The ClerkI inform the House of the absence of the Speaker, who will be in attendance later this day. In accordance with standing order 18, the Deputy Speaker, as Acting Speaker, will take the chair.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Burke) then took the chair, and read prayers.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That:
This process has been bungled right from day 1—
I seek leave to move:
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Stirling from moving the following motion—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Madam Acting Speaker, the procedures of the House are such that the member for Stirling is now entitled to read his suspension of standing and sessional orders motion, and then the Treasurer is quite entitled to use that power under the standing orders. The member for Stirling is entitled to read his motion.
The member for Stirling has the call. He is entitled to seek a suspension and I will allow him to proceed on that basis.
Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker. I move:
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Stirling from moving the following motion:That:
This process has been bungled absolutely from day 1—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
I seek to second the motion—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Keenan’s) be agreed to.
Madam Acting Speaker, I would like to raise a matter with you and request that you give it some consideration. In relation to the seeking of leave and suspension this morning, the honourable member for Stirling did seek leave to move his motion. As a matter of courtesy and convenience to the House, the Treasurer rose to indicate that leave would not be granted and that it might be more appropriate for the member to proceed directly to the suspension. I think that is a very courteous way to proceed and it does assist the House in dealing with the matter. I would ask you, Madam Acting Speaker, whether you would consider the matters that I have raised and perhaps, if appropriate, provide some clarity as to the best way of handling these matters.
I thank the Chief Government Whip. I will seek advice and proceed with that. The difficulty is that often people seek leave when they should not be seeking leave, and that confuses the issue. Sometimes when people are rising to speak to motions they seek leave when they did not need to or they do not know at what point they need to seek leave. That confused the matter a little this morning, but I think the Chief Government Whip has a valid point and I will raise the matter with the Speaker.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce legislation to improve the integrity of Australia’s foreign investment screening regime.
The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009 clarifies the operation of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act to ensure that the government has the capacity to examine all substantial investment proposals that could potentially raise national interest concerns.
The government welcomes and encourages foreign direct investment because of the benefits that it provides to the Australian economy.
Foreign investment creates new job opportunities for Australians, encourages innovation and skills development, introduces new technologies and promotes competition amongst our industries.
Foreign investment has helped build the competitiveness of our economy and will continue to do so into the future.
The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 seeks to get the balance right between encouraging investment into Australia and ensuring that the government can review significant foreign investment proposals and intervene where these could undermine the national interest.
The act requires foreign investors to notify the government of their transactions in certain circumstances and empowers the Treasurer of the day to block, or place conditions upon, those proposals that could be contrary to the national interest.
The act focuses on situations where a foreign investor obtains substantial influence or ‘control’. Overall, the current provisions in the act that deal with control have worked well, and its approach remains sound.
However, since the act was drafted in the 1970s, more complex investment instruments have evolved.
The use of innovative financing arrangements has been a growing feature of investment activity over recent years. These arrangements have highlighted that ownership interest and control can be held in a variety of forms other than through traditional shares and voting power.
While these types of investment arrangements have a solid commercial basis, they have raised questions around the act’s full application.
It was for this reason that the government announced earlier this year that we would amend the act, to safeguard its policy intention.
The bill clarifies that under the act, foreign investors must notify the government where the investment arrangement could deliver influence or control over an Australian company valued above the relevant monetary threshold.
And the act will apply equally to all investments, irrespective of how they are structured.
The amendments specifically include transactions involving instruments that eventually convert into shares.
This will be achieved by first, expanding the definition of ‘voting power’ so that it covers the number of votes that could be cast if it is assumed that a future right is exercised.
And second, by clarifying where the act deals with interests in shares. The act currently provides that a person is deemed to hold an interest in a share if they have a right to acquire a share or to have a share transferred to them.
The bill clarifies that a right can include a right under an instrument, agreement or arrangement, whether the right is exercisable presently or in the future and whether on the fulfilment of a condition or not.
The amendments are designed to capture all significant foreign investments that have the potential to provide substantial influence or control over an Australian company.
These amendments are not the result of any one investment proposal. They ensure the foreign investment framework keeps pace with the changing nature of foreign investment proposals and with trends that were evident some time before this government was elected.
The amendments in this bill apply from 12 February 2009—the date that I announced the changes—to provide certainty around the act’s application.
To ensure that investors are not unfairly affected by the retrospective start date, the bill includes transitional provisions that apply in relation to business proposals and transactions that occurred between 12 February and the date of royal assent.
The transitional provisions provide flexibility for foreign investors to notify of any relevant transactions that became subject to the amended act in the transition period within 30 days after commencement.
Subject to the need for post-commencement notification, these investors will not be subject to the normal criminal penalties in respect of those transactions entered into during the transition period.
I consider that these changes improve the integrity of the act and capture arrangements that may be deliberately structured to avoid foreign investment screening.
These changes are consistent with Australia’s international obligations under our free trade agreements.
The full detail of these amendments is contained in the explanatory memorandum.
This bill does not change the robust national interest framework that underpins our foreign investment policy, nor the screening and examination arrangements of the Foreign Investment Review Board.
These procedures are well established and familiar to foreign investors.
The examination procedures and the decision to block or impose conditions on foreign investment proposals will continue to be based on whether an investment has, or will, alter the control of an Australian business or corporation and whether the investment is contrary to the national interest.
I am confident that this bill strengthens and modernises Australia’s foreign investment framework.
As we build stronger foundations for Australian prosperity beyond the global recession, the government is committed to a regulatory regime that gets the balance right—protecting the national interest, while ensuring that Australia is a more competitive destination for foreign investment.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ciobo) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Brendan O’Connor.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to introduce the Crimes Amendment (Working With Children—Criminal History) Bill. This bill implements the agreement made by the Council of Australian Governments on 29 November 2008 to enable the interjurisdictional exchange of further criminal history information for people working with children.
The bill amends part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914, to create exceptions to provisions that prevent the disclosure of pardoned, quashed and spent convictions.
It will create new exceptions allowing pardoned and quashed convictions to be disclosed and expand the existing exception for the disclosure of spent convictions.
The scoping study and implementation plan, which preceded the COAG agreement, identified the safeguarding of children from sexual, physical and other abuse as a key priority for all governments.
According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, unofficial estimates are that approximately one in four girls, and between one in seven and one in 12 boys, are victims of some form of sexual abuse alone.
The effects of abuse and neglect on children are also tragic. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that there are established links between abuse or neglect as a child and poor social, behavioural and health outcomes as well as a higher likelihood of criminal offending and mental health issues.
It is for these reasons that governments across the Commonwealth have established schemes such as child protection registers and working with children checks to ensure we protect children, the most vulnerable members of our society, to our utmost ability.
The scoping study noted that assessment of the criminal history of people working with children or seeking to work with children is an important part of the overall strategy for managing risks to the safety and wellbeing of children.
It also recognised that child-related employment screening is a difficult and challenging process, which requires careful balancing of potential risks to children with individual rights to privacy, employment and the freedom to participate in the community as a volunteer.
The Australian Institute of Criminology, in its report Child sexual abuse: offender characteristics and modus operandi, noted that incarcerated sexual offenders are more likely to have previous convictions for non-sexual offences than for sexual offences.
Further, law enforcement agencies have indicated that charges relating to offences against children are often withdrawn as a decision is made to protect the child victim from the stress and trauma of giving evidence, cross-examination and simply waiting for committal and trial.
For these reasons, jurisdictions considered at COAG that it was appropriate to consider a person’s full criminal history, including non-conviction information, in assessing whether he or she poses a risk to children if employed in child related work.
The current provisions in the Crimes Act prevent the disclosure of a person’s full criminal history. This bill carves out an exception to these provisions, allowing for the interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information, including information on pardoned, quashed and spent convictions, for the specific purpose of child related employment screening.
The exchange of the information permitted by the bill is subject to stringent safeguards to ensure that the information is dealt with appropriately and to limit any potential misuse of the information.
Firstly, the COAG agreement requires that a person or body will only be prescribed in each jurisdiction for the purposes of enabling them to receive conviction information if the person or body:
Secondly, to reinforce the importance of these safeguards, before a person or body in a state or territory can be prescribed in regulations to allow them to deal with Commonwealth criminal history information, I must first be satisfied that they meet all of these safeguards in their own jurisdiction. In particular, I will require their assessment processes to reflect principles of natural justice, including access to a merits review or appeal process by an independent arbiter.
Thirdly, the information can only be used to assess a person’s suitability to work with children and cannot be used for a general employment suitability or probity assessment.
The bill also requires that a review of the new provisions be started no later than 30 June 2011 and be completed within three months.
Given the sensitive nature of the information that will be available under the information exchange, it will be important to assess the effectiveness of the regime, and ensure that information is being dealt with appropriately.
I commend this bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ciobo) adjourned.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of housing for Defence on Gordon Olive Estate at McDowall, Brisbane, Queensland.
Defence Housing Australia proposes the development of a five-hectare infill site in the Brisbane suburb of McDowell, Queensland, at an estimated total outturn cost of $27.2 million, inclusive of GST and land acquisition. The development will provide an additional 51 homes for Australian Defence Force personnel and their families who are serving in the Brisbane area and particularly for those serving at Gallipoli Barracks, Enoggera. In addition to the 51 defence houses, the development of the site will also include 10 lots suitable for detached housing and a 5,000-square-metre area that is suitable for the construction of up to 36 low-level apartments. These lots will be sold. The estate will be called the Gordon Olive Estate, honouring the memory of Brisbane-born Battle of Britain pilot and distinguished community figure Gordon Olive CBE, who died in 1987. The estate is conveniently located five kilometres north of the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera and 12 kilometres north of the Brisbane CBD. The proposal forms part of an ongoing effort to increase the amount of defence housing in Brisbane and to replace houses for which leases are expiring and/or which do not meet the new and improved standard of Defence Force housing that was introduced in 2007.
Community standard housing for families is vital to the Australian Defence Force in attracting and retaining skilled personnel in the Defence Force. The Gordon Olive Estate has been designed to meet the requirements for Brisbane City Council development approval. Development of the site will be governed by Defence Housing Australia through a number of contractors and in accordance with Defence Housing Australia’s national specification covering performance and design requirements for Defence Housing Australia houses. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in May 2010 and be completed by June 2011. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of a new Australian Embassy complex including Chancery, Head of Mission residence, staff housing and recreational facilities in Jakarta, Indonesia.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade proposes to construct a new Australian embassy complex, including chancery, head of mission residence, staff housing and recreational facilities in Jakarta, Indonesia, at an estimated outturn cost of $415.1 million, exclusive of GST. On 9 September 2004 the current Australian mission was subjected to a terrorist attack, when a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device was detonated outside the main entry guard station, killing 11 people. Rectification and new physical security works were urgently undertaken to the mission in the aftermath of the attack in order to provide staff and visitors with increased protection. The government approved the relocation of the Jakarta mission on security grounds. The new site will enable the construction of appropriate setbacks to the buildings for blast mitigation, while the buildings themselves will be designed to resist blast.
While the new development is driven by the imperative to provide more secure accommodation, a rapid and large increase of staff in the Jakarta mission over recent years has resulted in the chancery being seriously overcrowded and dysfunctional. The development will provide efficient, modern and secure facilities for 14 Commonwealth agencies represented in Jakarta. The chancery will also provide space and facilities for official functions, exhibitions, meetings, lectures and business missions.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, an early works construction package, if applicable, could commence in late 2010, with the main works likely to commence before mid-2011. Practical completion of construction, followed by occupation of the premises, would be achieved in late 2014. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Dr Emerson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I conclude my remarks on the Automotive Transformation Scheme Bill 2009 and cognate bill by making the point that it is in the national long-term interest for Australia to have a viable, competitive and innovative automotive industry. As the international automotive sector reassesses its future, following the widespread international collapse of the industry, now is the right time and the opportune time for Australia to invest in new technology, to modernise, to be innovative and to show international leadership in automotive manufacturing. This legislation gives Australian manufacturers the incentive to do so and I commend it to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Automotive Transformation Scheme Bill 2009, which is a critical part of the implementation of the government’s $6.2 billion A New Car Plan for a Greener Future. As a member from South Australia, I know only too well how important the car industry is for South Australian jobs and the local economy. The car industry in South Australia directly employs up to 9,300 people in the manufacturing of motor vehicles and parts, in over 200 manufacturing businesses. In addition, 37 per cent of the total number of cars manufactured in Australia are manufactured in South Australia, making this industry a critical part of our local economy. This bill delivers on the commitment of the Rudd Labor government to drive productivity and innovation and to help assist the car industry adjust to some of the long-term challenges for the future. This is particularly important as the industry faces intense pressure from the global economic recession. This bill will provide a $3.4 billion automotive transport scheme to help prepare the automotive industry to transition to a low-carbon economy.
The automotive industry has experienced significant changes over the past 20 years. Australia now operates a predominantly export driven car industry. Due to the Button car industry reforms, along with the raft of economic restructuring through the Hawke and Keating years, Australia has increased its export units from under 2,000 in 1988 to over 159,000 in 2008, resulting in an automotive trade worth $24 billion to our economy in 2008. Now this government will take those structural reforms further and, as the Prime Minister has said, the industry must become more innovative, more productive, more competitive and more export focused. The industry is undoubtedly the lifeblood of the Australian economy and the lifeblood of many Australian families. The government knows that it has a critical role in ensuring the strength and growth of the car industry, and it takes this responsibility very seriously. The government is determined to govern over a period of growth and innovation for the automotive manufacturing industry, not just sit back and watch it slowly decline.
This bill before the House today sets out the replacement of the existing Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, otherwise known as ACIS, with the Automotive Transformation Scheme. The difference between ACIS and the Automotive Transformation Scheme is simple—it is innovation. Whilst ACIS gave support and assistance to the car manufacturing industry, it did not do enough to foster innovation in the industry, and innovation is the key difference between an industry that will grow and expand and an industry that gets left behind. It is the formulation of new ideas, new possibilities and new opportunities that transports and truly supports the industry. Because the Rudd Labor government understands the core value of innovation, it is using the Automotive Transformation Scheme to increase the level of research and development funding available. Under the new scheme, funding for research and development will increase from 45 per cent to 50 per cent of projects. The funding for these projects will go towards research and development processes, plant and equipment costs and the production of motor vehicles. This funding for innovative research and development under the scheme has a built-in green requirement, to further the ambitions of the government for more sustainable and greener outcomes in the car industry. As a condition of eligibility, participants must improve their environmental outcomes. In addition, participants must also demonstrate that they will promote the development of workforce skills and capabilities.
This program will also give certainty to the automotive industry, by providing 10 years of policy certainty. The capped assistance will total $1.5 billion from 2011 to 2015, and then $1 billion from 2016 to 2020. In addition, there will be an uncapped element for motor vehicle producers. The ATS, as it has been abbreviated, is, as I have mentioned, a $3.4 billion package, which is well above the money earmarked for the former scheme, ACIS. It includes a transition package to allow people to transition from the ACIS to the ATS, and that is in the order of $80 million. The new scheme will provide assistance in grants instead of in duty credits, and this move will assist in the administration of the scheme, making it more effective and simple for business.
As I have mentioned previously, this scheme is part of a broader plan that this government has for greener cars for the future. I would like to commend both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—who has really taken a very keen interest in the automotive industry in South Australia and has regularly visited to hear firsthand some of the concerns and issues of the car industry, but also some of the opportunities that the car industry has to offer. The government is committed to seeing and supporting Australia move into the future and to acknowledging the threat of climate change by transforming to a low-carbon economy. Meanwhile, we see the opposition—who remain a party of sceptics and deniers keen to put their heads in the sand on climate change—take no steps to prepare Australia for the future.
In addition to this bill, as I said, we have expanded the Green Car Innovation Fund to help Australian industry move towards a greener future and to encourage manufacturers to produce cleaner, greener cars. The Green Car Innovation Fund has increased to $1.3 billion and will be available for Australian manufacturers over the next 10 years. Holden in South Australia announced in December that they will produce an efficient Australian small car in Adelaide, and the Commonwealth is contributing to help them with this—$149 million as part of the Rudd government’s fund. This commitment is extremely important to South Australia. Holden has set a great example for the industry, moving forward and engaging in innovation and investment in the automotive industry. This investment will also support up to 1,200 jobs. Although there have been many bad-news stories in the past, such as the close of Mitsubishi near my electorate, in contrast, this announcement is really good news.
