatest backward steps in Australian education in quite some years.
How can the government claim that it is fair to pull the rug out from under regional and rural students who made decisions some time back on their future based on the status quo? How can it claim it to be fair to discriminate against students who face far higher costs in obtaining an education than those in the metropolitan areas? The government should be condemned for these changes. The Building the Education Revolution program has proven to be grossly mismanaged. It is proving to be working against many students, particularly those in regional and rural areas.
We have a saying in Victoria that most Victorians will be familiar with. We say in Victoria, ‘You’ve got more front than Myers,’ and I am sure there are in fact similar expressions in other states in relation to their department stores. It is used to refer to someone who is a bit shameless and sometimes insincere and frequently to someone who has a bit of cheek raising the issue given their own position. That is exactly what we have with this MPI today: an opposition and a shadow minister with more front than Myers. Here we have an opposition very ready to criticise and, in fact, vote against the most significant investment and reform in our schools that we have seen, all without having a policy of their own. Where is the opposition’s early learning policy? Where is the opposition’s policy on schools and overcoming disadvantage in our education system? Where is the opposition’s substantive response to the Bradley review? There is the problem for the opposition: all they do is carp about the government’s policy, but they have absolutely no policies of their own. They are a policy-free zone when it comes to education. Here they are, trying to pretend that the past 11 years of their time in government has disappeared into some black hole and ceased to exist and that they—only they—could do things better, if only they had been elected in 2007. I can assure the Australian people and those listening to this debate that nothing could be further from the truth.
During the election, I and many of my colleagues made a commitment that we would invest substantially in education, and that is exactly what we are doing. The Rudd government is delivering an education revolution to the entire education system, from preschools and schools through to TAFE and universities. It is now 20 months since we were elected, and I stand in this House proud to say that our nation’s education revolution is well and truly underway.
I want to put on the record just what we have achieved so far. We have committed an unprecedented $14.7 billion to the largest school building and modernisation program in this nation’s history. Through the National School Pride program, we have already seen $1.3 billion go to over 9,400 schools across Australia. In my own electorate, 85 schools received some $9.56 million, going towards much-needed refurbishment and renewal of existing infrastructure or to build minor infrastructure. It is also proving great for supporting local jobs. Just over two weeks ago, I visited a school in my own electorate, Pentland Primary School, which received some $75,000 under this program. The principal at the school told me that right from the start he wanted the project to be a community project, involving local tradespeople and business. Ten local tradespeople have been involved in the project, and I met with some of them. They overwhelmingly told me that, if not for the government investment, they would absolutely be struggling for work.
As part of the Rudd government’s $14.7 billion commitment to Building the Education Revolution, we have also seen our Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, the subject of this MPI. In my own electorate, 77 schools so far have been announced as receiving some $96.4 million, an unprecedented investment in building up our schools—the greatest that I have ever seen. One of the most exciting aspects of Building the Education Revolution, which will leave a lasting legacy, is the building of 21st century libraries, a lasting legacy which will have a significant impact on the learning outcomes for an entire generation of children. What could be more revolutionary than that?
On top of this, $810 million has been approved to build and refurbish 537 science laboratories and language centres. I am proud that Mount Clear College in my own electorate will build an Asian Languages Centre—incorporating within this centre Australia’s first Confucius classroom in partnership with Nanjing No 1 School in China. This is alongside the government’s reintroduction of the NALSAS program, which was cut by the previous government. It will put young people who go through this centre in a prime position for employment opportunities here and overseas.
We have heard from the opposition members today about the issue of accountability. We have heard the member for Sturt gleefully welcoming the audit of the Building the Education Revolution as though somehow the fact that there is an audit into such a large program expenditure is unusual. Not only do the opposition want the audit report—they are gleefully welcoming the audit report, as are we; we are very pleased it is occurring—but they also seek to pre-empt the actual outcome. I have sat on the Joint Committee for Public Accounts and Audit for a long period of time and I can tell the House there is nothing unusual about the Audit Office undertaking an audit of a program of this size. It is extremely common that that occurs. In fact, what would have been unusual is if they had not done an audit into this program.
It is disappointing that the Shadow Minister for Education has not been supportive of the education revolution. We welcome the audit of this program because we know that a review will outline to those opposite how the Building the Education Revolution is working to improve education facilities across every corner of our nation, and how local communities are benefiting from this new infrastructure.
We do know that with such an unprecedented level of investment there will be difficulties, given the time frames, the complexity of the programs and this massive investment. This is a huge, unprecedented level of investment. There will, of course, be problems. But, unlike the opposition, who are using every problem that occurs—we know they are going to occur—to make a political point, those of us on this side of the House are working through those problems and trying to actually fix them, because they are all completely fixable. It is understandable that they are occurring, but we on this side of the House do not want to make political points about them; we actually want to get on with the business of building this important infrastructure and fixing the problems as they occur.
The member for Sturt has also made much of the need for value for money. I would like the member for Sturt—and the offer is out there—to make a list of every school which he does not believe should be getting funding. He should make a list of every school which he thinks has been poorly targeted, and we can go to those schools and let them know that the opposition does not believe that they should get funding. But let me wait. In fact, the opposition do not believe that any school should get any funding because they voted against this proposition. Here they are, saying, ‘It is poorly targeted. It should be better targeted. There are problems with it,’ about a program which if they had been in government would not exist at all—not a single school would be getting a cent.
I wonder if the member for Sturt will go along to the opening of the infrastructure projects in his electorate—infrastructure projects like the one at the Paradise Primary School. I read in one of the local newspapers in his electorate, the East Torrens Messenger, that the Paradise Primary School Principal, Peter Scragg, is pretty excited about the funding that he is getting. He says:
This Federal Government initiative has allowed us, for the first time in a long time, to lift our eyes to the horizon, to have a pipe dream of what is possible …
It is disappointing that the member for Sturt is so unsupportive of that dream.
The Rudd government is also delivering $2.2 billion to a digital education revolution. To date, 78,000 computers have been delivered to Australian schools. Fourteen schools in my own electorate share in 2,154 new computers. We are delivering on our $2.5 billion Trades Training Centres in Schools Program. So far, over 400 schools nationwide have benefited from the $425 million already announced.
Across the nation we have also seen 15 projects approved under the first round of our Local Schools Working Together Pilot Program. Some $31.7 million has already been delivered of the total $62.5 million available. Again in my own electorate, Sebastopol College, in partnership with other schools, is building a $2.476 million college community hub, which will be a significant asset for an area in my community that has been disadvantaged for some time. It is a great project. We have acted with the states and territories to deliver a national curriculum, and already significant progress has been made. We have invested through the National Education Agreement, and are working far more closely on transparency and accountability across the system. These are all significant reforms.
Unlike the opposition, who sit in a policy vacuum, this government believe that all children, regardless of their background or location, should be given the opportunity to achieve their full potential. We want to lift literacy and numeracy rates, we want to make sure that young people are being taught by high-quality teachers, we want schools to provide support for disadvantaged students and we want higher standards in all schools. Parents have the right to expect the very best education facilities and learning experience for their children. We are delivering through both a major reform agenda and an unprecedented investment in education infrastructure. Rather than criticising and carping about our policies, it is well and truly time the Opposition came up with one of their own. (Time expired)
Today I rise to talk about a revolution that was proposed and heralded across the land as the saviour of the children and their parents of this great nation called Australia. The so called revolution called the Building the Education Revolution was announced with great fanfare by the Deputy Prime Minister. If we go to the government website we are met with the front page introduction which says:
The Australian Government will invest a further $14.7 billion to boost the Education Revolution over the next three years.
Building the Education Revolution (BER) begins this year, and will provide infrastructure funding so each of Australia’s 9,540 schools can meet the needs of 21st century students and teachers.
This is a critical component of the Government’s economic stimulus package, giving our schools the attention they so richly deserve.
It is a great introduction and a fantastic objective with admirable ideals, but only if these objectives are actually going to be met.
It is hard to believe how poorly this scheme has been thought out and managed. The efficiencies of this scheme are shocking, and there are numerous examples Australia wide of this. How can a huge investment of $14.7 billion have achieved no better educational outcomes? From across the nation principals have come forward to tell stories of the scheme’s inflexibility and poor value for money. They have revealed duplication and bureaucracy, contradiction and profiteering, whilst the opposition and journalists have revealed extravagance and wastage. I have heard from principals in my own electorate of Swan about how ridiculous it is that they are being forced to duplicate existing facilities.
Once schools have been forced to accept these buildings, they are then told which government builders they have to hire. For many communities the specially approved contractors are not even local. The stimulus effect of this package was designed to flow through to many businesses Australia wide. In Western Australia we had one of the school package tenders come in over budget by 10 to 20 per cent. In the first instance, how much money do the consultants get paid for these budget forecasts? Is this good and efficient spending? As a result of this, a letter was sent to three major contractors asking them to meet the budget and then they would get all the work. I believe this was done and the effect was a flow-through to the subcontractors of what is known in the building industry as a ‘screw’.
In so many trades—and, having spent 20 years in the building industry, I can say that tradies do not call themselves tradies, which is something that the government might learn; they actually refer to themselves as brickies, sparkies or chippies but not tradies; that is something thought up by the advertising gurus—the subbies have been unmercifully put through the screwing process. Many are going into these contracts not making a cent and many will lose money on these projects. What a great effect that stimulus has had! Today the Deputy Prime Minister stood in this place and spoke about BER and supporting jobs. Making companies lose money is not supporting jobs. It will help companies go to the wall. When the question got a bit tough, it was back to the blame game, with the Deputy Prime Minister blaming the states for the problems. This government is just unbelievable. It does all the things it blamed the coalition for doing.
Costs are being siphoned off. The Australian has even reported that up to one-third of the money that primary schools are receiving for new libraries and school halls is being swallowed up by contractors in upfront costs before the contracts begin. The upfront costs can be up to $100,000 and the compliance costs must be met by the company, which inevitably means the taxpayer, just to satisfy the government. They must then be reported on before the company qualifies to do the work. One of the areas they have to report on is employment. They have to report Indigenous employment and apprenticeship employment. I am sure the government will find some way to use these figures as propaganda—as new job employment figures due to their stimulus package and BER.
Maybe the government could advise how many companies have been paid through the BMW. Members may wonder why I ask this question. A building contractor in Perth submitted some progress plans last week for payment and was advised by the architect that he could not be paid. Why? It was because the payment system has not been established so that people can actually get paid for the work they have done, and the architect could not advise when the company would actually be paid for their claims. What a fantastic system! This is typical of Labor. It is all about spin but there is no attention to detail or process. An editorial in the Australian on 27 July summed it up the best, describing:
… Adelaide students being left to bake in 40C summers without any airconditioning as a new gym is built; duplication of adequate multi-purpose halls and libraries; $15,000 allocated in New South Wales for a 10,000-litre water tank when a 12,000-litre tank was available for less than a third of the price, $4348.
What about the waste of the $3 million being spent on plaques to commemorate the Building the Education Revolution? In my electorate, whilst the promised Belmont Medicare office remains unopened, whilst the promised Great Eastern Highway remains uncompleted, whilst funding is cut to volunteer groups in the Canning wetlands and whilst Swan River infrastructure projects are passed over, the Labor Party sees fit to spend $3 million on commemorative plaques. (Time expired)
I have been listening with some amazement during this debate to what I think I have to call the opposition’s mock outrage and to a lot of the fallacies in their arguments. Just what is it that gets their goat about funding the schools of the future and supporting jobs in the process? As I think about it, perhaps it is a sense of shame at their neglect of education over the 11 years they were in government. By contrast, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, in 20 months there has been $14.7 billion invested—the largest school building and modernisation program ever seen in this country. There has been $1.3 billion for 9,490 schools under the National School Pride program. That supports around 30,000 jobs. There has been $9.19 billion for more than 5,000 schools under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century. That supports around 15,000 jobs. More than 78,000 computers have been delivered to schools, and there has been a record investment of more than $3.6 billion in the early years, which are where the education revolution begins.
But it is much more than that. It is about what previous Liberal governments I think understood but failed to address—that is, that we have an education system that produces an unacceptably long tale of disadvantage. As Professor Glyn Davis from Melbourne university has said repeatedly, Australia has a system that is high on quality but low on equity. That, of course, is unacceptable and we are addressing that, firstly, by insisting on knowing precisely what it is that is going on in our schools. To that end, we have provided significant funding through national partnership agreements to address deficiencies in literacy and numeracy. It is about ensuring that the best teachers are teaching in the most disadvantaged schools. That means that we are committed to transparency on data on school performance. On this point, I know that the member for Bradfield is not in the House at the moment but, as the former Liberal Minister for Education, he has a deep understanding of this. He has some serious intellectual grunt on this issue. He is committed. He continues to be committed to ensuring that transparency is available around schools data, and he is right. It is just a shame that his state Liberal colleagues in New South Wales do not listen to him. It is also a shame that the member for Bradfield, when he had the chance, could not deliver on national collection of school performance data—reliable data which will identify disadvantage. Well, we are delivering.
As far as the investment in the infrastructure in our schools is concerned, if any of the members opposite want to get some genuine feedback, as opposed to relying on tabloid headlines, then they should come to my electorate—to Ryde, for instance, and meet with Father Paul Monkerud from St Charles primary school. I am sure that Father Paul would be happy to repeat what he said to me as he contemplated the almost complete redesign of his parish school. He sent me a letter recently which said:
I believe that BER and the pride initiatives are gifts of divine providence. We are so blessed to have a developed plan to take advantage of this opportunity.
So here is St Charles, ready to go with a complete redesign of the school with the money provided from the Commonwealth.
If members opposite are still sceptical, they could go a bit further north in my electorate to Epping Boys High School. I am sure the principal, Peter Garrard, would repeat to members opposite what he said so me only last week—that is, that this year, for the very first time, Epping boys will be able to hold their speech day on site at the school. That is because of federal government funding through the education revolution. By the way, it is going to save Epping boys something like $10,000 a year because they will not have to go to other schools to hire out their facilities. There are stories like this in schools right across Bennelong—Catholic, public and private schools.
Finally, one of the highlights of my year was back in early June when the Deputy Prime Minister came to Eastwood Public School in my electorate. On that day, the Deputy Prime Minister announced $2.3 billion in funding for New South Wales schools under the second round of the BER funding. For Eastwood Public in particular it meant six new classrooms. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister was able to deliver for the parents, teachers and students of the Eastwood community. What a contrast with the Leader of the Opposition. When he came into Eastwood just a couple of weeks ago, what did he do? He put on his nice apron and he stacked bananas.
Order! The time for this discussion has now expired.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
Last evening in the legislative assembly of the Victorian parliament, the state Labor member for Frankston, Alistair Harkness, made false and profoundly offensive statements under privilege to attack me, to associate my local advocacy with racism and to accuse me of inciting a racist campaign against Africans. I completely refute and comprehensively reject the association that Mr Harkness has tried to create between me, my advocacy on behalf of the Frankston community and council, and a flyer to which he referred in parliament.
The first awareness of any kind I had about the flyer resulted from the speech, containing the disgraceful and malicious allegations and accusations, that Mr Harkness gave in the legislative assembly last night. The member for Frankston identified me as ‘a leader in a community campaign’ concerning secret plans for disadvantaged persons housing in Frankston. He went on to describe a racist flyer that had been circulated in sections of Frankston city over the weekend and claimed that I had ‘misrepresented the facts and incited the sort of response we saw last weekend’. The state Labor member for Frankston then named me and a state Liberal MP specifically, and my political party more generally, as associated with ‘this sort of racist propaganda’ and said how it was ‘imperative’ for me to take some undefined action.
My media releases of 23 and 31 July and public statements from which media reporting has been derived made no mention of any matter even remotely related to race, immigration or acts of violence, which Mr Harkness has sought to raise and politically exploit. There has been no factual error or misrepresentation in my advocacy and public statements, as I have relied upon uncontested material from the 9 July letter from the Frankston city mayor that urged me to support the council’s call for openness and consultation and upon factual information provided to council by senior state government housing officials.
Finally, the assertion by Mr Harkness that raising concerns and calls for ending the secrecy about the ham-fisted handling of this matter amounts to opposition to social housing is simply wrong and without foundation. Mr Harkness should do the right and honourable thing: unconditionally withdraw his appalling accusations and baseless allegations—
Order! The member for Dunkley should contain his remarks to demonstrating where he has been misrepresented.
stop his office responding to calls about the pamphlet by directing them to my office, as if I am responsible for its production; and apologise for the damage to the character and reputation of, and attaching improper motives to, individuals who are only interested in standing up for our community and who have behaved openly and honourably in doing so.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence, there is an obligation on honourable members who claim to have been misrepresented to come before the parliament as expeditiously as possible. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister during question time read from a community newsletter of mine and made certain comments in relation to my alleged support of the education revolution. I just want to tell the House that I would like to look at what the minister said and come back tomorrow if that is necessary to make a personal explanation.
There are forms of the House which the member is well aware are available to him should he believe he has been misrepresented. No doubt he will look at that and act accordingly.
Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Ms Gillard:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is in fact a pity that the government has chosen to reintroduce effectively the same bill as that which was debated last year in the parliament, that bill being the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 and this bill being the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2]. In the previous debate there were amendments moved, amendments which were carried and amendments which enjoyed widespread support in the Australian community. The amendments which were proposed by the Liberal-National opposition in the Senate were moved successfully with the support of the Greens, Family First and Independent South Australian Senator Xenophon, and interestingly enough they enjoyed the support of both the ACTU and the ACCI. The government rejected the amendments and the bill was laid aside until now. It is being reintroduced in 2009, no doubt in the hope, from the government’s perspective, that it will gain a double-dissolution trigger.
There has been a whole lot of misinformation out there about where the Liberal-National opposition stands with respect to a national occupational health and safety system. I just want to place on record that the opposition broadly supports a national OH&S system and recognises the benefits of having one consistent framework in this area, as in so many other areas, rather than having a series of state based systems with vastly different requirements for workplace safety. There is much to be said for the savings in compliance costs to employers and employees. Today we are a national marketplace, and many businesses operate across state and territory borders. Occupational health and safety is a particularly important part of running a workplace properly today. It is important that workplaces are safe and that people are able to carry out their duties without risk to their health or safety. Both sides of the industrial equation, employers and employees, have an equal part to play in making sure that Australian workplaces are as safe as they can appropriately be.
As has been indicated by other speakers representing the opposition, we do have a number of serious concerns with the operation of the bill. There are amendments which we would prefer to see carried to make this bill a better bill. However, we are of the view that the bill ought not to be blocked in the parliament, and consequently we are not insisting on the amendments which were moved successfully by a broad range of opinion in the Senate. We have been prepared to sit down and talk. We have been prepared to be pragmatic, unlike the government, which takes a fairly dogmatic and ‘we know it all’ approach, which is unable to negotiate and which is unable to improve legislation. We have seen this in relation to the emissions trading issue which is currently being debated in the Australian community.
It is important that the government, which does enjoy a majority in the House of Representatives and therefore has been commissioned to govern Australia, be prepared to accept that it does not have a monopoly on good ideas and common sense. The Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 is a second-best bill. It does not include the amendments that the Liberal-National opposition would like to see included. Despite that, we have decided that it is appropriate to see the legislation implemented, because, frankly, there is more benefit in having the legislation proceed than in having it remain blocked in the parliament. Other speakers representing the opposition have outlined in detail where we are concerned and why we have been upset over the fact that the government has not been prepared to listen to community opinion in this matter. The passage of this bill will, however, on balance, improve an occupational health and safety system across the country, and on that basis the opposition will not be continuing to press for the amendments which were successfully moved and carried in the other place.
The Rudd government reintroduced the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2] to give effect to the Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform and Occupational Health and Safety agreed by COAG on 3 July 2008. The government made a commitment in the intergovernmental agreement, and we are honouring it. The intergovernmental agreement is a watershed in Commonwealth-state relations; indeed, it is a model of cooperative federalism. For the first time, governments from each state and territory and the Commonwealth formally committed to the harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws and to working together to implement uniform legislation complemented by consistent approaches to compliance and enforcement. We recognise that occupational health and safety is primarily a state and territory responsibility and that true reform in this area can only be achieved with the Commonwealth, state and territory governments working cooperatively. We remain obligated under the IGA to use our best endeavours to create an independent statutory agency in the terms which are laid out by that historic agreement. This bill will establish Safe Work Australia as an independent statutory body with primary responsibility to improve occupational health and safety and workers compensation arrangements across Australia.
No matter how you look at the dry OH&S statistics, thousands of Australian workers are killed each year as a result of traumatic injuries and long-term diseases, such as those from asbestos. Official figures put the number at about 300 deaths and 140,000 injuries per year. This does not even begin to take account of the long-term, slow-burn tragedies such as asbestosis. Some OH&S practitioners believe that, when all the stress related heart disease victims are counted, when all the shift work related diseases are counted and when all the chemically related cancers are counted, the figure for yearly fatalities is actually far greater. And this does not count the hundreds of thousands of injuries and the suffering of workers and their families. All the statistics in the world do not capture what the silent eyes of workplace widows have told me in workplaces. It is heartbreaking to know how much of all this can be prevented, and prevented reasonably simply, with little cost. Think of the terrible fatality record we are seeing at the moment in Western Australia in the mining industry, with yet another poor miner killed just this week. How is it that we can see into the outer reaches of the universe, create things are so nano-small they are bordering on science fiction, yet we are unable to stop a worker losing his arm in a conveyor belt incident?
Workplace health and safety has been a deep concern of the labour movement since its foundation. The fight for humane hours of work was an OH&S issue. The 19th century struggle to protect children working in mines and factories was a health and safety issue. The chimneysweep work was killing them. The mercury in glues was sending hatters crazy. Making matches from certain chemicals was disfiguring workers. Along with the struggle for fair wages and the right to negotiate collectively, the labour movement has fought for the health and safety of its members and their families. I can tell you that, after the Longford explosion, the city tunnel drowning in Melbourne or the Beaconsfield drama, yet again I could see us re-fighting the same old battles in occupational health and safety that have existed as long as European settlement in Australia. We do have a long way to go. One should see what some of these incidents have done to entire communities, that were never the same, and to individual workers whose lives changed forever and who are still haunted by the ghosts of poor workplace safety.
The burden of workplace injury in this nation does not fall equally. It does fall more heavily on traditional blue-collar occupations—not limited to but including mining, construction and factory work, transport, stevedoring and emergency services. The fight to ensure that people in these occupations have the right to return home from a shift with their legs, their eyes and their arms intact is one of the sacred duties of the labour movement. I am well aware, from my time in the Australian Workers Union, of the devastation and loss caused when a loved family member does not return home from a day at work. The family never stops asking ‘What if?’ or ‘How could this be allowed to happen nowadays?’—and in many cases I have been lost for words. How come? How many more of our children will need to be killed and harmed at work before the magnitude of the problem comes home to all, including those in the opposition? I know the damage done to workers who lose the ability to work and to earn through a workplace incident. I know how quickly workplaces in society forget all about the workers with disabilities and the journey the worker then has to negotiate through life. The cost to our economy is estimated at $34 billion a year, but the personal cost to those families who have lost loved ones cannot be measured other than by the heart.
Real progress in health and safety at work is seldom an immediate win-win formula when it comes to financial costs. It can be dishonest to pretend otherwise. When workers’ health and safety is improved, profit and productivity become secondary—though I can tell you that the manager who is good at health and safety usually is also good at managing matters of productivity. Good health and safety standards do not always immediately translate into improved profits, but they do mean that workers will see that health and safety programs are in good hands—and that is the way for managers and industry to gain respect, and a lot follows from that. It is a sad fact that business always finds money and time to improve work safety after someone is injured or killed, but all too often seldom finds it before. This is a country where some parts of industry store some of the worst chemicals on earth and have done so for 25 years. These substances are not wanted by anyone in any country, yet we as a nation have done nothing about it other than to ask many groups of workers to package, repackage and again repackage these extremely toxic materials over the years. Is this what we want for our husbands, our wives, our children, our brothers and our sisters when they go to work? This is why I wholeheartedly support the bill to day.
This bill will establish Safe Work Australia as an agency that will work to develop national policy relating to occupational health and safety and workers compensation. The current draft model laws being considered by Safe Work Australia in the national occupational health and safety harmonisation process incorporate the following features: an unqualified obligation on employers to provide a safe workplace to employees and a broad approach to the duty of care—which, given the changing nature of the workplace, needs to extend protection to persons other than traditional employees; significant penalties, which are well above and beyond the penalties currently applying in any Australian jurisdiction, of $3 million and five years imprisonment for the most serious breaches; the power for health and safety representatives to issue provisional improvement notices and direct the cessation of unsafe work—a power currently available in only three jurisdictions; the power for workers to stop unsafe work—a power currently available to only 29 in every 200 Australian workers; the requirement for employers to consult employees over work related matters that affect health and safety; and the protection of the rights and roles of elected workplace health and safety representatives. The above issues may sound dry but, in the end, they will result in fewer Australians being killed, maimed or traumatised at work.
As a government we have set ourselves the goal of creating a national economy that is not hampered by unnecessary overlaps, differences and duplications between state regimes. Standardising and improving occupational health and safety regimes across Australia is a worthy goal for this parliament to pursue. Safe Work Australia will develop proposals relating to the harmonisation of workers compensation arrangements and national arrangements for employers with workers in more than one state. It will develop a compliance and enforcement policy to ensure that we take a nationally consistent policy to compliance and enforcement issues. It will also undertake data collection and research into workplace health and safety. The Safe Work Australia Council will have representatives from each state and territory as well as workers’ representatives and representatives of employers.
The importance of health and safety, and the previous government’s poor role in enforcing good standards, can be painfully witnessed in the terrible toll of asbestos related deaths in Australia. The sad tale of denial, blame-shifting and cover-ups marks a low point in corporate responsibility in modern Australia. It is heartening to know that the AWU is now doing some excellent work in Tasmania, under the union’s terminology of ‘prioritised removal’, to once and for all start a program of total removal of asbestos over a 20-year period. It is a long way to go, but the Tasmanian government, who should be congratulated, has started a whole-of-government approach to the program by appointing one minister as the lead minister, Lisa Singh, to mature this program. I sincerely compliment the Tasmanian minister on her vision. This is not an easy road, but someone has to start rather than to keep saying that it cannot be done.
I have had to face many workers over the years who have asked me if small amounts of asbestos fibres that entered their lungs could kill them. What do you say? What do you say to the wife who never worked with asbestos but had to wash her husband’s overalls and now gasps for a breath of air in front of you? Do I say to her, ‘If you can’t breathe, nothing else matters’? It is a sad thing to know that asbestos related deaths are increasing and will increase into the future as the fibres that have lodged in the lungs of workers—as unwelcome residents—over the previous decades will take their toll. British Professor Julian Peto, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, says that Australia has already suffered 10,000 deaths from asbestos related disease but will suffer another 25,000 over the next 40 years. These deaths will unequally and unfairly focus on Australians who have worked in manual labour—the people who built the houses, schools and dwellings in which we live and learn today. If ever there were a case that should remind us all of the terrible consequences when workplace safety is neglected, it is this one.
This bill will help bring a new level of cooperation between governments on these important issues. Since we came to office, we have moved away from the old politics of blame and division on this issue, we have undertaken a review of the Comcare scheme and we have set up an independent panel of experts to conduct a national occupational health and safety review. This new approach of cooperation will deliver what we want: safer conditions for workers and less complex regulation for business.
In summing up this bill, though, I would like to end on one note of caution. Before, we have had tripartite OH&S bodies, hundreds of committees and plenty of fancy talk about cooperation, joint efforts and a brave new world of OH&S. If this new body does not learn to listen to workers and learn what proper listening is then nothing will change. I wish the new body well in its efforts, and the safety of all our families depends upon it.
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 May, on motion by Ms Gillard:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I will only be speaking briefly on the Higher Education Support Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009, which implements a number of the recommendations of the Bradley review. Unfortunately, a lot of the funding from this has now been found from the Education Investment Fund, which was previously the Higher Education Endowment Fund. The Higher Education Endowment Fund was established in 2007. There was an original endowment of $5 billion. The vision of this was that higher education institutions would gain access to the interest and it would be an endowment fund in perpetuity. How wrong we were. Within two years, the Minister for Education had raided this endowment fund, a fund which was designed to be there in perpetuity, and used the money that was left there to fund a number of the recommendations of the Bradley review.
In speaking on this legislation I would like to say that the Liberal Party and the National Party have long been supportive of a shift towards a more deregulated higher education sector. We believe that greater flexibility for individual education institutions will allow for a more demand driven system. We think that this is an important development and we certainly will not be opposing this legislation. The opposition is also supportive of the creation of a tertiary education quality and standards agency to encourage a best-practice model in higher education, ensuring that Australian institutions remain globally competitive.