Attitudes of Australians have changed about vehicles as they are becoming more conscious of the environment and the cost of fuel. Many of my constituents have contacted me with regard to the cost of running a vehicle, which explains why many consumers are not attracted to the traditional large Australian car—although it does still hold an important place in some people’s lives. Attitudes of motorists are changing and the automotive manufacturing industry also needs to change. That is why it is important that the Rudd government, in partnership with automotive manufacturers, make investments to ensure a strong and successful industry into the future.
There are many other areas in the New Car Plan for a Greener Future which are important, in addition to this bill and the green car fund. The plan includes $116 million to help facilitate and promote structural adjustment in the components sector, including mergers and consolidation. One of the greatest challenges faced by the components sector within Australia is that firms struggle to achieve the economies of scale required to be competitive in the international market. This funding will help ensure that companies within the sector can remain viable exporters throughout the 21st century. Another $20 million dollars will be invested to assist suppliers to integrate into the national and global supply chains of the large automotive manufacturers. This assistance will have a twofold effect. It will make the systems and processes of suppliers more efficient as well making Australian suppliers more attractive to the large global car manufacturers.
Australian-manufactured cars and components, including those made within and around my electorate of Kingston, are amongst the best in the world. That is why the government has invested $6.3 million in our new car plan: to enhance the market access program and to assist in the promotion of the Australian car industry overseas.
Car manufacturing is part of the core make-up of my electorate and my state, and many people within my electorate work in the auto industry and in components manufacturing. South Australia has a critical role in the Australian car industry, especially in the areas of components, tooling, design and engineering supply firms that support the large car manufacturing plants. South Australians understand the vital importance of having a clear car plan for the future that is sustainable, green, productive and built for the future. I commend the bill to the House.
in reply—I thank all members who have spoken on the Automotive Transformation Scheme Bill 2009 and the associated ACIS Administration Amendment Bill 2009. This is very important legislation. The Automotive Transformation Scheme will stimulate the investment and innovation needed to make the Australian automotive industry economically and environmentally sustainable. It will achieve this by increasing support for strategic investment in research and development, plant and equipment and the production of motor vehicles. The estimated $3.4 billion of assistance under the Automotive Transformation Scheme, as well as additional assistance under the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme—ACIS for short—demonstrates the government’s ongoing commitment to securing the long-term viability of this vital industry.
This legislation has been welcomed by the industry, by the tens of thousands of Australians who work in it, and by the families and communities that depend on it. It is the centrepiece of the government’s New Car Plan for a Greener Future, the most comprehensive policy ever devised for the Australian automotive industry. This $6.2 billion initiative will give the industry the certainty it needs to invest in the vehicle technologies of tomorrow.
As a number of speakers have noted, the automotive industry makes a vital contribution to Australian employment, skills and innovation. I recognise the significant interest in these two bills, especially from the members who have contributed to this debate, and I thank those members for their contributions. I would like to mention the member for Kingston, who has just spoken; the member for Calwell; the member for Wakefield; the member for Makin; the member for Deakin; and, of course, all of the coalition members who have also spoken on the bill. The automotive industry is especially significant to Victoria and South Australia, and I thank these members for supporting this critical legislation which will set the industry on the path to a sustainable future.
The Automotive Transformation Scheme, along with the extra assistance in 2010 under ACIS, will make a real difference to the workers in this industry. The scheme requires participants to demonstrate a commitment to boosting skills. It recognises that the key to a successful and innovative Australian automotive industry is a well-trained and highly skilled workforce. The scheme will support jobs as the industry comes through the global economic downturn and addresses the ongoing challenges of modernisation and renewal. The government believes that the long-term viability of the automotive industry depends on innovation. That is why the Automotive Transformation Scheme increases support for eligible investment in R&D. The Automotive Transformation Scheme’s objective is to encourage increased investment and innovation, which will deliver important economic outcomes.
Assistance under this scheme is directly linked to the industry continuing to invest and produce in Australia. It will ensure that Australia is at the cutting edge of new technologies that will allow us to produce vehicles with lower fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The scheme will operate on the basis of mutual obligation. It is not a blank cheque; it is about development capability and workforce skills. Reflecting this mutual obligation, the bill also contains a strong monitoring regime, including provision for authorised officers to obtain a monitoring warrant to check compliance and substantiate information. These provisions will protect the interests of the Commonwealth and the community. This legislation is about giving the industry the certainty it needs to continue long-term strategic investment at a time when it is under acute pressure both in Australia and overseas. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendments (1) and (2):
(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 14 to 17), omit subclause (1), substitute:
(1) The object of this Act is:
(a) to encourage competitive investment and innovation in the Australian automotive industry; and
(b) to place the industry on an economically sustainable footing;
by providing assistance to a participant in the Automotive Transformation Scheme based on the participant’s investment if the investment is of a kind prescribed by the Scheme.
(2) Page 18 (after line 8), after clause 27, insert:
27A Annual report
The Secretary must include the following in the Department’s annual report for a financial year:
(a) the total amounts of capped assistance and uncapped assistance paid to ATS participants under the Automotive Transformation Scheme during the 12 month period ending on 31 March in the financial year;
(b) details of the progress of the Australian automotive industry towards achieving economic sustainability, environmental outcomes and workforce skills development.
The government is proposing two amendments to the ATS bill. The first amendment expands the object of the bill to make it clear that this scheme will place the industry on an economically sustainable footing. This will help to secure the long-term economic viability of the Australian automotive industry. It sends a strong message that ATS assistance is not a blank cheque to the industry. Assistance under this scheme is directly linked to the industry continuing to invest and produce in Australia. The changes contained in this amendment put beyond doubt the government’s position that assistance comes with strings attached. The Rudd government is also committed to transparency and openness. We are including clear reporting provisions to assure the Australian taxpayer that assistance under the ATS delivers a long-term future for the Australian automotive industry, automotive workers and their families, and the broader community.
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 19 August, on motion by Dr Emerson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 25 June, on motion by Mr Bowen:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is wonderful to rise in the House on this beautiful winter morning in Canberra to speak on important bills such as the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009, the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2009 and the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill 2009. The national consumer credit package of bills represents considerable reform to the regulation of credit in Australia. The new uniform credit legislation is a worthy concept. It really does make sense, in my view, to have all forms of credit and financial services federally regulated. Payday lenders, finance companies and mortgage brokers will become federally licensed entities. For business, particularly those that are engaged in the provision of credit, there will be some significant adjustments required. As with any such changes, compliance can be particularly frustrating for those businesses that are required to adjust. There are quite a number of adjustment issues that Australian businesses will have to contend with. The onus is on the government to be responsive to industry and business needs in the implementation of this legislation. While some aspects of the legislation will require the immediate response of business, some provide for reasonable time frames for transitional arrangements.
There are four key objectives of the package of bills. First is the creation of a national credit law with licensing arrangements. Second is the introduction of responsible lending provisions. Some of these provisions will start from 1 January 2010 and some others for some other entities will start from 1 January 2011. Third is the universal compulsory membership of external dispute resolution schemes for ADIs and for non-ADIs. Last is the introduction of a new national consumer credit code protection mechanism which replicates—and, indeed, replaces—the state based UCCC codes that have been in existence for some time. The primary bill was provided for public exposure in late April this year. On exposure it was clear that the drafted bill in its first incarnation did have significant problems within it. I note that there have been wholesale alterations to the bill before its presentation to the House. There were many changes, but the key changes to the original bill include setting back responsible lending provisions for authorised deposit-taking institutions. They now will not come into operation until 1 January 2011. Point-of-sale, or POS, retailers have been exempted for 12 months, subject to review. Arrangements for credit assistance were simplified, with some requirements that were duplicated removed.
So let me now go to the more substantive parts of the bill; firstly, the national credit laws and licensing arrangements. Under this bill, we will see the provision of one single uniform regime and oversight for credit which is to be administered by ASIC. ASIC will license providers and administer licence requirements. The process of licensing is to begin from November of this year. There will be a new licensing regime. It will be called the Australian credit licence or the ACL.
Licensed under the new regime will be brokers, financiers and credit intermediaries. More particularly, the type of credit activities to require licensing will be things such as credit contracts, credit services, consumer leases, mortgages and guarantees. ACL holders once licensed will be able to lend and collect money due under a credit contract and act as a broker or an intermediary, or provide assistance about a credit product. Credit guides will be compulsorily provided by the licensee and will disclose all applicable commissions, fees and charges. Certain financial institutions will be streamlined to the ACL process. This will include credit providers such as mortgage brokers in Western Australia, who have until now been operating under state licences.
Other institutions to be streamlined into the ACL process are current holders of the AFSL, the Australian financial service licence, who are already licensed to dispense or advise on credit under the existing legislative arrangements. For entities requiring two licences, an AFSL and an ACL, we have been assured that just one of those licence numbers will need to be displayed on licensing credit materials. Registration will begin in November and it will end in June next year. This will occur through ASIC, who are expecting between 5,000 and 12,000 applications for such licences. From our perspective, the coalition is focused on ensuring the licensing arrangements are not prohibitive for business, as these requirements are significant in the volume and the impact that they will have on the national marketplace.
A further concern which has been raised throughout the period of consultation has been the circumstances in which licences for providing credit may be provided. It has emerged that companies which provide loans to directors may be caught up in this legislation and would therefore require such a licence. As this circumstance surely does not fall within the intended scope or objectives of this new law, I ask and respectfully request that the government exempt companies which provide director loans in the same manner that they have exempted employees receiving loans from their employers. As I say, that exemption is in this bill.
Can I also raise the issue of debt collection, which has been raised throughout the consultation process. In the initial draft legislation of the bill, it captured the debt management industry under the new regime. Throughout the consultation and upon review by Treasury and the government, debt collection was given a 12-month exemption from the bill in order to enable discussions with all stakeholders to determine a more appropriate legislative treatment for the industry. That was debt collection; they were given an exemption. However, debt buyers were left in the legislation. The Australian Collectors and Debt Buyers Association have stated that they believe that debt buyers should also be treated in the same way as debt collectors and given a 12-month exemption from the bill, as neither of these aspects of the debt management industry actually involve the initial credit provision process. If you are going to exempt debt collection, it makes perfect sense, I think, to exempt debt purchasing or debt buyers as well. Again, I call on the government to take a common-sense approach in this area and extend that exemption to the debt-buying side of the debt management industry in Australia and consult with them throughout the next 12 months to ensure an appropriate response.
The second area is responsible lending. Due to start on 1 January 2010 for brokers and some lenders, and one year later for ADIs, the area of responsible lending is in my view where most potential problems for individuals and for businesses lie in this package of legislation. The provisions are designed to help consumers make better decisions and of course to use credit appropriately. There are two tests within the legislation that the loan provider must meet. ASIC will develop definitions of each for the purposes of the legislation. Those two tests are, firstly, that a loan’s suitability must be individually determined by the provider and, secondly, that the loan recipient’s capacity to repay the loan must also be assessed.
Industry sources tell me that of course these procedures are already followed as a matter of course when loan assessments are made. Most objective analysis of Australia’s banking system would concur that, for the most part, our financial institutions have been lending responsibly. Despite this, further consumer protection and transparency is indeed always welcome. The primary issues with the responsible lending provisions are their workability, particularly in terms of how our credit reporting system works in this country. Although the responsible lending provisions do not come into operation until 1 January 2011 for many providers, it still remains most unclear how responsible lending will actually operate without positive or comprehensive credit reporting.
As I mentioned earlier, Australia currently operates a negative credit reporting structure. This system provides information to credit providers on whether a borrower has defaulted on loans or been declared bankrupt, for example. Credit providers are actually denied access to available information on a borrower’s credit history on privacy grounds. So let me, therefore, pose a simple question: how can this responsible lending regime operate as intended if the credit provider is not entitled to view the whole picture of a borrower’s financial circumstances? How can you actually fully meet the two tests that I outlined earlier? From a practical and operational viewpoint, I think this is where the real difficulties exist with this legislation. The privacy lobby have been debating the merits of reforming credit reporting in Australia for some time. This discussion is subject to a review currently being conducted by the Special Minister of State. The privacy roundtable consultation has been considering our credit system since August of last year.
To provide some context: recently the Australian Law Reform Commission, the ALRC, examined the credit-reporting system. The ALRC provided some interesting insights which I think are very relevant for the purposes of this legislation. In its final report, which was called For your information: Australian privacy law and practice, the ALRC recommended that there should be some expansion of the categories of personal information that can be included in credit-reporting information held by credit-reporting agencies. The suggestions that they made included, for example, that the type of each current credit account opened—for example, whether it was a mortgage, a credit card or a personal loan—and the date on which each current credit account was opened should be made available, along with the credit limit of each current account and the date on which each current account was closed.
Given that the outcome of the review will be of very great and substantial importance to the workability of responsible lending as it pertains to these bills, we hope that this legislation is expressly considered in that roundtable process, as the responsible lending provisions in their current form do not appear to be entirely workable. The government has much work to do in this area prior to the start dates in 2010 and 2011, respectively. On behalf of the opposition I would again ask the government, respectfully, to fast-track the roundtable consultation process which is considering our credit system. The government must bear in mind that without reform in this area these provisions will not work as intended and indeed could be detrimental to consumers and, of course, our total banking and credit system.
From a further, practical viewpoint, most financial institutions freeze their systems over the Christmas break in order to withstand the level of increased transactions. As you would know, there is a very elevated transaction volume leading up to Christmas and after Christmas—during the festive and New Year holiday season. As a result, the proposed start date for the ADIs—1 January 2011, for example—may end up proving to be quite a difficult start date for them to achieve and may in fact not be the most appropriate.
Again, it is important for governments of all persuasions to be responsible for easing the compliance burden where possible. Therefore, this is another area where the government needs to spend some time and understand whether or not it is going to be possible to establish a reliable—that is the key point—implementation date of 1 January, given what I was just saying about how a lot of the ADIs will find it most difficult to implement such a massive structural change at that time, particularly as it relates to their information and IT systems as a whole. So I call on the government, through the consultation process between now and then, to really spend some time and work out what will be the most feasible and, most importantly, the most reliable date for this to happen. The worst thing that could happen would be to push ahead with this unreliable date and for the whole banking and credit system in Australia to fall over during that time.
The next area I want to move to is the area where universal compulsory membership of external dispute resolution schemes for ADIs and non-ADIs is included. This is an objective of this legislation—to provide easier and cheaper access to dispute resolution. The legislation proposes a three-tiered dispute resolution system for consumers—firstly, through the licensee; secondly, through ASIC’s approved scheme; and, thirdly, through the court system. Under this legislation consumers will be able to apply for hardship variations, postponement of enforcement actions, regained possession of mortgaged goods, and actions against unconscionable fees and charges imposed by credit providers for amounts of less than $40,000.
Then we have the area of the new national consumer credit code. This legislation introduces a new national consumer credit protection mechanism. This will replicate and indeed replace all of the state based UCCCs and is designed to enhance consumer protection by raising hardship thresholds from the current $330,000 limit to $500,000 and provides, among other things, a prohibition on essential household goods as security.
The overall objectives of these bills are sound. Providing a national system of licensing of credit is particularly worth while from a consumer protection viewpoint. The responsible lending provisions are well intentioned, but it remains to be seen how the government will manage this process in terms of the practical implementation leading up to the start dates in 2010 and 2011. This package of bills is a significant reform which our business community will have to adapt itself to. Once again, given the size of the reform and the possible likelihood of compliance problems, the government must be responsive to the needs of the industry. I am confident that ASIC and the Treasury will make themselves available to those businesses which need assistance in actually implementing this legislation. I hope that the government does the same. The coalition trusts that consumers and businesses across the whole of Australia will benefit from having these bills enacted.
It is a great pleasure to speak on these three bills—the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009, the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2009 and the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill 2009. It is a pleasure because it is an ‘about time’ collection of bills where a decent government comes in and acknowledges a whole range of problems that have existed in the community, particularly in relation to consumer credit, for a very long time.