One of the features of our education system is how dramatic the expansion of international education, the delivery of education to overseas students, has been over the last quarter of a century. We now have a services export which is worth in the order of $15½ billion to the Australian economy. It is our third largest export industry in terms of its value to the Australian economy. It is our largest service export. It means that many Australian students now come into contact with overseas students. It is part of their experience at Australian higher education institutions but also part of the experience for overseas students. We in the opposition certainly welcome the expansion in the number of overseas students that we have seen coming to Australia and the extraordinary success that Australia has enjoyed in this area. For many traditional markets we are now a more popular destination than the United Kingdom. Of course, our two major source countries for overseas students are India and China. While we are speaking in particular on higher education it would be remiss of me not to mention the extraordinary growth that we have seen in the vocational education and training sector for overseas students, such that on the latest figures there are now more overseas students who are studying in vocational education and training courses than there are in higher education courses. This has been a positive development.
I should say that, by and large, the providers are of a high standard, but certainly there is a need for the regulation that we have here to keep pace with developments in the industry. There will be an opportunity, I am sure, to say more about this at a later time. We support the creation of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. We think that this is important and it is an important goal to make sure that we maintain our reputation in the delivery of education services to overseas students. This not an area where we can rest on our laurels. There is a lot of competition from European institutions, from institutions in the United Kingdom, from institutions in Asia and also from institutions in North America.
While indicating that the opposition will not be opposing this legislation, I should also point out that the abolition of the Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarships and the Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarships proposed by this legislation is a real concern to us. Provision for the replacement measures for these scholarships has not yet been introduced into the House. We wonder why this legislation is not yet available and why the government have not given sufficient consideration to this legislation. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs have already had time to examine this legislation and they have recommended, and we agree, that the government need to introduce the legislation, allowing for the replacement of the Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarships and the Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarships.
Before the last election, the Prime Minister committed to improving and expanding Australia’s Commonwealth Scholarships Program, yet under their replacement model rural and regional students will be excluded. Greater flexibility is needed to ensure that rural and regional students who may not be eligible for Youth Allowance are still assisted to attain further education. As the replacement measures are currently understood, students particularly from farming and small business backgrounds will find it harder to undertake further education. With those remarks, the member for Sturt will speak later to outline in more detail the opposition’s position on this legislation, but I have indicated that the opposition will not be opposing this legislation.
I rise to speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009. This bill forms an important part of the Rudd government’s measures to transform Australia’s higher education sector. The government’s approach to this very important issue is worthy of a moment’s consideration. Labor started with a commitment before the last election to make significant reforms to this sector. In government we established a major review of higher education, led by Professor Denise Bradley, to provide a foundation for effective action. I recall that the opposition was critical of this government during the initial period of office when a large number of reviews and investigations were initiated. But this considered approach is now bearing fruit and leading to progressive reform in a number of critical areas, of which higher education is a most important one.
The Rudd government have set the standard—broad policy settings and quality investigations by an expert inquiry followed by long overdue structural reforms, detailed policy changes and fair dinkum allocation of resources. Eleven years of the Howard approach to higher education has resulted in Australia falling behind the rest of the developed world. The Bradley report indicated that within the OECD we are now 9th out of the top 30 in the proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds with tertiary degrees—down from 7th only a decade ago. It is time to stop this decline and to reinvigorate the sector, to try our best to match other OECD countries that have set ambitious targets for the future.
The Bradley report recommended a significant number of measures to raise the standards of Australia’s higher education system. It recommended the establishment of targets for attainment of degree qualifications; the setting of targets for participation of lower socioeconomic groups; that institutions should have the freedom to enrol as many students as they wish, with funding to follow the student; increases in levels of student support; that a proportion of funds allocated to institutions be allocated on the basis of performance against specific targets for teaching and equity; that funding for research be increased; and that the government establish an independent national tertiary education regulatory body.
Access Economics, quoted in the Bradley review, predicted that from 2010 the supply of undergraduates will not keep up with demand. To increase the numbers participating in the system, we must look at members of groups currently underrepresented in the system: Indigenous people, those of low-socioeconomic status and those from regional and remote areas—broadly those disadvantaged by circumstances of their birth. The reforms initiated in this bill are a critical first step to address this important area.
The government have made a significant and major response to the Bradley review which is progressively being rolled out. The Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has announced that Australia will have a target of 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds with bachelor level or higher qualification by 2025. The government is supporting the Bradley recommendation that universities be funded by demand, with funding of a Commonwealth supported place for all domestic students accepted into eligible accredited higher education courses at recognised public education providers.
The current cap on over-enrolment will be raised from five per cent to 10 per cent from 2010, and removed completely in 2012. This will allow a managed transition into the new system and will prevent institutions growing too quickly, therefore with a possible drop in quality. Significantly, the Rudd government is providing an additional $5.4 billion to support higher education and research over the next four years. This major boost in funding will support high-quality teaching and learning; enable access to students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds to be significantly improved; provide additional funding to institutions that meet agreed quality and equity outcomes; and, last but by no means least, improve resources for research.
To ensure that the standards of higher education increase as the demand and funding increase, the government is establishing a national regulatory and quality agency. The agency will carry out audits of standards and performance and provide quality assurance to ensure that Australia’s reputation for quality teaching and learning remains high.
Turning to the detail of the bill, I will focus on some of the bill’s key measures and implications. Universities will have to negotiate specific performance targets that suit their circumstances and contribute to national goals for participation and quality. The government is not approaching this delicate issue in a ham-fisted way but will ensure that proper consultation with each institution takes place in the setting of performance standards.
The bill also covers some of the areas raised as concerns during the inquiry held last year by the House Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation. The report produced by that committee, entitled Building Australia’s Research Capacity, is well worth reading and provides another pathway for future changes in this sector.
The bill amends the HESA to commit $512 million over four years for a new Sustainable Research Excellence in Universities initiative to augment the existing block grants scheme. The number of Australian postgraduate awards will be doubled by 2012. Importantly, the APA stipend to support our postgraduate students will be increased by more than 10 per cent from $20,427 in 2009 to $22,400 in 2010. This increase will be welcomed, I am sure, by postgraduate students across the nation, as the increases complement the major reform to student income support arrangements.
The higher education performance funding is significantly different to the former Learning and Teaching Performance Fund. Each university will receive a share of the performance funding pool, based on the size of their student population, and will receive performance funding if they meet their targets, rather than on the basis of comparative performance.
Most importantly, the Rudd government has set a goal of 20 per cent of those enrolled in higher education to be drawn from groups currently under-represented in the system. Universities will be able to set targets, after negotiation, that are challenging but that suit their circumstances. Most significantly, they will have to meet targets for equity performance as well as teaching quality. Targets and performance will be assessed by the new Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. The role of Skills Australia will be expanded to advise the government on the effectiveness of higher education systems in meeting Australia’s needs.
I welcome this important initiative to improve the linkages between our workforce and training needs and the delivery of quality graduates and postgraduates from the tertiary sector. Of course, I am also fully aware of the need of our tertiary institutions to provide a high level of intellectual endeavour of a sometimes more esoteric nature, without which the nation would be the poorer in the arts and education fields.
The bill does increase the maximum annual student contribution for education and nursing graduates. This will provide increased revenue for higher education providers to better resource their education and nursing courses and will add around $1,000 per year to an education or nursing degree. The value of the extension to the HECS-HELP scheme to eligible graduates will be greater than the increase in student contributions.
I will turn now to the funding arrangements under the structural adjustment fund. The amendments will provide $200 million for structural adjustment over the period 2009-10 to 2012-13, which will provide $136 million of new money. This will commence on 1 January 2010. While the linkage of this structural adjustment to specific capital projects is still to be determined, there is no doubt that capital works in the higher education sector will significantly increase the level of spending on infrastructure nationwide and will help Australia minimise the effects of the current global recession.
In conclusion, I reiterate my support for these important measures that are being undertaken in support of the Bradley review. The review found that Australia needs more well-qualified people to meet the demands of a rapidly-moving global economy. We are also facing a looming shortage of academics to teach and guide the undergraduate and postgraduate students. Again, that was highlighted in the report by the ISI committee and came up at many hearings.
The reforms encapsulated in this and other bills will enable Australia to move again to be a world leader in the higher education sector; to adapt to the challenges of more students wanting a better education at a higher standard, which is recognised worldwide; and, most importantly, to enable students from poorer or disadvantaged backgrounds, due solely to the circumstance of their birth and not to their intellect, from achieving their full potential. I commend the bill to the House.
The coalition will not oppose the Higher Education Support Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009. In fact, the coalition support a number of the measures relating to the deregulation of the higher education sector, greater flexibility for institutions and an endeavour to be more responsive to student demands. Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis, perhaps you, who have been in this parliament longer than I have, might reflect as I do on these changes and wonder why these revelations are so appropriate now when efforts to make changes of this kind when the coalition was in government were opposed. There were vitriolic orations from Labor members about what an evil thing deregulation in higher education and flexibility and responsiveness to student demand would be, yet in government we see a different face of the ALP.
A number of these measures do respond to the Bradley review, but it is worth noting, in response to some of the comments of members opposite, that it does not embrace all of the Bradley review recommendations. In fact, it falls a considerable distance short of funding commitments that the Bradley review recommended. That is something that no doubt will be the subject of further debate. I would have thought that the very closely related issues of changes to Youth Allowance—what that means in reduced eligibility for over 30,000 students—and the mystery that surrounds the precise nature and array of scholarship related support, given that this bill dismantles and abolishes the present array of Commonwealth scholarships, should have been dealt with in conjunction with this bill, because those instruments are very important in achieving the ambition that Bradley outlined, which the government seeks to associate itself with in the bill before the parliament night.
I will touch a bit more on that, and how it relates to the community that I am a part of, but I should declare a pecuniary interest as the chairperson of the Monash Peninsula Campus Community Advisory Council. My strong ongoing interest has seen me carry out that highly paid and highly sought after role, trying to make sure that outer metropolitan interests are reflected in the plans of a terrific university like Monash for the future. When we see so many of the quality academic institutions being pretty much in the heart of our biggest cities, having outer urban campuses and regional campuses is very important and having a strong voice in support of them is equally important. Hopefully, having declared that interest, I will bring some of the insights to bear that that role provides me.
Mr Gray interjecting
Thank you. The interjection from the Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia, opposite, is that they should double my pay. Yes, a hearty zero to zero would be fantastic—but thank you for that!
As I say, the coalition does support the deregulation measures and the flexibility. We see those measures as an improvement and mentioned that we would have liked Labor’s support for such a reform when Labor were in opposition. But they are late to this task. They have had a conversion somewhere along the way, and now a more demand driven system will be part of the higher education framework for the future. The coalition is very supportive of the new Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. That is particularly important as there is now, in that scope for greater flexibility and student responsiveness, a need to always keep an eye on quality and to make sure that, in the enthusiasm to embrace more candidates for higher education, that effort is not at the sacrifice of quality and standards.
The minister, Julia Gillard, claims that the government is providing $5.7 billion of new money for universities, yet, when you unpick that a little bit, it is not quite as it is being presented. That $5.7 billion that is in the budget for initiatives includes about $3 billion—$2.99 billion—taken from a raid on the Education Investment Fund, a fund that was designed and paid for under the previous government and through the enterprise of the Australian people from budget surpluses as a Higher Education Endowment Fund that would support ongoing improvement in university infrastructure and in research capability for years to come. That endowment has been raided; it is no more. That represents more than half of the funding that has been announced—from the previous government. But that endowment is now gone. That has been spent, and opportunities to fully embrace some of Bradley’s recommendations and other insights are now made more difficult because of that.
What we are looking at is really a change in the funding. I will not go over all the details—I think the previous speakers have done that—but they include the changes to eligibility for funding, the funding parameters themselves, the revision of Commonwealth scholarship arrangements, introducing funding for clusters of education, and also changes in student contribution amounts and introducing the HELP scheme, the Higher Education Loan Program. Isn’t it extraordinary that something that those opposite had held up as an obstacle to higher education is now being expanded? It is another conversion on the road to higher education Damascus, but it is quite remarkable to see that change of interest and change of heart.
In fairness to the ALP, perhaps when you are in government you learn a lot. You need to take more seriously your responsibilities and be a little more objective in your analysis. Perhaps that is what we are seeing here today. Some of those changes are interesting, though—and I touched on the youth allowance eligibility question and how that will actually make higher education more difficult by reducing eligibility for some 30,000 students. There is also the idea of the HECS extension through HECS-HELP, HECS having been long held up by the ALP as an obstacle to people engaging in higher education. That will now be a greater obstacle—if you believe what the ALP said. I do not, but I am very mindful that intending higher education candidates may well have been persuaded by the hysteria and ill-informed comment from the ALP when in opposition that HECS was an obstacle to academic engagement. We have long seen that the benefits of higher education qualification are that it delivers much improved employment and income prospects over a person’s working life and that that personal contribution to their own future opportunities is not the obstacle that the ALP have gone on about for some years. They now seem to agree with that and are looking to extend the HECS utility with the HELP provision in the light of things that they must have just learned since coming to government.
One of the things that trouble me, though, having identified the raid on the Higher Education Endowment Fund, staring down the barrel of an enormous budget deficit and with no end in sight to deficit budgets and accumulating debt, is that the scope to fully embrace not just the specific Bradley recommendations but the actions that are required to pursue some of the recommendations is considerably diminished.
I touch on a couple of things in particular that are of importance to the community that I represent. These are the ambitious targets that the Bradley review set for increased participation in the higher education sector: 40 per cent of all 25- to 34-year-olds to hold a qualification of at least bachelor level by 2020, recognising that the current rate is about 29 per cent. That is a welcome and ambitious goal, recognising that the employment mobility and future prospects of someone with a higher education are enhanced as we go into economic transformation and change that have been with us for some decades and will be with us for decades to come. But simply making that statement will not bring it about. And the targets go further and talk about participation amongst low-SES Australians and other disadvantaged groups. By 2020, the Bradley review proposed a 20 per cent level for all undergraduate enrolments in higher education being students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds.
In the community that I represent on the Mornington Peninsula, the percentage of our population that goes on to higher education is less than that of the greater metropolitan area generally, less than that of the state of Victoria and less than the national average. In my own journey, I left a housing commission secondary college called Monterey in Frankston North and was one of a handful of people who were absolutely committed to pursuing higher education.
My belief that your postcode does not determine your potential is ingrained in me, so I am very interested in these recommendations, but our local community’s experience should point to a need for positive action to bring those recommendations about. Simply saying, ‘Come to higher education. There’s a place for you,’ does not tackle the biggest obstacle, and that is about aspiration amongst candidates who may be extraordinarily well qualified and able to succeed in the higher education environment but who, because of their life’s journey, their economic circumstances and the guidance of those around them, feel that that journey is not for them.
How do we say to a young person in Frankston North who is doing well at their studies but who may be the first person from their family ever to go on to higher education, ‘This unfamiliar, almost alien, journey for your adult life is for you,’ when around that person they may have no signal, no message and no mentoring to engage in that pathway? This is where these recommendations, as virtuous as they are, need decisive, comprehensive and thoughtful action to be brought about.
In Monash’s favour, they have the Monash College, where someone perhaps not with the ENTER score that Monash might be looking for—as they seek to maintain their international reputation as a university of excellence, which is very ENTER driven—can get in. ENTER scores are the key to higher education opportunity. But, if your ENTER score is not that flash and you are an incredibly gifted individual whose other competencies, faculties, skills and talents would make you a wonderful graduate and a very suitable candidate, at least measures like the Monash College give you a chance to go that way.
But, again, where is the appetite? Do we say: ‘You’ve been smacked around with a dodgy ENTER score. Why don’t you turn up anyway and see if higher education’s for you’? Or is the message, ‘No, go and do something else with your life’? This is reality. This is what goes on. I think the raid on the higher education fund and the parlous state of the Commonwealth finances provide very limited scope to put in place the programs and the support that are needed. In some cases they will need to last for years and years, in fact probably generations, for communities that have not had higher education as a natural and normal part of their life journey to be able to make higher education part of their normal journey.
I know it is not just Monash that do this, but I am most familiar with Monash, particularly the Peninsula campus. Their college is one pathway in and they offer VCE research and VCE study labs to help people prepare for their exams. They do that on campus so at least people can come into what seems like a foreign part of the local community and say, ‘There are folks around here that aren’t that different from me, maybe this is for me.’ It reaches out to those people who for whatever reason may have left secondary education early, started on another career pathway and found it was not for them. It engages with those people and says: ‘Higher education could be part of your future journey in life. You are equipped, you are capable and you have all that it takes to succeed.’
Those kinds of measures give people the confidence to turn up to engage and to overcome the noise that the Labor Party put out into the electorate prior to being elected to government. They said HECS is an enormous impediment and you have to be loaded with cash up to your eyeballs to have a higher education. That is not true, but what happens when those messages go out there is that there may be some hesitation in a person for whose family higher education is not a familiar pathway. They hear all that and may go and do something else.
So we need to focus on higher education aspiration. I believe with every fibre of my being that your postcode does not determine your potential, but your postcode can provide influences in your life that guide you to make certain choices. In some communities those choices may well guide you away from a higher education career, an academic pathway, that leads to improved future prospects. Those might be the messages that are there, and they are what we need to overcome.
The opposition is not opposing this bill. We regret that the changes around youth allowance to do with reduced eligibility and scholarships, as the complementary measures that make some of this ambition achievable, are not here to be discussed and debated alongside the bill. Resources needed to achieve those virtuous goals may be scarce. Whilst certain groups make the headline statement that higher education is very virtuous, simply repeating it does not make it happen.
I invite the government and the officials advising them to connect with the issue of educational aspiration to see what we can do to make sure that obstacles, real or perceived, are not denying capable, suitably qualified and completely ready people to engage in a higher education experience that will improve their future life prospects. Your postcode does not determine your potential, but there are messages we need to overcome if we are going to achieve some of the goals that Bradley outlined, that the government are referring to and that are in part addressed in this bill before the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009. I listened to the member for Dunkley speak in relation to this particular issue. He said that somehow we have had a Pauline conversion with respect to the tertiary sector. I say to the member for Dunkley that the only conversion that has happened has been in those of the opposition. Listening to the member for Dunkley’s comments, you could tell that they have a kind of political amnesia. We were highly critical of the Howard government with respect to education at all levels.
It is a fact that under the Howard government they spent one-fifth of the percentage of GDP that our competitors in the OECD spent on preschool education. Their remedy for primary and secondary education was to give schools flagpoles, to put little statements on walls and to underfund schools, particularly state schools. The evidence of that is across electorates throughout Australia. Their idea for tertiary education was simply this: ‘We’ll make sure that you get funded, provided you impose Work Choices on the people who work in the tertiary sector. If you don’t, pursuant to legislation and protocols, we’ll underfund you. We’ll cut back your funding.’ That is their idea of tertiary funding and of the importance of the tertiary sector.
Let us not look at this situation somehow as though the Howard government had this wonderful and virtuous record for 10 years when it came to the education sector. The federal government, the Labor government, is committed to the Building the Education Revolution program at every level—preschool, primary, secondary and tertiary. This is a substantial amount of funding in terms of the increase and involves substantial policy reform across many years. We are building a stronger economy by skilling our workforce—making sure our young people and those people involved in the tertiary sector have the kinds of skills, abilities and talents that are necessary to improve productivity—to ensure that we have a highly skilled workforce which will improve profitability in our businesses, improve the economy and therefore maintain the wealth that we all expect our country to enjoy. But it is also about a fairer Australia.
I listened intently to what the member for Dunkley had to say. We saw an erosion of equity of opportunity under the Howard government and a greater reliance on student fees for income for universities. I have spoken to the universities in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland about our reforms. I have spoken to Professor Alan Rix, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland. He is based at Ipswich campus of the University of Queensland. I also have the Gatton campus of the University of Queensland in my electorate. Along with a number of other academics who I have spoken to, Professor Rix was highly critical of the Howard government’s record. They are very much in favour of what the Rudd Labor government is doing in terms of taking on board the recommendations of Denise Bradley in her review. For example, Universities Australia in a media release on 12 May 2009 said:
Universities Australia applauds Federal Budget for higher education, research and innovation.
The Group of Eight universities, the sandstone universities, including the University of Queensland, said that they applauded what this government was doing with respect to tertiary education and they called it a ‘visionary road taken to university reform’.
I just wonder what was happening under the Howard coalition government for almost 12 years. They must have had some very unpleasant experiences at university in their time when they were much younger because they seemed to attack the university sector constantly. We are really strongly of the belief that a strong tertiary sector means a stronger Australia, a fairer Australia and an Australia that will meet the future challenges that we face in this century. We are strongly of the view that we need the 10-year reform agenda for higher education to position us so that we can compete in the world market across many areas. We believe that higher education is integral to our vision of a fair, just and prosperous Australia. Those opposite did nothing about this. In fact, sadly, whilst our competitors in the OECD increased their funding to tertiary education by 48 per cent, Australia under the Howard coalition government decreased it. That is the reality.
We have put forward a strong program of reform. The Bradley review reported in December 2008 with 46 recommendations and many of them are taken up by the legislation that is before the House. For example, there is a national target of at least 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds obtaining qualification at bachelors level or above by 2020. That would mean an extra 217,000 people in this country would have access to the kind of training that would give them security in their finances, in their jobs and in their families’ future—217,000 extra training places; 217,000 extra jobs—people involved the tertiary sector having the kind of training that is necessary for the future. That is an enormous contribution. We also know that we need, according to Bradley, to set a national target by 2020 of 20 per cent of higher education enrolments at undergraduate level for people from low-socioeconomic status backgrounds.
The truth of the matter is that for nearly two decades we have had about 15 per cent of people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds enrolled at undergraduate level. We know also that that cohort makes up about 25 per cent of the student population. There is a big challenge for us here. But that is what Bradley recommended and that is what the Rudd Labor government is so committed to doing. We see justice and equity when people from disadvantaged backgrounds are supported into tertiary education. This uplifts people and gives them the kind of chance in life that they deserve. We believe that no matter what the postcode and the financial circumstances in which a person was born—whether they were born in a wealthy suburb or in a poorer area of our community—a person deserves the same chance in life. We do not believe that education is about the politics of the Left or the Right. We believe it is about both. We believe it is important that people get every opportunity in life to advance.
We have provided many packages in terms of assistance and it is a bit disingenuous of those opposite to say somehow that we are simply raiding funds that they set up because there are many, many areas which we are putting funding into after a decade of underfunding. The decade of underfunding, the national scandal of declining public investment in higher education as a proportion of GDP, is coming to an end. It is coming to an end because the Rudd Labor government is carrying out its election commitments and listening to the recommendations of the Bradley review.
We have a new approach to higher education funding, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, and it is sorely needed. The bill introduces a new, student centred funding system for higher education. It will cost $491 million over four years but we believe it is necessary. For the 2010-11 years, the cap on overenrolment and Commonwealth supported places will be lifted from five to 10 per cent in funding terms. In the circumstances, we think it is crucial that we do this. We think it is crucial to ensure that Commonwealth supported places for eligible students be accepted. We think it is important particularly that the skills needs of young people—and mostly young people go to university—are met, and it is in the broader public interest of all Australians to ensure that our people are educated at tertiary level, if they so choose.
The situation is that students from low socioeconomic backgrounds at high schools—for example, in my electorate—need to get incentives and opportunities and to be encouraged to go to university. That is why I recently attended a wonderful program that was run by the University of Queensland’s Ipswich campus. It was called PolyVision: Pacific Youth of Tomorrow. That is very much in line with what we are doing in terms of the University of Queensland, Bremer State High School and other state high schools in my electorate which are from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds.
PolyVision is worth noting and commenting upon. PolyVision is a University of Queensland outreach initiative which specifically targets Pacific island high school students. I met a number of them there from my old high school, Bundamba State Secondary College. It is particularly targeting those on the west side of Brisbane. It is based on a concept that was developed by the University of Auckland. PolyVision aims to inspire young people to consider higher education as a postschool option, as well as building their self-confidence, instilling pride in their Pacific identity and inspiring them to dream big dreams. I was pleased to go that night to that dinner to celebrate the young people who graduated from that course. I had dinner there with a number of them from my old high school, Bundamba State Secondary College, and also students from St Peter Claver College, a Catholic school in Riverview in my electorate and another area of low socioeconomic status.
PolyVision represents one of a number of outcomes of a two-year research project undertaken at the University of Queensland. It has arisen from a strategy aimed at motivating young people to consider the full range of available postschool options. I commend all those involved in PolyVision. I also commend Professor Alan Rix, who was there at the time as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, and the parents. There were so many parents there supporting their young people undertaking this program. The delight, the glee and the enthusiasm of those young people—from different backgrounds, and most of them from what we would call working-class high schools in my electorate—were inspiring and I commend all the people involved. It links in very much with what I am talking about here with this bill and what this bill aspires to do.
The University of Queensland in my electorate also needs to be commended for what it does in partnership with Bremer State High School. Bremer State High School is relocating to the Sandy Gallop golf links just beside the University of Queensland. In partnership with that working-class area high school, the University of Queensland will develop strong links. It already has strong links in terms of the aerospace program with Boeing and the aerospace park near the RAAF base at Amberley which is being developed. It is important also that young people from Bremer get encouraged to go on to the University of Queensland’s Ipswich campus, where we will see many young people involved in the Bachelor of Health Sciences, the Bachelor of Nursing, the Bachelor of Medicine/Surgery, the Bachelor of Business, the Bachelor of Arts and other courses that are run there.
The government here, in the legislation that is before the House, is allocating $108 million over four years for a new partnerships program to link universities with low SES schools and vocational education and training providers. It is just like the situation with the University of Queensland’s Ipswich campus and Bremer State High School and like the young people from St Peter Claver College and Bundamba State Secondary College in the PolyVision program I referred to. The intention here is to ensure that we have as many young people as we can from low socioeconomic backgrounds involved in higher education. The funding here will ensure that our young people get a chance in life. What we are going to do here is make sure they get the opportunities and places which they deserve, because we need to ensure that their aspirations and their expectations are met.
We are also allocating $325 million over four years to provide universities with a financial incentive to expand their enrolment of low SES students and to fund intensive support needed to improve their completion and retention. Sadly, many people go to university and drop out. We need to sustain these young people, particularly with the family pressures and the challenges that perhaps their parents did not face. With the pressures of their backgrounds, the kind of assistance that they need is not necessarily coming from home. We are supporting them, making sure they have got the financial support and making sure that universities partner with them. That is why I was rapt, absolutely thrilled, to see the families of those Pacific island young people from those schools supporting their young people at PolyVision that evening.
Of course, the steps to improving low socioeconomic status student participation will have impacts on, for example, those in the Tongan and Samoan communities in Ipswich and also on Indigenous students as well. There are many Indigenous students in our high schools in Ipswich and they are grossly under-represented at our universities. They face particular challenges and difficulties in completing university and getting there in the first place.
I heard some criticism about what we are doing in terms of scholarships. We are actually grandfathering some of those programs to ensure that those people who are receiving Commonwealth education costs scholarships and those people who are receiving existing Commonwealth accommodation scholarships will continue to receive those scholarships under the current arrangements. But we are bringing in new programs. The Commonwealth education costs scholarships will be replaced by a student start-up scholarship of $2,254 in 2010 and indexed thereafter. The accommodation scholarship is being replaced as well, and the relocation scholarship will provide $4,000 for students in their first year at university and $1,000 each year thereafter—and that will be indexed, of course, because that is the right thing to do.
I am very pleased that, in this legislation, we have funding for the Australian Universities Quality Agency. That agency is going to be replaced by what we think will be a better agency in 2010—the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. We think that is important because we want to make sure that, across the whole spectrum of the tertiary sector, the research that is done, the study that is undertaken and the teaching that is given is consistent—and we are going to make sure it is of high quality. We do not want young people who go to sandstone universities receiving a much better education than those who go to other universities. We want to make sure that everyone gets access to the kinds of education that they deserve and need in the circumstances. It is important also that we assist research and development, and that is why I am pleased that we are building on our commitments. We are increasing by more than 10 per cent the value of the Australian Postgraduate Stipend. It is going up from $20,427 in 2009 to $22,500 in 2010.
While I am on the subject of assisting universities and helping young people, I want to commend the government for the assistance it is providing to the University of Queensland in my electorate for the relocation of the School of Veterinary Science from Brisbane to Gatton, where it should have been in the first place. I appreciate the support—the tens of millions of dollars which are going to the University of Queensland. I commend the Head of the School of Veterinary Science at the University of Queensland, Professor Jonathan Hill, and all those involved in making the application for funding. I think the funding for the relocation of the School of Veterinary Science to Gatton will make a big difference in the Gatton community. Along with the prison that is being built by the Queensland Labor government, this will secure employment and a much-needed boost in retail expenditure. It will improve the population cohort and it will also improve the wealth and the aspirations of young people. They will have the opportunity to go to a brand new School of Veterinary Science, not to what is at the moment a fairly rundown university in terms of its facilities and structures.
I think this is tremendous for the people of the Lockyer Valley. It has been advocated for a long time. I commend the government for the funding we have seen there. It will make a big difference to the future of townships in the Lockyer Valley such as Gatton and Laidley and also for young people from Ipswich and the rural areas west of the Great Dividing Range, many of whom come to Gatton for their funding and their education. They get the training they need in agricultural science. Then they go back to their farms and become involved in best practice in their farming communities. Also, they stay there. We have had a drift to the cities of people from south-east Queensland. If we can get people back on the farms, that will be good for the Queensland economy as well. If we can train those farm workers and those involved in primary production, that will be even better. This is a great piece of legislation and I commend it to the House. (Time expired)
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution tonight on the Higher Education Support Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009. I have always had an interest in matters relating to education. While I spend much of my time in schools speaking about the need to get the best education possible, we know that a university education and such qualifications are not for everyone. I know that there are many young people in Cowan who are not interested in a degree of any kind, and they are of no lesser value to our community than those who have attained multiple and higher degrees. No person in this nation should have their value and self-worth judged by the qualifications they possess; rather, they should be judged by their character and by evidence of their effort to do their best. I hope the days are gone when those with university qualifications are thought of as being the best and all others are thought to be of lesser value. That is not to say, however, that those with university qualifications are not great achievers for this country. Without them, where would we be in health, science and the arts? My point is that, first and foremost, Australians should be judged by the depth of their character, not by what university they attend and what degree they receive.
I am here to speak on a bill which represents the government’s response to the review they commissioned on higher education, led by Denise Bradley, which commenced in March last year. There is little doubt that the review elicited a great number of submissions across a broad range of categories. That review, the Bradley review, was released in December 2008. I understand that the 42 recommendations also covered a broad range of issues, including funding, quality and standards, the issuing of places, support for students and how to ensure increased participation from lower socioeconomic areas and those who are not considered to be part of the mainstream. The review also elicited a number of reactions and counter points which I will speak of later.
How do we ensure that those who are often called ‘the disadvantaged’, such as Indigenous people, have tertiary education opportunities? It is my view that it should not be done through quotas and special funding arrangements, because tertiary qualifications are ultimately achieved after comprehensive study, coursework and exams. Arriving at the front door is the easy part; leaving in a cap and gown requires more work and a foundation and ethos that are created many years before. In Australia that begins when children are born—when they are safe, when they are fed healthy food and when they are introduced to education by the examples their parents provide to them. For example, ‘story time’ creates in children a love and valuing of books and the information passed on by their parents in general terms.
When I meet with people in Cowan I sometimes hear of their disquiet about the special arrangements that are provided for minority groups—special funding, places set aside et cetera. While some may be dismissive and call such concerns racism, I consider their concerns to be evidence of a belief in an egalitarian society where there are no special extra rights for minorities but, rather, equal responsibilities and opportunities for all. My point is that, through early intervention and steps taken to ensure that children are in safe, healthy and positive environments, you can remove the disadvantages that face teenagers. Special funding, special places and special deals for minorities become less relevant if their younger years are positive and appropriate. It is through such a solid base from infancy onward that disadvantage is best alleviated. While it may make some feel good to be able to point to the number of undergraduate students from targeted minority groups or groups deemed to be disadvantaged, I worry about their ability to pass the course requirements without that solid base of education and a safe and healthy childhood. I also worry about those who were never suited to tertiary study and their opportunities while these boxes are being ticked for university undergraduate places.
My point is very straightforward. If we get the health and safety and children’s love of learning right from their infancy, we remove the need for special deals, special places and special funding later. The challenge is: how do we get parents to raise their children safely, keep them healthy and read to them, amongst other imparting of information? That is a requirement for all parents in this country, no matter where they were born, the colour of their skin or their socioeconomic situation. Without reservation I condemn all parents that abuse their children or allow their children to be abused by others, as an abusive environment is not a safe and secure environment. I condemn parents or carers that are addicted to drugs and whose children suffer from neglect or have their futures undermined by those parents. I condemn parents that bring children up in circumstances of crime. I condemn parents whose commitment to drugs, alcohol, gambling or other vices comes before their commitment to their children, ensuring that those children do not have the opportunities that parents should be providing.
As I have always said, in this place and outside it, there are communities, suburbs and towns around this country right now where children should be taken away from their so-called parents and placed in the care, permanently, of properly assessed couples. Children should be able to grow up in an environment where they have a proper mother and father whose commitment is to the child before themselves and before any vices.
That being said, I would like to speak more specifically about the work of a university in Perth. There are several universities in Perth, including the University of Western Australia, Curtin University of Technology, Murdoch University, University of Notre Dame Australia and Edith Cowan University. It is with regard to Edith Cowan University, or ECU as it is commonly known in Perth, that I would like to make some comments.
I recently attended a launch of a new teaching degree opportunity created at ECU. The launch was held at Ballajura Community College. ECU was represented by Professor Kerry Cox, the vice-chancellor, and Professor Greg Robson, the head of the school of education, and Tim McDonald from the university was the MC. The launch was for the graduate diploma of education residency program. The graduates seeking their teaching diploma will be able to see firsthand the challenges and the opportunities their chosen career will provide them with. For two days a week they can be at a school getting firsthand experience, then undertake their course work on the other days. The program will ensure that participants will not suffer from any significant culture shock as a result of moving straight from the lecture theatre to being in charge of a class of primary or secondary students. Whilst hearing how the program would work and the benefits that the schools would receive, I was reminded how positive and innovative ECU was and how similar attitudes in our schools can allow the two parts of the equation to work so well together.
At the launch were the principals and some staff of a number of schools, with most being Cowan schools. Given the event was hosted by Ballajura Community College, the principal, Dr Steffan Silcox, was there and expressed his strong support for the program. At Ballajura Community College, or BCC, there is always something innovative happening, so it did not surprise me at all that a new tertiary program was being launched and implemented at the school.
The other schools from Cowan taking part in the program are Mercy College, Ashdale Primary School, Ashdale Secondary College and Roseworth Primary School. I took the opportunity of speaking with the principals of Roseworth and the two Ashdale schools. Geoff Metcalf is the principal at Roseworth Primary. Roseworth is located in the suburb of Girrawheen and the school exists as a result of an amalgamation between Hainsworth School and Montrose primary schools. Geoff Metcalf is a highly dedicated principal that has always looked at ways to provide a better education for his students. Girrawheen is an older suburb with lower socioeconomic circumstances than most other suburbs in Cowan. I know that, like me, Geoff sees the potential in Girrawheen and sees it most clearly in the students at his school.
Ashdale Secondary College is a brand-new school. The principal is Carol Strauss. I saw Carol at the launch, and the school’s involvement in the program is, in my view, evidence that Carol and her team are dedicated to assisting in providing the highest quality teachers possible. A teaching position at Ashdale Secondary College is highly sought after, and the staff there are some of the best there are in Perth. Graduates seeking a residency will be in very good hands there, with very good examples of teaching on offer. Ashdale Primary is a large school, under the leadership of Rick Firns. It will provide graduates seeking their teaching diploma with a great variety of opportunities, under a very highly regarded principal.
I expressed right from the start my thoughts on education and the importance of primary and secondary education. I see examples such as ECU’s residency program for the diploma of education as being of great benefit in ensuring knowledge is eventually transferred effectively to students in our schools. Beyond my thoughts on early intervention, quality teachers are going to make the biggest difference once those students reach schools.
With specific regard to this bill, making a large presumption, it is pretty hard to be opposed to much of the changes to be made. The presumption I speak of is the matter of finances. The question is: can this all be accomplished within our means? Admittedly something around half of the $5.7 billion involved is from the last government’s Higher Education Endowment Fund, so that came out of the savings this nation once had. Clearly there is nothing new about that money. It is also a point worth making that, when we look at the money being spent in this legislation, there is a clear difference between the emphasis on higher education here and the far greater emphasis on pink batts and cash handouts.
Yet this bill is an example of what a government can do when it is no longer constrained by fiscal restraint. Extra places at university, as admirable as that is, can be provided when you no longer try to balance a budget, when economic conservatism has been thrown aside, when the federal government no longer provides a shining example of living within one’s means but rather starts looking like a teenager with an unexpected mobile telephone bill. As a father, every time my daughters ask for something they see in the shops, I ask them whether they can afford it. That is what parents do, but the example shown by the previous federal government is no longer available, and the focus on living within one’s means is gone and is beyond the families of Australia.
Now leaving that issue aside, it would be useful to mention some of the industry perspectives that have been raised following the release of the Bradley review. I will begin by drawing upon the comments of the University of Sydney’s vice-chancellor, Michael Spence, who said:
I think the target is great, (but) I think it’s aspirational and it will not be possible, as the Government realises, to achieve it without also addressing educational disadvantage at primary and secondary school levels.
That is a very important point that I have already covered in this contribution. Dr Spence also said that he had been disappointed there had been no deep discussion of the role of fees in making educational reform during the Bradley process.
The University of New South Wales Vice-Chancellor, Fred Hilmer, warned the government not to accept the review as a whole, saying it was not properly thought through and costed and could not deliver dramatic increases in quality and output. He is reported as telling the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney that he and many of his colleagues were troubled by the review’s lack of a clear vision. He said that the review did:
… not clearly acknowledge the fundamentally important principles of excellence, differentiation of mission and the importance of a university education for its own sake.
He went on:
There is little recognition in the Bradley report of the special and key role played by research intensive, internationally well-ranked institutions.
Clearly, there has been a big divide, following the Bradley review. The Group of Eight universities believes that Denise Bradley, the former vice-chancellor of the University of South Australia, has a hidden agenda to deconcentrate research. In December it was suggested that the Group of Eight vice-chancellors was fearful, before the release of the Bradley review in late December, that the hostility its chairwoman was believed to harbour against the research elite might influence her recommendations. That was in response to her address at a recent Australian Technology Network conference saying that her review had stressed the teaching and research nexus to counter an extreme position on research concentration. It was reported that Professor Bradley told the ATN conference:
I am aware of the arguments about the strategic importance of greater concentration of internationally competitive research performance, but I think that there are good national reasons for us to adopt a model which continues to encourage some spread across institutions.
She went on to argue against:
… too much concentration of research capacity in too small a number of what will inevitably be capital city institutions.
It has also been widely reported that the Group of Eight, which argued forcefully for research concentration to meet global challenges in a paper released before the Bradley report, slammed the findings of her panel. The executive director of the Group of Eight said:
What is presented as a tightening of criteria for university status, based on the mythical “teaching-research nexus”, could well loosen expectations of research quality and further dissipate the nation’s research investment …
And further:
The Bradley report reflects a parochial and complacent view in the context of aggressive concentration of research investment in many other countries.
I also understand that the Group of Eight’s tough stand against Professor Bradley has been echoed by University of Melbourne professorial fellow Vin Massaro, who pointed out that the review’s targets for enrolment growth would involve producing an extra 544,000 graduates by 2020, which would require an additional 20 universities. Professor Massaro went on:
Assuming that the Government (was) prepared to fund these places, no mention has been made of the likelihood of finding the academic workforce to teach them, nor of the cost of building the necessary teaching infrastructure, nor of the plausibility that demand would rise so quickly …
He estimated that the capital costs required to meet the challenges of this enrolment explosion would be in the range of $25 billion to $30 billion.
On the other side is the group of universities represented under the banner of the Australian Technology Network. The ATN’s director, Vicki Thomson, said:
… We think that it is unfortunate that the Bradley review is being picked apart and that might diminish the opportunity for significant reform.
Representing the ATN, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Technology, Sydney, Ross Milbourne, said that the Bradley review was the best he had seen on the tertiary sector. He said its vision was to create a world-class university system. He went on:
We need a great university system, not one or two great universities.
The facts therefore are abundantly clear—that there is division in the tertiary sector about the direction taken by the Bradley review and the government’s ability to deliver on the expectations that have been created. There are concerns in that direction, as well as concerns about the financial capacity and where the review will lead our university research programs. I have also stated my own concerns.
Moving on, I also share the concerns of my regional colleagues about the changes the government wants to make to effectively abolish the workforce participation criteria for eligibility for the independent youth allowance. While that is not dealt with in this bill, the minister’s refusal to even entertain the notion that there is a problem is, sadly, just more evidence that this government is arrogant and refuses to consider alternative views. Country students will be disadvantaged by the government’s recalcitrance on this matter.
In any case, we look forward to greater Senate scrutiny of these matters in the future. To conclude, I look forward to seeing what will happen in the future with the implementation of this bill and seeing how far the government gets with managing the great expectations it has created.
It is indeed a pleasure this evening to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009. In doing so, I would like to preface my remarks by saying how proud I am of the Labor Party’s long history when it comes to opening up access to education for all Australians, particularly in the area of tertiary education. I would like to very briefly set the historical perspective. It is worth going back two or three decades. Prior to the 1970s a university education was inaccessible for many Australians due to the prohibitively high costs that were attached to attaining it. It is a shame that many bright, talented Australians probably missed out at that time on the chance to achieve their full potential. Following the reforms of the Whitlam government, many Australians were, for the first time, given that chance to study at university in a far more accessible way. Some members of this House, in fact, benefited from those reforms. It makes me reflect on the fact that, historically, when it comes to the need for dramatic reform for the benefit of many Australians, the Labor government seem to be pretty good at doing that.
The steps that are contained in this bill yet again reflect that type of approach. I do not think we can honestly say the same when we look at the record of the other side of the House either during their last tenure of government or going back even to those comparative years. Over the term of the last government there was a marked decline in public expenditure in the higher education sector, especially in comparison, as a percentage of GDP, with other OECD countries. There was also an increase in some of the red tape requirements, there was an erosion of equity of opportunity and a greatly increased reliance on student fees for university funding.
In 2006, whilst in opposition, the Labor Party issued a white paper on higher education and research and we promised a ‘substantial increase in public funding’ and a ‘program of long-term reform’ if we were elected to government. Since being elected to government, we have been determined to deliver on this promise, a promise we find fundamentally essential and important to this community. In 2008, the government commissioned a review of higher education, now commonly known as the Bradley report. Many recommendations were made in the report and these now form the basis of what will be a comprehensive overhaul of the system and, as promised, a program of long-term reform.
From the Bradley report, the government has committed itself to two key targets. Firstly, there will be a national target of at least 40 per cent of 25- to 40-year-olds having achieved a qualification of bachelor degree level or above by 2025. This will be implemented by accepting one of the Bradley report’s recommendations: to introduce an uncapped student demand driven system to fund undergraduate places. Until now, there has been a capping on the number of overenrolled student places that universities have been able to offer under agreements with the government. This will be done gradually by increasing the cap on overenrolment from five to 10 per cent from 2010 to the removal of the cap altogether in 2013. This change to the allocation of places will allow universities to manage their own student intake numbers, but more importantly it will provide approximately 50,000 more student places by 2013. This bill introduces a student centred approach and will have an estimated cost of $491 million over four years.
The second of these key targets will be that by 2025 at least 20 per cent of university enrolments will be people from low-socioeconomic status, or SES, backgrounds. This will be achieved in part by allocating $108 million over four years of a new partnerships program to link universities with low-socioeconomic schools and vocational education training providers. The aim of this measure is to provide links between schools and vocational education and training providers, with links to universities. In this way, students will have a better idea of what universities do and what opportunity and potential a tertiary education can bring to their lives. It will expose them to a world beyond the scope of their own everyday experiences at that point. Students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds also need greater levels of support. This includes financial assistance, but also more counselling services, more extensive mentoring programs and greater academic support. In order to provide these services, the government is allocating $325 million over four years, not only to encourage universities to enrol students from low-socioeconomic status backgrounds but also to fund the intensive support programs needed for the retention of these students and the completion of their studies.
As well as providing these important services to assist SES students, the government is also introducing major reforms to student income support. Students currently receiving support under the Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarship, CECS, will continue to receive support under the current arrangement. However, as of 2010 the Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarships will be replaced by the Student Start-up Scholarship of $2,254 in 2010 and this will be indexed on an annual basis. This will be provided to all students currently receiving income support or those under veterans’ schemes.
Another major reform to tertiary education will be the provision of $57 million over four years for the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. This agency is being established to work with the higher education sector to develop objective and comparative benchmarks and carry out rigorous audits. This will allow for the access of more detailed information about the performance of various higher education providers that will assist students in making a more informed choice about where they should study. It will also protect the overall integrity of the higher education system, encourage best practice and streamline current regulatory arrangements to reduce duplication and provide for national consistency across our higher learning centres. Overall, the agency will work with our universities to strive for better student selection and retention, and provide better outcomes for our graduates.
The government will be revising the indexation arrangements for all programs under the act from 2012, including grants for teaching and learning, and research, the OS-HELP maximum loan amount for overseas Australian students and the FEE-HELP borrowing limit. The government will also be helping Australian overseas students under the OS-HELP scheme by discontinuing the 20 per cent fee that these students until now have had to pay on their loan. The 20 per cent fee has limited the success of the loan program, and removal of the fee will encourage students to undertake part of their studies overseas for an Australian qualification.
Another major reform contained in this amendment will be the government’s commitment to increases to the funding of research conducted through universities. Over the next four years the government will commit $512 million worth of funding to the new Sustainable Research Excellence in Universities initiative to cover the indirect costs of research. This is in addition to the current funding provided by the Research Infrastructure Blocks Grants Scheme. The objective of the extra funding is to raise the average support of indirect costs of university research to 50 per cent of direct competitive grant funding by 2014. The government will also be altering the structure of the existing Institutional Grants Scheme and complementing it with additional funding to become more focused on collaboration between universities, industry and other end users.
Another step that the government is taking to promote research in our universities will be to increase the funding to Australian Postgraduate Awards and Other Research Grants. The government has a stated commitment to double the number of Australian Postgraduate Awards by 2012, and as part of this commitment the value of the postgraduate stipend will be increased by over 10 per cent, from $20,427 in 2009 to $22,500 in 2010.
As I said earlier, this government came to office with a commitment not only to redress the neglect of the Australian tertiary system of the past decade but also to provide better access to education for disadvantaged groups in our community, to give more freedom to our universities and to burden them with less red tape to operate to their best potential whilst, at the same time, assisting them by rewarding them with agreed quality and equity outcomes.
Additionally, the government has greatly improved research funding for our universities and is increasing investment in our university infrastructure. These are significant improvements to the tertiary system and, in commending this bill to the House, I want to repeat again my pride in being part of a Labor government that really understands and values the pure economic investment in education in this country. We do not use the words ‘education revolution’ lightly. It is what we really mean to do. As I have said earlier, if ever there is something that a Labor government really know hows to do, it is basic good, strong reform in areas of the community where it is needed. We have done it many times in the past and we are doing it again with the contents of this bill. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak in relation to theHigher Education Support Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009. In doing so, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the legislation although with some reservations in relation to the issue associated with the abolishment of Commonwealth scholarships and the fact that legislation to replace those scholarships is not before House at this stage.
I must express my disappointment that we are not also debating that proposed legislation dealing with the eligibility criteria for the youth allowance that was announced in the budget, given the great deal of community debate and uncertainty that the minister has created in the lives of young Australians over the past four or five months, particularly those young Australians from rural and regional areas who are currently in their gap year. They were faced with this announcement in May and now face three months without any indication of the final shape of the government’s legislation in that regard.
I note that this legislation actually abolishes the Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarships and the Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarships with the replacement programs announced in the budget. The coalition does support, however, moving towards a more deregulated higher education sector with more flexibility for institutions and more responsiveness to student demand. It is by no means any suggestion that we have a perfect system now or that we would with the changes proposed, but we are working towards areas of improvement.
There has been a lot of rhetoric about improving access to higher education for regional students, but the action taken so far over the past 22 months does not recognise the enormous cost and the enormous economic barriers to participation for students from rural and regional communities. Last month the parliament of Victoria’s Education and Training Committee released its final report into geographical differences in the rate in which Victorian students participate in higher education. I give great credit to the Nationals member for Eastern Victoria, Peter Hall, who was a driving force behind the establishment of this inquiry in Victoria. Peter has had a long and very distinguished parliamentary career of more than 20 years and has a particular interest in regional education and tertiary education, given his background as a teacher firstly in the Latrobe Valley but also throughout regional Victoria.
Having said that, this was not a partisan report that was prepared by the Victorian parliament. It was a report of an all-party committee headed by Labor MP for the Ballarat East region, Mr Geoff Howard. It is relevant to the bill before the House today because it closely considers the issues associated with higher education support as we move forward. The bill before the House is the legislative instrument that delivers most of the measures included in the government’s response to the Bradley review. The state government inquiry highlights the problems we are facing in regional communities, particularly Victoria in this case. In his foreword, Mr Howard indicated that the inquiry attracted unprecedented interest from communities in every corner of the state. He also went on to point out that higher education was regarded as a significant issue in every community that the inquiry visited. I would just like to quote from the forword to help set the tone.
Time and again, the Committee heard about the difficulties faced by young school leavers in rural and regional areas who are contemplating leaving home to study. This exciting time in young people’s lives inevitably brings a multitude of challenges, as they farewell family and friends and branch out into new environments. However, an even greater concern for many of these young people and their families is the high cost of university study, particularly the cost of living away from home. The Committee heard that these concerns are responsible for a disproportionately high university deferment rate among rural and regional students, many of whom may never go on to pursue their studies.
Student income support is therefore a major contributing factor in university participation. While the Committee welcomes recent national reforms to enable more students from low-income families to access Youth Allowance, it is concerned that the specific circumstances of rural and regional young people still have not been adequately addressed. Already, many such students defer their studies to meet eligibility criteria for income support and this route to financial independence is set to become even more difficult under the new system. In the Committee’s view, all young people who must relocate to undertake their studies should be eligible to receive student income support.
That the committee chair believes that ‘all young people who must relocate to undertake their studies should be eligible to receive student income support’ is of critical concern to me, obviously, as a member from a regional electorate.
The report goes on in great detail to highlight that the biggest hurdle to participation in higher education for a lot of young people from rural and regional communities is the cost barrier. It is in this area in particular that I remain concerned about and critical of the Rudd government’s approach so far in terms of overcoming these economic barriers for regional students. I stress that these are by no means my own comments with no support. Throughout the electorate of Gippsland, I have received in the vicinity of 60 letters from concerned parents, students and teachers who have written to me and I have forwarded those concerns directly to the minister to highlight, on behalf of my constituents, concerns that have been raised in relation to the government’s changes which were proposed after the May budget.
I have also tabled a petition with more than 5,000 signatures on the same topic and I understand there have been similar petitions circulated throughout regional Australia by other coalition members of parliament. The response has been staggering from people who are concerned about the changes and the impacts they will have on students who are right now in their gap year. It is a critical issue when we are considering a bill tonight in relation to the broader issues of higher education support in that the way we look after our regional students in the future is an area of immense debate in rural and regional communities.
As I said, I have tabled a petition with more than 5,000 signatures. I understand other petitions with even more signatures have been tabled in the parliament over the past six to eight weeks. The minister’s response at this stage, however, has been disappointing in that she has accused me and other members on this side of the House of scaremongering on this particular issue. As I said, students, principals and Local Learning and Employment Network representatives have raised their concerns, and I have brought them to the minister’s attention. I must stress that these are people who are not party political in any sense at all; they are just concerned about this particular issue, and there is no sense at all that they are scaremongering.
Now it appears that the concerns are coming from the minister’s own side of politics—if not in this place then certainly in the Victorian state parliament. As I said, the chairman of the Victorian parliamentary committee that was commissioned to report on geographical differences is a Labor member of parliament. It is an all-party committee which is dominated by the Labor party, and some regional Labor MPs at that. In the report, this is what the inquiry found—and I quote particularly from the executive summary in relation to the issue of the workforce criteria, which has caused great concern for students who are keen to be able to access higher education support in the future:
Throughout the inquiry, the Committee heard that for many rural and regional students, access to higher education is dependent on their ability to access the Youth Allowance through existing workforce participation criteria for independence. Although there are currently three workforce participation routes to independence, the Australian Government has announced that it is tightening the criteria. From 2010 only those young people who have worked for a minimum of 30 hours per week for 18 months will be eligible for Youth Allowance under the criteria for independence.
This is the critical point:
The Committee believes that this change will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas. The Committee firmly believes that all young people who are required to relocate to undertake university studies should be eligible to receive government income support, and has recommended that the Victorian Government advocate for this change to eligibility criteria for Youth Allowance.
I say it is a critical point because it is fairly strong language from an all-party committee to be saying that a proposed change by the federal government in relation to the independent criteria for youth allowance would have a disastrous effect—not a mild effect, a modest effect or some impact. The committee has found it will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas. I wonder if the minister still thinks that it is scaremongering to be raising these concerns given the direction that the Rudd government has taken in relation to the youth allowance issue.
The legislation which is before the House this evening abolishes the Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarships and the Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarships, and replacement programs have been announced, as I understand, by the minister. It is, as I said earlier, regrettable that these programs are not ready to be put before the House today, because I think it goes to the heart of the concerns that are held by the students, the parents and the teachers throughout our nation.
To be fair to the minister, I think that the minister has been well intentioned in her efforts to crack down on anyone who has perhaps used the previous arrangements to their own benefit. Although the minister has stopped short of saying that they have been rorting the previous system, I think it is fair to say that there has been some illegitimate use and pushing of the envelope, if you like, in relation to the previous system. In my office I have received anecdotes of students who have been living at home—in metropolitan areas in particular—who have been able to achieve independent status under the previous model. I do not think anyone objects to a tightening up of those requirements—I do not think that should be of any concern—but I do not think that excuses the position we have got ourselves into now, where we are actually throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I think we have got ourselves into a position where we are going to discriminate further against regional students—and, I stress again, particularly those students who are right now in the middle of their gap year. These are the students who took the advice of their school principals, sometimes of Centrelink offices and certainly of teachers and parents, who told them that, if they took a gap year and earned the $19,500, they would then be eligible to apply for the independent rate of youth allowance. My great concern is the issue of natural justice to these students who have been caught out by these changes. They have had no time to adjust to it, and we have now left them in a situation of great uncertainty. Three months have passed since the budget was announced. We have legislation before the House tonight which does not specifically counter that particular issue but goes towards the broader concept of higher education support. I do not think the minister has really appreciated the great depth of angst this is causing in regional communities. As I said earlier, I have been overwhelmed by the response in my office alone, with people signing a petition and writing to me directly. These students are at their wits’ end in trying to know what hope they will have to go on to achieve their university dreams if the one criterion available to them, the independent rate of youth allowance, is taken away and they are forced to work 30 hours per week for up to two years to achieve the higher criterion which has been set under the proposed changes.
There are a range of measures in the bill before the House which are positive in the sense that they are designed to improve access to higher education. There is the removal of the government-imposed cap on the number of students in courses offered by universities, which is expected to lead to an extra 50,000 students undertaking undergraduate study over the four years. There are also funding provisions and more generous indexation measures on basic funding to universities, at a cost of $577 million over the four years. But I hasten to add again that these measures are worthless to many regional Australians if they cannot afford to access university campuses in the first place.
Again, I refer to the proposed changes to the youth allowance eligibility criteria. As I mentioned, the minister’s state colleagues have acknowledged that the proposed changes will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas, and I believe it is important to explain why. I am not convinced that the minister has fully appreciated the anger that is brewing within regional Australia in particular in relation to these proposed changes. As I said, the state government Education and Training Committee’s final report, Inquiry into geographical differences in the rate in which Victorian students participate in higher education, was quite scathing of the proposed changes. What it demonstrates to us is that the government has not fully understood the economic challenges faced by rural and regional students. These are students who, by the nature of their location, have to move away from home to pursue their university dreams. Their parents are faced with costs in the vicinity of $15,000 or $20,000 per year in addition to what a metropolitan student may face in attending a university campus around the corner or somewhere with easy access to public transport.
So I highlight those concerns and hope the minister will take it at face value that the changes that are proposed to the independent youth allowance criteria simply are not going to meet the needs of regional students going forward and, in fact, will embed the discrimination. What is actually required in rural and regional areas is fair and equitable access to university education, and I plead with the minister to start listening to the concerns of the people on whose behalf I have written to her and also to the people who have signed petitions in support of the opposition’s campaign to provide better access for rural and regional students attending university.
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Earlier this year the government announced that it would be funding the establishment of a number of opportunities for linear accelerators. The 2009-10 budget has allocated $560 million for a network of up to 10 best practice regional cancer centres. The Shoalhaven is in dire need of one of these facilities, and we intend to put forward a very strong submission when tenders are called. Cancer patients in my electorate of Gilmore are forgoing treatment and even undergoing voluntary mastectomies instead of travelling to Sydney for radiotherapy treatment because there is no facility in the Shoalhaven and the two Wollongong machines cannot cope with the demand. Patients are currently forced to travel a minimum of 80 kilometres to their nearest linear accelerator facility, across a distance with little or no public transport. The train line stops at Bomaderry, and people in suburbs further south have no option but to drive or be driven. This situation is unacceptable.