These are not new issues or new problems. These are things that have been out in the marketplace. We have all heard it from our constituents. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you are aware of those as much as I am: people who have complained or made representation to you—and I would say to every single member in this House, and senators as well—about having problems with credit facilities, with the people who sell them credit, with how credit works, with unfair clauses, with fees, with termination, and the list goes on and on. But underpinning all that has always been the principle that we needed to approach, and that was about protecting ordinary Australians—consumer protection. To be part of a government that takes the fight upfront and looks at ways that we can seriously have a practical impact out in the community on these issues is a proud moment, and I am very pleased to speak on these bills.
The national consumer credit reform package that we are putting forward will, for the very first time in Australia, put in place a single standard. It will be a national regime for the regulation of consumer credit—no small feat. It takes a lot of work, cooperation and effort and, dare I say it—and I say it in a humble way—a little bit of courage as well. When you are make significant changes, which is what we are talking about, and working with all of the states and territories, you have to bring people to the table; you have to do it in a bipartisan manner and you have to see other people’s point of view. That is what we have striven to do and I am proud of that.
The National Consumer Credit Protection Bill will develop a framework to licence credit providers, brokers and intermediaries and apply responsible lending conduct requirements to licensed parties. I will talk about the detail of that in a moment. It will also provide a robust dispute resolution mechanism supported by appropriate enforcement powers. This is a suite of actions that need to be taken. Not only do you need to provide the right licensing regime and framework but you need to look at how you enforce it; how you ensure that the policeman on the beat has the right powers to deal with these matters. These are long-awaited reforms that go to areas such as court arrangements and remedies for consumers, penalties for licensee misconduct and—of great interest to this parliament and the community—the regulation of margin loans.
The transitional and consequential provisions bill contains specific clauses relating to the rights and liabilities of certain existing credit contracts. Whenever there are these types of legislative changes it is essential that we put in place some transitional arrangements. We will make sure that, where court proceedings arose prior to the commencement of these bills, there is a proper process in place for participants as a precursor to the licensing arrangements.
The fees bill provides a mechanism to support the imposition of fees as are deemed necessary and essential for the proper working of these legislative arrangements, such as for searching a register kept by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The package relies in part on a referral of state powers to regulate consumer credit.
The government are committed not just to the words and the framework for making these things actionable but to providing the funding for them to happen. As such, we will provide $70.2 million over four years to ensure that our work with the states and territories through COAG can be achieved properly. The member for Solomon is in the chamber, and I know he is a big supporter of consumer credit, being from the Northern Territory—as are any of us who represent rural or regional areas. We understand just how important it is to ensure that constituents have access to proper credit protection and regulation, and I know the member for Solomon is as supportive of our bills in this area as I am.
The national consumer credit reform bills are a comprehensive package of legislation for a comprehensive licensing regime. For the first time, all providers of consumer credit, including brokers and other intermediaries in the industry, will be captured as one, which is a very important move forward in this area. The bills include industry-wide responsible lending conduct requirements for licensees, something that is desperately needed. The global financial crisis has, in a way, highlighted the cracks in the system, the areas of failure and the abuses that often occur when markets are running hot and people are, let us say, less concerned with procedure and process than they might be when there is a downturn in the market and they are looking closely at every single cent. In saying that, even the boom times we had for a decade did not diminish people’s concerns about the way they were being treated in relation to their credit arrangements.
The legislation will also provide improved sanctions and enhanced enforcement powers for the regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, making sure that not only do we in this place do our job in terms of the regulatory framework but that ASIC, as the regulator, has the power to ensure enforcement and to make sure that consumers are properly protected.
The bills will also expand the scope of credit contracts to include credit provided to purchase, renovate or improve the value of a residential investment property. This is an important area in which we have seen a growing market. Given that the Rudd Labor government has put in place the nation’s largest building program, in a whole range of areas but specifically in the areas of housing and homeless, it is important that we regulate in that area as well.
These bills will replicate the current state based Uniform Consumer Credit Code as a national code. It is important to understand that, constitutionally, the Commonwealth has insufficient powers to enact a nationally comprehensive regulatory framework for consumer credit. As such, we have worked with the states and territories for a specific referral of state powers to the Commonwealth for consumer credit. That entails an agreement to a text based referral of powers, which will need to be enacted by each state parliament before the proposed laws can commence in those states. We are working through that process. We have the agreement from COAG, which is very much appreciated. It shows the strong working relationship that the Commonwealth government can have with its state partners in providing nationally consistent laws and regulations and working in the national interest and in the best interests of Australian consumers—something that we on this side of the House are very much committed to and something I would suggest members of the Liberal and National parties take a closer look at.
The legislation is supported by intergovernmental agreement, which will provide all of those mechanisms that I spoke about. The implementation of the national consumer credit regime will include other providers or intermediaries such as brokers. For the first time, they will be required to actually be registered with ASIC by 31 December 2009 and to have applied for a licence by 30 June 2010 if they want engage in, or continue to engage in, credit activities. Again, this is a very important mechanism to ensure that everyone who is involved in this sector is caught under these regulations.
The responsible lending conduct obligations will commence 1 January 2011 and will provide the industry time to put in place systems and training and to make sure that people are up to speed in terms of their requirements and their obligations. Licensing, I believe, is very important. It is a very important part of ensuring that those who provide these types of credit or broker and credit facilities are actually properly qualified, properly trained, understand codes of standards and ethics, and provide the best possible service to consumers. As such, these bills do provide a comprehensive licensing requirement. It will mean that there will be a requirement for people in this area to hold an Australian credit licence, an ACL, if they want to be properly authorised to provide credit activities. That will include such areas as: lending or collecting money; acting as an intermediary between the consumer and the lender—for example, credit aggregators; and suggesting a consumer apply for a particular loan—for example, people such as brokers.
The licensing regime will impose certain entry-level requirements—a very important step towards making sure that the quality of advice and service provided in these areas is up to standard. I am very happy to see that we will be regulating in that area. To ensure that it is not just an entry-level requirement and then a self-regulating system, we will also be requiring that people meet ongoing standards of conduct when engaging in credit activities. And, most importantly, ASIC will have the power to either suspend or cancel their licence—a very strong power, a very necessary power and one which I believe will point the way in related matters in terms of the financial services world.
There will be special procedures in place to streamline the licensing to make sure that it works efficiently for banks and credit unions as well as others. We do expect to put in a number of limited exceptions because, as always in these things, from time to time there are exceptions. An example is point of sale staff, particularly in places such as major retailer outlets which offer interest-free periods and where there is some sort of credit line arranged. We will be exempting those particular point of sale staff from having to have an ACL or from meeting particular requirements. Those requirements will not be necessary at that point, but certainly the providers of that credit need to be the ones who actually hold the licence.
Responsible lending is something that we have all talked about quite a bit, particularly given that we have seen some high-profile and spectacular collapses—for example, Storm Financial, Opes Prime and the margin lending debacles throughout the country. It all comes back to this central point about appropriateness and responsible lending—ensuring that the lender understands the capacity of a consumer to repay a loan so that the consumer is not placed under some sort of financial stress created by the loan. So responsible lending requirements will also apply. These will set a standard of expected behaviour for licensees—as I have mentioned previously, not only entry requirements but also requirements for licensing, ongoing standards, proper qualifications and so on.
There also need to be clearly delineated responsibilities and obligations for people such as finance brokers when it comes to lending conduct. They play an essential role in meeting the need of consumers in the community to have a choice—so they do not necessarily just go to their bank to get credit and have to be limited to the offerings of that one institution; but, perhaps, they could go through a broker or some other licensed agent who would be able to seek out or source the very best deal or most appropriate and suitable credit for a consumer’s particular needs. So it is essential that we include people involved in that particular sector as well.
The legislation introduces for consumers some important disclosure requirements in relation to credit costs and commissions, another area which I think is ahead of the game in what we are seeing happening in the sector already. Peak representative bodies across the country, those who represent people working in the financial services world and in brokering, are already seeing the need for peer change, for conduct change and for reform in the areas of how these things work. Disclosure is one of those very important issues. It is important because consumers need to understand upfront in simple plain English exactly what it is that they are buying into and what the terms are. There need to be clear, concise terms in plain English, and I think disclosure can play an important role in that.
I want to make the point that disclosure is not about providing more and more information—it is not about the 100-page disclosure document where you can bury or hide in some critical piece of information that cannot be found unless you are a constitutional lawyer; it is about providing clear and concise information. It is about having upfront, full disclosure so that people truly do understand what it is that they are buying into. I think that is a fair process and it is something that I am very pleased about in these bills. This is about consumer rights. This is about consumer protection. This is about ensuring that people know what they are buying into and ensuring that they are not abused by people who think that they may be cleverer than everybody else.
Importantly, for Australian homeowners who are refinancing—and there would be quite a number; whether it be due to financial difficulty, whether it be to access some of the equity in their home, or whatever it might be—there need to be laws that specifically include a presumption that the refinancing is suitable for those people. Again, there need to be arrangements in place that are appropriate; the correct financial obligations need to be met; and all of this needs to work in line with our national consumer credit legislation. This is about having a national credit code, albeit that it has come out of the state regimes and we will in effect have a state based uniform credit code which will be largely replicated in the legislation as the national credit code. Importantly, it will ensure that we have a consumer focus—a focus on improving the code and protecting ordinary people in terms of their access to credit.
What the scope of the code will be expanded to include is credit where it is predominantly used to purchase, renovate, improve or refinance a residential property. The code is also being amended to reduce several loopholes that could be used by unscrupulous lenders or brokers to avoid the law. We have been careful to make sure we cover those. The bills will also change the monetary thresholds under which consumers can apply to their credit providers for hardship variations. Credit providers will also be prohibited from using essential household goods as security for loans, and they will be required to give consumers information when they default on their contracts or when a direct debit is dishonoured.
I have spoken briefly about penalties, remedies and enforcement powers, and I just want to touch on them again. If you are going to send out a strong and clear signal to the sector about doing the right thing, about adhering to the codes and making sure that people understand what is required of them, it is not just a case of licensing but making sure that you have criminal penalties in place for licensing misconduct. That could include imprisonment of up to two years for really serious breaches, and I think that sends the right signal to say that we are serious about doing the right thing. There are also civil penalties for licensing misconduct which will enable ASIC to seek heavy fines of up to $220,000 for an individual and $1.1 million for a corporation.
These are the right signals in terms of ensuring that providers do the right thing, and for the vast majority this will actually be something they welcome because they do do the right thing and they do understand their obligations. It will make it easier for them, not harder, because it will ensure that the unscrupulous operators are weeded out. There might be only a limited number, but it helps provide a more robust framework and stronger rules for those who are doing the right thing.
All in all, these three bills together provide a complete package. It is more than a step in the right direction; it is a leap in the right direction in terms of providing the right sort of consumer protection balance. It is a balance between an open marketplace, where people can access finance, credit and debt and get on with doing the things that they deem necessary for themselves, and consumer protection. But for me that balance needs to have consumer protection as its primary focus, consumer protection at its heart, and that is what these bills achieve.
While I chair the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and we are doing two inquiries at the moment which touch on a lot of these issues, I feel that what these bills do is already moving us in the right direction. They cover many of those areas that we are inquiring into, so I welcome these bills very much. I am very supportive of these bills and I commend them to the House.
I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak and contribute to this debate today on the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009 and the related bills, because this process of bringing national unity to consumer credit provisions has long been desired. I think the community expects us to act and to amend the governing laws, the legislation, particularly as new products come onto the market. New products evolve and perhaps require a slightly different approach, and we have seen some very creative approaches to the provision of credit, probably in the last few years in particular, and a lot of people do not fully understand what they are getting into when they enter into some of these schemes.
That being said, the Australian credit regulations have been admired internationally and are attributed as the reason Australia has largely avoided the subprime lending trends that have plagued so many nations abroad. I think we in the coalition were fairly rigorous in ensuring strong consumer credit protection laws but, as I said, with new products and new, creative ways of packaging credit coming in, there is a need for government to constantly revisit these laws and make sure that they do what they are intended to do.
Whilst these regulations are currently strong and effective, they are not uniform across the states and territories of Australia, which results in some confusion and certainly increases compliance costs for everyone involved, both the providers of credit and those who seek to use those products. It is not so much a matter of having a nanny state mentality, trying to protect everyone to the ultimate degree, but I think the public expect that governments will make sure that people do not unwittingly enter into credit arrangements that are less than desirable. I do think there are situations where people can unwittingly do so, certainly where the details of those credit arrangements are not always obvious—and, more importantly, the end result of some of the detail is not immediately obvious. It is important to make sure that providers of credit do not offer shonky deals and that the unscrupulous are not allowed to continue to get away with packaging of credit that does real harm to people in our community.
The state and territory governments have traditionally had legislative power to determine consumer credit matters. Indeed, this is still the case. However, in 2008 a Council of Australian Governments agreement enabled the Commonwealth to share concurrent power, enabling the creation of the legislation before us today. At this point it is important also to note that this was not the first attempt to reach such an agreement at COAG level. The coalition government’s efforts to establish national uniform laws in this regard were hampered by disagreement among many of the Labor controlled state governments while we were in office federally.
The changes proposed in this legislation are substantial. For those involved in the provision of credit, they have the potential to massively overhaul many standard procedures. They also introduce the uniform threat of criminal sanctions, including jail terms, for lenders who engage in unscrupulous behaviour. The scope of these bills and the outlook for further reforms clearly indicate that there will be important changes to the law. It is not simply a case of the Commonwealth bringing together the unified state and territory laws without more.
The coalition supports this legislation as it seeks to protect consumers and also to promote certainty and reduce compliance for businesses. In general terms, this legislation will govern the activities of lenders, brokers, credit intermediaries and debt collectors. At this point, however, it will not apply to point-of-sale retailers. That came out of the consultations and the committee process and I am sure is very much welcomed by point-of-sale retailers. Under this new arrangement, credit providers, brokers and intermediaries will be required to register with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission between November 2009 and December 2009. I understand this registration process can be carried out online and that the system has been designed to make the process as simple as possible. Following registration, participants will need to apply for an Australian credit licence within six months from 1 January 2010.
Any individual or organisation that is licensed is expected to meet the standards of behaviour set out in the legislation when providing credit to a consumer. The responsible lending provisions are aimed at ensuring that borrowers are not provided with unsuitable credit facilities. Licensees will need to ensure that they carry out an individual assessment as to the borrower’s ability to repay the loan and to meet their financial obligations for each application they receive. In a recent article in the Australian Financial Review one commentator noted that:
… the bill seems aimed at reckless lending in the US and Europe rather than the less acute problems seen in Australia. This may result in even conscientious and responsible, low-income households being forced into the arms of loan sharks as mainstream lenders observe the law to the letter.
It is an interesting point to note and probably one that should be borne in mind, as well as the all-important regulations that have been devised and that accompany this bill. But there is always a tension between the need to regulate and the need to encourage people to take responsibility for their own financial dealings—indeed, any dealings. And I think there is a greater need to educate. Credit providers have been very creative about the way they package loans. We have not seen that to the degree that we have seen it in other countries but, nevertheless, things are changing constantly and many people out there in the community do not fully understand the detail and the implications of some of this packaging of credit.
As said before, Australia has a world-class banking system. Our big four banks make up a third of the world’s strongest, and our record of subprime lending has been limited to one per cent as opposed to the famous figure of 15 per cent in the United States market. The so-called NINJA loans, where mortgages were given to people with no income, no job and no assets, has not been a problem in Australia to anywhere near the extent that it is in the United States. These lending practices have occurred in many parts of the world and have widely been attributed as the cause behind the current global financial collapse.
It has been accepted by both sides of this House that Australia’s banking system is amongst the best regulated in the world. I do not think there is much disagreement on that point. Indeed, those opposite have often said when abroad that our lending practices have prevented a fallout of the magnitude being felt by the banks around the globe. It should, then, also be recognised by both sides of the House that such prudential regulations should duly be attributed to the hard work of the member for Higgins and the coalition financial team when we were in office.
It is important that we seek to find the right balance in the protection of consumers. In any of these situations that we are confronted with as lawmakers and legislators, I want to stress that it is usually a small minority that are spoiling it for the rest of the community. We have to balance that tension, as I said, between protecting consumers from this small number of unscrupulous lenders and the need to give sufficient flexibility so that Australian lenders can continue to provide a service to the Australian community.