The community have once again taken the initiative to raise almost $1 million for a facility, and we hope the federal government will recognise that determination and supply the remaining funding required as part of the National Cancer Plan budget program. It is in this context that I wrote to the minister in December 2007, immediately following the federal election, and again just a couple of months ago asking for our inclusion as one of the 10 regions. For the record, the previous coalition government committed $3.5 million to fund the establishment of a linear accelerator in Nowra. Unfortunately, history has put paid to that, but not to the resolve of the community for fair consideration.
As part of the ongoing effort to secure a facility, I travelled to Wagga Wagga with the Mayor of the Shoalhaven, Paul Green, and the state member for South Coast, Shelley Hancock. With me was Zita Cleary, wife of the late Professor Ray Cleary, who himself died of cancer. Ray headed up the Shoalhaven campus of the University of Wollongong and, even though he was a dedicated Labor supporter, he and I got on very well. Ray was also a strong worker for the cause of cancer research, and I would like to think that the securing of a linear accelerator for Nowra would be a fitting testimony to this man.
Wollongong based oncologist and Wollongong University Clinical Professor, Phil Clingan, is on record as stating the necessity of the device to be situated in the Shoalhaven. This is what he had to say:
People are electing to have mastectomies because it’s too inconvenient to have radiation … because it’s too difficult for them to travel to and from Wollongong.
He said:
The number of people foregoing treatment was part of the “compelling argument” for establishing a new cancer care centre in the Shoalhaven.
He also said:
The most logical place to put a third machine is in the Shoalhaven.
Professor Clingan says outright:
We really need something in the Shoalhaven.
Despite the overwhelming determination of the Shoalhaven community, the NSW government continues to disregard their constituency. There was no provision in this year’s state budget, and the state Labor member for Kiama, Matt Brown, whose seat takes in the northern part of the Shoalhaven, could not offer an explanation. He said he was unsure as to why the area health service had not committed funding for a linear accelerator for the Shoalhaven hospital.
Mr Brown is patently dismissive of supporting the aspirations of the people he purports to represent, and does so quite regularly. It seems he has lost the plot and, with that, his interest in his constituency. This is what the editor of the South Coast Register wrote in response to Mr Brown’s lack of enthusiasm:
In picking up territory right down to the Shoalhaven River in the 2004 redistribution, the urbane Mr Brown also picked up a lot of responsibility, not the least of which is a disastrous absence of radiotherapy services.
Contrast the lives of the cancer sufferers who travel up and down the highway each day to access the linear accelerator in Wollongong to that of Mr Brown, who is paid a princely sum just to go to work each day, and the disparity is glaring.
The southern half of his electorate expects the Member for Kiama to make good use of the big increase in his electorate allowance. High on his agenda should be making the time to visit Nowra, and perhaps take the bus with the cancer patients and hear their stories first-hand. He might gain an insight into the indignities they suffer—particularly those will bowel or prostate cancer.
This in turn may just inspire him to lobby a little harder for the Shoalhaven linear accelerator. While he gives plenty of lip service to the cause, his recent admission that he had not attended a meeting of the linear accelerator committee for two years would suggest otherwise.
I applaud the announcement by the state Liberal opposition to make it a No. 1 priority, if elected, to secure a linear accelerator for the Shoalhaven. The constituents, Shoalhaven council, Professor Clingan and the South-Eastern Sydney Illawarra Area Health Service are all united in working together to see that the Shoalhaven gets its linear accelerator.
I think that says it all, and I would hope this government takes note of those sentiments as it deliberates over who is deserving of getting one of these budgeted places. That is why we have sought a meeting with the minister, to allow us to present our case to recognise the Gilmore electorate and South Coast as an area of need for this funding. We will go to the federal minister with $1 million in funds. The mayor, Paul Green, will have land allocated, and with the will of our people, who are constantly raising funds, we simply just cannot be ignored.
Last Wednesday, 5 August 2009, I was privileged to be invited to open the most recent stage of the Yallambee Village aged care facility in Revesby. The original Yallambee Village was built in September 1981. Exactly 10 years to the day before the recent opening, on 5 August 1999, I opened an eight-bed residential wing. This wing was named after the late Ray McCormack, a former Mayor of Bankstown.
Yallambee is now run by Bankstown City Aged Care Limited, a not-for-profit organisation and charity which has operated since 1972. The original units at Yallambee were built by Bankstown City Council in conjunction with our local hospital, three Lions Clubs, a Rotary Club and eight of the local licensed clubs, including five RSLs and Revesby Workers Club, of which I am vice-president. It is this model which makes Yallambee a superb example of facilities being developed by a community in response to their needs. In addition to providing residential units and services at Yallambee, Bankstown City Aged Care looks after another 550 clients at home, in day care and at three other residential care sites.
One of the changes in the model of care provided by the new units at Yallambee is the physical style. Over the past 20 years the average age of residents has increased as more people stay in their homes, with assistance, for as long as possible. At the time the original ‘motel style’ units were appropriate, and gave residents with low-care needs a sense of moving to a small individual unit. Today, residents are more likely to need access to nursing care over a 24 hour period and there can be safety issues as staff move between buildings.
The new model is more ‘hotel-like’ in that it goes up, allowing easy access by staff to residents over 24 hours and allowing security matters to be managed more easily by limiting access points to the building. The objective of Bankstown City Aged Care in establishing stage one of the long-term plans was to ensure that the aged care needs of baby boomers would be provided for within the community. Residents are able to enter the facility from their own homes when they are low care and do not have to move again as their level of care needs increase. The 32 new units are all single with electric beds, ensuites with disabled facilities, an LCD TV, small table and a dining chair together with a recliner or sitting chair and the usual locker, cupboards et cetera and individual air conditioning. There are two activity rooms, one active and one passive, to allow residents and their guests access to a wide range of activity. The long-term plan provides for similar rooms for the remainder of the units.
My congratulations go to Yallambee, Bankstown City Aged Care, its board and its CEO, Terry Madden, for the vision they have shown in the development of residential care. The model Terry and Bankstown City Aged Care have used is one of which our community can be very proud. I have a very high personal regard for the people associated with this project, and the staff, led by Christine Jones, who has been the manager at Yallambee Village for a number of years, also provide excellent service to the residents. Most of them are locals, so they live locally. They know a lot of the residents, who they have met over the years, and they give the kind of care that really turns Yallambee Village into a home for these elderly residents. That is why they like going there. I have a friend whose father was umming and ahing about whether he would go there. We went to the open day a couple of weeks ago. He was looking at the facility and, within minutes, he signed up to say, ‘That’s where I want to be’. It will take a couple of months for him to go in there, but I have been to a number of facilities around my electorate and in other electorates and Yallambee is at the top of the scale. But that does not diminish the way the staff deal with the residents. It was a great opening. There were hundreds of people there. There was warmth, and you could walk away knowing that Yallambee was going to look after these aged citizens in our community quite well.
Telstra’s recent announcement that it will slug customers $2.20 for paying their bills in person, or in cash, is a shameless exercise in profiteering that will discriminate against people in rural and regional Australia. From 14 September this year Telstra will charge a $2.20 administration fee for each bill payment made by mail or in person at a Telstra shop or an Australia Post outlet unless an exemption applies. In addition, existing credit card payment processing fees will increase to one per cent of the payment amount for Mastercard, Visa and American Express and to two per cent of the payment amount for Diners Club, plus GST.
For some people, face-to-face customer service is not only their preference; it is their only option. Personal service is still an ethic in rural and regional Australia. Go into any small business in my electorate and you will be welcomed. Pay your bill in cash and you will be even more welcome. Regrettably, this is not the case for Telstra customers who choose to pay their bill over the counter and who prefer the convenience of face-to-face customer service. They will incur an inequitable penalty. Certainly, many residents throughout my electorate of Barker will be unfairly targeted under this move. There are large areas of my electorate where broadband internet is simply not available. For many people their only option is unreliable dial-up internet, which of course incurs a cost.
Thousands of rural and regional residents in my electorate can only dream of the fast and reliable broadband service which just does not reach them now and never will under the National Broadband Network, thanks to the Rudd government’s cancellation of the Howard government OPEL contract. Many older people in my electorate do not own a computer, and I for one appreciate receiving their carefully penned, handwritten and mailed letters. What a pity Telstra does not. Ours is not a wealthy electorate. Indeed, we are close to the bottom of the list in per capita income. Many older Australians do not use a credit card. These Telstra charges will only serve to increase their disadvantage.
I have a real concern about how this will affect self-funded retirees and other elderly residents who have been hard hit by the economic downturn and are already struggling to keep pace with a rising cost of living. The charge for paying your Telstra bill in person has angered many consumers in my electorate. They ask me: since when has cash become not legal tender to pay bills and hence incurs an extra fee? They tell me that they do not pay an extra fee for buying a litre of milk with cash. Nor should they pay extra for paying a Telstra bill with cash or a credit card. To pay bills over the internet is not an option for many of my rural constituents, thanks to the Rudd government’s cancellation of the Howard government OPEL contract.
Telstra says that these charges are a commercial decision and further says that the increases are consistent with industry practice. It is a very strange industry practice if that is the case, because I know of a heap of shops in my electorate that do not charge anything on credit cards. In fact, it is very rare to actually find a business that charges extra to use a credit card. Applying consistent industry practice might apply when you have a level playing field of service. There is no such playing field in my electorate. Black spots, where mobile telephone service cannot be reliably received, persist in many places. I call on the Rudd Labor government to use its power under the Australian Constitution to squash this outrageous fee immediately. I believe that it could be squashed under the telecommunications power of our Constitution. I also believe that it is unconstitutional to put a charge on using cash, and it is about time this government woke up to the fact that this is an outrageous fee being imposed by Telstra and did something about it now.
On Saturday, I was at the local football game, Gawler Central versus Willaston. It was a great game. I was there with the state member for Light, Mr Tony Piccolo, and Premier Mike Rann. The Premier was good enough to toss the coin for the A-grade match and for a very competitive netball game as well. It is a bit of a tradition in Gawler, in my home town, Kapunda, and in the Barossa to have the footy and netball together on one site, and it is a great day for all involved. You get a lot of spectators, a lot of families and a lot of people who have previously played taking an interest in the matches and taking an interest in the league.
As I stayed to watch the game, after the formalities had finished, I talked to a number of club officials and a number of members of both clubs. They brought up the issue of the conduct of the Town of Gawler, which has recently decided to enforce a number of their leases. It is a great cause for consternation amongst the local community and also amongst the club officials. Basically, what has happened is that the Town of Gawler has sent out 19 letters following an internal audit of the council’s community lease properties, acting to enforce the leases in this financial year, 2008-09. Some of the fees are quite high. Some of the lease fees are a massive increase on the fees that the clubs had been paying.
Karbeethan Sporting Association got a letter basically outlining a cost of $130,000. Willaston Football Club has been charged $81,000, Gawler Central Football Club $64,000, and South Gawler Football Club $58,591—with Gawler Bowling Club, the Gawler BMX Club, the scout group and the Gawler Club all being charged lesser amounts of between about $1,200 and $3,000. Obviously, these are enormous amounts of money for these sporting clubs to have to pay. In particular, if you look at the Karbeethan sporting club, Heather Jackson said:
We had no idea —they (council) must not want us to play sport in Gawler …
There are many clubs that simply face closure if these leases are enforced. It is a great concern also to the South Gawler Football Club. Jim Callander, who I know well, who is a great local official and a very dedicated member of the South Gawler footy club, said:
“If they (council) pursue it they are going to kill the South Gawler Sporting Club —they are seeking to extract a whole heap of money that is simply not there.
“We would either have to shut the doors or move completely out of the Gawler area.”
Given that this club has been going in Gawler for 120 years, that would be a great tragedy indeed.
Those are all quotes out of the Bunyip newspaper, our local town newspaper, a very good newspaper, which I think indicate the level of consternation around this move by the council. There was a further article only in today’s Bunyip which talks similarly about how 40 concerned club representatives met on Friday night. The Karbeethan Sporting Association, which represents the Gawler Eagles, the Gawler and Districts Softball Association, the Gawler Hockey Club, the Gawler Rangers Baseball Club and the Riverside Cricket Club, was there. South Gawler, Gawler Central and Willaston football clubs and the BMX club were all there. They are all concerned about the enforcement of these leases.
I think the Town of Gawler should rethink these leases, enter into productive and fruitful negotiations with the sporting clubs and basically do it in a much more friendly manner. I am concerned that this decision by the council was made in secret and that once it was made a letter simply landed in the sporting clubs’ postal boxes. I think that is not the way you should go about things when you are dealing with such a worrying issue. These price rises are far too large for any club to withstand, much less withstand with very short notice, so I call on the Town of Gawler to reconsider their decision.
I rise to express grave concern at the government’s gross neglect of one of my constituents, an Australian national who has effectively been detained without trial in Mauritius for the last four years. Peter Gray was arrested in 2005 after flying to Mauritius. He met a woman on the plane who was later found to be smuggling heroin into the country. She allegedly implicated him, but withdrew her claim after she was convicted. But Mr Gray’s detention continued. He denies all charges, and since his arrest, for the last four years, he has been in prison or forced to stay in Mauritius.
Australia’s most significant contribution to the matter seems to be its cancellation of Mr Gray’s passport. Consider that for a moment. An Australian national is arrested in another country and then charged with a serious offence, which he denies, and then he is detained for several years without a trial. Australia does not raise a hue and cry about this grave injustice, does not protest and does not apply any pressure to at least have the matter dealt with in the courts. No, the members opposite cancelled this man’s passport. He needed help and you, the so-called government, delivered what was effectively a presumption of guilt.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs does not want to talk about this case publicly. He has not responded to repeated and sometimes daily questions from the media. He replied just last week to a letter I sent him on 2 July, saying that the cancellation of Mr Gray’s passport was justified. He said it would be ‘inappropriate’ for Australia to make representations to Mauritius as long as legal action was continuing.
The question here is not one of innocence or guilt. I make no judgement as to Mr Gray’s culpability, though on balance the facts as they are known would tend to support his denials. The issue is one of justice. Four years is an unreasonable delay. To hold someone in such limbo is a terrible cruelty. The government has demonstrated in other cases that it is able to act when Australian nationals are arrested overseas. Recent examples include the mother detained in Thailand for stealing a bar mat and young Australians held over drugs in Indonesia. But Mr Gray, a middle-aged, average Australian, apparently does not fall into this category warranting attention. How many other Peter Grays are out there?
In 2007-08 DFAT reported it had contact with 1,249 Australians arrested or imprisoned overseas and believed there were many more cases in which Australia was not notified. Whatever the circumstances of the case, Mr Gray deserves to have the matter resolved. The delays are a gross infringement of Mr Gray’s rights. To deny him his liberty and to effectively detain him for so long without ever being convicted of an offence is a disgraceful abuse of state power. All Australians would expect that if they were ever detained in another country their government would step in to ensure they were treated reasonably. Four years is not a reasonable period to resolve a criminal matter. This could happen to you, it could happen to me and it is completely unacceptable.
It is also very disturbing that Australia has apparently cancelled Mr Gray’s passport simply on the basis that he has been charged with a criminal offence. The assumption of innocence is the bedrock of our judicial system and must not be sacrificed. If the concern was one of flight risk when considering whether Mr Gray could be released from prison pending trial, other measures could have been implemented, such as simply surrendering his passport to local authorities. On the surface of it, Australia’s cancellation of Mr Gray’s passport makes our country and all of us complicit in this travesty of justice. Australians have a right to expect that the government will do something other than cancel their passports and then wait for the outcome of legal proceedings, no matter how many years it takes. The foreign minister needs to act on Mr Gray’s case. To do anything less is a dereliction of duty.
I rise to inform the House of the recent Parliamentary Defence Force Program that I went on in the Kimberleys, having chosen to go with NORFORCE. I did a little bit of research on NORFORCE prior to going and found out that the North West Mobile Force, or NORFORCE, as it is known, was specifically raised to meet the requirements for surveillance and reconnaissance in the Northern Territory and the Kimberley region of north-western Australia. This area of operations covers nearly one-quarter of Australia’s land mass, or 1.8 million square kilometres. Together with the other regional force surveillance units, NORFORCE provides the Australian Defence Force with an effective surveillance network in Northern Australia. I learned it is a unique organisation for many reasons. It has the largest area of operations of any military unit in the world today and is permanently assigned to a joint commander for ongoing surveillance operations in Northern Australia.
The unit relies heavily on the commitment and local knowledge of the population of Northern Australia to fulfil its role. It has a high proportion of Aboriginal soldiers, whose talents are fully utilised. NORFORCE remains well equipped to undertake its tasks, which differ little whether the nation is at peace or at war. The regiment continues to develop in terms of the acquisition of new equipment and facilities and consequently is continually enhancing its capabilities. NORFORCE continues to enjoy great support from the local population, from which it draws its soldiers and which is its very reason for existing.
Major Dave McGarry coordinated the ADF program in 2009 and Warrant Officer Class 1 Jodie Stewart was the escort. After flying to Broome on Sunday afternoon and taking up camp on Monday morning we did the usual checks. A lot of what we do with NORFORCE and defence is based around safety, so there were the usual OH&S briefing issues to get us all up to speed with what was expected and to let us know that the defence program we were doing was dangerous. After having our briefings and packing up our jeeps, off we went. We first went to a rifle range where we did weapons testing. I would like to say that I was quite handy with a Steyr and did well enough to be an infantryman if required at some stage.
We pushed on towards a place called Beagle Bay on the Tuesday. Beagle Bay is about an hour north-west of Broome. We spent the night at Beagle Bay, where we set up our Zodiacs ready to do our night patrols. We also went down to the beach and hooked a few mud crabs and had some salmon, which was a nice break from the ration packs that we had been living off the day before. That night we went and did some night driving with infrared goggles on through the bush, which was interesting. We sat around the fire and spoke about our troops that are in Afghanistan and Iraq and got a fairly good briefing on that. I was accompanied on the trip by Senator Steve Parry and Senator Simon Birmingham. We had a really good time. The next day we went out on the water and did some surveillance around the Western Australian coast. That night we pulled up at Middle Lagoon, which is a very popular tourist destination. We stayed there that night and did some surveillance with night-vision goggles.
The program was a real eye-opener to the talent of our young men and women in this area. We were very well looked after. There were some full-time people there but there were reservists as well. They have a lot of talent indeed, and the job that they do is very important to this country. The program reiterated to me the importance of our defence services and the respect that I have for the men and women that wear our uniform, whether they are serving in NORFORCE or other parts of the world. I know that as a government, from the Prime Minister and the defence minister through to the other ministers as well as the parliamentary secretaries, we have an ongoing commitment to our Defence Force. It is a commitment that is shared by the opposition and I would like to put on the record my absolute appreciation of these people.
The following notices were given:
to move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for works in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 11 August 2009, namely: Parliament Drive one way road upgrade.
to 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: Villawood Immigration Detention Facility, Sydney, NSW.
to present a Bill for an Act relating to the subscription by Australia for additional shares in the capital stock of the Asian Development Bank, and for related purposes.
I continue to be staggered—actually amazed—by state Labor sending water bills to 600-odd farmers in my electorate for water they are not getting. The Lachlan River users are on zero allocation yet face being charged for water licences. The government stands to make more than $2¼ million if the charges go ahead. Nowhere else do you hear of someone being charged for nothing. When will the Rudd government intervene in this unbelievable situation and tell its state Labor mates to stop slugging drought ravaged farmers for something they cannot deliver? This is the fourth year in a row that farmers have experienced zero water allocations. Since 2002 there have been six years of no water allocation. The license fees have been raised twice, so we know that the government can do it. A major dam in my electorate, Wyangala Dam, is at 6.9 per cent capacity. Based on that, it will be a long time before general security river water users are given access to any water, yet they are still being asked to pay up. We need the fees to be suspended or waived until there is water available. The Prime Minister, Minister Burke and Minister Wong must act on this blatant cash grab and pull their state mates into line.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House a situation facing the Parkes Shire Council in my electorate. The Parkes shire was one of the hardest hit councils with its investment portfolio in the wake of the financial crisis. They have written off one investment worth $2.8 million and, based on current valuation, face a devaluation of $10 million in portfolio investments. The council has a very serious situation with regard to its airport runway. Two million dollars is urgently needed for work to rebuild that runway because the subpavement is failing, making it difficult for heavy aircraft. Council cannot afford the $2 million needed for the work, and we need to know what help might be available for them. Several months ago council put an application in for grant money through the jobs fund but are yet to hear anything. This is an important regional airport both for Parkes and for nearby regional centres such as Forbes and Condobolin. Last year some 35,000 passengers used this airport.
I was privileged to attend the official signing of the Amberley Community Engagement Forum terms of reference. Present were: Air Marshal Mark Binskin AM, the Chief of Air Force; Air Commodore Chris ‘Noddy’ Sawade, the senior Australian Defence Force officer of RAAF Base Amberley; Mayor Paul Pisasale; and me. We all signed the terms of reference. The Amberley Community Engagement Forum is something I have advocated for a long time. It is important to cement the close working relationship and the close relationship between the city of Ipswich, which celebrates its sesquicentenary next year, and RAAF Base Amberley.
Ipswich has had a 40-year love affair with the F111s. RAAF Base Amberley is becoming a superbase, with a $1.1 billion redevelopment that is going on right now. It looks like a construction site. RAAF Base Amberley contributes tens of millions of dollars to the Ipswich economy each year. The signing of the terms of reference symbolises the further cementing of the relationship—a reaffirmation of the marriage vow, so to speak, which is not likely to be broken for a long time to come. The Amberley Community Engagement Forum is a joint Air Force and Ipswich City Council initiative.
As I said, I have been advocating this for a long time. It is a forum to help discuss issues, challenges and problems relating to the base. The F111s—the ‘flying pigs’ as they are affectionately known—are loved by the Ipswich community. In fact, we named our rugby league team the ‘Ipswich Jets’ and the Ipswich basketball team the ‘Ipswich Force’. That is the degree to which we have embraced RAAF Base Amberley. The personnel there worship in our churches, are part of our P&Cs, play in our sporting teams and, of course, play an important role in the life of the Ipswich community.
The RAAF base at Amberley will soon see a major change. In March next year the first of the 24 FA18F Super Hornets will come to Ipswich. Wing Commander Glen Braz is currently in the US taking delivery of the first Super Hornet. The defence white paper recommends the purchase of 100 Joint Strike Fighters in the future. This will occur because air superiority is critical to all types of operations in the region and particularly to our defence. Having air superiority provides greater flexibility to conduct operations not just regionally but around the globe. It would be terrific, when the F111s are finally mothballed, if there could be some monument erected to recognise the contribution of the F111s to the Ipswich community. We have the Canberra bomber outside the neighbouring suburb of Willowbank, so some sort of lasting legacy of a physical nature to the F111 would be terrific. I have raised this with the Department of Defence, the Chief of Air Force and the Chief of the Defence Force. It would be terrific if this could happen in the future. (Time expired)
I hope the Ipswich Jets do better than the Newtown Jets did in the Sydney competition! I rise this morning to speak about the remarkable efforts of one of my constituents, Mr Brian King, and his family on behalf of his daughter, Erin King, who attended St Gabriel’s School for Hearing Impaired Children within my electorate. Mr Brian King has just completed a remarkable feat: he scaled Mount McKinley in the United States as part of an attempt to raise funding for the very important expansion of the St Gabriel’s school. Mr King many years ago had an accident where a piece of industrial machinery fell on his foot and his foot had to be reconstructed, which, on reflection, makes his achievement all the more remarkable. He approached this task with a determination to do something for St Gabriel’s School for Hearing Impaired Children because it is one of those icons of my community that has delivered so much benefit to so many children for a very long time now.
I commend St Gabriel’s School for Hearing Impaired Children because it is now expanding. From next year it will be accepting enrolments from children with a range of disabilities, not simply hearing impaired children. The principal, Kathy Freeman, who has recently come to the school, is continuing a very fine tradition of management of the school and is expanding the enrolment to include children with intellectual disabilities, Down syndrome and autism. It is one of those schools within our community that is very well regarded as an institution that delivers fantastic outcomes for kids.
The move is part of a plan to expand a series of specialised schools and strengthen the longevity of these institutions. It is something that I of course support. I think that, from the point of view of government, we should also seek to ease the path for those institutions that operate in highly specialised areas of disability and are now looking to expand their endeavours to ensure their ongoing survival. They are doing it in a way which I find very innovative and which will continue to provide a very high level of service in many areas of disability while also branching out into some new ones.
As I have mentioned in this place before, in the north-west of Sydney there is a shortage of services for children with disabilities. We are often missed in the government funding formulas, particularly at the state level, because of the apparent wealth and socio-demographics of my area. However, disadvantage still exists and is often hidden. Therefore it is left to institutions like St Gabriel’s School for Hearing Impaired children to take up the slack. It does that in an outstanding fashion and does a lot of the work that the government cannot and will not do in my area. I commend Mr King for his fundraising efforts for this fantastic school.
I rise today to speak about an organisation that I am sure all parliamentarians on all sides of politics support: Meals on Wheels. It was about this time last year that a relationship was formed between Meals on Wheels and the Australian parliament with the formation of the Meals on Wheels Parliamentary Friends Group. It was formed because members of parliament on all sides of politics in this place wanted to acknowledge the tireless contributions by those involved in Meals on Wheels, be they volunteers or the staff who support people to stay in their own homes. Like many others here, I attend many Meals on Wheels meetings throughout my electorate and on a few occasions I have had the honour of actually going out and delivering some meals in my area. I am always very humbled to see the incredible, valuable contribution made to our society by those who support others. The commitment of the staff and volunteers of Meals on Wheels to assist the elderly and isolated in the community should be recognised by the federal parliament.
Next week, on 18 August, Mark Coulton, the member for Parkes, and I are hosting a Meals on Wheels Parliamentary Friends function here in Parliament House to once again recognise the contribution made by Meals on Wheels volunteers and their staff. Many MPs and senators are attending, because they recognise the contribution of Meals on Wheels in their own communities. We will also be hosting Meals on Wheels president, Mr Leon Holmes; vice-president, Mr Ron Walsh; secretary, Mr Cam Pearce; and the ACT operators of the Meals on Wheels services, which are run by the Red Cross in the ACT. There will be an overview of Meals on Wheels activities and a presentation on current and proposed research on nutrition. Following morning tea or morning coffee, Mark Coulton and I, who are the co-chairs of the group, will be visiting one of the clients of the ACT Meals on Wheels service. The meeting next week will be very informative and will allow people to reflect on the needs of the volunteers, staff and local community. All that are here, of course, and every member of the House are most welcome to attend, and I encourage them to come along. Indeed, the staple diet of Meals on Wheels will be available—scones and cream and fruit platters—to ensure that we are all well nourished.
Increasingly, people as they age wish to remain independently in their own homes and the staff and volunteers of Meals on Wheels provide a service which allows many thousands of Australians to achieve their wishes. The elderly, ill, disabled and those who are unable to cook for themselves all benefit from the goodwill of the volunteers of Meals on Wheels. We all know that volunteers are the lifeblood of the community. Volunteers keep over 100 branches in my state of South Australia running, every day delivering 5,000 meals across the state. I understand that volunteers are always required, and I urge those who are able to think about supporting Meals on Wheels and those in the community to become volunteers. (Time expired)
I commend the member for Hindmarsh on his excellent remarks on Meals on Wheels. I have spoken about the splendour and beauty of my electorate of McMillan on many occasions. The purpose of my recent visit to the southernmost point of my electorate, which also happens to be the southernmost point of the mainland in Australia at Wilsons Promontory, was to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Wilsons Prom lighthouse. Along with 30 other people I braved the trek to celebrate the occasion. The lighthouse at Wilsons Promontory is fondly known as the Grand Old Lady of Light. This grand old lady has been guiding ships past the rocky promontory outcrop for the last 150 years and is one of the key navigational aids that keep Bass Strait safe even today.
In a generation in which we have constant and instant access to people and places all over the world, it seems amazing that there are still areas of Australia where physical access is only by foot or helicopter, or by ship when the sea is calm. Usually the only way to get to the lightstation is to walk the 18 kilometres of track across the prom. At the end of that, you are faced with a steep descent down to sea level, only to be confronted with an even steeper walk to the rocky outcrop and the light at the station itself, which is rather confronting.
Although I was fortunate enough to travel part of the way by four-wheel drive, I was still not spared the last part of the journey, which had to be done by foot because of the rugged terrain. To say it was a challenge is a huge understatement. When I stood and looked up at the last haul to the lightstation itself my heart sank, but when we arrived at the top of the vista I was breathless—not from the physical but due to the breathtaking experience to be there—for there before us stood a pristine reminder of our past and of the people who overcame unbelievable obstacles to create a future for us all.
The Wilsons Promontory lighthouse and its historic residence are now both heritage listed and reinforce the isolation that the residents of such stations have endured. The lighthouse was built by convict labour from 1853 through to 1859 from local granite, and the first light was lit 15 minutes before the sun set on 15 July 1859. The light was originally a series of large wicks fuelled by rapeseed oil, and the lighthouse keeper would stay awake all night in order to keep the light going. Today we have a series of parabolic reflectors with an electric globe set up in front of it. The lightstation sits 117 metres above sea level. It is powered today by solar energy and shines for 18 nautical miles. The current resident lighthouse keepers, Ailsa and Chris Richter, hosted the 150th anniversary celebrations. The Richters have a long association with lighthouses along the Victorian and Tasmanian coastlines. Ailsa held the audience enthralled as she told of some of the difficulties of living, working and raising a family in such remote locations. We can only take our hats off to those people who were there on that day—so many extra lighthouse keepers and their families.
I would like to speak of the importance of the government’s investment in the East Kimberley, in particular in the areas around Kununurra. The importance of Northern Australia to the nation, the challenges it faces and its unique circumstances cannot be underestimated. In 2008 the Prime Minister recognised that Northern Australia needs specific attention down here in Canberra. Our government’s vision is for a Northern Australia that achieves long-term sustainable economic development for the benefit of local communities. The Australian government established the Office of Northern Australia, ONA, in March 2008 to provide that specific attention. It provides advice to the government on the sustainable development of Northern Australia.
As Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia, I have stewardship of ONA. The Office of Northern Australia has a key coordination role across the Australian government and is currently working on the implementation of the $195 million East Kimberley development investment package under a national partnership agreement signed by the Prime Minister and the WA Premier, Colin Barnett, on 3 July 2009. This investment was developed in response to the unique economic and social circumstances of the East Kimberley and will contribute to nation building, provide a stimulus to the economy and address Indigenous disadvantage. This will be achieved through targeted investment in social and common use infrastructure in that region and it will complement the Western Australian government’s investment in Ord stage 2.
There are 29 projects across the region, selected through a joint assessment process led by the Western Australian Minister for Regional Development and Lands, Brendon Grylls, and me. The executive director of the Office of Northern Australia, John Angley, and Andrew Dickson, Jennifer Burmester, Lyle O’Sullivan, Tracy Butcher and others in the ONA team participated in the joint assessment and were instrumental in setting up the national partnership agreement. I would like to thank them and acknowledge them for the work that they did in that area. The projects range from an upgrade of the Wyndham Memorial Swimming Pool to improvements in health, education and cultural facilities. It is a wide-ranging investment that relies on the involvement of local communities, local government, the Western Australian government and relevant Australian government agencies.
A key principle for all projects is maximising Indigenous engagement and employment in each of these projects. I have directed ONA staff to make this a top priority in the implementation of the investments and I will be working directly with my Western Australian counterparts to achieve this. I am pleased to advise that on 30 July I announced that work on two projects out of this investment had already started: the Wyndham swimming pool and a patient transfer facility at Kununurra airport. I expect to see the implementation of more of these projects in the very near future, and Western Australian agencies are in the process of submitting project plans for the 21 projects being implemented by the state of Western Australia. It is a cooperative arrangement and a joint investment designed to improve the social wellbeing of people in the East Kimberley and it is being done by a team at the Office of Northern Australia whose dedication and thoughtful approach to this task I applaud and thank. (Time expired)
I rise again in this place to speak about issues in relation to the Lower Lakes in my electorate of Mayo, and in particular the issue of water for the communities of Point Sturt and Hindmarsh Island. This is an issue I have raised in this place on numerous occasions. I wish to update the House on the situation and the ongoing crisis for these communities, who seek a freshwater supply and ask for their water security to be met by the state government, which is singularly failing in this area, particularly the National Party minister, Karlene Maywald, who either does not understand the issue or is simply overwhelmed by the gravity of the situation. What is happening is that Point Sturt, which is on the Lower Lakes, just near the Goolwa Channel, has been excluded from a pipeline which is being built from higher up in the Murray to supply these communities who can no longer access water from the Lower Lakes for obvious reasons—due to the shortage and the quality of the water now in the lakes.
What has happened is that for some reason these communities have been left off the pipeline, even though it is only a small additional cost for the state government to include them. We have seen buck passing going on from the state minister to the federal minister, Senator Wong. I wrote to the state minister, Karlene Maywald, on 19 February this year. Six months later I was fortunate enough to get a reply, which was basically a standard letter. At the same time, members of the community down there received a very similar reply. It basically says: ‘Well, it’s a bit of bad luck. We might have a look at it. What you can do to solve the situation is pay $100,000 each to connect yourself to the SA Water main system.’ This is just ridiculous. The minister, who calls herself the Minister for Water Security, has no concept of how difficult the situation is. However, Minister Wong seems to have some sort of idea. I congratulate her on at least saying in a radio interview a couple of weeks ago that she will certainly look at this, after one of the members of the community Mr Peter Dockey rang into talkback with Senator Wong.
Senator Wong has said she will have a good look at it. I think it is time that we just clarified this for these people and spent the extra, I think, $3 million to extend this pipeline to the properties on Point Sturt. There are some 35 properties. It is not an enormous amount of people but that does not matter. That is not the point. Everyone should expect to have water security. For many years these people relied on water from the Lower Lakes and through no fault of their own they can no longer do so. I think the federal government can quickly solve the situation. I urge Senator Wong, as the minister, to take the responsibility. She said she would have a look at it. I have written to her and we are hopeful in the next few days and weeks that she will be able to do so.
Since I last spoke in the House on this issue on 14 May this year there have been many changes around the site of the new railway underpass on Springvale Road in Nunawading. It is a $140 million project jointly funded with $80 million from the federal government and $60 million from the state government. It was a key commitment made by federal Labor in the 2007 election campaign and we, in partnership with the Victorian state Labor government, are delivering on that commitment.
VicRoads announced the alliance partners for the project in May and major construction works have now started on the project. The surrounding area has changed markedly in only the last month. On 29 July I visited the site with the state member for Mitcham, Tony Robinson, to inspect the site and witness the driving of the first of 383 pile holes required for the retaining walls of the underpass. Including the onsite project headquarters, I am informed there are around 130 people working on the project. This is a great boost to the civil construction sector in Melbourne, along with the many local businesses in Nunawading who are seeing an increase in the number of their daily customers—particularly takeaway shops, newsagents and the local KFC.
Because works have started at this time of the year, the timing of the construction will mean that temporary closure of the rail service between Blackburn and Mitcham can be done at the quietest time of the year—that is, over the Christmas holidays. There will still be disruption. Hopefully it is minimised to a period of around four weeks. The rail line itself should be under Springvale Road by late January 2010. And the remainder of the project will be completed by early to mid 2010.
The remainder of the project includes a new Nunawading station and it will be a premium station that is staffed from first train to last. Provision is made for a third track and a third platform, both through the underpass and at the station. For those who know Nunawading station at the moment, it is a building built back in the early 1960s—very draughty, very cold and very commuter unfriendly. Also, one of the features of the Nunawading station—being a suburban station—is that it has a large amount of parking space. Whilst construction goes on not all of that is available, but once it is finished the same number of spaces will be available as there are now.
Residents in the outer east have been waiting a very long time for news that something is finally being done to fix Springvale Road. This project is real and it is happening right now. It is creating jobs for our area and improving infrastructure for the residents and commuters in the federal electorate of Deakin. Not only that, but thousands of residents in the outer east and in the surrounding suburbs will also benefit from the reduction in congestion and the ease of travelling to and from work.
I recently visited the Police Ranger Unit at Greenwood Senior High School. This was to observe at first hand the training being undertaken and to thank those that have volunteered in the running of the unit. I have always considered that activities such as those of the police rangers are very good for the development of young people and also serve as a reminder of their community responsibilities. On the evening that I visited Greenwood Senior High School I observed the rangers undertaking drill practice and then problem-solving challenges. It was clear to me that the rangers enjoyed the activities they performed and appreciated the support and efforts of the adults and peer leaders.
This is the second time that I have specifically spoken in parliament about the activities and good work of a police ranger unit. Although I had heard of the Greenwood unit before, in one of my previous visits to the Greenwood Senior High School, and also through people in the community, my visit originated from a visit to the WA Police’s North West Metro District Crime Prevention and Diversity Unit. I was in the unit’s office speaking with Sergeant Bob O’Sullivan when I met Tessa Morawski. Tessa, I understand, is the Neighbourhood Watch suburb manager for Koondoola, a suburb that I have also previously spoken about. Apart from her volunteering in that capacity, Tessa Morawski is also the unit coordinator—the leader of the Greenwood Police Rangers. She explained to me what the rangers were about and who were involved as adult and peer leaders.
As a result of that discussion I then visited the school and the ranger unit. As part of my visit I thanked all the leaders for the work they do for the members of the unit. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the work done and the commitment displayed in their own time by those leaders. Apart from the unit coordinator, Tessa Morawski, I would also like to acknowledge Shaun MacLeod, the assistant unit coordinator, Chief Instructor David Williams, and Instructors Michele and Shaun Coles. On that night they had a visiting instructor, Detective Constable First Class Jayd Morawski, whom I also thanked for his work with police rangers out in Kalgoorlie.
It is also appropriate that I mention the police ranger peer leaders of the unit, Ranger Senior Sergeant Tom Marneweck, Ranger Sergeants Jake Pengilly, Ayndrea and Emily Grant, Ranger First Class Ryan Demarteau and Ranger Mark Reilly. It is my understanding that these leaders have been of great assistance to the adult leaders and perform their roles very well. I feel confident that they will continue to be positive influences in their schools and in their community for years to come. I hold the police rangers and their leaders in high regard and I consider the Greenwood Police Rangers to be a very good organisation, and their host school Greenwood Senior High should be very proud of them for their contributions to the community.
I rise today to talk about a sport that is growing in my electorate—that is, the sport of soccer—or, as some people in the soccer clubs would like it to be known, football. There are four clubs in my electorate that are growing exponentially. I want to talk about each of those and then talk about the common issues that they are facing. Firstly, there is the Noarlunga United team, commonly known as the Bulldogs. At the moment that club has a membership of 170 juniors, 50 seniors and 30 amateurs. This club is at maximum capacity. I was very pleased to be able to go down and briefly visit Noarlunga United on the weekend. I saw their reserve team performing very well, and I am informed that the other teams also performed very well on the weekend. The club was founded in 1968, and moved to their current location at Wilfred Taylor Reserve in 1973. The volunteers there are very proud of their club and have worked for many years to build it up.
The second club in my area, and a great rival of Noarlunga United, are the Seaford Rangers. At the moment they have 16 teams training on two grounds. That is a very strong contingent. The club has a very strong family focus and was founded in the seventies. Once again, I have been lucky to visit the club and see the strong passion that both the volunteers and the players have. They have informed me that they have a big game coming up on Saturday against Enfield. If they win they will go from fourth to third and qualify for the play offs. So I certainly wish them the very best in that game.
We also, in the local area, have the South Adelaide Soccer Club known as the Panthers. They have a total of 20 teams and about 300 players. That is also a huge club. They also have the Pink Panthers, which are two junior and two senior women’s teams, encouraging women in that sport. I certainly think they do a great job in that.
Finally, there is the Cove Soccer Club that has many junior teams—and they are certainly growing—as well as senior teams. They do a great job at developing their senior teams as well as their junior teams. One theme all these clubs has is that they have grown beyond their capacity. They are having to turn young people, mainly in the junior areas, away. This is a big concern when we want to get young people active and involved in their local community. We want to provide access for those people. I would urge, and I look forward to working with, these clubs to ensure that these young people do have access and are able to play the sport that they love.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ constituency statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 11 August, on motion by Mr Rudd:
That the House expresses its deep regret at the deaths on 17 July 2009 of Mr Nathan Verity of Western Australia, Mr Garth McEvoy of Victoria and Mr Craig Senger of the Australian Capital Territory, and tenders its profound sympathy to the families and friends in their bereavement.
It is a privilege and an honour for me to be able to participate in this very important debate in our program here this morning. We tragically heard on 17 July of this year that Mr Nathan Verity of Western Australia, Mr Garth McEvoy of Victoria and, closer to home for me, Mr Craig Senger of the ACT all perished as a result of the murderous act of what has emerged to be two suicide bombers when they attacked the JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels early that morning in Jakarta. I think it is also appropriate to note that nine people in all lost their lives, including the three Australians I have mentioned, and also that Mr Scott Mirilles, an Australian, was injured. While making mention of this terrible act, we pass on our very sincere condolences to everybody—to the local Indonesians, to people of other nationalities and to the families of all of these Australians who were so tragically cut down by this terrible action.
Specifically this morning I speak directly on behalf of my community of Canberra about Mr Craig Senger. Mr Craig Senger, as has been noted, was tragically the first Australian diplomat killed in a terrorist attack. He was born and educated here in Canberra. He met his wife, Kate, and married here in Canberra. I had the privilege and honour of attending last week a memorial service held here in the Great Hall of the national parliament to mourn the passing of Craig Senger. The words that were used by particularly the Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, along with senior Austrade officials and others, really gave us all a description of a young man who contributed so much both professionally and personally in his tragically short life.
I would like to refer to some of the comments that were made at that time with the indulgence of the chamber. Tim Harcourt from Austrade called Craig Senger a man who was a ‘joy to the world’—an official who worked tirelessly to build links between Australian businesses and overseas markets. He was an Australian who made exceptional contributions to his local community, whether he was in Canberra, Sydney, Jakarta, New Delhi, Moscow or Milan—all places where he had been. It was also said by the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that, while this was Craig’s first full-time overseas posting, they were not at all expecting it to be his last and that he had a stellar career in front of him.
He was greatly admired by his colleagues and friends. He had a sense of humour and a joie de vivre that many of us could learn a lot from. He had worked to the point of being highly regarded and he was, at the time of his death, leading the mining and resources team for Austrade for South-East Asia in Jakarta. It is interesting to also note that Craig’s career was following in the footsteps of his grandfather, Albert Senger. Albert was also a trade commissioner in the fifties. As Minister Crean said:
Albert, like all of us, is part of Craig’s wider family—it’s the trade family …
It was interesting for me to hear that Craig Senger had a grandfather who was so active and so regarded in his own life as a senior trade commissioner during the 1950s, in the really difficult times of establishing a new nation following the Second World War, where trade and interaction internationally was so important. From what I have heard, I know that Craig Senger really had a great deal of pride in carrying on that family tradition.
The other comment I wish to make is that while we mourn the loss of the life of Craig Senger and his colleagues, when we think of his family, and I will refer to them in a moment, we must also think of his work colleagues in the embassy in Jakarta in particular. The people we have working in our embassy in Jakarta have not had an easy ride over the last few years. They have really had more than their share of tragedy in one form or another in recent years. I will not go into those details; we are all very familiar with them. But here again was another time when they were really pushed to the edge of their ability to cope with not only the loss of colleagues but also the practicalities that such an occurrence presents.
I know that we would all endorse very much the continuing incredibly high professionalism that is displayed by people serving our nation overseas, through Foreign Affairs, Austrade and other agencies at any time, let alone at times like this. I want to make a point of mentioning that this morning and passing on to them, on behalf of my community, and I am sure on behalf of the parliament, our regard for the role that they take and for the challenges that they face. When they head off on an overseas posting they do not expect an easy ride, but by no means do they expect to be facing this sort of thing. It is very tragic and they really need to have our regard very high in their minds.
As I said, Craig Senger married Kate here in Canberra. His mother, Joan, his sister, Cate, and his niece, Holly, I believe were in the chamber yesterday when the Prime Minister began this condolence motion. The family lives here in Canberra. To Joan and the family, and particularly to his wife, Kate, we can but send our sincere condolences, our warmest of wishes and ask them to believe that if all of the sympathy of the chamber were of any help to anyone, we would like to think it is going to help them in the knowledge that we share their grief, we pay due regard to the work that Craig and his colleagues were doing and we deplore the loss of such wonderful young professional people in such a terribly tragic way. This is just bloodthirsty murder. There is no other way of describing it. It is senseless. When you look at the families of these people, of Craig and others who have died, you just wonder about the senselessness of this type of behaviour. I know that, as a parliament, we are all joined as one in our belief and our efforts to do all in our power to ensure that this sort of behaviour internationally does not continue.
I want to finish by recalling some of the comments that were made, particularly by two or three of Craig Senger’s close friends, during the memorial service last week. While I do not have their words in front of me, I certainly have in my memory the absolute joy of their friendship with Craig and their pride in him as a friend, their regard for him as someone who had a sense of humour, generosity of spirit, boundless energy, enthusiasm and dedication to his job. He sounds to me like he would have been a delight to know, and I am sorry I did not know him personally. It sounds to me like he was someone we would all have enjoyed the company of. It appears to me that no matter where you were, if you ran into Craig Senger, you ended up going to barbecues, playing cricket, playing football, working hard, dedicating yourself to the duty you have, but ensuring that you join everybody together in that. He was a bit of a pied piper in that sense. Everybody wanted to get behind Craig Senger and join him in whatever he was doing at the time. On behalf of my community and on behalf of the parliament, our deepest condolences to the Senger family and all of his friends and colleagues, and to everybody connected with Nathan Verity and Garth McEvoy as well. Please may they get strength out of the knowledge that we pay them the regard that we do.
I would like to join with the member for Canberra in comments with regard to these tragedies. On 17 July, bombs exploded at the JW Marriott and the Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta. At the Marriott three Australians were killed and a number of locals and other foreign nationals also lost their lives in the bombings. It is believed that there was an intention by the bombers to detonate a bomb in a hotel room, thereby driving greater numbers through the lobby of the Marriott for the main bomb blast. These events remind us yet again that there are evil, cowardly people in the world who live with no honour and no integrity. They have no regard for innocent life but are driven by reckless hate and a religious belief with which they justify their murderous work. These events remind us that, in this war, our enemies are prepared to do anything, and we must be prepared to fight them and to stop them.
I would also pay tribute to the efforts and commitment shown by the Indonesian government to fight Jemaah Islamiah. Their efforts to destroy that terrorist network have been very good, in the most challenging circumstances. We should also not forget that the President and the government of Indonesia operate in an extremely challenging environment. We must remember that Indonesia is the most populous Muslim nation in the world and that there is some support amongst the population for the operations, if not the beliefs, of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah. Within that context we should appreciate the great advances made by the Indonesians.
Although I despise the evil perpetrators of these acts of murder, my main purpose is to speak of those three Australians who died at the Marriott hotel blast. Those three Australians were Austrade official Craig Senger, mining executive Garth McEvoy and Perth businessman Nathan Verity. Firstly I will speak of the Austrade official, Craig Senger. I understand that Craig was on his first overseas posting and fulfilling his duty of advancing Australia’s interests when he was killed by the bomb. Overseas postings do not come easily in either Austrade or Foreign Affairs, and those that do get them are people of very high ability. Hard work before and hard work during his posting defined Craig Senger as a very effective representative of Australia and Australian businesses, particularly in the mining team for the South-East Asia region. He is survived by his wife, Kate, and I offer my deepest condolences to her and his family.
Garth McEvoy was an executive for the mining and construction company Thiess in Jakarta. He was for four years a Northern Territory policeman who went on to study the law and to work as a prosecutor in Darwin. He then moved into private enterprise. He is remembered by all who worked with him as being a very hard worker and dedicated to making a difference. He was, without doubt, highly regarded. He enjoyed living and working in Indonesia as a commercial manager, and he had a great affection for the people of that country.
Finally, I will speak of Nathan Verity, who was from Perth. Nathan Verity was a highly capable businessman who had worked in a variety of consultancy type positions. I understand that he worked very closely with Jim Truscott, a former SAS officer whom a number of us in this place know. Jim Truscott had also carved out a business in the Asia-Pacific region in crisis and risk management, and worked with Nathan Verity on those projects. Nathan Verity, however, branched out even more widely, moving also into recruitment. It is clear that he was very well regarded and had the sort of personality with which he could get on with anyone. There is something particularly tragic about the death of a parent of young children. Nathan Verity was married to Vanessa and was a father to five-year-old Chris. The particular tragedy I refer to is both the fact that Nathan will never see his son grow up and also that Chris will not have his dad around to do all the great dad things that we enjoy with our children, and that is a very great tragedy.
Some people say that these terrorists undertake their murderous attacks because of economic privation, Western oppression, Western action in Iraq or Afghanistan or because of other nebulous faults or grievances, which individually or together remain nothing more than whitewash over the truth. These terrorists are evil incarnate. They are brutal murderers without remorse or compassion. They live without honour, integrity or a sense of morality. They cannot be reasoned with and they cannot be negotiated with. They call themselves by different names, being Jemaah Islamiah in this case, but they are the same whether they be Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, al-Qaeda or someone else. Regardless of what their name is, they live and kill with the same lack of humanity. They can be dealt with in only one way—by force. This will very likely be a fight and a war that will span generations. We should be ready and never lose our resolve to protect ourselves, our values and our way of life.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hayes) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 11 August, on motion by Mr Rudd:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 18 July 2009 of Private Benjamin Ranaudo while serving with the second Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force in Afghanistan and place on record its appreciation of his service to the country and tender its profound sympathy to his family and friends in their bereavement.
I rise today to support this motion of condolence for Private Benjamin Ranaudo, a proud member of Townsville’s 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, who was tragically killed in action on 18 July 2009 while serving with the second Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force in Afghanistan.
I believe there is no greater sacrifice than to give one’s life in the service of one’s country. Like all Australians, I am deeply saddened by the loss of Private Ranaudo, who fought so bravely on behalf of a grateful nation. At only 22 years of age, Private Ranaudo showed a maturity far beyond his years and upheld the values and ethos of the Australian Defence Force to the last.
Private Ranaudo was awarded the Australian Service Medal with clasp East Timor. He was posthumously awarded the Australian Active Service Medal with clasp ICAT, the Afghanistan Medal, the Australian Defence Medal, the NATO ISAF Medal, the East Timor Solidarity Medal and the Infantry Combat Badge. While Benjamin’s death reminds us all of the dangers of military life and the fragility of our own being, his actions will ensure that his memory will live on in the hearts of his family and friends. May I say I believe that that memory will be as strong as the character he demonstrated while soldiering in the worst of environments.
Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Chief of the Defence Force, described Private Ranaudo as:
… a professional soldier who served enthusiastically and with distinction. His career record speaks to a young man, very well trained, with an extraordinary array of completed courses. Benjamin was clearly dedicated to his career as a soldier and committed to the profession of arms. He died ensuring that terrorist groups do not have Afghanistan as a base from which they can plan and mount attacks.
I stand here today to give my condolences to Private Ranaudo’s family and to pay tribute to the service and, ultimately, the life given by their courageous son. I say to them that I hope they can take comfort in knowing that the thoughts and prayers of all Australians are with them during these very difficult times.
I recently had the honour of meeting Private Ranaudo’s family and expressing these sentiments personally. This occurred at the repatriation service for Private Ranaudo, which was held in Melbourne on 26 July 2009. I was truly humbled to stand with Private Ranaudo’s mother, Jennifer; his father, Angelo; his stepfather, Terry; his sisters, Hayley and Melissa; his brothers, Phillip and Terry; and his girlfriend, Haylee, as their son, brother and friend was returned to Australian soil. As I stood on the runway at Avalon Airport and witnessed the return of a soldier, son and friend I felt a mixture of relief as this fine young man returned home and absolute sadness as I watched Private Ranaudo’s family try to come to terms with their sudden and devastating loss.
Along with the Minister for Defence, Senator John Faulkner, I stood behind the family as the rear door of the C17 dropped. I shared their grief, for there was the casket carrying Private Benjamin Ranaudo covered in his flag, the Australian flag. The cargo bay of the C17 was partitioned off by a huge Australian flag proudly showing the stars of the Southern Cross.
I said to Terry that that flag is Private Ranaudo and that, ‘every time you see an Australian flag it should remind you of Benjamin’. It should remind you of his commitment, his courage and his sacrifice. But most of all it should remind you that we as a nation honour our fallen heroes. Although I was deeply saddened on the day, I can honestly say that the loss fell by Private Ranaudo’s family, although unmeasurable, would easily surpass that of an entire nation. Yet the entire nation stands with Private Ranaudo’s family in paying their respects for the service he gave to his nation and, ultimately, the sacrifice he made in the name of all Australians. There was a profound sense of loss that day, but as tragic as the event was for the entire family of Private Ranaudo, I would like to reassure them, as well as his friends and comrades, that his death was not in vain; in fact, it was honourable. History will remind us that his name sits alongside those of fallen brothers from years gone by.
One of the things that moved me at the repatriation service was a poem on the order of service, and I would like to repeat it to you. It was written by Private Gary McMahon, 6 RAR, Vietnam. It reads:
We would do anything for a mate, anything except leave him on the battlefield. We shared our last drops of water, or our last cigarette. We patrolled together, we slept together, we laughed together, we fought together. We even died together.
I would also like to take this opportunity to pass on my appreciation and support to Private Paul Warren, the soldier injured in the same bomb blast that took Private Ranaudo’s life. It is my understanding that Private Warren has now arrived back in Australia, after receiving medical care in Germany, and that he is undergoing rehabilitation following his injuries, which include the loss of his right leg above the knee. Private Warren is another dedicated soldier who has put his life on the line every time he has stepped outside the confines of the base. Although he was lucky to survive the bomb blast, his life has been forever changed. Now is an appropriate time to pause, to take a moment to reflect on those soldiers who have been injured in the line of duty and who now live with the daily reminder of the hardships of war.
In our enduring effort in Afghanistan, there is no doubt that improvised explosive devices are the most sinister threat facing our troops. They are indiscriminate, difficult to detect and deadly. When they do not kill, they maim horribly and leave the victim permanently disabled. Those terrorist groups that employ improvised explosive devices are desperate, cowardly and will as easily target product civilians as they do armed soldiers. We were reminded of these dangerous conditions as recently as last week, when Australian troops encountered four roadside bomb attacks in just two days, ultimately resulting in the wounding of three soldiers. But the advantage that our soldiers have—in addition to their excellent training, discipline and world-class equipment—is the support they can expect from their families, their friends, their colleagues and their nation in their time of greatest need. I am reassured at this point by reading that Private Warren is getting the support he needs from his family, his mates and his fellow soldiers. I believe that his recovery can in no small part be attributed to the supportive environment he now finds himself in. I would like to wish Private Warren a speedy recovery and, further, to thank his family, friends and colleagues for the support and time they have given freely to help Private Warren recover from his injuries.
As I stand here in this parliament and mark the loss of our eleventh Australian soldier to be killed during operations in Afghanistan, it is fitting to ask all Australians, without regard to their political persuasion or ideological beliefs, to continue to support our troops. Our soldiers serve in some of the most dangerous and unforgiving environments, and while they are sent into harm’s way by the government of the day, they themselves have elected to give their lives in support of a nation they dearly love. It is for this latter reason that all Australians should get behind our troops and offer their support and heartfelt appreciation for the often thankless job they undertake on a daily basis.
In calling for the support of all Australians, I wish to acknowledge the great level of admiration and appreciation that is already present in our community. This was shown during the welcome home parade that was held in Darwin last Saturday for some 1,200 troops returning from Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor. Again, I was fortunate enough to represent the opposition at this parade alongside the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, Greg Combet. I witnessed the support our troops received. You only needed to look down the main street of Darwin, which was lined with people standing shoulder to shoulder and layers deep, to truly appreciate the community’s gratitude for the troops’ service.
Indeed, the pride of the nation was on show as these returned troops marched down the street with their heads held high, to the unrelenting sound of applause. Each and every soldier marched proudly. Their eyes steely on the long, hard fight yet, at the same time, filled with an almost palpable sense of pride and accomplishment. They marched proudly, having returned from war, but they also marched knowing that some of their mates had not returned.
One of those who did not return with his comrades was Corporal Mathew Hopkins, who was killed in action on 16 March 2009. Corporal Hopkins was a member of the Darwin based 7th Battalion. To mark his loss, and as a reminder that we never forget, a riderless horse with boots facing rear formed part of the welcome home parade. After the parade I had the opportunity to meet again with Corporal Hopkins’s wife, Victoria, and their growing son, Alexander. Although the pain of the loss was still clearly evident, again I was humbled to see the amount of support afforded by those close to the family and, to quote Victoria, to Alex from his ‘army uncles’ as they supported him there.
I would like to conclude today by reiterating the words of Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie, Chief of Army, who said:
Private Ranaudo died while serving his nation, and his sacrifice will never be forgotten. This loss is felt heavily by the wider defence community, and particularly by members of the Australian Army.