The other key features of the responsible lending provisions relate to the full disclosure of relevant information through a credit guide. Licensees are required to tell borrowers about all credit related costs, commissions and the borrower’s right to redress under the legislation. It is fundamentally important that all available information is made accessible to the borrower so that all involved parties are in the best position possible to decide the suitability of the particular credit product. Where a licensee is providing refinancing for consumers facing current financial hardship, a presumption has been introduced that such a refinancing is unsuitable ‘if the consumer would have to sell their primary residence to meet the financial obligations of the new finance arrangements’.
The protection of the household has also been extended in the national credit code, which departs from the uniform consumer credit code in that licensees are now prohibited from taking security over essential household goods. Where a consumer does find themselves in a position where they cannot meet their financial obligations, there are now more remedies available. Previously, consumers with a loan of $312,400 or less were entitled to apply for a change to the terms of their credit contract. This figure is based on 110 per cent of the average loan size for a new dwelling in New South Wales. The formula has now been removed and set to a fixed amount of $500,000 which may be changed by regulation. This will allow many more people who are experiencing hardship through illness or loss of employment, for example, to seek changes to their contract. A lender is not automatically required to approve such changes to the credit contract if the changes are unlikely to result in the borrower meeting their obligations. I am sure this will be very welcome for many consumers who find themselves caught up in circumstances not really of their own making—and that can happen to any one of us. I think it is a good thing, and I notice some of the major banks are announcing a much more flexible approach to borrowers who find themselves in genuine difficulty.
A new dispute resolution system is being introduced as part of this change to ensure that consumers do not need to proceed through expensive and lengthy litigation. The licensee is to have an internal dispute resolution mechanism and must also be a member of an ASIC-approved external dispute resolution scheme. If a dispute remains unresolved then the court system will be the third option, where a streamlined procedure for small claims of less than $40,000 will ensure that the borrower will not require legal representation, and the hearing will be conducted with informal procedures. I think, again, this is a very good move because it does not matter how much black-letter law we introduce into this place; if there is not fair access to the law and legal remedies, it is debatable how much that black-letter law is really worth to the average person out in the community. This allows for a process that does not require people to have a massive amount of money to engage a legal representative to take their case.
This legislation creates an interesting interplay between state and Commonwealth legislative powers. While the state and territory uniform consumer credit codes will cease to operate, the state and territory governments retain power to legislate on consumer credit matters. I think that is important. If we have a federation, we have to respect that and we have to work together. That being said, having read through a number of the submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into this legislation, there are clearly many stakeholders who are still concerned about this overlap. One of the objectives in this legislation reform process is to reduce red tape and compliance issues for licensees. However, it is plain to see that this objective could be risked if a state government chose to enact separate and additional legislation. I would hope that this issue of clarity and certainty is resolved in future COAG discussions.
The commencement of the responsible lending provisions has been delayed until 1 January 2011. The Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia pointed out in its submission to the Senate inquiry that this delay has the potential to leave open a window where consumers become less protected. The MFAA noted:
… in those states and territories where there is already operative broker legislation, viz WA, NSW, Victoria and ACT, consumers will be in a worse position than they currently are, as it is proposed state jurisdictions will be ‘turned off’ on 31 October 2009.
Perhaps that needs to be examined more closely. I hope that the gap between the state provisions ending and the federal ones beginning has been or will be addressed, to ensure that businesses are at all times clear of their obligations and borrowers will not be caught in a limbo area where they have no redress to the law for unscrupulous practices or where they have not been fully advised of the detail of the contracts they are entering into or their consequences.
As I mentioned earlier, the protection of consumers starts with ensuring that they are fully informed about their choices. But I think that this process needs to start much earlier. We need to ensure that all young adults have access to financial education so that they are informed about the basics of credit and borrowing before they are ever in the situation where important decisions need to be made. We are seeing young people being targeted by advertising. The temptation to buy things on credit is probably increasing. Young people need to understand how to manage their financial affairs and to understand the consequences of what they are doing. The process of educating people about personal financial matters should start at school and be carried on throughout the community. This is a process that I would encourage banks and other financial institutions and institutional lenders to become involved in. After all, it is really in everybody’s interests that credit is not provided to those who clearly cannot afford to repay it.
Australia is already a world leader in terms of prudent financial regulations. As we seek to further strengthen this network of consumer protection through legislation and regulation, I believe that it is equally important that we empower consumers so that they may protect themselves. The old saying is that knowledge is power, and once borrowers become fully educated about financial matters they will also become empowered and will not need to rely on black-letter law or the legislative process in this parliament or others. While it is necessary that we have strong deterrents in place and consequences for unscrupulous lending, preventing such practices should be our primary aim. It is much harder for a lender to take advantage of educated borrowers, and with greater education the market for substandard credit products will be greatly reduced. I am sure that that will be very welcome throughout the community.
The coalition supports the legislative program aimed at protecting consumers but eagerly awaits the release of the all-important regulations which, according to the Australian Finance Conference, contain ‘crucial scope, exemptions and operational content’.
As we move ahead in this reform process it is important that we also make a secondary attempt to increase financial awareness within the community, especially with the younger population, who face a world of increasing reliance on credit. It is the borrower who will make the final decision as to what credit product best suits their need, and they are the ones who need to be empowered to take responsibility for this decision. The national consumer credit protection framework is an important first step in ensuring that the borrowers of the future cannot fall foul of unprincipled lending practices.
In closing, this debate gives me the opportunity to raise the issue of reverse mortgages. This is one of the creative products that have become available in recent years. It is not a bad product, but people need to fully understand how it works. Sadly, in my electorate, I have seen a couple of older Australians take up reverse mortgages without fully understanding them—and yet there are very strong prudential requirements around these loans. But they have not fully understood what they mean. In one case, if they broke their arrangement, a penalty of about $80,000 applied. It can be a very good product. It can be very helpful in some circumstances. But the reason for this legislation is to make sure that people fully understand the terms of these contracts and that they fully understand the consequences of entering into them, and I think that is the crux of such legislation. It is to be hoped that it assists the community in managing their financial arrangements better.
I rise in the House today to speak in support of the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009. The measures contained within this bill will bring welcome and long-overdue protections for consumers across Australia. This bill is being presented today in association with two related bills, namely the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2009 and the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill 2009. Known collectively as the national credit reform package, these three measures will establish for the first time in Australia a single standard national regime for the regulation of consumer credit.
I have to say that I am particularly excited about this package of bills because this has been an aspiration of the Australian Labor Party since I was the consumer affairs shadow minister back in 1996. This package of bills gives expression to government announcements to the Council of Australian Governments—COAG—meeting of 2 December 2008 which set out the terms under which the Commonwealth would assume responsibility for the regulation of consumer credit. Together, these bills will give consumers and providers of financial services a truly national set of laws existing under a uniform regime of consumer credit regulation and oversight.
Briefly, the three bills function in the following manner. The main bill, the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill, will introduce a framework which does four things. Firstly, it licenses credit providers, brokers and intermediaries. Secondly, it applies responsible lending conduct requirements to licensed parties. Thirdly, it provides a rigorous dispute resolution mechanism that is supported by appropriate enforcement powers for the regulators, ASIC, including improved court arrangements, remedies for consumers and penalties for licensee misconduct. Finally, the framework includes the overseeing of the regulation of margin loans.
The second bill, the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill, deals with the rights and liabilities of certain existing credit contracts and with court proceedings that existed or arose prior to the commencement of the credit bill. It also establishes a registration process for industry participants as the precursor to licensing. The third bill, the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill, provides the mechanism to support the imposition of fees for various matters.
The changes to the consumer credit sector that will result from the national credit reform package will transform the ways in which the consumer credit sector is organised, administered and regulated. The package will promote responsible lending practices amongst credit providers and brokers. It will enforce national codes of accreditation and impose standard codes of conduct for all involved in the provision of credit. Most importantly, the package will ensure that consumers in this sector are protected in a number of ways.
Comprehensive new licensing laws for the consumer credit sector will be introduced. Lenders and providers of consumer credit broking services must be registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and obtain an Australian credit licence. Participants will need to be registered or licensed if they engage in lending or collecting money, act as an intermediary between consumers and lenders or act as a credit broker in advising consumers to apply for a particular loan or otherwise assist them to apply for a particular loan.
Robust entry standards will apply for the registration and licensing procedures for participants in this sector of the finance industry. Credit lenders, brokers and their agents must also meet ongoing standards of conduct when providing credit activities to consumers. The regulatory body, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, will have the power to suspend or cancel licences if the participant fails to achieve and maintain required standards of professional conduct. Licensing procedures will be streamlined for authorised deposit-taking institutions such as banks and credit unions. In addition, limited expectations will be provided for some point-of-sale staff and debt collectors.
This comprehensive new licensing regime will introduce, over time, considerable benefits to this sector of the financial system in Australia. It will encourage the improvement of standards in the industry and thereby improve consumer confidence and market integrity. In particular, fringe or predatory players will be excluded. In other areas such as credit broking, this will improve the credibility of the profession. To become a licensed credit lender or broker, a person must demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person. They must also comply with appropriate standards of conduct expected of a licensee. For example, they are required to demonstrate to ASIC that they can conduct a business efficiently, honestly and fairly. They must also demonstrate to the regulator that they can properly train and supervise their agents.
ASIC will publish guidance on how participants can demonstrate that they meet these licensing requirements. This guidance will be particularly directed at small businesses. This is a terrific idea for small businesses as it will help make a smoother transition to the new licensing arrangements by providing business operators with simple, practical assistance on how to become licensed.
One of the most fundamental principles that underpin the national credit reform package is the promotion of responsible lending conduct in the sector. It is of paramount importance that credit not be given irresponsibly to consumers. The package establishes a set of responsible lending conduct standards for all licensed credit providers and their agents when they enter a consumer into a credit contract, when they suggest a credit product or when they assist in a consumer’s application for a credit contract. This code will ensure that licensees do not provide credit that is unsuitable for consumers—which, frankly, happens so often these days. It ensures that the product, service or contract is well fitted to the particular needs of the consumer as well as not being unsuitable. Most importantly, it will ensure that the consumer has a realistic capacity to pay their financial obligations. Consumers will also have guaranteed disclosure on the part of the licensee about any credit related costs or commissions. They will have access to key rights of consumer redress and to transparent assessment procedures.
One specific new arrangement that will enhance consumer protection for thousands of Australians relates to the refinancing of home loans. For homeowners who are refinancing home loans in the face of financial difficulty, the new law includes a presumption that the refinancing will be unsuitable for the consumer if they would have to sell their primary residence to meet the financial obligations of the new finance arrangements.
The package will establish a truly consistent and national regime for credit related arrangements. But the code will be strengthened and improved in a number of ways. It will be expanded to include contracts where the credit is provided to purchase, renovate or refinance a residential property for investment purposes. Consumers will now be able to apply for hardship variations or stays of enforcement, up to a monetary threshold of $500,000, and credit providers will have to respond to such a request within 21 days. This is particularly important, because I have had a number of constituents who have come to me in dire financial circumstances who have made a request of their financial institution and the financial institution has failed to respond and, essentially, starved them out by inaction.
In another breakthrough for consumer rights, credit providers will no longer be able to use household goods as security for loans. This national credit code will also close various loopholes, such as certain fee-splitting structures set up between related parties and certain business purpose declarations which at present can be used by unscrupulous lenders and brokers to avoid the law. The code will also ensure that credit providers will be required to give consumers information when they default on their contract or when direct debit is dishonoured. These added protections for credit consumers are welcome additions to our national finance sector regulations. They will ease the financial burden on many thousands of consumers across Australia.
In addition to protecting consumers, the national credit reform package gives ASIC considerable powers to impose stronger penalties for lenders and brokers. This can include criminal penalties of up to two years imprisonment for serious licensee misconduct which breaches the responsible lending conduct requirements. Civil penalties for licensee misconduct will allow ASIC to levy fines of up to $220,000 for an individual or $1.1 million for a corporation. ASIC will be able to issue infringement notices to speed up the imposition of penalties for certain breaches. Consumers will also have the right to seek compensation to redress losses or damages arising from licensee misconduct.
Sitting in between these various protections and the penalties, the national credit reform package also includes a no-cost, three-tiered dispute resolution system. This framework is designed to make it easier for consumers to have their disputes resolved. Consumers will have access to the licensee’s internal resolution process, as well as an ASIC-approved external dispute resolution scheme. All licensees will be required to be members of an external dispute resolution scheme, and consumers will be able to take disputes to the federal, state and territory courts via a streamlined procedure for small claim actions for loss or damages of up to $40,000.
These court procedures build in various further levels of protection for credit consumers. One of these protective measures presumes that the parties do not need legal representation, and another measure presumes against issuing adverse orders. In addition, the new court arrangements allow the courts to adopt informal legal procedures and depart from the formal rules of evidence. These provisions will greatly reduce the time and the often considerable expense to consumers of having to resort to the courts to resolve their disputes. The government has provided $70.2 million over four years to implement the COAG decision to transfer consumer regulation to the Commonwealth.
The government will phase in the introduction of the new licensing arrangements. They will start on 1 January 2010. Before that date, anyone engaging in credit activities will need to be registered with ASIC and must apply for registration between 1 November and 31 December 2009. They will have the six-month period between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2010 to apply for an Australian credit licence. Anyone who engages in credit activities for the first time on or after 1 January 2010 must apply for and receive an Australian credit licence before starting a business. The two-stage process has been adopted to facilitate a smooth transition to the licensing regime. The registration procedure has been designed to be straightforward for industry and can be completed online. The two-stage process can also give industry adequate time to meet the licensing requirements. The staged introduction of the national credit reform package will give the consumer credit industry the time in which to put in place the business infrastructure needed to support and maintain responsible lending practices. Care has been taken to minimise, where possible, the transition costs incurred by businesses when they move to the new credit regime. At the same time, existing consumer protections have been preserved and, where appropriate, enhanced.
ASIC will provide all assistance possible to businesses as they adopt the new arrangements. ASIC will help businesses, especially small businesses, comply with their obligations under the new laws. It will have more flexibility to exempt or modify the licensing and registration requirements, where this is deemed appropriate. ASIC will also be able to exercise discretion in imposing penalties, taking into account instances where people have attempted in good faith to comply with these laws.
The National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009 forms the foundation of the new credit reform package. The passage of this bill and its two related bills will bring with it an historic and significant improvement in the way consumer credit is delivered in Australia. This is particularly needed at the moment, when many people are in dire financial circumstances. The package makes consistent across the country the arrangements for licensing and regulating the lenders and brokers of consumer credit. It builds stronger and more uniform protections for consumers of credit into the new national system. It brings a number of significant efficiencies to the regulatory framework, by plugging many gaps in the existing legislation which have burdened the sector for too long. Importantly, the national credit reform package will reduce the cost of doing business in Australia, the regulation of consumer credit currently being split between eight separate jurisdictions. In the long term, it will help reduce compliance costs for businesses operating in the consumer credit industry. For the first time in history, Australia’s financial services will have a truly national set of laws. The system will be fairer, more consistent and more efficient because of this legislation. I commend the bills to the House.
(Quorum formed)
This government is implementing a credit reform package that delivers the government’s commitment to nationalised consistency and the modernisation of Australia’s credit laws. The package will for the first time in this country provide one single standard of a nationally consistent regime that will apply for consumer credit regulation. That is very important, particularly for those of us who represent the mortgage belts within our respective electorates and for those of us who have a significant number of our constituents involved in securing credit for running their lives and their families. The other thing to bear in mind is that this also applies in relation to those of our constituents who are involved in small business. So this is very significant and something that the House should take note of. The national consumer credit protection package comprises three bills: the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009, the credit bill; the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2009, the transitional bill; and the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill 2009. This credit reform package has substantial benefits and its implementation is, quite frankly, long overdue. Significantly, the package will provide for an improved consumer protection regime and will move to cut the red tape and the inconsistencies that have emerged in the business practice of providing credit.