Lieutenant General Gillespie’s remarks ring true in my heart and the hearts of all serving and retired ADF members. Indeed, Private Ranaudo’s death will not have been in vain as long as we continue to show resolve in securing Afghanistan free from violence, terrorism and extreme ideologies.
These sad times give us an opportunity to reflect on the peril that our serving men and women face every day while serving in places like Afghanistan. It also gives us time to thank those men and women for their hard work and sacrifice. Private Ranaudo made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, a sacrifice that will not be forgotten and one that time will prove to be in the interests of his beloved country.
To Private Ranaudo, I say: thank you for your sacrifice and bravery. I join with a mournful nation in expressing my condolences to his family. Private Ranaudo has joined the ranks of those who have given their lives in Afghanistan: Sergeant Andrew Russell, Trooper David Pearce, Sergeant Matthew Locke, Private Luke Worsely, Lance Corporal Jason Marks, Signaller Sean McCarthy, Lieutenant Michael Fussell, Private Gregory Michael Sher, Corporal Mathew Hopkins, Sergeant Brett Till and Private Benjamin Ranaudo.
It was a local Vietnam veteran, Brian Ferguson, who reminded me of the role of the soldier. He gave me this poem to read out today:
Remember this:
It’s the soldier, not the preacher, who gives us freedom of religion.
It’s the soldier, not the poet, who gives us freedom of speech.
It’s the soldier, not the reporter, who gives us freedom of the press.
It’s the soldier, not the union organiser who gives us freedom to demonstrate.
It’s the soldier, not the lawyer, who gives us the right to a fair trial.
It’s the soldier, not the politician, who gives us the right to vote.
It’s the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag who allows the protestor to burn the flag.
It is the soldier who makes all of this possible, day after day after day.
I rise also to speak about the tragic death of Private Benjamin Ranaudo, killed in action on 18 July this year. Private Ranaudo died while deployed on Operation Slipper, serving Australia in Afghanistan. I would like to extend my personal and sincere condolences to the family of Private Ranaudo—his mother Jennifer, his father Angelo, his brothers and sisters and his girlfriend, Haylee McCarthy. All of our thoughts and deep sympathies are with his family and Haylee, and with those who served with him in the Australian Defence Force, during this very difficult time. I had the honour of attending Private Ranaudo’s funeral on 31 July at Boyd Chapel at Springvale Botanical Cemetery in Melbourne. The service that paid tribute to Private Ranaudo was solemn and very moving.
Benjamin Ranaudo served in the Australian Army for three years and during this time he served on active duty in East Timor before deploying to Afghanistan with the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force. Private Ranaudo deployed as a member of the Townsville based 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. He was assigned to a force protection combat team as part of the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force 2. Focused on ensuring safety, the MRTF2 has been working closely with coalition partners in Afghanistan and the Afghan National Security Forces in the lead-up to the election in Afghanistan this month.
Private Ranaudo was only 22 years of age. He was tragically killed when an antipersonnel explosive device detonated during a cordon and search operation in the Baluchi Valley 25 kilometres north of Tarin Kowt. Private Ranaudo’s death is a very sad and tragic reminder of the dangers that our deployed soldiers face while serving their country in Afghanistan.
It is important for us to reinforce our continued focus on our goal to restore security and stability to Afghanistan. Oruzgan Province, where we operate, is an environmentally challenging area and we are facing an enemy that is ruthless and determined. Despite these challenges, we are making progress in this theatre. We are disrupting and limiting the ability of Taliban insurgents to operate in the area and, together with the Afghan National Army, we are providing security to local civilians so that they can rebuild and move forward in a stable and secure environment. In addition to security operations against Taliban-led insurgents, the Australian Defence Force continues to make a very significant contribution to improving infrastructure and Afghan government services in Oruzgan Province.
It is those goals that we as a nation must remain focused on in this time of tragedy. For us to honour those who have died in Afghanistan, we must stay very focused on the goals, the purpose of our mission in Afghanistan and our commitment to restore both stability and security to that nation.
The tragic death of Private Benjamin Ranaudo brings the total number of Australian fatalities in Afghanistan to 11. At this time it is extremely important to reflect on the courage and commitment that each of them have shown in serving this country. To all those currently serving in Afghanistan, on behalf of the government in my capacity as a minister within the portfolio, I want to thank all of them for their extraordinary service and commend all of them for representing their country with such professionalism and courage.
This is a story about a country, our country Australia, and what our values are and where we sit in the world. It is a story about the Australian Defence Force, its people and its families and the loyalty that they show to one another. It is a story about a garrison city, Townsville, where soldiers and their families live and work and relate to the ordinary citizens of that city. It is a story about a battalion, 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, the ‘Big Blue One’, and the ethics and the professionalism of the men and women who serve in that battalion. It is a story about a private, Ben Ranaudo, who served in the 1st Battalion, and his contribution to our country.
I have been very privileged in representing the garrison city for so many years now in the Australian parliament. And I have been very close to the Australian Defence Force and I think I understand their views and their ethics and how they work. When the news came through that Ben had lost his life in Afghanistan, my community was very visibly touched—not just ADF people but mums and dads, and kids going to high school. They all felt it. They genuinely felt the loss of this private. That is what the ADF and the families and the garrison city are about. People genuinely felt the sense of loss. Ben’s family can know and understand that that loss is felt in the community.
Recently—last week—there was a story about Ben’s battalion which came to my notice. A corporal who has been a corporal for as long as anyone can remember, Corporal Renahan, sent out this excited email across the network—and I am on the email list, because I know him quite well—saying: ‘Today, would you believe, I’ve been promoted to sergeant. I don’t believe it.’ Within a couple of hours, back came some emails. Yes, they came back from his mates in the battalion, but they also came back from General Mark Kelly and General John Caligari, senior leaders of the ADF who genuinely congratulated Reno for being promoted. But the point of the story is that that is the ADF family. You can be a person at this or that level of rank, but everybody respects each other and everybody shares in successes and of course in pain. That is our Australian Defence Force. Long may it continue.
Ben knew why he was in Afghanistan. He knew that Australia and the other nations that contribute to ISAF understand that if we do not face up to terrorism it will just get worse tomorrow and next year. He did not die in vain. His family should understand that, and I think that they do.
We have been very lucky, through the professionalism and training of our ADF members, that we have not lost more. Other defence forces have in fact had significantly higher casualty rates. One of the things that helps protect us is our wonderful Bushmasters. They have very much saved lives. The v-shaped design of the underneath of the vehicle deflects blasts. Because of that, you can have the front wheels blown off and ending up 100 metres away, but the people inside remain safer than they would otherwise remain. They have been a very good acquisition for the Australian Defence Force. As soon as we can get some more, they should be provided to other elements—the special operations task group, for example—who could well use Bushmasters where they have not used them previously.
The IEDs that we talk about are getting more insidious. We are now seeing these terrorists make these things out of materials that you cannot detect with magnetic detectors. They are being made out of materials that are virtually undetectable. That is a very insidious development. But it just reinforces Australia’s view that we have to defeat these people and that we have to help the people of Afghanistan. I heard a statistic last night about the number of girls going to school in Afghanistan now. Before we entered, most girls were illiterate. They were not allowed to go to school. There are now some five million girls going to school in Afghanistan, which is a wonderful outcome for the people of that country. Long may that continue.
Two weeks ago, Deputy Speaker Washer, you and I were in Mongolia. Mongolia is a relatively remote place, but you and I were there. We met the Prime Minister, who very proudly told us that the cabinet had just made a decision to send a battalion to Afghanistan to do their bit. Mongolia is a small country. It is only the size of Western Australia. It is relatively small. Its infrastructure is not good. But that country recognises its obligations to the world and is fulfilling those obligations. Their contribution is certainly very well and very gratefully accepted.
I can assure Ben’s family that the people of Townsville, the people of the 1st Battalion and the men and women of the ADF will not forget Ben. His contribution was not in vain. We thank him for his life and we thank him for what he has done for our country and the world in helping to produce a better and more secure outcome for the world. May he rest in peace.
It is a privilege to follow my friend the member for Herbert on this condolence motion. He has the great privilege of having the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, in his electorate and I know he appreciates that great privilege. Private Ranaudo has now become a part of the wonderful story of that battalion. It has an incredibly proud history. I am very privileged myself to have been a part of that history, having served with the 1st Battalion in Somalia. I know that battalion operates, exists, trains and survives as a family. I echo the comments of the member for Herbert. They will no doubt feel this loss as a family would and treat it accordingly. They will wrap around each other to help each other, and the family, through this. They will incorporate the contribution of Private Ranaudo into the wonderful history of that battalion.
Private Ranaudo was a young man, at the age of 22. He obviously had so much more to give in life. There is a famous old poem that talks about one crowded hour of glorious life being worth an age without a name. Private Ranaudo I think illustrates that. It was a short life, but it was definitely a crowded hour and a glorious hour that he graced us with his presence on this planet. He was a character who was full of the joy of life. You can see that absolutely beaming out at you from the photographs of Ben. Certainly that is what his colleagues from the unit will tell you. He contributed greatly to the esprit of the battalion, and that element—the camaraderie and the mutual contribution that each member of that organic family brings to the table—is as important to the effectiveness of a battalion as the equipment with which it goes to war. Private Ranaudo was in the forefront of contributing that esprit and that effectiveness in his unit. He made a great contribution to our effort in Afghanistan as part of the Mentoring and Reconstruction Taskforce.
Our focus in Afghanistan has become building local capacity to enable us to eventually depart from Afghanistan but importantly also creating the conditions for that departure in building the ability of the Afghan people and the Afghan security forces to take responsibility for their own security. Private Ranaudo helped advance that cause, in bringing that capacity and security to the people of Afghanistan. We have heard reference to the fact that in three years, in his crowded time, he managed to serve in East Timor and Afghanistan. To demonstrate the initiative and drive of this individual, he was accomplished in a large number of courses. He was a self-motivated, self-starting individual, the type of person we prize so much in the Defence Force. He lost his life on 18 July 2009 in an improvised explosive device incident in a cordon and search operation in the Baluchi Valley, which is about 25 kilometres north of Tarin Kowt. That illustrates the ongoing threat we face from IEDs, as has been mentioned. This really is a focus for this government.
We are intent on leaving no stone unturned. We are intent on delivering the equipment, improving the tactics, techniques and procedures of our ADF to deal with this threat and making the operations of our troops as safe as possible. We will reach out to any country, any friend, any ally, to achieve best practice in dealing with this issue. It is now becoming a question of facing not only the technical challenge of improvised ordnance but also the more sophisticated tactics of the enemy. I was at a briefing just the other day at Headquarters Joint Operations Command where they were deconstructing the casualties the British have recently suffered. They, tragically, lost about 15 soldiers in a period of just 10 days. An initial incident involving improvised explosive devices and causing casualties was made much worse, was amplified, by the fact that the enemy, the Taliban, had factored in how the ISAF personnel would respond to that incident and had configured IED placements accordingly, which of course resulted in much more severe casualties. So we are facing a sophisticated enemy. We must compare notes and develop, as far as we possibly can, tactics, techniques and procedures to counter the methods by which the enemy employs these devices.
I should also emphasise that in the same incident where Private Ranaudo lost his life we also suffered the casualty of another private soldier, Paul Warren, who has subsequently lost his right leg above the knee from that incident. Of course, Private Ranaudo lost his battle and has moved on, but the battle will continue for Private Paul Warren and his family. It will require great courage and strength for him to move forward and recreate and reconstruct his life with the disability that he now faces. I know that he has that courage and strength and he is well supported by his wonderful family.
We should also remember that, on top of the 11 fatalities that we have suffered in Afghanistan, there have also been 78 wounded. We should not forget that and we should also salute the service of these individuals who are going to be living with the legacy of their service in Afghanistan for the rest of their lives. Whatever help the community and the government can provide to these individuals should be provided. We thank them for their sacrifice and service as much as we thank those who have lost their lives. I also thank the Dutch medical team in Afghanistan who rendered service to our personnel, the American medical team in Germany and, of course, and in particular, the colleagues of Private Ranaudo and Private Warren who rendered such life-saving emergency assistance on the spot of the incident.
I was also deeply impressed by the fact that at the funeral of Private Ranaudo, Felix Sher, the father of Private Greg Sher, attended to render what comfort and support he could to the family of Private Ranaudo. It shows what a wonderful family they are. I continue to be incredibly impressed by the way they support our men and women in the ADF and the support they have provided to their fellow sufferers in the losses that they endure. It emphasises that, if they can maintain that strength in the face of the direct loss and suffering that they have endured, how much more so should we maintain the course, stay the course, and continue to endure in the face of these losses in order to achieve success and honour the memory of these brave soldiers.
Today we will be talking about Ted Kenna. I look back at that great generation who fought in World War II, and it is interesting to note that we suffered nearly 40,000 fatalities in the course of World War II over a long period of nearly six years. That generation bore that struggle, that sacrifice and that suffering and delivered us from one of the greatest, most malevolent forces of evil the world has ever seen. Today, of course, we are confronted with a similar long-running, enduring task against a similarly malevolent and evil force. No-one should be under any misapprehension about what we face with these Islamic extremists. In no sense should their tenets, their beliefs, be tolerated by democracies around this world. They have an agenda which is absolutist and denies basic humanity and basic human rights. Fundamental tenets of gender inequity are at the source of their beliefs as well as other measures of intolerance to diversity and religious belief. It is a struggle, therefore, that we must endure and continue to fight for, because it is important for that region. There are obvious issues and implications for the whole of Central Asia in relation to Afghanistan and Pakistan’s stability, and we must stay that course.
Although we focus on a security challenge that is confronting at the moment, and there is no guarantee of success, there have been improvements in the situation in Afghanistan. In Oruzgan province alone in the time that ISAF has been there, we have seen the number of children in school rising from 12,000 to 50,000. We have seen 100 health centres open. We have 100 doctors, up from two previously, and the infant mortality rate has dropped from a horrendous 36 per cent to 25 per cent. In these key areas where success will ultimately be achieved, in the social, economic and political areas, some progress is being made. A whole range of areas, of course, still remain to be tackled—good governance and the rule of law, where this battle will ultimately be won.
But it should be emphasised that we are not in fact facing a war on terror here; we are facing a war on ignorance. Doing as much as we can to deliver a new generation of educated Afghanis with equal opportunity will be how we ultimately achieve success in that country, and not just while our troops are there but in our ongoing engagement with them long after. In that respect, the Australian government, fully recognising that, has committed significant resources to that effort. At the last conference we committed $250 million to address those very areas, adding to commendable commitments made by the previous government in this respect.
I thank Private Ranaudo for his service, for his life, for his contribution to this country. In particular now, to his surviving family, we acknowledge and salute their sacrifice and their enduring commitment to this country. We pass our condolences to them. We shall continue to provide whatever support we can to them, and all Australians should continue to recognise their ongoing suffering and provide whatever support and comfort they can bring.
I rise to add my comments on the life and sacrifice of Private Ben Ranaudo. This is not the first time that we have stood here to reflect on the life and the contribution made to this nation by a serviceman who has lost his life, and it is likely that it will not be the last. The death of Private Benjamin Ranaudo and the cause he died for is evidence that sometimes you just have to fight for what you believe in and for the freedom of others. In the days after Private Ranaudo’s death, the Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Houston, warned that the withdrawal of Australian and other coalition troops could leave the way open for the Taliban resuming control of Afghanistan, and that is a warning worth heeding.
For those who did not know Private Benjamin Ranaudo, perhaps on hearing of his death there would have been no more than a passing moment of regret for most Australians. That is also a tragedy, because there should be a greater appreciation of those who lay down their lives for this nation and the causes for which Australia fights. I would like to take this opportunity to speak on two aspects of his sacrifice. Firstly, I would say that I did not know Private Ranaudo, but what I do know is that he was a son, a brother, a partner and a soldier. His life will always, of course, have its greatest meaning to his family and his friends. Ben Ranaudo cannot be replaced for his family and those who knew him. His loss will be a defining moment in the life of his family and for those closest to him. His death is an event that they will have to endure for the rest of their lives.
Beyond the grief and loss that his family and friends will endure, the people of this nation should also reflect on the big issues. In Afghanistan the coalition, the Afghan national army and our troops oppose the Taliban. The Taliban are Islamic extremists and fundamentalists. They are extremists who would see the subjugation of women, extremists who would impose restrictions on Afghani society. They would withdraw democracy and impose their hardline religious law to control the people, just like they did last time they ruled Afghanistan. Their world is what most of us would consider a bad version of the Dark Ages. They would also extend their warped view of the world on to Pakistan, and they are still fighting there to achieve that right now. Their allies also seek similar control elsewhere in the world. They cannot be reasoned with, as they see negotiation as a weakness to be exploited. The reality is that these sorts of people continue only until they are stopped by someone who is prepared to fight and defeat them.
When I talk of ‘someone’, I talk of young and courageous men like Private Ranaudo and the men who already have given their lives for this cause in Afghanistan. That ‘someone’ also comprises those who are still there and are out on patrol or preparing for a patrol as we speak, fighting for a cause to defend the weak and protect the liberty of the people of Afghanistan—a cause where young children will, hopefully, be able to grow up with opportunities and freedoms something like what we have in Australia. If we did not have nations prepared to fight and courageous and honourable young men like Private Ben Ranaudo then the forces of extremism and oppression would eventually dominate the whole world. That world would live under religious law, the women would be denied an education and would be forced to cover themselves completely, and there ultimately would be no democracy. It is absolutely true that if Ben Ranaudo and the soldiers of this and other coalition countries were not prepared to risk their lives then we would not have this country the way we enjoy it. That is the reason that Private Ranaudo put his life on the line and that is a cause worth fighting for.
It remains my view that no number of casualties will ever be acceptable. We do not want any of our soldiers to die in Afghanistan and we did not want Ben Ranaudo to die, yet we must be prepared to continue the fight and stand by our allies in that fight. If we withdraw or take a step back then those who oppose freedom and democracy will step forward into that space. Until at last we stand in Australia, and we have no choice but to fight. As Winston Churchill once said at another time, ‘you had the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, but you will still have war.’ That is a lesson for those who think the Taliban and Islamic extremists will listen to reason. They will not listen and they are not misunderstood; they can only be fought.
I pay tribute to Private Ben Ranaudo, who made the supreme sacrifice in defence of the weak and for the cause of freedom and democracy. He was a great Australian and will never be forgotten. His life was not given in vain, and his family, I am sure, has the thanks of more than one grateful nation.
Like those who have spoken before me, I rise to support the Prime Minister’s motion of condolence, a motion which, appropriately when unanimously supported, will express the House’s regret at the loss of Private Benjamin Ranaudo. Private Ranaudo gave his life while serving in Afghanistan with Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force 2. He was a member of the Townsville based 1st Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment. As Defence Minister, I was in Townsville with the Chief of Army to send off Private Ranaudo and the men and women who make up MRTF2. That is one of the many reasons I have chosen to speak on this very important motion.
Australian defence ministers face many challenges and burdens, but none is greater than the arrival of news of the loss of a member of the ADF on operations. Being part of a government decision to send young Australians into harm’s way brings a unique feeling of responsibility, but the sense of grief felt by a defence minister pales into insignificance when compared to the grief felt by the loved ones and friends of the fallen soldier. I do not believe I have had the pleasure and honour of meeting with them, but I expressed my deepest sympathy to Private Ranaudo’s mother, Jennifer, his father, Angelo, his stepfather, Terry, his partner, Haylee, and his sisters Amy and Hayley.
If Private Ranaudo’s loved ones are like those of the fallen soldiers I have met then I know that they will be finding strength in the fact that he was a highly skilled and dedicated soldier but also, just as importantly, the fact that he believed in what he was doing and understood and appreciated the risks. One of the many things that stand out when you attend a military funeral is the support the fallen soldier had from his immediate family and their understanding and appreciation of his understanding of what he was doing, his belief in what he was doing and his full appreciation of the significant risks involved.
Believing in what you are doing is a very, very important thing. It is important to both soldier and minister. I, like the volunteer men and women of the Australian Defence Force, believe in what we are doing in Afghanistan. We are there for at least three very important reasons. First and foremost is that we are there to protect Australia and Australians. I do not need to make the case in this place that terror born in Afghanistan directly threatens Australia and Australians. That is an incontestable fact. The second reason we are there, and it is not often talked about, is that we are there as part of an alliance commitment. On 11 September 2001, the American homeland came under attack. Rightly, ANZUS was invoked and we joined with our partners in a response to that attack, in the same way that Australians would expect our US partners to come to our aid if we found ourselves in similar circumstances. I think that is a very important point. The third reason we are there—and it goes, in many ways, to the first reason—is to build an economy in Afghanistan, to bring the people of that war-torn country out of poverty and to protect them from the worst excesses of Islamic extremism.
It is important that we not only believe in why we are in Afghanistan but also believe we can achieve our objectives there. I acknowledge that there are many who do not believe we can meet with success in Afghanistan, and of course they are entitled to their view. Certainly, the challenges are enormous and at times seem insurmountable. But I disagree. Afghanistan, in my view, is a beast capable of being tamed. I certainly would not be part of a decision to maintain our troop presence in Afghanistan if I did not believe that were the case. I know that Private Ranaudo and the 10 Australians who gave their lives before him believed in our prospects of success—I should say 12 Australians, if we keep in mind, appropriately, Rifleman Nash, an Australian who died serving with British forces, and all those who have been wounded in Afghanistan. Our collective determination now must be to ensure that they did not give their lives in vain and those who have been severely wounded did not have those wounds inflicted on them in vain.
We will meet with success in Afghanistan if: (1) all the parties share our determination to meet with success rather than, if you like, go through the paces as part of a NATO alliance commitment; (2) the objective is realistic, and of course the objective is to ensure that we stabilise Afghanistan, protect the democratic processes there and build the capacity of the Afghan government to enforce their own rule of law and their own security; (3) we have sufficient troops and capability; we cannot win the military campaign without sufficient troop numbers and the right capability; and (4) if we have the right strategy—a proper marrying of the military, political and capacity building efforts. When I say political, I do not just mean reconciliation within the country; I mean effectively dealing with those significant issues outside Afghanistan in places like Pakistan.
It might sound like a bit of a cliche, but it is true: Afghanistan is a battle for the hearts and minds of the local people. We will meet with success in stabilising Afghanistan when the vast majority of the Afghan people believe that the economic, social and democratic model we are offering as a partnership is better than that being offered by any other individual or group. They must believe that we are there for the right reasons and that is to improve their country, to raise living standards and, again, to protect them, the population, from the worst excesses of Islamic extremism.
On the operational front, our troops are there simultaneously disrupting the work of the Taliban and building the capacity of both the Afghan National Army and the Afghan national police. It is very important work and it is work they are doing very, very well indeed—exceptionally well—and as members of parliament we should all, collectively, be proud of them. Today we think of Private Ranaudo and his loved ones. We also think of Private Paul Warren, who was severely wounded in the same incident.
I acknowledge the presence of the Reverend Peter Rose in the gallery today. He has just left us but has been here for the majority of this debate. Reverend Peter Rose is the chaplain to the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship. His presence is welcome but also reminded me of the words of a padre or minister at the funeral of Lance Corporal Jason Marks at Holsworthy Barracks. He said, I thought very astutely and quite succinctly—and they may not have been original words on his part, I am not sure, but I appreciated them, particularly coming from a person in his position—that he believed peace is worth fighting for and I agree.
Unfortunately military operations are sometimes unavoidable. What we are doing in Afghanistan is very important both to the Afghan people and to the broader international community. I believe in what we are doing. I know that Private Ranaudo believed in what he was doing. I know all men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are serving there, or have served there, believe in what they are doing, and they are deserving of the highest admiration of all members of this parliament and the broader Australian community.
Benjamin Disraeli said that the legacy of heroes is the memory of a great name and the inheritance of a great example. Private Benjamin Ranaudo is indeed a great example to all Australians. It is with great pride mixed with tremendous sadness that I rise to honour another fallen warrior.
Benjamin Ranaudo was farewelled by fellow diggers in Tarin Kowt in southern Afghanistan, the 11th Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan. He was killed by an improvised explosive device. He was serving in the Baluchi Valley, north of Tarin Kowt, at the time. The 22-year-old was the fifth Australian to die from an IED blast. A cortege of vehicles, including one carrying Benjamin Ranaudo’s flag-draped casket, passed between a line of diggers to carry our fallen comrade home.
He was serving with the 1st Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, a battalion I know well, having served with a sister battalion as a very young platoon commander with the 3rd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment. I know it is with great sadness that the commanding officer and the men of 1RAR farewelled one of their warriors. It is always a solemn ramp ceremony when one of our fallen men comes home, killed in battle fighting for what he believes. The regimental sergeant major, Warrant Officer Darren Murch, spoke glowingly of Private Ranaudo. He spoke of a man being a pleasure to be around and one who displayed the true qualities of an Australian soldier. We must never forget—not in this place, not in any place—that Benjamin Ranaudo fought for us. He fought for a freedom that we value and that we wish to extend.
We must never forget that the battle in Afghanistan is one of the front-line battles for Western civilisation as we know it. It is a battle to rebuild a nation, to restore a democracy, to remove a safe haven from those who would seek to convert it to an extremist form of government completely incompatible with our way of life—a form of government they wish to see extended throughout the world. The battle in Afghanistan is a forward fight for our Western way of life. It is a fight we must win; it is a fight we will win. It is a battle for the hearts and minds of Afghani people, who do not want to return to an extremist Taliban rule. This is a battle for families—for mums and dads who want to live a life that they have known historically. Let us not forget that Afghani mums, too, love their kids and they want a country where their children can grow up and be educated. They want a country where little girls have the right to go to school and live in a free and fair democracy and where their children do not have to live in fear of warlords subjugating them into a slavery of fighting for a dictatorial regime and an extremist view of government. We are fighting to reconstruct a nation so that it can no longer be used as a safe haven for terrorism. The fight is a worthwhile fight. It enjoys bipartisan support across the political divide, as it should. It is a fight we will continue until it is won, in concert with our allies and partners. It is a fight that Private Benjamin Ranaudo paid the ultimate price for. He laid down his life for a fight he believed in.
There is a saying attributed to George Orwell that we sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. If freedom is indeed the sure possession of those who alone have the courage to defend it, then may I suggest that Ben Ranaudo stands tall in our nation’s history. He joins 10 other warriors who have laid down their lives in Afghanistan, because they had the courage to defend the freedom many of us take for granted.
I conclude, as I so often have in this place, in the great tradition of an ancient warrior, statesman and king, Pericles, who founded the great Athenian empire 2,500 years ago and led that nation during the first two years of the Peloponnesian War. He said:
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.
When we look at Facebook and see Private Ranaudo’s partner’s comments, when we hear the accolades from peers and superiors alike; when we see the public’s reaction to another warrior, another brave Anzac, the son of those who have gone before us, it inspires us to know that heroism remains alive. It inspires us to know that young Australian men continue to fight, that young Australian men and women continue to serve because we uphold freedom as a fundamental, sacred right in this country and we are prepared to fight to ensure that freedom remains. Private Ranaudo has indeed left behind something significant woven into the lives of others. His sacrifice has indeed touched lives, and this place will not forget that.
I join with my colleagues in this condolence motion. It is with great sadness that I rise to speak on Private Benjamin Ranaudo. On his first tour to Afghanistan, at the young age of 22, Private Ranaudo made the ultimate sacrifice for his nation on 18 July when he was killed by an antipersonnel explosive device. Private Ranaudo was a local Ferntree Gully boy in my electorate of La Trobe. He had been a student of both St Johns in Boronia and St Josephs College in Ferntree Gully. On the day of his funeral I spoke to his Principal, Vin Feeney, who remembers Private Ranaudo as a fantastic student and a young person who just wanted to serve his country and be a soldier.
At Private Ranaudo’s funeral, which I had the great honour and privilege to attend, he was described as a loving family man and a dedicated and professional Australian soldier. I found it rather compelling and daunting that there were so many young soldiers at the funeral. It fills one with great pride to see these young men and women serving our country with such honour and dignity but, at the same time, it kind of haunts you to realise how young our men and women are when they actually join the Army to serve our great country.
Private Ranaudo’s career was one of distinction. He was a member of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment based in Townsville. In Afghanistan, he was a member of the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force. His death is another very tragic reminder of the terrible dangers our troops face in Afghanistan. Our young men and women are doing a brilliant job, working under the toughest of conditions. I applaud them and thank them. They too will be feeling the immense loss of Private Ranaudo.
At this point, I would like to pass on my thoughts to Private Paul Warren, who was badly injured in the same incident. We should never forget the sacrifice that Paul Warren has made for his country.
Private Ranaudo demonstrated those finest of qualities that make our Australian soldiers so great—professionalism, bravery, mateship and sacrifice. It is clear from the statements made by Private Ranaudo’s family that he was a soldier who believed that what he was doing was the right thing to do. His family said, ‘Benjamin was a proud soldier. He believed in what he did.’ From what I heard that day, he was a soldier’s soldier.