The package has its genesis in the reforms that followed that historic COAG meeting of October 2008, where there was agreement to implement a two phased approach for the Australian government to take over responsibility for regulation of consumer credit. That is quite a significant change. Some may refer to that as a modern federalism but, in an economy underpinned by 21 million people, it is a change which is overdue. I should say at this point that it is recognised that there are many brokers and lenders out there, and many that I personally know—I have some of their businesses in my electorate—who already operate that way and meet the highest requirements. They are very ethical, they follow codes of practice set within their industries and they also have a view that the person they are lending to is not just a consumer of credit but a customer who they should seek to look after. That is important to note. This is not about beating up on those credit providers and brokers; this is to ensure there is a form of national recognition and a form of national consistency in how we go about regulating the activities of credit providers and credit brokers.
These bills also make it easier and less costly for consumers to follow various remedies where there have been inappropriate practices or irresponsible lending. The reform package includes several key components which I will now summarise. The credit bill will establish for the first time a comprehensive licensing system in this country that will apply a regime across all areas of credit providers—lenders; the providers of consumer credit broking services. For the first time, they will have to be licensed. They will have to take out what will be known as an Australian credit licence. This will be a robust licensing requirement; it certainly will provide enhanced, comprehensive and consistent protections to consumers in all elements of the consumer credit transaction. Because it is a licensing arrangement, where a licence will be taken out and renewed, it will have the ongoing effect of ensuring continual improvement and enhancement of standards that apply within the industry. Therefore, the consumer market can have some confidence not only that those who are obtaining Australian credit licences will be obliged for the sake of their ongoing licence applications to uphold a code of conduct but also that there will be a consistently applied legal regime setting out how they go about their business in either providing credit or broking as credit providers.
This arrangement will pretty quickly sort out those fringe players in the industry. I think we have all seen a number of examples of them. I would seriously doubt whether there would be one member in the chamber who has not had people visit or call their office concerned about the standard of contract that they have entered into. The fact is there are predatory players out there and their business is simply to provide credit and collect the fees. That does occur. We know of many examples where people have been provided with credit with little or no capacity to repay. That is not the problem of the person providing the credit, because they actually get their fee. They have signed these people to contracts but what they have done is tie families to impossible financial commitments, and not only does that create stress but also these inappropriate lending procedures impact on individual people and certainly on the local economy.
In order to gain a licence the person will need to be able to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person to hold a licence. There will be other provisions attached to the licence, because it could be a broking service and there could be other people involved. There will be very stringent licensing requirements for the proper training of staff who will be engaged in the providing of credit or the supervising of the providing of credit. There will also be stringent requirements for organisations to supervise the agents or franchises that they might have under these arrangements. It should be noted that ASIC will publish guidelines for the industry, and they will actually demonstrate what people need to do to secure their licences. This will be of considerable benefit to those many small businesses out there involved in the industry, doing the right thing and ensuring that they meet the appropriate codes of conduct at the moment. They do not want to be bound by endless red tape, and this is a way of cutting through that and simplifying it as much as possible. The new credit laws in Australia will require lenders and advisers involved in these credit regimes to actually comply with these requirements.
This measure is an important and welcomed development. It certainly will be welcomed in Werriwa, being an outer metropolitan seat in the mortgage belt of Sydney. Next weekend, on Saturday night, I am attending a function for Lifeline. As you will be aware, Lifeline has a range of services, including counselling people in respect of suicide, and another arm of Lifeline at the moment is providing financial counselling services. The function on Saturday night is actually in honour of all those many volunteers that spend an inordinate amount of time looking after the interests of others in our community. To Mr Peter Mihajlovic, the CEO of Lifeline Macarthur, and all his volunteers, I wish them well and look forward to seeing them on Saturday night. On behalf of a very grateful community, I would like to thank him and all his team for what they do in looking after the interests of people in our community, particularly when it comes to issues such as counselling in relation to either suicide or depression, or in many instances now in respect of financial matters.
It is important to understand that because this is the development of a new federal procedure there will be some issues involved in moving away from a state system to a federal system. That is why specific transitional arrangements have been made for a turning-off procedure for current credit laws as they apply through some states and territories. As a consequence, certain procedures will ensure that there can be delayed action for the obligations flowing under the credit licences up until January 2011.
I will be very brief now. I also indicate that the provisions of these laws will make it significantly easier for customers of credit providers to ensure that their contracts are sound and fair. Remedies are available to them which will make it easier for them to ensure that their positions can be put through either the Federal Magistrates Court or state magistrates courts without the need for legal representation. By accessing the code underpinned by this, this arrangement is another way of making it easier for the obligations of credit providers to be realised and to ensure that those consumers who have credit are the beneficiaries of this legislation. I commend the bills to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009, the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2009 and the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill 2009. These are very important and very welcome bills. The three bills comprise the federal government’s national credit reform package, which will see responsibility for the regulation of consumer credit move from the states to the Commonwealth. These reforms were agreed upon with the states at the October 2008 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. The National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009 develops a framework to license credit providers, brokers and intermediaries. Once licensed, these parties will need to adhere to responsible lending conduct requirements.
The National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009 also provides appropriate enforcement power to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, which will be the regulator of the new national credit regime. It also puts in place court arrangements, remedies for consumers, penalties for licensing misconduct and the regulation of margin loans. The National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2009 ensures a smooth changeover of the national credit regime for existing credit contracts and disputes. The National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill 2009 provides the mechanism to support administrative fees for various matters—for example, the lodging of documents with ASIC.
There are two key issues covered in this legislation that I will focus on. The first of these is the importance of a national consumer credit regime. The Rudd government was elected with a promise to cut red tape within Australia to make doing business across state lines easier. To deliver this promise, the COAG Business Regulation and Competition Working Group was established at the first COAG meeting after the election of the Rudd government in 2007. The working group is co-chaired by ministers Tanner and Emerson. It identified 27 priority reforms to break down red tape barriers between states and move Australia to a seamless national economy. Related to that particular issue, we now live in a global economy. We now have a number of measures in place, as we recently saw with the G20 meeting in London, where we need not only consistency in national laws but consistency in international laws. To think that in 2009 we in Australia are still operating under a system where each of the six states and the two territories have independent laws relating to the same matter is totally absurd and is certainly making life for business and consumers very difficult. That is why these bills are indeed welcome.
The reforms create nationwide consistency in areas such as occupational health and safety laws. I recall the debate in this place only in recent weeks referring and relating to workplace safety, a matter on which there ought to be consistency across the country. Licensing of tradespeople is something that I see time and time again as contractors win contracts between states. A contractor from one state may well win a contract in another state. They find continuous difficulty in many of their tradespeople not being licensed in the other state; therefore, it creates all kinds of barriers and problems. It seems to me that we need to overcome those problems, and this is the kind of move that goes a long way towards doing that. This bill addresses the registering of business names, maritime regulation, food regulation and, of course, the implementation of a national consumer credit regime.
The progress report of the working group at the July 2009 COAG meeting in Darwin showed that, of the 27 priority reforms, two are already in place, 23 of the remaining 25 reforms are on schedule as laid out in the working group’s implementation plan and the remaining two areas, where reform has been slower than anticipated, will go to COAG to ensure they are advanced. Through this legislation the national consumer credit regime is one of those 23 reforms on track to be implemented as planned. This progress shows that the Rudd government is not just a government that talks about reform but a government that delivers on reform and implements the measures needed to make it easier for small business to do business across Australia. The Howard government talked a lot about cooperative federalism and what was being accomplished through COAG, but we did not see many results. Whether it be the management of the Murray River, a national consumer credit regime or any one of the other reforms being implemented through the COAG working group, it is the Rudd government that achieves results in making it easier to do business across the nation. In doing that, it highlights the support that this government has for the business sector in Australia. Time and time again I hear in this chamber members opposite talking about how they are the friends of business in this country—how they are the ones who support business. Regrettably, their words are not matched with action. When it comes to supportive action for the business community of Australia, this government is acting.
A national consumer credit regime is very important because business does not stop at state lines, as I said earlier on. It makes sense for national and international credit providers to be working under one standard regime throughout Australia. Many of the businesses that exist in this country now operate with offices and branches across the country; it is common business practice. If they do not have offices, they might have agents working in other parts of the country. We need to have that consistency. But we also need to have a reduction in the regulatory burden that is being placed on businesses. To have to register the same business in each state and perhaps the two territories is not only costly but time consuming and, quite frankly, in today’s modern era should be unnecessary. That is what we should aim for and this bill goes a long way to achieving that.
The bill also provides greater clarity and convenience for consumers. Consumers who move interstate or purchase from interstate providers will know they are dealing with one standard set of consumer credit laws. It will also provide them with easier mechanisms through which they can lodge a complaint. Regardless of which state the credit provider is located within, they will have the option of lodging a complaint through the ASIC office in their own state. On several occasions I have been contacted by my constituents in Makin seeking assistance with consumer issues arising from their dealing with interstate companies, which are of course covered under that particular state’s consumer laws. It is always difficult trying to provide real assistance to them because of that and because you are dealing with a company that is based interstate. Therefore, having consistency will be of great benefit to consumers wherever they might be located in Australia.
I also note that, as part of its implementation of all these changes, ASIC will be employing about 100 new staff. I welcome the advice that some of these staff will be based in Adelaide. Given the impact of the global financial crisis on employment in the financial services sector, I welcome the move by ASIC to hire new staff and to regulate the new consumer credit regime.
The second aspect of this bill I would like to address in detail is responsible lending. Credit providers licensed under this regime will need to engage in responsible lending conduct and must not provide credit products and services that are unsuitable to consumers’ needs and that the consumer does not have the capacity to repay. If there is one specific action that has led to the global economic crisis, it would have to be irresponsible lending. The crisis began as a crisis in the US home mortgage sector, where consumers were offered loans that were unsuitable to their needs and that the consumer obviously did not have the capacity to repay. These loans were based on the premise that, when the unsuitable lender did eventually default, the mortgage provider was covered either by the increase in the property’s value since the loan was made or by the fact that the liability for the loan had been packaged into a financial product and on-sold to another institution, thus spreading the risk of the bad loan.
The crisis that began in the US housing sector spread throughout the financial industry and then to the broader economy. It all began with irresponsible lending practices. The crisis began because in both housing and consumer credit consumers were offered loans they had no capacity to repay. Sadly, this is often done by agents who act on commission and have no regard for the long-term consequences of the loan that they might be encouraging or facilitating for consumers.
The Australian financial services industry has not been hit as hard by the global economic crisis as its counterparts in nations like the USA, Great Britain, Ireland and Iceland. It would be fair to say that one of the reasons for this is the lending practices within Australia have been better regulated than those in other countries. In fact, the Prime Minister and Treasurer both had positive responses when holding up the regulation of Australia’s financial system as a model for the rest of the world at G20 meetings earlier this year. Just because our industry is better off than most does not however mean that we should be complacent or assume that it does not need reform. This national consumer credit regime is certainly a positive step. There are other measures in this bill that I also welcome such as the regulation of margin lending loans, which played such a significant role in the demise of firms such as ABC Learning and Babcock and Brown, which no longer exist in the form they did before the global economic crisis.
The national consumer credit regime will be good for business, it will be good for consumers, it will help restore the confidence that Australians have in their financial system and it will be another significant step in the Rudd government’s reform package that will, in partnership with the states, truly create a new era in federal-state relations in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
in reply—I thank the member for Makin and the other members who have contributed to this debate: the members for Oxley, Werriwa, Robertson, Aston and Pearce. I agree with the comments by the member for Makin, and particularly note his welcoming of the fact that a considerable number of the ASIC staff to be dealing with the new credit regime will be based in Adelaide. He is correct. I recently visited the ASIC Adelaide office and a very considerable number of staff will be added to the Adelaide office, and they are very much looking forward to the increased responsibility they have as part of this reform.
This reform is long overdue. There is no good or rational reason for different regimes relating to credit in Australia. We should have one national regime and, when this National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009 and cognate legislation pass, we will have one national regime. This is an important part of our federalist approach of reviewing regulations and ensuring much greater harmony cross state and territory borders, and ensuring a national approach to regulation wherever possible. This bill also introduces for the first time a national responsible lending regime. We always knew that this would be controversial. We always knew that there would be some who would say we should have gone further and some who would say we should not have gone as far. Nevertheless, we do believe we have struck a reasonable balance and that there will be considerable benefits for consumers in having a national responsible lending regime. At the same time, compliance costs for business will be kept to a minimum and reduced as a result of having one national consumer credit regime.
I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate. I do thank the member for Aston, the shadow minister, for his contribution and constructive approach, outlined to the House and also discussed with me and my office outside the House. He has raised a number of issues. He raised the issue of whether director loans should be exempt on the same basis that employee loans are exempt. I have indicated to him outside the House that I would be happy to consider that. I will say inside the House that I will consider it as the bill proceeds through both houses.
He also made comment in relation to debt buyers and raised the issue of whether there should be an exemption for debt buyers as opposed to debt collectors in the bill. I have received preliminary advice on this matter which indicates that debt buyers need to be considered separately to debt collectors. Debt collectors are only involved if there is a default on the loan. To exempt them, I am advised, would create a potential loophole where many of the obligations under the bill could be avoided by a lender immediately assigning all of their credit contracts to a third party, who would not need to be licensed. I am happy to discuss this matter with the member for Aston in good faith, as I accept that he has raised it in good faith, but there would be very considerable concerns that would need to be worked through in relation to the proposal and suggestion that he has made.
The member for Aston also referred to the need to fast-track the process of dealing with positive credit reporting. He would be aware that the government is working through a report in relation to that matter and will be responding in due course. The matter is proceeding through the processes of government. I note the concerns of the member for Aston in relation to the start date of 1 January. I must note that I am not convinced of the need to postpone commencement. When it comes to both registration and licensing, I would note that the Treasury and ASIC are working very closely indeed with industry, to ensure that authorised deposit-taking institutions and companies that currently hold an AFSL will be aided as much as possible in transitioning to the new arrangements and the regulatory burden of making the transition should be minimal.
The member for Pearce raised a concern that there would be a regulatory gap of 12 months in relation to brokers. The member for Pearce may not have been aware of the recent announcement that that would not be the case. Brokers and other non-ADI lenders would be dealt with through a fast-track regime, or a regime which more closely reflected the regional start date, where there are considerable difficulties for ADIs in meeting the start date.
In conclusion, this is a very important reform. It is a reform that governments have spoken of for many years and indeed for many decades but it is a reform which has eluded governments. We are proud that we have been able to deliver this reform, subject to the wishes of both houses of parliament. We thank our state colleagues for their cooperation and for the very constructive way in which they have engaged in discussions, particularly with my predecessor as minister for corporate law, the Hon. Senator Nick Sherry, and with me, in progressing this reform. I commend these very important forms 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.
Debate resumed from 25 June, on motion by Mr Bowen:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 25 June, on motion by Mr Bowen:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 24 June, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise today to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009, the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009. This is significant legislation and has generated a strong and emotive response. I wish to start with what I consider the most pertinent issue that has resulted from the minister’s bungled handling of these bills.
The bills extend Commonwealth subsidised indemnity insurance to ‘eligible midwives’. A lot of the detail giving force to these bills will follow by way of regulation. To date, we and the public have been given scant detail by the government on this critical future regulation. The government has yet to provide the actuarial modelling for the indemnity insurance scheme, other than a very simplified explanation provided to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry by departmental officials. It causes concern that once again this minister has rushed headlong into legislation with the attitude, ‘We’ll work out the detail later.’ It is clearly not the responsible way to legislate and, as we have seen time and time again from this government, it leads to mistakes, oversights and bungling. The parliament and the public are entitled to the detail of the policy and legislation that is to be voted on.
According to the bills, an eligible midwife is a person who:
(a) is licensed, registered or authorised to practice midwifery by … the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(b) meets such other requirements … as are specified in the Rules …; and
(c) is not included in a class of persons specified in the Rules for the purposes of this paragraph.
We learn of possible excluded classes of midwives from the minister’s second reading speech. The minister stated:
… the Commonwealth supported professional indemnity cover will not respond to claims relating to homebirths.
It is the intersection of these bills with the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme where serious and genuine concern has arisen. The exposure draft of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009, bill B, under ‘Eligibility for general registration’, states:
(d) there is, or will be, in force in relation to the individual appropriate professional indemnity insurance arrangements, including a policy held, or arrangements made, by the individual’s employer that will cover the individual,
Under this exposure draft, in accordance with clauses 128 and 129, an individual who practises as a midwife without indemnity insurance and is therefore unregistered may be subject to a maximum penalty of $30,000. Come 1 July 2010, given the minister’s current position, midwives will effectively be prohibited from providing birthing services outside of a clinical setting.
This is an issue that is fundamentally about choice. It is extraordinary for a health minister to effectively prohibit mothers and parents around the country from having an appropriately qualified health professional in attendance at childbirth. I acknowledge that there is a great diversity of opinion on homebirthing, both within the medical and health fraternity and in the wider community. At every stage, though, all reasonable parties to such debate would rightly acknowledge that homebirthing is not an appropriate option for all women, and I would certainly strongly recommend that any patient, in particular expectant mothers, be properly informed and that they consult relevant health professionals. However, I am not here today to debate the merits or otherwise of homebirthing; that is for others. I am here to defend the right of intelligent, informed Australian adults to have a choice—to be entitled to decide for themselves.
To date, homebirthing is the choice of only a small proportion of women—in 2006 it made up 0.26 per cent of all births. However, it is naive to suggest that all women will simply surrender this option. The Minister for Health and Ageing knows that there are a small proportion of mothers and parents who will continue to choose not to enter the hospital system for a childbirth. That is their choice. This measure will just drive homebirthing underground, with parents unable to access appropriate care, jeopardising the lives of not just the unborn babies but also the mothers themselves. Childbirth is an intimate and personal decision for families in consultation with health and medical professionals. It is not appropriate for the Rudd government or Minister Roxon to mandate the conditions of childbirth for all women across the country. This is a nanny-state Labor government treating with contempt the rights of mature adults to make informed decisions.
Families currently privately contract with registered midwives for services outside of a clinical setting. They should be entitled to continue to do so in accordance with appropriate medical guidelines and on the advice of health and medical practitioners. I have received many compelling and reasoned pleas from parents across the country on this issue, as have many members on both sides of this House. I have met with a number of parents and their children in my electorate and in other parts of the country. Today I would like to read to the House, and specifically to bring to the attention of the minister, the concerns of Rebecca and Darryl Jenkinson, who reside in my electorate. I had the pleasure of meeting with Rebecca and her two young children in my electorate office. Rebecca provided an insightful and personal perspective on the ill-considered effects of the government’s changes. Rebecca and Darryl articulate the reasonable concerns that are so evident in this debate, and I quote in part what they wrote:
We chose homebirth with a private midwife for the arrival of our two daughters, Indiana in 2007 and Saffron in 2009. It was an informed choice, made at the culmination of much research into our birthing options. While it is ‘the road less travelled’ in Australia, homebirth is the right choice for our family and we feel betrayed by the proposed legislation.
To care for us throughout our pregnancy and birth journey, we chose a healthcare professional whose expertise is normal pregnancy and birth; we chose a midwife. Prenatal visits were as much about preparation for parenting as they were about the clinical progress of the pregnancy. We discussed the various unexpected outcomes that could arise and how we would respond to those and, when necessary, our midwife referred us to a doctor for further advice. After those consultations we always returned to our midwife’s support for our ongoing care and it was that continuity which protected our safety. By the time ‘birthday’ actually arrived, we could simply patiently allow our baby’s birth to unfold and enjoy the experience. All the while, our midwife was the guardian of our safety and would alert us if we needed to activate any of our contingency plans.
Every family is different. Every family makes different choices and those choices must be respected and treated equally by our government. Making continuous care from a known midwife more available to women is fantastic. But where we choose to give birth should not affect our ability to access that care. Our choice, homebirth with a private midwife, is valid. As our elected government we ask you, simply, to sort this out and protect our right to birth where, how and with whom we choose.
Rebecca and Darryl’s experience highlights that through consultation and genuine collaboration between parents, midwives and doctors, decisions can be made that deliver good outcomes. It might be difficult for this government to accept, but the Prime Minister and the Minister Health and Ageing do not always know best—Australians are able to make informed, educated decisions that deliver good outcomes for themselves and their families. If the minister is unable to satisfactorily resolve the issue of indemnity insurance for midwives then at least the proposed registration requirements should be amended to allow existing services to continue—the so-called status quo option. In order to have an informed debate on the provision of indemnity insurance to cover affected midwives, the government needs to release the detailed actuarial modelling that it used for its proposal.
I now turn to the PBS and MBS access for midwives and nurse practitioners. There needs to be a more holistic approach to health care in Australia, especially in the areas of preventive health and chronic illness. The skills of all health and medical professionals should be utilised to their full potential in accordance with appropriate scope of practice. Practice nurses, for some time, have been an invaluable and integral part of primary health care in Australia, and their role, skills and professional development will be central as we go forward.
However, extending access to the PBS and MBS has significant ramifications in terms of scope of practice, patient safety and the economic viability of the health budget. The interest bill alone on the Rudd government’s huge debt will make it hard in future years to meet extra expenditure on these schedules and other expenditure across the health system. It is important that PBS and MBS access for all professions is carefully considered and monitored in accordance with professional qualifications and experience.
The coalition firmly believe that GPs are the cornerstone of primary health care in Australia and it is important that there is genuine collaboration between the other health professions and GPs in managing patient health care. We have not received any clear detail on the so-called collaborative model which is central to these bills. What we do not want to see is a two-tiered system in Australia. Anyone who wishes to see a doctor for their healthcare needs should be entitled to do so. We do not want to see a situation where Australians have to see a nurse not because they want to or because it is convenient but because it is an easier solution for this government.
We need to see a genuine model of collaboration, with GPs working with other health professionals and specialist practitioners in managing patient care. It is important that there are appropriate guidelines for scope of practice, ensuring patient safety and the economic viability of the PBS and MBS. The government’s current investment in the PBS and MBS is significant. As at 30 June 2007, the coalition government spent $6.4 billion per annum on pharmaceutical benefits. Coalition government expenditure on the MBS was some $11.7 billion as at 30 June 2007. This is a significant increase from 1995-96 amounts, under the last Labor administration, of $2.2 billion and $6 billion respectively.
It is important that these programs are utilised as efficiently as possible and that they remain viable into the future. However, in order to consider that issue, the government needs to release the detail under which this legislation will operate. There is a conspicuous and concerning lack of detail behind these bills. The creation of referral rights for nurse practitioners to specialists is another significant component of this legislation. However, once again, we need to be assured of the efficiency of such a model. Currently, GPs refer a only very small proportion of patients to specialists. We ask the government to release the modelling, or at least some sensible detail as to how this measure may affect the quantity of referrals, waiting times for specialists and the MBS.
Whilst there is a logical argument for nurse practitioners and midwives to have some capacity to order pathology and diagnostic services attracting a Medicare rebate, the workability and efficiency of this proposal will entirely depend on the collaborative model, which we understand the government has not yet devised. Without a national e-health record, and without knowing how the government’s planned collaborative model will work, there is significant risk of duplication and overservicing in this area.
The health budget, provided by the taxpayers of Australia, is certainly not infinite and needs to be managed carefully to meet the worthy but almost endless demands placed on it. It is certainly one of the most difficult aspects of the health portfolio. There are many worthy causes that would benefit from funding in the health portfolio. However, the reality of the situation, and something which we all need to remind ourselves of, is that funding is provided by the hardworking taxpayers of this country and the pie is only so big. There is a duty, an obligation in fact, on government to ensure that taxpayers’ money is always used efficiently. Unfortunately this is clearly not something the Rudd government understands. We have seen billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money squandered on populist cash handouts—racking up over $300 billion in debt for the youth of this country to pay off.
As I say, the debt servicing requirements caused by the Rudd government’s reckless spending will cut deeply into key budget areas such as health in future years; and there are few portfolios where this obligation to ensure the best use of funds is more important than health. There is an opportunity cost to all initiatives. The stark reality of the situation is that taxpayers cannot fund everything. Policy needs to be considered and refined and there needs to be more consultation than what this government has committed itself to in the past. Taxpayers deserve, and the government is obliged to provide, the ‘best bang for the buck’.
The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry examining this legislation has received over 1,800 submissions and was due to report on 7 August 2009. The reporting date was moved to 17 August due to the overwhelming public reaction. Whilst we do not oppose the passage of this bill today on the basis of the homebirth outcome, we do reserve the right to move amendments in consideration of the recommendations of the Senate committee’s report. We are opposed to making homebirth illegal and we will fight for choice. I put the government on notice that we are carefully considering the committee’s recommendations that were released in this regard.
The minister’s bungled handling of this critical legislation follows this government’s complete mismanagement of the health portfolio. Mr Rudd and Minister Roxon made numerous explicit and unambiguous promises that a decision to hold a referendum to take financial control of public hospitals would be made by mid-2009. For example, a media release by Nicola Roxon and Kevin Rudd on 23 August 2007 stated:
If by mid-2009 the Commonwealth and the States and Territories have not begun implementing the National Health Reform Plan, a proposition for the Commonwealth to assume full funding responsibility will be developed and put to the Australian people.
As of 30 June 2009, Mr Rudd failed to state whether he would honour this promise. However, some confusion is understandable in relation to this promise, as Mr Rudd has gone to great lengths to retract it. In fact, a paragraph referring to the referendum was removed from the Prime Minister’s website between October 2008 and November 2008. Under questioning in this very parliament, the Prime Minister failed to respond as to why this had occurred. In addition, a heading ‘Fixing our hospitals’ on the Prime Minister’s website was replaced with ‘Improving our hospitals’ during the same period.
Despite Mr Rudd’s promise to fix the health system, I am inundated daily with complaints about the Rudd government’s ill-considered policy decisions and savage cuts to successful health programs. Since coming to office, the Rudd government has introduced measures to halve the Medicare rebate for patients undergoing cataract surgery, capped the Medicare safety net for a range of procedures, cut funding for chemotherapy drugs and slashed the private health insurance rebate. These measures will increase the cost of health care for many Australians and put more pressure on Australia’s already overstretched public hospitals.
We have seen as recently as this week, in question time, the minister’s inability to guarantee her own comments that IVF patients who are charged $6,000 or less per cycle will not be worse off because of the government’s cuts to the Medicare safety net. I issue the challenge to the minister, who is here in the chamber today, to live up to that guarantee, to repeat those words in this parliament. Minister, if you used those words in your second reading speech and you walked away from them during question time, why not come back and provide a guarantee to those thousands of parents right around the country—
Ms Roxon interjecting
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask that the minister withdraw those comments, which I find highly offensive.
If the member finds them offensive, I ask the minister to withdraw.
If he is such a delicate petal, I will.
I think the minister should do without the preamble. It would assist the House.
If it assists the House, I withdraw.
The IVF parents around the country are delicate about this issue, because for them this is the difference between being able to start a family and not. This government has, unbelievably, cut the support to IVF parents around the country. Many people will not have the capacity to make a decision to have an IVF cycle. In many cases, people have to have several cycles. I have spoken in the House before about such instances where families have had to endure over a dozen cycles to make sure that they have every chance of bringing a child into this world.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are 20 minutes into the member’s speech. This is a bill about extending MBS and PBS to midwives and nurses. He has not yet brought himself to say anything positive about nurses. He is not being relevant to the bill and I would like to bring him back to the debate. If he has nothing good to say about nurses, he should sit down.
Order! The honourable member for Dickson will relate his remarks to the bill.
The characterisation by the minister, just for the sake of Hansard, is a complete misrepresentation. This is a minister who has championed the cause of women around the country—and, in particular, the rights of nurses—and yet in this very bill this minister is saying to nurses and to parents around the country who are making decisions about how they will birth their children, ‘You cannot have a midwife, because we are making the practice illegal and we are exposing people to a $30,000 fine.’ This is a minister who would slap nurses in the face in this bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order on relevance again. As the shadow minister already indicated in his earlier comments, the bill that deals with ‘unlawfulness’, as the member puts it, is not currently before the House. That is the registration and accreditation bill. If the member for Dickson has nothing more to say on what are momentous changes for nurses and midwives across the country then he should sit down. He is required to be relevant to the bill.
I understand the point of order. The minister will resume her seat. I asked the member to direct his comments to the bill, which he did.
Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. The interjections by this minister are designed only to try and run the clock down. People should understand the strategy of the minister.
Order! The member will resume his seat. The minister, on a further point of order?
Yes, it is, and I know that it is difficult as the chair in this situation to be across all of the detail of the bill. This bill does not have a $30,000 fine in it. He is speaking about an entirely different bill, which is not before the House. It just shows the shadow minister’s incompetence.
On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the fact is that the member is very relevant, in that IVF cycles have a fair bit to do with midwifery, I would have thought.
I have heard the arguments. I will continue to listen carefully to what the member for Dickson says. I repeat what I said before, and that is that his remarks should be related to the bills.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not getting into some petty tit-for-tat with the minister, who obviously wants to distract from the message. This is a slap in the face for those 1,800 people who made submissions to the Senate inquiry on this very bill. These people were concerned about the fact that this government is going to, by way of this legislation before the House and the national registration and accreditation process, make it illegal for parents to have a homebirth with a midwife in attendance in this country. That is unacceptable from a government and from a minister, and it is no wonder that the backlash from the backbench and from her party has been quite outstanding.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. I am quite happy for the member to use other forms of the House to debate what is an important issue, but it is not part of any of the three bills that we are currently debating. The shadow minister, as a previous minister, knows that he should make his comments relevant.
It is my ruling that the member for Dickson’s remarks are relevant to the long title of the bills.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is no wonder that these patients, these expectant mothers, these mothers who have been through the process of homebirthing and who have experienced the benefit of having a trained midwife in attendance, are so frustrated at the approach of this government, when you see the minister’s petty interjections in relation to this speech. I cannot believe that a Labor government with the people who sit opposite, who champion the cause of choice, of the rights of women, are effectively taking away the choice of those women around the country. It is no wonder that there has been revolt in the Labor Party caucus against the minister’s decision.
This is a bad outcome for those women who have a choice. Some people agree with homebirthing; others do not. But the reality is: they have a choice to make, and the fact that this government has taken that choice away is a very sad indictment of many people within the Labor Party—not just in this place but in the other place as well. I do not care what people in the Labor Party are saying in private to homebirth mothers; they are saying absolutely nothing in public. It is worthless for them to continue to show sympathy and to say that they are going to advocate behind the scenes on behalf of homebirth mothers when not one Labor female or male MP in this place, or Senator in the other place, has spoken out publicly against this minister’s stance. I know that there are dozens of people within the Labor Party who are talking to homebirth mothers in their electorates, in Canberra and in other parts of the country, and they are saying to people in those conversations that they do not agree with what this minister is doing. She does not have the support of the caucus and yet somehow this has been rammed through on them. It is a pathetic example of representational politics by the Labor Party in this country that many of those women are not speaking up.
Whether the Prime Minister has gagged them or whether the health minister has gagged them, if these people are going to stay true to the convictions that they commit to in private then they should be coming out to provide public support to their statements and they should be talking against this particular provision by Nicola Roxon. That is the important part: this provision is by Nicola Roxon, who has championed herself as some sort of advocate of nurses yet she is saying to midwives who want to continue in the practice of homebirth that effectively they are going to be fined $30,000. That is completely outrageous.
In looking at the outcomes in this bill, I have spoken to the positive outcomes and I have addressed the issues which I think need to be addressed. We now have the benefit of the Senate inquiry report, and we will certainly be looking at the option of moving amendments until this government gets it right. Until this government gets it right, we will continue to advocate on behalf of those thousands of mothers around the country who are currently being ignored by Labor members across the country. We will listen and stand up for their rights. We will stand up for choice. We will listen to their concerns because those concerns are not limited to a handful of people. Even people who do not agree with homebirthing say that those who choose to take up such an option should have that right into the future. That this health minister would take that away certainly underscores some of the difficulties not just around this policy and around the bill that is before the House but around the general approach to the issue of health in this country.
This is a government that say one thing one day and do something completely different the next day. They have not altered outcomes for the better in health over the course of the last 18 months. All Australians know, particularly in relation to public hospitals, that the situation has got worse over the last 18 months. The situation has got worse for our good, hardworking doctors and nurses around the country. They are working in conditions in hospitals—
Ms Roxon interjecting
This is a bill which relates to midwives and to nurse practitioners; these people are working in hospitals—
Ms Roxon interjecting
Nurses work in hospitals, Minister. I did not think she was that far out of touch, but nurses work in hospitals.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The shadow minister is straying far and wide, but MBS and PBS items are not available to staff that work in hospitals because they are state employees and, again, he is being irrelevant.