We fight terrorism because we believe in our freedoms, we believe in democracy and we believe in our liberties. Private Ranaudo sacrificed his life for these ideals and we must not allow his sacrifice to be in vain. We will continue the fight with his great sacrifice in our hearts and minds. I express my deepest condolences to the Ranaudo family—father Angelo, mother Jennifer, stepfather Terry, big sister Amy and younger sister Hayley-Rose—and other close family members. Also, my condolences go to Private Ranaudo’s girlfriend, Haylee, to his friends and to all those who knew him. He sounded like an amazing mate to have and a great friend when you needed someone to support you.
I want to particularly say to Private Ranaudo’s parents, during this time of terrible loss, that I hope that it is of some comfort to you to know that your son has served this nation with courage and distinction and that he will never be forgotten. Indeed, he is in the hearts, minds and prayers of millions of Australians who are grateful for the sacrifice he has made. He has served this nation fighting terrorists in Afghanistan in order to ensure security in his home country and also around the globe and for that, as a nation, we will always be indebted to you. Rest in peace.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ripoll) adjourned.
Consideration resumed from 11 August.
The Sutherland shire community, which I am proud to represent in this place as the member for Cook, was deeply saddened at the passing of Edward ‘Ted’ Kenna VC. Ted—or ‘Ned’, as he was known to his mates—had a long and close connection with the shire through his service as patron of the Miranda RSL Club. Ned was a regular visitor to the club for over 12 years and his visits were eagerly anticipated by RSL members. Miranda RSL sub-branch President Warren Barnes was a long-time friend of Ned and his wife Marjorie and served as Ted’s aide de camp on his visits. Warren fondly recalled how Ned always took the time to meet and chat with RSL members and how he particularly enjoyed the strong sense of camaraderie which has become a hallmark of the Miranda club.
Ned’s old Army unit, the 2nd/4th Battalion of 1939 to 1945, also has a connection with the shire: the Sutherland Army Reserve unit, the 4th/3rd Battalion Royal New South Wales Regiment, wears the white and green of Ted’s old battalion and continues to serve in the best spirit of diggers like Ned.
The last surviving Victoria Cross winner from World War II, Ned was a national hero, though he wore that badge reluctantly and remained a humble country boy. Ned earned his Victoria Cross in Wewak, New Guinea on 15 May 1945 when he put himself in grave danger in order to save the lives of his mates. On that day, Ned single-handedly engaged an enemy machine gun post that had pinned down his unit, all the while under direct fire from enemy soldiers. Despite the terrific danger and a seemingly hopeless situation, Ned did not flinch and instead successfully ended the threat from the Japanese, saving the lives of his mates in the process.
When I was recently with my colleague and friend the member for Blaxland walking the Kokoda Track—and we think particularly of those at the moment who are in grave danger on that track, and their families—one of the things that both of us, I think, came to a completely new appreciation of was the bravery of those who fought there, particularly those who were awarded the Victoria Cross. On that occasion we were reflecting on the life of Bruce Kingsbury and today, here, we pay our respects to Ted Kenna.
One of the things that the young people who were with us said as they walked that track was how much more they wanted to know about heroes like Bruce Kingsbury and heroes we read about and know of from our own shire, like Ted Kenna. I think those of us here in this place but also those who sit in state parliaments around the country have a responsibility to ensure that in our national school curricula and in our communities we tell these stories. We are the generation linking those great heroes of Australia, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the generations that follow us have the benefit of our first-hand experience of hearing their stories. So I would encourage all of us to do that, in memory and in tribute and in honour of those such as Ted Kenna who paid a deep price for their battles—some the ultimate price. Fortunately, Ted went on to live a long and fruitful life, but his sacrifice was no less in terms of his courage on that day. It is up to us, I think, to be that linking generation, to pass on these stories and make sure that the honour that is due is given and that it does not happen just in a place like this today but that these stories live on and on.
We can celebrate those stories as great stories of courage. Young people are incredibly inspired not by the horrors of war but by the qualities and purity that it brought out in these ordinary men who did incredible, extraordinary things. They are inspired to think about what is within themselves. As we walked the track with our own young people, we saw the same sorts of qualities, and seeing that gives us great hope for the future. As we remember Ted Kenna, we say thanks to Ted Kenna for a life well lived, for a service well performed and for an example well made to all the rest of us. I think we can speak volumes in celebration of all of those things.
We know that weeks later, after his heroism, Ted’s fortunes changed when he was shot in the mouth. Ted was cared for by the legendary fuzzy wuzzy angels before being evacuated to Australia, where he met his future wife, who was nursing him back to health.
Next month Miranda RSL will hold a special commemoration service for Ned which I will be proud to attend and which will no doubt provide a fitting tribute to a man who served his country bravely and proudly and who touched the lives of so many club members. Ted is survived by his wife, Marjorie, four children, 12 grandchildren and 15 great-grandchildren. I can think of no greater legacy than that. On behalf of the Sutherland shire community I thank Ted for his service to our nation and for his wonderful contribution to the Sutherland shire. Lest we forget.
I again join with others to acknowledge a great Australian, a man who many years ago showed amazing courage in the face of great adversity but who also, after that time, proved, as has been said by some who have won Victoria Crosses and many who have dealt with those who have, that it is one thing to win one; it is another thing to be able to wear one in subsequent years and to do it justice.
Ted Kenna was such a man. Not only did he win his Victoria Cross with a display of great valour in circumstances which could have ended in personal disaster but he then became an example to all Australians in his deportment over the years. He was an ordinary man who did extraordinary things and who lived up to the extraordinary responsibility that he had as one of Australia’s fewer than 100 Victoria Cross winners—one of only 20 from World War II. He is the last of our 20 Victoria Cross winners from World War II to pass on, and so this is the closing of an era. There are many World War II veterans left, but Ted was the last one left who had received the Victoria Cross.
Much has been said about his act of bravery on that day. I would like to focus on just a small part of that and relate it to the proceedings at his state funeral at St Patrick’s Cathedral on Thursday, 16 July. One of the speakers on that occasion was Major General Gordon Maitland. Major General Maitland is a very impressive man in his own right, and on that day he delivered an astoundingly dignified address. I note the member for Berowra is nodding and I am sure he knows Major General Maitland from his travels. Major General Maitland went through the circumstances around Ted’s winning of the Victoria Cross and his deportment since. I will focus on one element of what Major General Maitland said; I will paraphrase him because I cannot do his words justice. His point, which he illustrated so clearly, was that Ted and his men knew that in the circumstances they were in at that time, pinned down by machine gun fire, action had to be taken and someone had to take that action. Ted was the Bren gunner for that platoon, and his responsibility, given he was carrying the firepower for the platoon, was to act. As Major General Maitland said, there was never any doubt that Ted would do so, and the fact that he did so so successfully and was able to win the day and save the lives of so many of his comrades was a tremendous example of the courage that he displayed. But Ted was a modest man about his award and he was quoted around the time as saying that it was more about the mates that he served alongside. He said:
… the boys at the time, it belongs as much to them as it does me.
He revelled in his return after his shooting, firstly in the not well-known but outstandingly poignant love story of how he met his wife, Marjorie. She nursed him when he first came back with horrific injuries, and they then formed a lifelong partnership, which bore four children and was obviously the most important part of his life. Again, in good old-fashioned Australian style, he could always joke about it, suggesting that Marjorie had wooed him rather than the other way around. That is an Australian male talking, isn’t it!
His funeral was well attended, as it should have been. It was attended by significant elements of our military, of our returned services community and of the broader community. It was a suitable testament to his exemplary service both in the military at the time and subsequently as an Australian icon. I had the privilege of meeting him only once, at the footy about 10 years ago, but I will always remember the opportunity I had to shake his hand on that occasion.
He had not been well of late and the circumstances of his passing were not entirely unexpected. He left at the age of 90, having lived a very full life—a life that brought him and his family great credit and a life that, in many ways, encapsulated all that over the years has been good about the Anzac spirit. He was a man who did great things when they were required, at a time when his mates needed him. He was a truly great Australian, a man it was my very great pleasure to meet, and a man who did great honour to his name.
On Wednesday, 8 July 2009, Edward (Ted) Kenna died in a Geelong nursing home aged 90. Quite a few Australians died on that day, as they do almost every day, mostly of old age. On that day Ted Kenna’s death was more than just a loss to his family; it was a great loss to Australia because Ted Kenna was also known as Private Edward Kenna VC. He was one of very few men to have distinguished themselves in the field of battle at the highest level possible.
While the Victoria Cross medal is emblazoned simply with the words ‘For valour’, those words somewhat understate the character of those that receive the medal. Any walk through the Australian War Memorial’s VC hall and a reading of the citations demonstrates that the men who won these medals were uncommon and displayed the highest level of personal courage in the face of certain death. Indeed, when we read Ted Kenna’s citation we must surely question how anyone survived the bullets of the enemy when standing so fully exposed to their fire. Part of his citation reads:
On his own initiative and without orders Private Kenna stood up immediately in full view of the enemy less than 50 yards away and engaged the bunker, firing his Bren gun from his hip. The enemy machine gun immediately returned Kenna’s fire with such accuracy that bullets actually passed between his arms and body. Undeterred, he remained completely exposed and continued to fire at the enemy until his magazine was exhausted. Still making a target of himself, Private Kenna discarded his Bren gun and called for a rifle. Despite the intense machine gun fire, he seized the rifle and, with amazing coolness, killed the gunner with his first round. A second automatic weapon opened fire on Private Kenna from a different position and another of the enemy immediately tried to move into position behind the first machinegun, but Private Kenna remained standing and killed him with his next round.
The result of Private Kenna’s magnificent bravery in the face of concentrated fire, was that the bunker was captured without further loss, and the company attack proceeded to a successful conclusion, many enemy being killed and numerous automatic weapons captured.
The citation says in conclusion:
There is no doubt that the success of the company attack would have been seriously endangered and many casualties sustained but for Private Kenna’s magnificent courage and complete disregard for his own safety. His action was an outstanding example of the highest degree of bravery.
The reports of witnesses that suggest that enemy bullets flew through his clothes without striking him are somewhat easy to believe, given the number of rounds fired and the fact that he was not wounded in the fight. So many of those VC citations are similar: when you hear what was done, it is difficult to believe that the soldier was not killed in the fight when you think that, by all reckoning, he should have been.
Fortunately, Ted Kenna was not killed on that day, 15 May 1945, and he lived on to be an inspiration to this country. He was severely wounded three weeks later, shot in the mouth, and he spent the next year recovering. It was during that time that he met his future wife Marjorie Rushberry, whom he married in 1947. They had two sons and two daughters. At the time of his death, he was a father of four, grandfather of 12 and great-grandfather of 15. He is survived by Marjorie, his wife of 62 years.
In speaking about Ted Kenna, family and friends have a consistent memory of his life. He was humble, an all-round family man, and a solid and reliable friend. The view of those that knew him is very clear: men do not come much better than Ted Kenna VC. His death marks a sad time for Australia, but who he was, what he did and his commitment to this nation will never be forgotten.
What a privilege it is for us to be here today to speak in support this motion of condolence for Private Edward Kenna VC. When he passed away on 8 July, in that period there was a lot of mesmerisation in the world about the passing of Michael Jackson, but I have to confess that that certainly was not my focus. Certainly also for a number of Australians the focus was firmly on the passing of Ted Kenna. It was important for us to do so because it was one of those indelibly sad but important days in our history. It was important because Ted Kenna symbolises and illustrates so much of what is important for us to value, to honour and to emulate in this country.
I heard today the member for Paterson talking about a poem which talked about various professions who owed soldiers various things. It is important for us to remember that so much of our military history is actually about people from those professions becoming soldiers to achieve those things. The history and tradition of the citizen soldier in this country is part of its proudest history. It is those people, like Ted, a plumber from country Victoria, who pick up that challenge and then go away and do incredibly extraordinary things that really tend to help us understand some of the special qualities that we should value in this country and in our society.
I guess those of us who come from rural and regional Australia will readily identify those characters that we find in our country towns and communities who have so much of that spirit of sticking their hands up, volunteering and community service. That was Ted. Before he joined up in the second AIF Ted had been part of the civilian military forces. He had been a reservist. He had already been part of that contribution to his community in so many ways, including in that military respect. There was a bit of hesitation on Ted’s part when the Second World War broke out because he was a bit reluctant to take orders—which is, of course, another characteristic of Australians. The essence of that is the quality of Australians that gives rise to their ability to use their initiative, which has served us so well in so many circumstances.
We have heard details of the battle that Ted was involved in—an incredible act of courage. That was just one layer of what was an incredibly difficult experience for all of our soldiers in New Guinea, given the terrain, the conditions and the diseases that they had to endure. On top of that, they had to engage in such deadly, vicious and brutal combat against an enemy that knew no bounds in its brutality—that great, malevolent evil against which they fought. He does illustrate how important it is for individuals to stand up and do that. So much of our history has depended upon these individuals who are prepared to take on these acts of courage, sometimes in the face of opposition from colleagues. Madam Deputy Speaker Moylan, you probably understand that experience. It is so important for us to honour and emulate that experience. In the battle in which he participated he also saved the lives of his colleagues. That Australian understatement was again illustrated when his colleagues turned to him and said merely, ‘Good shooting, Ted,’ when he saved their lives and resolved that situation.
I talked about the evil that he fought against. It was a privilege to be, along with the member for Berowra, at the Burwood ceremony for the Sandakan incident—or atrocity—during World War II. Nothing illustrates more the evil that these soldiers were fighting against in that very episode. I mentioned earlier that had 40,000 fatalities in World War II, nearly 2,000 of those in that Sandakan incident. This certainly was an important cause for this country that these soldiers were engaged in. Not long after this incident, we know that Ted was severely injured due to an explosive bullet round into his mouth. He was told at the time that he was likely to die, and his response to that was simply, ‘Pigs!’ Nothing could illustrate the man more than that comment. There was a little personal connection for me in Ted’s subsequent history, in that, during his time in Heidelberg hospital, my grandfather was also in Heidelberg hospital recovering from his severe malnutrition and conditions that he had acquired as a prisoner of the Japanese on the Burma-Thai railway. They shared that time together in Heidelberg hospital.
Ted, in his laconic way, described how that was to his benefit, because, as was mentioned by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, he met his wonderful wife, Marjorie, there. What a special woman she must have been, and still is, but particularly at that time. Ted did not receive his Victoria Cross until 1947, so there is no question of him having been a celebrity in hospital at that time, and the wounds that he suffered were terribly disfiguring. Nevertheless, Marjorie was able to see past all that and formed a relationship with Ted which was to endure for over half a century and which produced four wonderful children, 12 grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. So what a special woman Marjorie is. We should also take this opportunity to pay tribute to her at this time.
I mentioned that Ted was a great contributor to society in general, and that is what we should also acknowledge here—not just those moments of his great feats in battle. It is important to note that Ted received the Centenary Medal for his services to veterans—a decoration that was created in 2001 by the previous government. Ted was one of the first recipients of that medal for his services to veterans. That in itself illustrates what kind of man he was. As we know, famously, he also received the Victoria Cross. It is interesting that often that decoration subsequently becomes a cross to bear. It is funny how a soldier will go through extreme situations of tension, terror and risk to life and then we impose added expectations on them when they receive this decoration. Our expectation requires them to be role models in their subsequent life. But Ted bore all that with incredible good grace and fulfilled all the expectations that we have of our Victoria Cross holders.
I conclude by pointing to the single most important thing in this. We are currently, as I mentioned earlier, engaged in a similar struggle against a malevolent evil which requires the same dedication, endurance and commitment that that great generation delivered. It is very important for us to be worthy of that great generation in our ongoing commitment and support of not only our veterans and their families but also the soldiers who continue to serve, and we must maintain our solidarity in the face of this great challenge.
I join with my colleagues in honouring Ted Kenna VC, the last Australian Victoria Cross recipient of World War II, who recently passed away at the age of 90 years. He was a unique Australian. His bravery in the face of great personal danger must never be forgotten. Ted Kenna was awarded the Victoria Cross for action in Wewak, New Guinea, on 15 May 1945. When coming under heavy fire, he defeated a Japanese machine-gun crew. His action made it possible for his company’s attack to succeed. Having spent time in Wewak myself, I can only imagine the challenges that he would have faced. The tropical climate is a unique challenge in itself, but add to that an enemy in jungle warfare. Ted needs to be honoured. There is no greater act of courage than to risk your own life to save the lives of your mates. His decision to run directly into enemy fire, knowing he could face his own death at any moment, would have required extraordinary valour and courage.
Edward—known as Ted—Kenna was born in Hamilton, Victoria, on 6 July 1919. After completing his education in his home town, he became a plumber. In August 1940 he enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force and served in the 23/21st Battalion. In June 1943 his unit was disbanded and he was assigned to the 2/4th Battalion and embarked to New Guinea in October 1944. Ted Kenna’s actions in the New Guinea campaign epitomise the Anzac spirit. He was among the bravest of the brave in that great generation of Australians who fought to defend our freedoms in Europe, Asia and on our doorstep.
As we know, the Victoria Cross is awarded for the most conspicuous bravery, a daring act of valour or self-sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy. Today is an opportunity for us to honour Ted Kenna, his life, his courage and his commitment to his fellow soldiers. After the war, as has been mentioned today, Ted returned to Hamilton with his wife, Marjorie, and raised their four children. I can only imagine that when Marjorie was tending to Ted their relationship would have blossomed and I am sure that Marjorie saw that Ted was a unique man with a great heart. Today we see the legacy that they both left. Ted continued to salute the Anzac tradition and regularly attended many Victoria Cross reunions in London and the annual Anzac Day parades in Melbourne. His legacy is remembered at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, and in July 2000 he was honoured on a postage stamp as part of the commemoration of Australia’s living VC winners. I would also like to express my heartfelt condolences to his wife Marjorie and to his extended family at this difficult time. His death will be mourned and his memory honoured by all Australians.
As much as we remember the passing of a great Australian today, this is an opportunity also to reflect on the contributions of all veterans who gave all to serve their country. I also want to take this opportunity to remind the House of the important and vital contribution of our veteran community in the past, in the present and of course into the future. I remain committed to ensuring that veterans will receive the care and support to which they are entitled. It is a privilege to stand here today and honour such a great Australian.
I rise also to extend my sincere condolences to the family of Australia’s last World War II Victoria Cross winner, Ted Kenna, who passed away on Wednesday, 8 July, aged 90 years. In particular, my thoughts go to his wife of 62 years, Marjorie, their sons Robert and Alan, their daughter Marlene and their 12 grandchildren and 16 great-grandchildren. Ted Kenna represented a very tangible link to one of the most important periods in Australian history. Only once has Australia faced a direct threat to our national sovereignty when the Japanese conquest of South-East Asia and Papua New Guinea left us vulnerable to occupation. For his courageous actions near Wewak in PNG, Ted Kenna was awarded the Victoria Cross. It took the courage, commitment and determination of men like Ted Kenna to restore peace and security to our neighbourhood. With Ted Kenna’s passing, we pause to remember the remaining World War II veterans who proudly served this country.
Just touching on some of the actions of Ted Kenna which resulted in his Victoria Cross being awarded, it is important to recall that on 15 May 1945 Private Ted Kenna was a member of Alpha Company of the 2nd/4th Battalion. Their role was to clear the Japanese defenders from Wirui Mission south of Wewak air base on the northern coast of Papua New Guinea. During that mission, Ted Kenna came under heavy machine-gun fire from the Japanese. Risking his life, he stood in clear sight of the enemy and took out two or three machine-gun posts using a Bren gun fired from the hip, then one of his colleague’s rifles. In part, his Victoria Cross citation reads as follows:
The result of Private Kenna’s magnificent bravery in the face of concentrated fire was that the bunker was captured without further loss, and the company attack proceeded to a successful conclusion, many enemy being killed and numerous automatic weapons captured.
Just three weeks after that battle on 5 June 1945, Ted Kenna was badly wounded in action, sustaining life-threatening wounds to his face. It was while he was recovering from this injury that he met his wife Marjorie, who was a nurse at the time.
Our national values, which underpin the values our army subscribes to, could have been modelled on Ted Kenna, from what we know of his actions. He was a very modest man who rarely spoke of his deeds, yet he set an example of courage and determination that will serve to inspire future generations.
Today, we have just two surviving Victoria Cross recipients, who of course represent the highest embodiment of bravery and dedication to duty: Keith Payne VC, who was awarded a Victoria Cross for his service of May 1969 during the Vietnam War, and, most recently, Trooper Mark Donaldson VC, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia in January of this year for his courageous actions in Afghanistan on 2 September 2008. The courage of these men inspires current and future generations of Australians. I send my regards to the family of Ted Kenna.
I too would like to recognise the incredible contribution of Private Ted Kenna VC and note that it was just two days after his 90th birthday, on 8 July, that Ted passed away. Ted was a resident of Hamilton, which is in my electorate. He was widely known and highly regarded by many, many people right throughout the region and indeed, as we have heard, right throughout Australia.
Ted was an amazing person. He was most unassuming, but one of those people who could display the true qualities of someone who would look after his mates. As we have heard, his act of bravery was quite remarkable. He was the Bren gunner of his platoon and when the platoon was held down, with no hesitation and no thought for his own life, he stood up in full view of the enemy and cleared the machine gun post that was holding down the platoon. When the Bren gun ran out of ammunition, he then called for and was thrown a .303, with which he continued to do the job of taking out the machine gun post. The story is remarkable in that he did not even flinch when bullets were not only passing between his arm and his body but in fact went through his shirt leaving holes in it. Ted’s valour is an extraordinary story, but, in his most unassuming way, he would never claim to have done anything more than was expected of him. It was also recorded that he was promoted temporarily from the rank of private to lance corporal, a position he was not comfortable with, and in fact he asked to return to the rank of private. As the rest of the story goes he was very badly wounded. Nonetheless his example has stood as something that is highly regarded.
The thing about Ted as a remarkable Australian is that he had a very strong commitment to veterans, not only locally but right throughout Australia. In his later years he made a great effort and travelled a lot to try to assist other veterans. His other great commitment to the community in later life was to visit schools. Again, he made a great impression on many young people by talking to them in his own laconic way about some of his experiences, helping them to have a better understanding of the contribution that so many made during World War II, particularly in the Pacific theatre.
He was always unassuming and when questioned about his experiences, as his daughter, Marlene Day, said, he was modest when he talked about his own Victoria Cross, which he was awarded for gallantry. Ms Day said:
He’s always said to me that he’s proud to wear it, but he wears it for every soldier because he says everyone contributes to those sorts of things.
That really encapsulates Ted. That is the way he was. He did not want to be glorified for what he did; he felt that he was just doing it to try to help his mates.
There were, of course, a couple of other things about Ted. He was a very good footballer. After the war, when he recovered from his injuries, he took up football again locally, and in the 1947 grand final, in the Western Border Football League, Ted was playing for Hamilton. The scores were level in the last quarter with the siren about to ring. It is said that Ted ‘just seemed to come out of nowhere from across the ground, kicked a point and Hamilton got its premiership.’ When he was on the ground he was never backward in coming forward.
In the eulogy at the state funeral, Major General Maitland told many things about the wonderful activities of Ted, but he spoke in particular of the unfailing humility that kept Ted from ever telling his story in any detail. It was a quality that sat alongside his respect for the supreme award of military bravery. Major General Maitland said, ‘He recognised the stature of being a Victoria Cross holder, but he sought no glamour, no reward. He wore it with empathy and he wore it for all of those who fought with him.’ As he said, he always reckoned he was just doing his job.
I have been very fortunate to, in a very small way, be involved in helping Hamilton have a lasting tribute to Ted Kenna. Back in 1988 we arranged to get Sir William Dargie, the famous Australian portrait painter who I think won eight Archibald prizes, to agree to paint Ted Kenna’s portrait, and that now hangs in the Performing Arts Centre in Hamilton in the Ted Kenna room. So we have a lasting memory of Ted Kenna in Hamilton. I can assure colleagues that the people of Hamilton have very fond memories of Ted and the contribution he has made in so many ways, but most of all of course his remarkable bravery during World War II and the award of the Victoria Cross for that wonderful act of bravery. I, like others, would say how much our thoughts are with Marj, his wife, and with his children and grandchildren.
I rise to celebrate and acknowledge the great life of Edward ‘Ted’ Kenna VC, who died on 9 July 2009 aged 90—married to his beautiful wife, Marjorie, a father of four, a grandfather of 12 and a great-grandfather of 15.
Future generations will ask where I was when the last surviving World War II Victoria Cross recipient died. I will say that I was here in the House speaking about a great Australian—an Australian who was part of the glorious fellowship of the Victoria Cross; a fellowship that knows no race or creed, no boundaries, no age, no nationality; a fellowship joined only by exceptional bravery and heroism; a fellowship that cannot be bought, that cannot be joined, but is only awarded and bestowed for acts so great, for acts so incredibly above what normal human beings would be capable of, that the majority of winners are awarded it posthumously. Those who have received it have done so because of what they have done in times of battle and conflict. Ted was part of the glorious fellowship of the Victoria Cross. By all accounts, and speaking to members here who knew Ted well, he was an incredibly humble man, an Anzac of the highest order who did not like fuss being made about his achievements. To fight one day and to score that winning goal for Hamilton in a later life says so much about Ted Kenna. And so too does the manner in which he won the VC. I have always contended that you will never truly know an individual’s character until you see them under great pressure, under great stress, and there is no greater stress in life than the field of operational service and, particularly, the field of battle.
Ted Kenna, with a company assault in Wewak in Papua New Guinea in 1945, with the assault being held up, stood up, with the enemy no more than 50 metres away—indeed, closer. The enemy’s fire engaged upon him, as you would expect from a target that bobs up in the jungle. Undeterred, he took a Bren gun and engaged the enemy, destroying the opponent and, when running out of ammunition, simply discarded the Bren gun and asked for a rifle while still standing, and he continued to engage, suppressing the enemy position, allowing the company to move forward, and achieving its objective.
The accolades regarding Ted Kenna’s achievement speak of bullet holes in his clothing, of rounds passing between arms and body—an incredible act of bravery. I can only imaging the horrors of jungle life in 1945. I have spent a lot of time in PNG. I spent five months in the civil war in Bougainville on one of the islands of PNG, and I have walked the Kokoda Trail. I know first hand the horrors of the jungle but I know nothing of the horrors of the jungle when you are in battle: when you are being shot at; when your equipment is falling off you; when your clothes are in tatters; and when you are hungry, tired and thirsty and engaged in a bitter assault against a numerically superior enemy. This is what Ted Kenna found himself against, and his character grew. In the mettle of that fire his character shone forth in such an impressive way.
Three weeks later this Australian hero was to be shot in the jaw and would spend 10 long days walking out of that forbidding, impenetrable jungle to get back to a first-aid station. Stories recount of a rancid bandage on his face when he finally made it back to some care and first aid. I can only imagine that Ted Kenna would not have complained and would not have been a burden. I suggest he was not carried, I suggest he walked out of that jungle a severely wounded warrior. I find it extraordinarily and incredibly Australian that the first person at the hospital to touch this brave warrior was a nurse, Marjorie, who would later become his wife. The care that that involves is so incredibly Australian. There are only two surviving Australian VC recipients out of the 97 awarded: Vietnam veteran Keith Payne VC and of course our own serving digger, Mark Donaldson VC, who was awarded the Victoria Cross—the first Australian Victoria Cross—for his service in Afghanistan.
It is interesting to read the citation to get a feel for the type of character that was Ted Kenna. It reads:
On his own initiative and without orders Private Kenna immediately stood up in full view of the enemy less than 50 yards away and engaged the bunker, firing his Bren gun from the hip.
He stood up and entrenched the enemy with machine gun fire in a bunker—no sandbags to protect Ted Kenna, just raw Australian courage. The citation continues:
The enemy machine gun immediately returned Private Kenna’s fire and with such accuracy that bullets actually passed between his arms and body.
This is what you would expect from an enemy with machine guns mounted, sited in a bunker, against a lone Australian standing on his feet. The citation goes on:
Undeterred, he remained completely exposed and continued to fire at the enemy until his magazine was exhausted.
There are 20 or 30 rounds in a Bren gun magazine. The citation continues:
Still making a target of himself, Private Kenna discarded his Bren gun and called for a rifle. Despite the intense machine gun fire, he seized the rifle and, with amazing coolness, killed the gunner with his first round.
Ted Kenna could shoot.
A second automatic opened fire … from a different position and another enemy immediately tried to move into position behind the first machine gun, but Private Kenna remained standing and killed him with his next round.
Two machine gun posts in a jungle, bunkered in and camouflaged, firing at young Ted Kenna, 26 years old, standing up in the jungle. Mr Panter, the surviving member of a dwindling 2/4th Battalion, said that when it was all over Mr Kenna had bullet holes in his pants and shirt. Mr Panter said:
He told me then, and always said later, that he just had to do it.