Order! There is no point of order.
The point out of all of this is that despite all the promises, all the rhetoric and all the spin lines—the way in which it was rehearsed and put at the last election that Labor had a plan to fix hospitals—I would ask people all around the country, and those nurses and doctors and other allied health professionals who are working in terrible conditions: has anything improved in your hospital over the last 18 months? Of course it has not. This is a government that have now walked away from their commitment to fix public hospitals and to make the situation better for nurses and doctors around the country. They are saying, ‘We cannot give you a guarantee—after 16 months of consultation with 10 of the country’s best health experts and despite coming up with 123 recommendations—that we will introduce any reform in health today, tomorrow, next month or indeed for the next six months.’ This is a prime minister who has now decided to go on a tour around the country for six months, visiting hospitals—
Order! The member for Dickson is now straying from the issue before the chair.
He is visiting hospitals where the hardworking nurses that we are talking about in these bills are working. These are people that deserve better working conditions and yet they have been condemned by this government to the same practices that have delivered bad health outcomes by Labor governments over the last 10 years. The pouring of more money into problems, which is always Labor’s solution, is not the solution in health—without the reform of the system. We need structural reform. We do not need good money being poured after bad. Reforms need to be made to get better health and patient outcomes. This is a government which has to start thinking about the patients. We cannot continue in this country in the 21st century to have people dying on waiting lists and to have parents waiting a dozen hours overnight in emergency departments. This is a government which still condones waiting lists that are being doctored—that are publicly acknowledged as being doctored—and fraudulently put to the Commonwealth to extort funds from the Commonwealth to fund them. And the waiting lists grow longer and longer. No wonder nurses around the country—
Order! The member for Dickson has now strayed beyond some reasonable bounds. I ask him to come back to the issue before the House.
No wonder they are expressing frustration. We need to continue to take the fight up in relation to this bill before the House. We will do that. We will hold this government to account because the Australian public knows that on health Kevin Rudd has only made the situation worse.
Before calling the next speaker, can I remind the member for Dickson that in future he should refer to members by their title or their office.
I would remind the member for Dickson that in October 2007 the Institute of Health and Welfare handed down a report, a damning critique of the Howard government’s tenure on the Treasury benches when it came to health and hospital reform in this country. Even the member for Warringah, the former Minister for Health and Ageing, had to concede that he did not attend—at a time when he was available—a debate on health and hospital reform with the shadow opposition spokesperson, the now Minister for Health and Ageing. He had to concede that they had effectively defunded the health and hospital system in this country compared to the states and territories and the private sector, which took up the slack for the failure of the Howard government.
The Howard government occupied the Treasury benches in this House from about March 1996 to November 2007. The real crisis when it came to midwives in this country developed in about 2001. We were not in office at that time. The Howard government had six years or more to resolve these issues. Did we hear any speeches from the member for Dickson in relation to the resolution of the issues concerning insurance, Medicare and PBS assistance for midwives and nurse practitioners? I cannot recall a speech on those issues during that time by the member for Dickson in relation to that. Due to the collapse of the insurance market after 9-11 and a landmark obstetrics birth injury case involving a payout of $11 million in 2002, this became a big crisis for midwives. With just over 200 privately practising midwives paying about $800 a year for insurance, there simply was not a large enough pool to fund a payout of that sort of magnitude. It is a bit rich for the member for Dickson to criticise us when those opposite did nothing for nearly 12 years to resolve these issues. It is almost like the slate has been wiped clean and the member for Dickson cannot understand what happened during that time.
This is a good reform that we are seeing today. I did not know whether the member for Dickson was supporting this legislation, the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and cognate bills, or whether he had some concrete amendments he wanted to put to the House. We heard a lot of huff and bluff but we did not see much by way of reform. (Quorum formed) It must be a pretty sorry state for the LNP in Queensland when the National Party have to protect them. Ignorance and idleness: that is what the tenure of the Howard government was when it came to assistance to midwives. I was just talking about the failures of the member for Dickson and putative member for McPherson at that time. He really does need to have a look at geography in Queensland if he wants to think about where to stand at the next election. He does not stand firmly on the side of midwives here. He might not be sure where he is standing geographically at the next election but he does not stand on the side of midwives. Midwives are supporting the three bills that are before the House.
I have spoken to members of the Maternity Coalition in Queensland. I have spoken to a number of people involved in this industry—people like Teresa Walsh, a constituent of mine. I have met with a lot of midwives and other people who are involved in homebirths in this country. I also had the privilege of serving on the local health community council with Cas McCullough, a very prominent person involved with the Maternity Coalition in Queensland.
We have taken decisive action and early action in assisting midwives and nurse practitioners. It was the Rudd Labor government, in fulfilment of what we said we would do, that commissioned a report. In June 2008 the Minister for Health and Ageing directed the Commonwealth Chief Nurse and Midwifery Officer, Rosemary Bryant, to conduct a review into the delivery of maternity services in Australia. I talked about this when I spoke to the local Maternity Coalition people in the Barry Jones Auditorium in Ipswich, in my electorate, some many months ago.
I support and have always supported the right of women to self-determination when it comes to issues of pregnancy and their birthing experiences. I believe, as a father of daughters, that it is my daughters’ right to choose in the circumstances what they do with their bodies and how they control their decision making concerning pregnancy and the birth of children. I have always taken that view because I believe it is important that we give women as much autonomy and self-determination as we possibly can.
When it comes to this issue of midwives and the assistance given to them, the report of the Maternity Services Review, which was released in February 2009, noted that Australia is one of the safest countries in the world in which a woman can give birth. There were many submissions to the review. The AMA expressed very strong views in its submission, saying that if support for funding arrangements for midwives were to be expanded it would need to be done on the basis that the services and assistance were in a medically supervised model. Many other organisations made submissions, as did many women who are involved in midwifery and nursing. The review made a number of recommendations such as the interesting one found on pages 20 and 21 of the report. There the review advised against premature support for homebirths to avoid ‘polarising the professions’ and noted that insurance premiums would be very high—and that is the reality.
In the budget we committed $120.5 million over four years to maternity services reform and $59.7 million over four years to expand the role of nurse practitioners because we believe nurse practitioners fulfil an important role in the delivery of primary health care. The bills before the House will establish a professional indemnity scheme for eligible midwives, which we believe is critical to ensuring assistance by way of MBS and PBS arrangements. We believe strongly that this will improve efficiency, capacity and productivity when it comes to our health workforce and that it is important for health and hospital reform, particularly in rural and regional areas and places like my electorate of Blair.
Nurse practitioners provide healthcare services already and prescribe medications in a number of jurisdictions. However, the legislation will enable their clients to access MBS and PBS subsidised services and medications. For midwives to be eligible to participate in the new arrangements, they will need to meet advanced practising requirements and be involved in collaborative arrangements with medical practitioners. We expect around 700 eligible midwives will participate over the next four years. We have listened to what the stakeholders, including doctors and the AMA, have said. We have taken note of their submissions and are following the recommendations of the review. We are not making homebirths unlawful and the various pieces of legislation before the House do not say that we are. But we are, as the minister said on 24 June this year in a speech to this House, removing barriers to the provision of care and we are ensuring that we improve services and the community’s access to services. We believe this is very important to enable our nursing and midwife workforce to be able to access the kind of assistance that will ensure they operate successfully in consultation with medical practitioners and the medical workforce, including in regional and rural areas. We have looked at a number of models of care and we think that being involved in a collaborative teamwork approach—particularly with obstetricians and GP obstetricians—is the best way to go forward. We think it is important to listen to what the doctors had to say on this and to take note of the more than 800 submissions. As the minister said in her speech, we have ‘listened to the collective voice of Australia’s mothers’ and also look forward to the viewpoints of midwives across the country.
We are changing the laws to benefit women across the country, and I think an insurance scheme is very important. We see insurance schemes for all kinds of professional organisations: for example, lawyers, engineers and doctors have professional insurance schemes. One of the bills before the House, the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill, is important in providing insurance, as there has been no professional indemnity insurance product for midwives since about 2001. The legislation sets out thresholds that apply in claims against eligible midwives. For claims more than $100,000 but less than $2 million, the government will contribute 80c in the dollar and for claims of more than $2 million the government will contribute 100c in the dollar. That is important to ensure that people who have been injured or become ill as a result of, say, negligence by midwives get access to insurance. As someone who was a practising lawyer for a long time, I was involved in many medical negligence cases over the years. I can say that getting access to insurance funds and insurance assistance is critical in personal injury cases. This is particularly so where a child is injured during its birth. Such instances can have catastrophic long-term effects for the child and involve a lot of very costly care. That child may suffer not just pain and suffering but also economic loss of a catastrophic nature. For example, houses in which that child may need to be cared for will need modifications and very specific requirements.
There are issues concerning homebirths, and I have been one who has advocated strongly for homebirths in the past. My wife and I chose to have our children in a hospital setting, but I recognise the right of women to choose their own birthing experience. The Maternity Coalition in Queensland has provided me with some information concerning the rate of homebirths. According to the Australian Mothers and Babies report, in 2006 there were about 708 homebirths in Australia, but that report noted that homebirths are not always recorded. There were about 20,548 homebirths in the UK in 2007, which represents about 2.7 per cent of all births, according to the UK Office of National Statistics. The homebirth rate in New Zealand is estimated by the New Zealand College of Midwives at seven per cent and the rate of homebirths in the Netherlands is approximately 30 per cent.
The situation is that women have the right to choose, and I believe that is the case. The minister has publicly said on numerous occasions that she recognises that a very small proportion of women would like to have homebirths, and she is currently investigating some way that this can be provided as an option, making it possible without making the indemnity insurance unaffordable. I urge the minister to work with all stakeholders to ensure that this issue can be resolved.
The shadow minister, the member for Dickson, raised a number of issues outside the scope of this particular series of bills that is before the House. I have no intention of discussing those in the middle of this speech, but what I will say is this: this is a very significant reform by the Rudd Labor government. Despite nearly seven years of the Howard government knowing about the issue of insurance and knowing about the troubles and travails in this industry they did absolutely nothing, so it is a bit galling for the shadow minister to come in here and give us lectures in relation to this particular issue. I urge the minister to continue to work with stakeholders, with midwives, with women who want a homebirth and with doctors and nurse practitioners across the country to ensure that women have the option and the right to determine how they will undertake what is honestly a beautiful experience, the sort of experience that they will cherish for the rest of their lives—giving birth to their children. Those of us who are parents in this place can remember and will always remember, however long we live, those occasions when our children were born—holding a young baby in our arms and realising the responsibility that we have for that child.
This is a sensitive and delicate issue and it needs a lot of attention and care. I commend the minister for this very significant reform and I urge further consultation to resolve any currently unresolved issues in relation to the matter.
I rise to speak in relation to the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and two related bills. I note at the outset the very diplomatic way in which the member for Blair concluded his speech in relation to the need for further negotiations. Without wishing to put words in his mouth, I think he was calling for some further consideration of the issue of choice, which I will get to a bit later on.
I note also at the outset that this is a complex and somewhat emotional issue for many people involved in the debate. Despite the fact that it is legislation which I do not believe adequately deals with the opportunity for Australian women to choose to have a homebirth in the future, I must say that I agree with most of the measures that are contained in the bills. During her second reading speech the minister highlighted the fact that the bills before the House will facilitate access by patients of appropriately qualified and experienced midwives and nurse practitioners to the Medicare Benefits Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The bills seek to remove barriers to the provision of care and, like the minister, I am hopeful that this will lead to improved access to services for the community, particularly in regional areas, which I am most passionate about, where it is already very difficult to recruit and retain a range of health professionals. I see some opportunities coming out of these bills that may assist regional communities.
On that point, I would like to highlight an issue of major concern to residents of the Sale district at the moment, the impending closure of RMIT University’s nursing course in Sale. Like many other regional areas, Gippsland has a marked shortage of qualified health professionals. Just this week there was another letter to the editor in the local newspaper from a young mother who could not get her daughter in to see a GP in either Sale or Maffra. The baby was eventually diagnosed with pneumonia. Lack of qualified health professionals is causing health issues, which are always of great significance in regional communities. Causing great distress in my community is the news that RMIT University will end its partnership with the East Gippsland Institute of TAFE and no longer offer a nursing course in Sale. It will not accept any new students from next year, which is a cause for concern, but there is also a long-term impact on nursing resources in our region.
Of immediate concern, though, is the commitment which has already been made to the 40 students who are in their first or second year of study. These students have committed to the three years of the course and are now being told they will have to travel to Churchill or Bundoora to finish their studies. The students are coming to me most upset by the changes, which have been made mid-course. Many are mothers who need to be in Sale to collect children from school or who have part-time work commitments that will not allow them to make the trip to Churchill on a daily basis. Common sense would suggest that we need to do whatever we can as a community to make sure that these students get to complete their course at Sale, as we can benefit from having 40 or more qualified nurses with ties to our local community.
I have written to the state and federal health ministers to seek their support in this regard and I met with the minister’s office today. I must say in commendation to the minister and her staff that the process of having a drop-in centre regularly on the Thursday of sitting weeks is very much appreciated by backbenchers like me. It provides an opportunity to meet directly with her and her staff to raise issues of concern in our electorates. I commend the minister for taking the initiative and I encourage other ministers who may be listening today to consider the opportunity to do so themselves. It is a brief drop-in service, but the five minutes spent face to face with the minister can overcome a lot of concerns or issues within our communities. It helps to build a better bridge between the parties and also to inform the minister regarding issues on the ground, which I think is of benefit to her and her staff. As a backbencher I certainly appreciate the opportunity to raise those issues directly with her.
Looking to the future, I believe there is a very real threat of not having enough nurses to service our local health systems throughout regional Australia. MPs from regional areas all understand that the evidence reflects that with the opportunity to train our own kids in the health professions there is more likelihood that they will return to offer those services to our communities in the future. The cancellation of this particular nursing course has been compounded by the proposed changes to youth allowance, which will leave many locals unable to afford to attend university. We need to explore all the options we can to create more opportunities for our young people to be trained in the local community and to overcome the accommodation and cost-of-living pressures which place a disproportionate burden on rural and regional students. I urge the government to work with RMIT to allow those local nursing students to complete their studies at Sale and to work with the East Gippsland Institute of TAFE to secure future opportunities for nursing and other health studies at Sale.
Returning directly to the legislation before the House: as the minister has stated, it is long-overdue recognition of our nursing and midwifery workforce. Coming from a regional area, I have seen first-hand the amazing contribution our midwifery workforce makes in maternity services. We have seen a situation throughout regional communities where there has been a gradual closing of birthing centres right across regional Victoria. I reflect on the situation I have in my electorate in the far east of the region, at Orbost. At a time when there are a lot of birthing centres being closed down around regional Victoria, the Orbost Regional Health service is taking steps in a completely different direction by increasing the number of births at Orbost. It has a very strong team of midwives leading the service, with professional support provided, I believe, through the Bairnsdale Regional Health Service. It provides a great opportunity for the mums in the Orbost community to not have to travel so much in order to give birth. I commend the Chief Executive Officer of the Orbost Regional Health service, Therese Tierney, and her approximately 150 staff based in Orbost and the services they provide to our community.
I want to spend time—as I believe many others will—in this debate focusing on the one area where the bills do not really accommodate my real concerns, which relate to the issue of midwife assisted home births. Under the maternity reforms, the government is refusing to extend these new arrangements for midwives to include home births. I quote directly from the minister’s speech:
Medicare benefits and PBS prescribing will not be approved for deliveries outside clinical settings, and the Commonwealth supported professional indemnity cover will not respond to claims relating to homebirths.