Mr Panter went on:
Ned reckoned he was the person on the spot and someone had to do something and he just jumped up and without thinking did what he did. That’s what happens in war, you know: ordinary people do extraordinary things and Ned always thought of himself as just an ordinary bloke. History would suggest otherwise.
It was an incredible citation for an incredibly brave Australian. In the face of an overwhelming enemy, dug in and entrenched, and against sighted automatic weapons from different positions, Ted Kenna stood up and engaged the enemy. And when the ammunition of his main weapon was extinguished he threw it aside and called for another, still standing.
If we knew nothing else about Ted Kenna that alone would tell us something about his character, of his fortitude, of his mettle, of his love for family and friends, and of his care for his mates—held up in a jungle, suppressed by enemy fire. But we know so much more. Through those who knew him and loved him, through those who played footy with him, through his 15 great-grandchildren, his 12 grandchildren and his four children we know a man who was humble and who loved his country; who spent his remaining years serving his nation, going into schools, talking to kids and being the best he could be. We salute Ted Kenna—he is a great Australian. He set a great standard for the Anzac warriors who today continue to fight for freedom in various battles around the world. Only last week I was privileged to go to East Timor to visit our soldiers there in 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, who form the basis of the international security force, and to meet the Timor Leste Defence Force and the Australian construction team. I salute the commanding officer of 2nd Battalion RAR, Lieutenant Colonel David Smith, for his leadership of his men in Timor Leste and I wish them all a safe tour. I pray that they return quickly to their loved ones, their families and their friends, as I do, likewise, for our forces currently engaged in combat in Afghanistan.
Freedom alone is the privilege of those who are prepared to fight for it and defend it. With those words, can I say that Ted Kenna VC is missed. A great warrior has moved on and we shall not forget his heroism, his sacrifice and what he did for the freedom of his nation.
Debate resumed.
by leave—the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto includes 53 recommendations, many of which are designed to restore and protect the franchise to those entitled to exercise it ,and to modernise electoral processes.
That 45 of the 53 recommendations were unanimous reflects the committee’s focus on finding ways that our democracy can work better and the cooperative way that the committee went about conducting the inquiry. Key recommendations on modernising the electoral system include: counting more of the votes cast before polling day on polling night, and facilitating electronic transactions between electors and the Australian Electoral Commission to modernise the way that the commission interacts with electors.
The committee has made a number of recommendations that reinstate several longstanding provisions that protect the franchise, such as restoring the seven-day enrolment period from the issue of the writs to the close of rolls for the election. Opposition members have opposed the recommendations on the basis that they weaken the integrity of the electoral roll and reward complacency. However, a careful analysis of the integrity argument put forward by opposition members reveals that it is without substance, with the Australian Electoral Commission telling the committee that in relation to false identities there has never been any evidence of widespread or organised enrolment fraud in Australia. Detailed examination by the Australian Electoral Commission reveals that relatively few cases of multiple voting are found to be deliberate attempts to vote on multiple occasions and are referred to the AFP. Only 64 cases of apparent multiple voting were referred to the Australian Federal Police arising from the 2004 election, and only 10 cases were referred following the 2007 election. These figures do not warrant disenfranchising potentially hundreds of thousands of otherwise eligible electors.
In relation to prisoners, the committee has recommended that the Commonwealth Electoral Act be amended to reflect the High Court’s Roach decision that all persons serving a sentence of full-time imprisonment are ineligible to vote, reinstating the previous three-year disqualification that applied prior to 2006. The opposition members of the committee have suggested that the disqualification should be set at prisoners serving custodial sentences of one year or more, arguing that this would align the voting disqualification with the disqualification from being a member of parliament. However, a majority of the committee considers that the three-year threshold strikes a better balance.
A large number of submissions were received from Australian citizens living overseas who considered that they should be extended the franchise on the basis of their Australian citizenship alone. While such a franchise does exist in a number of countries such as Italy and New Zealand, the committee considers that citizenship should not be the sole qualification for the franchise. A 21-day rule regarding living at an address underpins representation in the 150-member House of Representatives, the basis for deciding which party or parties will form the government of the day. The committee has therefore endorsed the current arrangements relating to registration and updating enrolment, as they provide an appropriate and valid form of measuring a continued interest in Australian political affairs.
My personal remarks in the report relating to discontinuing the grandfathering arrangements that extend the franchise to up to 163,000 British subjects who may not be Australian citizens attracted significant comment in the media and to my electoral office. Most of the feedback was supportive of my proposal. Those who opposed discontinuing the grandfathering arrangements pointed to the broader notion of the franchise in some Western democracies, including that British subjects who were not citizens may be able to vote in UK national elections and that noncitizens enjoy the franchise in a number of countries, such as permanent residents in New Zealand.
I also received some comments from British subjects who were former veterans, having fought with distinction protecting Australia and our way of life. They were unhappy that, having made significant contributions and sacrifices for our country, they would be excluded from voting should they not take out Australian citizenship. While I understand that some of these views are strongly held, I consider that Australian citizenship should be one of the key elements underpinning the franchise in Australia. With the constitutional links now broken as a result of the Australia Act, High Court judgements that British subjects are ineligible to stand for parliament and the availability of dual citizenship, I do not believe that it is too much to ask that those deciding the future of our country should be Australian citizens.
I also believe that there should be an education program and that we should allow another 4½ years for this to take place so that it does not happen overnight. That will allow those people 30 years to take out Australian citizenship without losing their British citizenship. I think that is a fair compromise, because I think the alternative that someone who is not an Australian citizen can make the difference in an electorate and a difference as to who forms government is a far worse proposition for this country.
With the national rate of enrolment of eligible young people at the 2007 election at 85 per cent, some seven percentage points below the overall eligible population, it is clear that specific efforts need to be made to encourage young people to enrol to vote. A key recommendation of the committee in this area is to facilitate electronic interactions by electors with the AEC, thereby allowing young electors who are more likely to use such a medium to update their enrolment in a timely manner.
Another recommendation, aimed at increasing youth participation, is lowering the age for provisional enrolment, from 17 years to 16 years. With some states having a school-leaving age of 17 and many students completing their studies before this age, it makes sense to allow young people to enrol at this age, when they may also be undertaking civics eduction. This approach has also been adopted in the United Kingdom where 16-year-olds can register to vote, despite not being able to vote until they are aged 18. I understand and am appreciative that the committee was unanimous on this point.
A complementary recommendation, to reduce the age of provisional enrolment to 16 years, is for the establishment of a schools bounty scheme that would pay schools a small amount for every completed enrolment form returned by the school. The opposition members of the committee have dissented from this recommendation, arguing that no incentive should be required as it is a legal requirement to enrol once you turn aged 18. Further, the opposition members considered that the introduction of a financial inducement to encourage enrolment, however far removed from the individual, represents a corruption of our democratic process.
Compulsory enrolment does impose an obligation on individuals, but it also imposes an obligation on the government to facilitate access to our democracy. Should a schools bounty system be adopted, schools can utilise the nominal funding received to enhance civics education activities, such as student councils and participation in youth parliaments and other youth oriented representative bodies. Clearly, such a program would not corrupt our democratic process. Instead, it would provide a genuine opportunity for schools to encourage greater participation in civics education and engagement in the democratic process.
In the 2007 election, around 90,000 electors made errors when numbering their House of Representatives ballot paper, resulting in their vote being ruled informal and being excluded from the count. Research by the Australian Electoral Commission, following the 2007 election, found that differences in informality rates across electoral divisions reflected possible confusion on the part of voters, due to differences between federal and state and territory voting systems; a large number of candidates, making it more difficult to number all candidates correctly; and linguistic and cultural barriers experienced by some electors from non-English speaking backgrounds.
It is of concern to me that divisions in south-west Sydney continue to record the highest levels of informality. In the divisions of Blaxland and Watson, for example, almost one in 10 votes were ruled informal. In my electorate of Banks, 6.36 per cent of votes cast were ruled informal. This compares to an average informality rate in New South Wales of 4.9 per cent and a national average of 3.9 per cent.
While supporting the retention of full preferential voting for House of Representatives elections, the committee has proposed that a savings provision that was included in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which was used in all elections between 1984 and 1996, be re-instated. This would provide a safety net for electors who make a mistake in completing the numbering on a House of Representatives ballot paper by including ballot papers where there are non-consecutive numbering errors, up to the point at which the numbering errors began. According to the Australian Electoral Commission, up to 90,000 additional votes could have been included in the election count had such a savings provision for House of Representatives votes existed at the 2007 election.
It is noteworthy that a similar savings provision continues to apply for electors who make mistakes when completing a Senate ballot paper below the line. Under section 270(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, ballot papers on which at least 90 per cent of the preferences are expressed but some preferences are marked non-consecutively are admitted to the count. However, the preferences on the ballot paper will only be allocated and counted up until the consecutive number sequence is interrupted. So the provision is already there, but for the House of Representatives the provision was taken out. This is not in our report because at the time it was not drawn to my attention. But I am drawing it to the attention of the House now to show how it is absolute hypocrisy for the opposition to continue to oppose the reinstatement of the savings provision for the House of Representatives because it is currently there in similar form in the Senate under section 270(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Opposition members have argued that to support full preferential voting and a savings provision seeks to have one’s cake and eat it too, and they suggest that the adoption of optional preferential voting at the federal level should be continued. Whilst optional preferential voting is likely to see a decline in informality, a change to optional preferential voting would fundamentally change the nature of representation in the House of Representatives. It could lead to first-past-the-post and raise the prospect that candidates are elected without majority or popular support.
The committee does not see that the savings provision and full preferential voting are incompatible. The continued operation of the Senate savings provision for below-the-line votes with sequential numbering errors indicates a general acceptance of the need to include protection for voters who make genuine mistakes in numbering their ballot papers.
While the committee has also recommended reinstating penalty provisions to deter the advocacy of Langer-style voting, opposition members have claimed that it is naive to pretend that some of the issues associated with advocating Langer-style voting will not return. There may be implementation issues associated with reintroducing the savings provision. However, in the committee’s view, these concerns should not be a deterrent to giving up to 90,000 more electors who try to cast a valid vote the opportunity for their vote to be counted at an election.
I want to draw the attention of members of the House, the Senate and the public to table C.10 in our report—the table goes from page 385 to page 389. The table has a breakdown, electorate by electorate, on how some of these provisions impact, or could impact, in relation to voting for those House of Representatives seats. What we see is that changes to the provisional voting system from 2004 to 2007—this is on page 389—meant that 53,629 fewer voters were included in the count. Non-sequential numbering in 2004, which I just talked about, meant that 91,354 people had their votes knocked out. These are not small numbers. And in relation to British electors there are 162, 928 as of 30 September, 2008. I think the provision is that eight electorates have 2,500 and more; 62 electorates have 1,000 or more. That is the best table in the whole report. It shows the interaction and the impact of the particular provisions I have told you about.
I rise to support the majority report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I say at the outset how much I enjoyed the experience of working with this committee, particularly the good relationship that there is between members. I mention in particular the chair Daryl Melham, and the deputy chair Scott Morrison. I want to thank the secretariat: the secretary Steven Boyd and inquiry secretary Kai Swoboda, technical adviser Terry Rushton, research officer Margaret Atkin and administration officers Renee van der Hoek and Natasha Petrovic—and I apologise to any of those whose surnames I might have mispronounced inadvertently. Their work is reflected in the excellence of this report that we are discussing today. I also thank all the people who made submissions or gave evidence to the committee, in particular the AEC who gave a great deal of their time to help our consideration of the 2007 election.
As the previous speaker, the chairman of the committee, mentioned, there has been dissent by members of the coalition on eight of the report’s 53 recommendations. They have objected to recommendations 1, 2 and 3, which are to do with ‘enabling the franchise’—in other words, enabling people to vote. The majority view is that people should not be impeded in exercising their obligation to vote. Our system should be about every person eligible to vote being encouraged, not discouraged, and being enabled to exercise, not prevented from exercising, that obligation.
Recommendation 1 relates to the time the rolls close after the calling of the election. The existing legislation allows for writs to be issued on the day the election is announced, meaning that the rolls could close to new enrolments that night. That is not what happened in the 2007 election. The Prime Minister chose to wait a few days so that people had a better chance to enrol than they might otherwise have had. The former government gave themselves the opportunity to close the rolls on the day the election was announced but did not have the courage to use that opportunity. I suspect that they knew, as we all knew—and there was plenty of publicity about it at the time—that to do so was morally wrong.
I quote from the dissenting report relating to this provision. The coalition members say:
… these changes … greatly assisted the AEC in identifying and discounting fraudulent enrolments.
I have no recollection of the AEC giving us that evidence and I note that the minority report does not cite any evidence. They go on to say that the provision ‘permits calculated fraudulent enrolments to take place’. Again, there is no citation. Whilst I am no calculated fraud, I would suspect that anybody who was calculating a fraudulent exercise against the integrity of our roll would not leave it until the last minute to do so, so I suspect that that is not valid. In their submission they say:
… the number of people missing the close of rolls deadline in 2007 was 100,370 compared to 168,394 in 2004.
This is as if to present the early closure of the rolls as a good thing. One hundred thousand people is more than a full electorate quota. More than one full electorate of people did not get the opportunity to vote because they missed the close of rolls. Too many people have been excluded by the large number of existing rules. Existing rules have to be changed to allow people to be included. Those of us who are elected members, those who work for us and those who work for our parties live and breathe politics and electoral requirements 24/7. The majority of the citizens in this country do not. In fact, it is unfortunate but people in this country feel voting to be something of an imposition. It is easy for us to understand, or it should be easy for us to understand, why enrolment lapses occur.
Recommendation 2 goes to the provision of identification by provisional voters. According to the coalition members of the committee, proof of identity is:
… an important deterrent that acts to prevent citizens from failing to maintain their enrolment or who may seek to engage in multiple voting.
Pardon? I really do beg their pardon on this one. Firstly, there is no evidence—historical or since the introduction of the POI requirements before the 2007 election—that there has ever been any systematic fraudulent multiple voting. There is no evidence—quite the contrary. I refer anybody who is listening to or reading this debate to pages 16 to 22 of the report, which are titled ‘Multiple voting myth’. It is beyond me why the coalition continues to flog this dead horse.
Secondly, as for a deterrent to prevent failure to maintain enrolment details, give me a break. People are not obsessed with the processes as we are. In fact, knowing that all you have to do to get a vote is turn up on the day with your drivers licence, fill out a provisional form and send it away is going to do quite the opposite. People will even allow their voting to lapse. If we tell them that that is what they have to do, that is what they will do.
The authors of the dissenting report then go on to acknowledge that some voters are removed by Electoral Commission administrative error and suggest a ludicrous remedy. They suggest that if, subsequent to casting a provisional vote, the AEC determines that the person’s absence from the roll is its error, that vote should be allowed to go forward and the voter not have to turn up on a later date with his proof of identity. The question here is: how is the voter going to know that the AEC has determined that it is its error that he or she was not on the roll and decide that they do not have to turn up with their proof of identity?
Just under 34,000 people were unable to provide their proof of identity on polling day. About 7,000 subsequently provided that information, as they were requested to do, within the week. Twenty-seven thousand votes cast were not counted. Again, far too many people who ought to have been able to lodge a valid vote were not counted. The safety net of the automatic inclusion of provisional votes in certain circumstances—and the chairman of the committee covered this quite well just moments ago—is rejected by the minority report. There are some 90,000 votes elsewhere, maybe, but, through this, 75,000 are perhaps those that count. One hundred and seventy-five thousand votes—100,000 too late to enrol and 75,000 provisionals not counted—are far too many Australian citizens denied the right to vote.
The dissenting report concentrated largely on those provisions that make it easier for people to exercise their obligation to vote. Notably, it did not oppose recommendations 5 and 6, which make it easier for votes cast by post by people in remote parts of Australia to be included—in other words, a lessening of the provisions in that regard, which means that rural and remote Australians can have a relaxation for their votes.
Double standards.
Double standards indeed. Nor did the dissenting report oppose recommendation 4, which eases the requirements for provision of proof of identity when you are re-enrolling if removed from the roll. It seems odd that it is okay for the AEC to reinstate enrolment by checking the details they already hold but it is not okay for them to include a vote in the count by checking the details they already hold. That is rather strange.
The tone of this part of the dissenting report is simply this: it is more important to be fastidious about enrolment than it is to have your vote count. I would say quite the opposite: the most important thing about voting is that the vote should count. A person who turns up on the day to cast a vote ought to be able to have that vote count.
Mr Hawke interjecting
You needed to sit through the committee evidence to understand that what you have just said is a load of craptrap.
Claptrap.
Yes, that is it. Did I say something different? I might have meant something quite different!
I hope you were saying that; otherwise, we might have to discount it as unparliamentary!
Okay. The committee chairman covered the youth enrolment procedure, where we have recommended that the schools and universities be paid a bounty, if you like, a sum of money, to ensure that young people are enrolled. That simply shifts the costs. The AEC can continue the processes that they run now—large advertising processes, material into the schools and visits to the schools—to encourage youth enrolments. That is probably going to cost more and be less effective than inviting the institutions to ensure that eligible students are enrolled.
The bottom line here is this: we have compulsory enrolment with the object of compulsory voting in this country. If we are going to compel citizens in this regard then the corollary is that the government is compelled to ensure that citizens can perform that compulsory act without undue difficulty.
There are a couple of other issues that have been raised, but I want to go to this ludicrous suggestion that we should consider the introduction of optional preferential voting. I have had some experience of this. I was elected to the Queensland parliament under compulsory preferential voting and unelected from the Queensland parliament under the process of optional preferential voting. But it is my view that optional preferential voting is the worst of all possible voting systems, with the possible exception of plurality, which we know as ‘first past the post’. What we know today as compulsory or full preferential voting was invented in Australia, and internationally it is known as the ‘Australian ballot.’ The purpose of the Australian ballot was to ensure that a person elected enjoyed the preferential support of greater than 50 per cent of electors. On the one voting occasion it duplicates the run-off system in vogue in many parts of the world. As an elected member of this parliament I take great comfort from the fact that I have the demonstrated support of more than 50 per cent of the voters of Longman, that more people preferred me rather than my opponent as their representative.
By contrast, an examination of the 2001 Queensland state election, won by a landslide by Premier Beattie, shows that 16 or 17 of the government MPs did not have that demonstrated support. After the distribution of preferences that had been allocated by voters, the total votes for those MPs was fewer than 50 per cent of the formal votes cast in their electorates. In effect, by exhausting their votes, voters are saying to the successful candidate that more than half of them prefer the other main candidate or that nobody represents them. This is a distortion. Optional preferential voting distorts the proposition that we should be electing parliamentarians and governments that enjoy majority support of electors. It certainly does not distort it to the degree that plurality or first past the post does. But evidence in my home state shows that, in each election since the introduction of optional preferential voting, an increasing number of voters are opting to ‘plump’ or to simply indicate a first preference, and in that regard optional preferential voting is slowly morphing, inevitably, into first-past-the-post voting. I do not see any large clamouring for first-past-the-post voting.
In the few remaining moments allocated to me, I wish to say something about the use of technology in relation to our electoral system. I do not want to sound like I am an iconoclast, but I think it is time—sometime this century, preferably sooner—that we start to make greater use of online provisions in people’s dealings with the AEC. I undertake some online banking with one of Australia’s major banks and I am happy that my money is secure via that process because of the account number, password, secret questions and SMS provisions. I think these provisions are an excellent way of looking towards introducing online transactions, at least in a small way initially and later on to a full online voting system.
The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto is important. I want to begin by expressing my admiration for my colleague the honourable member for Banks and his judicious chairing of this committee. This excellent, extensive and, some people would say, exhaustive report on electoral matters which we are now considering is a reflection of his and the government’s leadership on this particular issue. I want to thank all other members of the committee, including the member for Longman, who just spoke, and of course the committee secretariat for their expertise and dedication in facilitating our work in so many different ways.
Australia’s electoral system is virtuous, particularly when compared with systems operating in many other countries, including our great democratic ally, the United States. The US has a system of redistricting, organised by the congress, which would never be tolerated in Australia, but it leads to all kinds of distortions, even in their great democratic system. I believe we have one of the fairest, most transparent and most efficient electoral systems.
The member for Longman pointed out the vacuous, non-empirical nature of the minority response to this report, and I do not want to dignify it by examining its non-evidence based prejudices. Instead, I focus on the combination in Australia of bicameralism, compulsory voting, preferential voting for the House of Representatives and proportional representation in the Senate, a system which is unique in the world. It combines the best of British Westminster heritage with the best of American federal representation, with added features of our own. Compulsory voting encourages civic participation and means that all Australians share the responsibility for choosing their government. The member for Longman pointed out the pitfalls of adopting optional preferential voting. Single member seats in the House of Representatives ensure that we usually have stable majority governments. Preferential voting gives all voters the ability to influence the results of their electorate. Proportional representation in the Senate gives minority parties a voice without undermining stable government. All Australians should take pride in our electoral system.
This great report will reverse the damage that the previous government did to the integrity, openness and fairness of our electoral system with its unnecessary, partisan, short-sighted and foolish changes to the Electoral Act before the last federal election—changes to the Electoral Act that had never been made before any other election because they were not needed. The system was fair and the changes at the last federal election were a political manoeuvre designed to try and give them a little extra edge when they thought they were going to lose it. The changes were based on an assertion which was completely and demonstrably false that there was significant false enrolment or other electoral fraud which made it necessary to bring in measures to make it more difficult for Australians to enrol to vote. Everyone knew this was a false assertion. I knew it, the Australian Electoral Commission knew it, respected election analysts such as Professors Brian Costa and Malcolm Mackerras knew it, and I am pretty sure the former government knew it. It was a cynical falsehood put out by the former government to provide a fig leaf of justification for their self-interested manipulation of the electoral system for their partisan advantage.
Let me go through again, like a parrot, the history of so called Australian electoral fraud. In the period 1990 to 2001, there were six electoral events, including a referendum, with 12 million votes cast at each of them. Altogether, 72 million votes were cast during this period. In that period the Australian Electoral Commission showed that there were 72 proven cases of electoral fraud—one case per million votes cast. That was the basis on which 100,000 Australians were disenfranchised at the last election by these terrible changes to the Electoral Act—a completely bodgie manoeuvre.
The report we are debating today confirms and documents the falsity of that claim and documents the harmful effects of the changes that the Howard government made. The report quotes the AEC’s submission:
It can be clearly stated in relation to false identities that there has never been any evidence of widespread or organised electoral fraud in Australia.
The report shows that the Howard government changes had the effect of disenfranchising tens of thousands of Australian citizens at the 2007 election, which is exactly what I predicted and other members of the then opposition said would happen when these changes were debated in the House. More than 27,000 provisional voters were rejected because they did not comply with the new tightened requirements. The number of formal provisional votes fell from 112,000 in 2004 to 42,000 in 2007. This decrease was entirely due to the changes made by the previous government. On the basis of past experience, we believe at least 50,000 people would have been enrolled in the traditional seven-day period of grace after the calling of an election, but they were prevented from doing so. Many more were disenfranchised by being taken off the rolls by the AEC when they changed address and then were deterred from re-enrolling by the more onerous enrolment procedures.
In 2004, 77,000 people were added to the rolls after the close of the rolls, because they had been incorrectly removed. In 2007 only 1,400 were able to do so. My estimate is that 100,000 Australians were thus prevented from enrolling or voting by the changes made by the previous government, about 700 per federal electorate. I believe the majority, possibly quite a large majority, of those disenfranchised people came from social groups more likely to vote Labor: first-time voters, new citizens, Indigenous Australians, people with poor or low literacy skills, itinerant workers and homeless people. That was, of course, the belief of the former government which led them to the lengths of disenfranchising their fellow Australians.
It might be thought that 700 votes per federal electorate, each constituency with between 90,000 and 100,000 voters, is not a significant proportion. Need we be reminded, however, that in 2007 the honourable member for McEwen was elected by a margin of 12 votes, the honourable member for Bowman by 64 votes, the honourable member for Swan by 164 votes and the honourable member for Dickson by 217 votes. I believe that all four of these members won their seats only because of the deliberate disenfranchisement of likely Labor voters by the former government. As it turned out that was not enough to save the previous government from defeat but if the election had been closer it might have been—and that was the very plan. I might say that I find it completely incomprehensible that newspapers like the Courier Mail focus on the undemocratic role of donations and lobbying in Queensland but they are not willing to look at the bodgie results produced by the electoral changes at the last federal election in their state, particularly in two seats in their state.
The former government liked to talk about electoral fraud. As this report documents, it was a bogus claim. But if there was ever a clear case of electoral fraud in Australia, if there was ever a case of Australian voters been defrauded of their right to vote, cynically and deliberately, it was the changes made to the electoral laws by the previous government. The report recommends that the changes made to the Electoral Act by the previous government should be reversed. That is the policy we took to the last election and that is the policy to which we remain committed. The former Special Minister for State, Senator Faulkner, set in train a process of consultation leading up to the green paper setting out a timetable for legislation. The current minister, Senator Ludwig, is continuing with that process. We have seen the first stage of the government’s response to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009, which is currently, again, before the Senate. Now, again, we have this brouhaha in Queensland about lobbyists and donations et cetera, but it is the Liberal Party, the coalition in the Senate, that has already blocked changes that would make donations to political parties more open and transparent, and we hear nothing from the Courier Mail. I ask the editorial staff of the Courier Mail, will you please read the debates in parliament about the donations bill? Would you please pay attention to what is actually happening in this area?
The government remains committed to reversing the Howard government’s unfair and unnecessary changes to the Electoral Act, which closed the rolls immediately after the issuing of the writs and, as I repeatedly pointed out, which particularly affects younger people—deliberately so—and which required photo ID for people wishing to enrol, change their enrolment details or cast a provisional vote. The thing that I find the most outrageous and egregious about these changes is that the previous government was elected at all elections between 1996 and 2001 on the previous system. They did not claim that it was undemocratic then. The coalition were quite properly elected. Yet they invalidated the very system under which they were elected three times to try and benefit themselves at the 2007 election. All of those provisional voters who were allowed to vote in 1996, 1998 and 2001 were disenfranchised in 2007. It really is an anti-democratic outrage. The evidence set out in this report reinforces the argument that I and many others made for the repeal of those changes. I welcome the government’s continuing commitment to do this and I look forward to that commitment being translated into legislation as soon as possible.
I am going to take up my full amount of time by re-emphasising some of the other figures on the so-called ‘integrity of the roll’ issue. Let me go through some of the figures that were revealed to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters by the Electoral Commissioner. There were 17,000 apparent multiple votes at the 2001 election, for instance; 15,000 of those, or 88 per cent, were an indication from responses that no further action was required. These were tracked down, and they did not need to be pursued. There were 920 people whom the AEC got no responses from. Letters were undelivered or people were not able to be found.
So, at the 2001 election the AEC narrowed this down to a further 896 examples of what was thought to be multiple voting. People like the member for Sturt have railed about the integrity of the electoral roll at previous elections. Of those 896 multiple voters, 739, or 82 per cent, were elderly people who completely innocently, as a matter of confusion or because of poor comprehension, voted twice—at a mobile polling booth and then on the day. We know the kind of circumstances where this can happen without any kind of electoral fraud or malevolence by these elderly voters. This accounted for 82 per cent of the cases of multiple voting at the 2001 election, and it was roughly the same proportion at the 2004 and 2007 elections. There were only 138 cases referred to the AFP, of which five were accepted for investigation.
So out of 13.6 million Australian voters we have only five proven cases of electoral fraud, which the DPP decided, at the 2001 election. We have 1.2 million Australians unenrolled. That is a much more serious issue. At the last election 90-plus per cent of Australians voted, but the proportion is dropping over the years. As members of parliament all know, the AEC is almost trained to take people off the electoral roll. But we need to have a more modern process where we use all kinds of devices, such as the internet, particularly with young people, so they are able to send their re-enrolment details back in. People do not fill out handwritten snail mail these days and send it back to the extent that old-timers like the people sitting in this room do. We have to make some kind of provision for the changing nature of communications. A very good way would be to follow the lead of Mr Killesteyn—the new, savvy Electoral Commissioner—and try some of these electronic means of increasing enrolment.
In a compulsory voting system, we have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that the franchise is as wide as possible—not to restrict it, not to exclude voters because of possible perceptions of how they might vote at a federal election, and certainly not to do it in this blatantly bodgie kind of way where we used the system at three elections and then changed it at the last election. I am very, very pleased with this excellent, extensive, exhaustive report that the member for Banks has led the charge on. I think one of the great effects of this new government being elected will be to widen the democratic franchise to increase democratic prospects in Australia, I am very proud to add my name to support it and its recommendations.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hawke) adjourned.