I accept again from the outset that there are many complex and competing issues to be addressed in this entire debate but we must, I believe, begin by setting aside our own personal prejudices. I come to this debate with only a small level of experience—four times in hospital for four healthy, beautiful young children. Our birthing experiences were very positive. I would suggest my wife and I did not even give a second thought to the idea of home birthing. It is something that certainly would not have crossed our minds as a personal choice. In both Sale and Bairnsdale, where we had our children, we had access to highly regarded obstetricians and an excellent team of nurses and midwives throughout the entire experience. As much as you can enjoy the experience, we did—perhaps me more so than my wife, I would have to admit. My wife certainly enjoyed the continuity of care that was provided. Being in a regional setting, we had close contact with the staff at all times, and the obstetrician was available at various stages during the labours. But the midwives in particular were on hand throughout each of our children’s births, and we could not have been happier with the outcomes.
But this is not always the case. I respect the right of a woman to choose, within reason, when, where and how she decides to give birth. This is a complex and—I agree—an emotional issue, and far be it from me, particularly as a man, to be telling women what is best for them or how they should plan to give birth; I see that the member for Ballarat, who is in the chamber, is nodding in agreement. Unfortunately, that is exactly what these bills before us seek to do. The bills effectively rule out home births as an option in the future. There is a very real risk, I believe, that such births will continue and that they will be forced underground. I think that is a less than ideal scenario, which I believe the minister herself has publicly acknowledged. It is a genuine concern for the mothers, babies and the government itself. I do acknowledge the minister has been questioned on the topic in the media. I think she is very conscious of the concern in the community that, if this results in the practice of home births being forced underground, that is not a desirable result for anyone—certainly not the minister or the government. The question before us is how we can prevent getting ourselves into a mess in this regard.
Under the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill, the minister claims that the bill will improve the choices that are available to women in relation to maternity care. As others have indicated already—and I do again today—the one choice that is effectively being ruled out is home birthing. The bill establishes a scheme to provide professional indemnity insurance cover for eligible midwives at an affordable cost, and I think that is a positive move. For the purpose of the bill, the definition of an ‘eligible midwife’ is one who is licensed, registered or authorised to practise midwifery under a state or territory law. The failure to extend the cover to midwife assisted home births needs further explanation, I believe, by the government. Has that decision been made on the basis of cost alone? If so, what modelling has been done to support that decision and has it been released publicly? But if the decision is based on the issue of medical risks then that argument needs to be debated more in public. Like many others, I have read information from both sides of the debate and I am not convinced that the risks are as great as some people in the medical profession like to present. I believe there is an element of a medical turf war behind some of the rhetoric that is used to discredit home births at the moment. Again I indicate that, as a personal choice, my wife and I would never have chosen to put ourselves in that homebirth situation but that is a choice we had the opportunity to make. I am not convinced that we are doing the right thing today by the women who choose to have a midwife assisted home birth.
I would like to spend a bit of time referring to the commentary about this issue as it has appeared in the popular press in recent times. In the Sunday Herald Sun there was a debate on the issue between a highly respected obstetrician, Peter Mourik, and the Homebirth Australia spokesperson, Justine Caines. Dr Mourik is, as I said, a highly respected obstetrician who has done some great work in regional Victoria. He supports the government’s position and believes the ruling will stop women from taking unnecessary risks. Dr Mourik says:
Women who choose to give birth at home expect everything to be normal but they don’t consider how far they are from expert help or even notify the ambulance service that they may need urgent assistance. 80 % of women can have their baby in a paddock but the problem is choosing these women. You just never know what will happen.
I am not for a second going to argue with Dr Mourik’s assessment. As I said, he is a highly respected obstetrician. But I will say that the midwives whom I have met with, and their clients, are also very aware of the potential risks. It is their belief that the continuity of care that they can provide allows them to follow a birth plan which acknowledges these risks and recognises when to seek further medical attention if required. They are absolutely passionate about the health of the mother and the baby and they make their assessments on whether it is appropriate to go ahead with a home birth at every step of the journey, in discussion with the family members.
Of course, things can go wrong—they go wrong in hospitals too—but the midwives I have met with would never proceed with a homebirth if they assessed the situation to be at a higher risk than normal. These women who choose a homebirth are so passionate about that choice that I believe they will go ahead with it anyway regardless of the government’s ruling on access to professional indemnity insurance for midwives. As Justine Caines argued in that same article I referred to earlier:
Women will still choose homebirth. Many mothers have had bad experiences in hospital and won’t repeat that. Why does the government fund women who are choosing to have c-sections but not women who are choosing to give birth at home?
Homebirth Australia would like the government to present a package for pregnant women that works a bit like the baby bonus. Every woman would be given a sum of money to spend on her pregnancy treatment, then it’s up to her whether she sees a midwife at home or an obstetrician in a hospital. It is putting the choice back into women’s hands.
Even under that scenario, there is no question in my mind that most women would still choose to give birth in a hospital, and that, of course, is their right. But I wonder: who are we to be taking away a woman’s right to choose a homebirth, as we are doing with this legislation before the House? By excluding midwives practising homebirths from the professional indemnity insurance cover and making insurance a condition of registration, we are effectively, if not technically, making it unlawful. Being subject to a $30,000 fine is certainly a huge discouragement to the midwives. I hold grave fears for the health and safety of women and their babies if we do in fact force homebirths underground.
The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Legislation Committee received 2,000 submissions when it inquired into these bills. That is an amazing response, and it reflects, I believe, the level of community interest and the absolute passion in this debate. The submissions were primarily from midwives who provide homebirth services and from parents who described their experiences with homebirth and support for homebirths. The proposed legislation was generally supported in the submissions, but again the issue of the government’s failure to accommodate people who choose homebirths was a stumbling block for many of the people who made submissions. I quote from that Senate report:
Many submitters commented that homebirths will still occur but with an unregistered care provider who may or may not have qualifications or without any assistance.
One submission warned:
If homebirth is not available through registered midwives, the reality is that many women will still choose to birth at home either unsupported or with the help of nonregistered midwives—this will likely worsen outcomes for mothers and newborns.
Concerns were also expressed by a number of witnesses to the inquiry that the proposed changes would lead to an increase in free birthing—that is, giving birth without a trained care provider on site. I would suggest that this would be the worst possible result. If a certain cohort of mothers feel their choices have been taken away from them and they are attracted to free birthing without any trained support, I fear for the safety of the mothers and their unborn children. I do not wish to be scaremongering on the topic by any stretch of the imagination, but that is a genuine and legitimate concern. Mrs Elizabeth Wilkes, from the Australian Private Midwives Association, commented:
The disasters of women turning up bleeding, with babies unable to be born or whatever else that people are concerned about will certainly increase if this legislation goes ahead as it stands.
We cannot say that we have not been warned when we have people in respected positions within the industry—if it can appropriately be called an industry—coming out and giving quite cautionary tales to members both on our side of the House and within the government.
It is also fair to say that, much as we have been warned, the medical profession is deeply divided on this issue. The President of the AMA, Dr Andrew Pesce, stated to the inquiry:
The government was absolutely correct when it decided not to extend these bills to cover home births. The fundamental goal of maternity care must be a healthy mother and a healthy baby … It is not appropriate for the Commonwealth to introduce payment and insurance arrangements that encourage or sanction activities that inherently carry more risk.
That position that it inherently carries more risk is disputed by many on the other side of the debate. There are many competing views, but the one point that they all agree on is that the welfare of Australian mothers and their unborn children must be paramount in our considerations. That is why I am uncomfortable with the failure of these bills to recognise the right of a woman to choose a homebirth with a qualified and registered midwife. If we do force this practice underground, we will regret the day that we voted to make it harder for women to choose a homebirth.
In recommending that these bills be passed, the Senate committee acknowledged that the minister is currently working with the states and territories on potential options to prevent homebirthing from going underground. The committee says that this will include investigating indemnity options for homebirths that could be progressed without making the insurance unaffordable. But I repeat my earlier comments: I cannot recall the minister actually releasing any facts and figures to suggest that it is unaffordable or impossible to progress the issue immediately.
I note that the Victorian government is attempting to come up with its own solution, and a report in the Age newspaper on 9 August describes a pilot program where the state government will work with two Melbourne hospitals to provide for midwives assisting in homebirths to be covered by the hospitals’ own indemnity insurance. That does sound like a positive move, and it may be a compromise position that can overcome this hurdle that we are confronted with. The Victorian scheme is expected to start next year, and homebirths will be restricted to low-risk pregnancies, although I must say that my understanding from discussions with midwives in my electorate is that homebirths are already setting that standard of working only with low-risk pregnancies. The pilot involves only two Melbourne hospitals at this stage and will not offer any comfort to the people in my electorate who are concerned by the legislation before the House. In any case, there are already midwives who have gone on the public record saying they do not want to work under that hospital system or situation again, so I believe it is an intractable position.
In conclusion, I would like to express my support for that fundamental right of choice in relation to this issue. I acknowledge, as do the registered midwives I have met with, that homebirthing is not an appropriate option for all women, nor is it the choice of the overwhelming majority of women, but it is the choice of a small number of Australian women and, if it were properly accommodated in the legislation, there would be the possibility, indeed, that more women would take up the option in the future. It is not something, as I said, that I would aspire to with my wife, but we are kidding ourselves as members of parliament if we think that homebirths will stop as a result of these bills going before the House. I am genuinely fearful of the impact the legislation will have if it forces the practice underground or leads to the more risky practice of free birthing. It is not in anyone’s interests for that to happen. I think the member for Blair put it very well: childbirth is an intensely personal experience, and the decisions which are made by expectant mothers need to be supported within reason.
No disrespect intended, but I am unconvinced by the mainstream medical profession’s more extreme arguments against homebirths. I accept there is an element of increased risk in some circumstances, but it is entirely manageable in the majority of cases with the care and attention of a highly qualified and registered midwife. I cannot escape from the fact that women should have choice when it comes to deciding what they do with their bodies, and that extends to the issue of childbirth. I strongly urge the minister to continue working with the states and territories to resolve the issue of indemnity insurance and amend the legislation to allow existing services to continue to be offered.
I will give my final comments to the convenor of the East Gippsland Birth Support Group, Cath Lanigan, who has written to me in relation to these bills. Cath lives in Metung, a beautiful village on the Gippsland Lakes. She says:
Only a small percentage of women currently seek homebirths but that doesn’t mean it’s not important or should be disregarded. It provides a choice which enables birth to be a very natural, normal event which in the vast majority of cases it is.
It provides women with the choice to involve other family members, midwives they know and trust, have their own autonomy, and the chance to have one of the most intimate moments in their life in the comfort of their own home surrounded by people who are invited to be there.
Cath continues:
I had a home birth with my second child, here in Metung, and I know what a beautiful and positive experience it can be for mother, baby and family. It would be an absolute travesty if this option was no longer available as a choice.
I rise in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and associated bills. These bills facilitate the inclusion of nurse practitioners and midwives under the Medicare Benefits Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The bills also enable the establishment of a professional indemnity scheme for eligible midwives, which is critical to support the new MBS and PBS arrangements.
The purpose of the bills reflects the government’s commitment to improve maternity and primary care services. I think it is disappointing that the many positive aspects of these bills, which will make a significant difference to women’s access to midwifery services, have been overshadowed by concerns about homebirth. I will seek to address the issue of homebirth later in my contribution but I want to put on the record early my support for women’s decisions to homebirth. I thank the many women—and, on one occasion, a man—and their children who have come to see me and share their very personal experiences. I understand their concern that some of the provisions of these bills have created an issue with regard to homebirth and that we, as a government, need to continue to work to find a solution.
That said, I want to put it on the record that I absolutely support the extension of midwifery services in these bills. They will improve the health of women and their newborn children, and they give substantial support to women at one of the most wonderful but also challenging times of their lives. I think it is a great credit to the government that it has recognised that and is moving to allow the extension of midwifery services to a whole range of women who have previously not been able to access them. (Quorum formed) These bills improve health services for our community by utilising our highly skilled midwives and nursing practitioners.
This government has come a long way since being elected. We have come a long way in delivering on our election commitment to develop a national plan for maternity services in this country. That is, in essence, what these bills represent. Our processes have been open and transparent. In June 2008, the government called for a review of maternity services. The review received hundreds of submissions. We heard submissions from individuals, health professionals, non-government organisations, academics and others. The entire nation wanted to participate in the consultation process. It is an extremely important issue.
The level of community interest outlined the passion that Australian people have to participate in serious health reform. The report was delivered to the minister in February 2009, and it noted the great quality of our nation’s health system, which can be accessed by women giving birth. But the report noted that there was room for improvement. The report noted that the government could put measures in place to further assist women in need of maternity care.
In response to the review, the government announced $120.5 million for maternity services as part of the last federal budget. The announcement was part of our reforms to the health and hospital system. The package supports the maternity services workforce and assists Australian women with access to greater choices in maternity care. That is what the maternity services reform package is about: giving Australian women choice. We are working to provide Australian women with better access to services and a greater level of flexibility in the health workforce. This package recognises he central role midwives play as part of the birthing process. The package includes the introduction of an indemnity insurance scheme for eligible midwives, MBS and PBS benefits for services provided by those midwives, an expansion of the Medical Specialist Outreach Assistance Program, an increase in scholarships for GPs and midwives to address this critical area of need and a telephone helpline and information service to provide women and their families with an avenue of communication to discuss maternity information.
As part of our reforms we also announced $59.7 million in the 2009-10 budget to fully utilise our highly qualified nursing practitioners. On 24 June the minister introduced these bills into the House for debate in recognition of the importance of addressing long overdue reform in our health system. I support these bills as they allow for the inclusion of midwives and nurse practitioners under the MBS and PBS schemes. The legislation allows for nurse practitioners and appropriately qualified and experienced midwives to request diagnostic imaging and pathology services to be paid for by Medicare. The legislation also allows such nurse practitioners and midwives to prescribe certain medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. As I have earlier said, even in the face of the global financial crisis this government has put health and hospital reform at the top of its priority list. I would like to commend the minister as she has worked hard since the election to address significant inefficiencies across our health and hospital system. This is certainly a step that will make a significant difference to the many women and families giving birth across this country.
These measures seek to address some of the health workforce issues by utilising the expertise that currently exists among nursing practitioners and midwives. The number of nursing practitioners has steadily grown over recent years, with over 350 currently working across Australia. These highly qualified health professionals have proven crucial across our health system. Midwives play an integral part in our society. They work with women across all communities to give them vital support and professional advice throughout the birthing process, from pregnancy to labour and to post-pregnancy. I want to put on the record my own personal thanks to the midwives who cared for me when I gave birth to my son more than 12 months ago, to the midwives at my obstetrician’s consulting rooms, to Ballarat Health Services, where I chose to give birth, and particularly to Kathy Taylor, who has been a midwife for a very long period of time. As a new mother, and as an older parent, I found the experience a very difficult one, and having a highly experienced midwife helping me throughout the processes, particularly afterwards, was certainly something I valued. I think that every woman should have the opportunity to receive that assistance. I engaged Kathy in a private capacity, and I think that other women would certainly benefit from having more access to maternity care.
I would like to touch on the issue of professional indemnity insurance for eligible midwives and also on the issue of home birthing. Firstly, it is important to note that none of these bills make homebirth unlawful. Despite what is being said by those opposite, none of these bills actually make homebirth unlawful. Instead, these bills deliver greater support for nurse practitioners and midwives—support that will deliver greater choice for Australian women. The separate draft bill, to establish a national registration and accreditation scheme for health professionals, carries a proposal which will require health professionals from the 10 professions covered to carry insurance as a condition of registration.
This draft bill has been developed by COAG and is not yet before any parliament. I think most people who have been involved in either the law or medicine, or who have been consumers, will know that it is really important that any professional have a form of public liability insurance. It is extremely important, as we get into a society that is increasingly litigious, or where things go wrong, that there be an insurance product around and that people be protected by professional indemnity insurance. It is the interaction between the registration and accreditation scheme, the requirement for insurance and the lack of any affordable insurance product for private midwives assisting women to homebirth that has created the difficulty for homebirths. There is nothing inherent in this legislation that makes homebirth unlawful. Whilst it is only a very small proportion of women who choose the option of homebirth, as I stated at the outset this choice is just as valid and important as the birthing choices of women who do not homebirth. I am assured that the government is currently working with the states and territories, and the minister is working with her department, on this issue. It is certainly an issue that I wish to keep a close watch on.
That said, I want to again stress that in these bills the government is providing more choice and options for mothers than any previous government. I think it is unfortunate that the focus has been on the issue of homebirth, almost to the exclusion of the other really terrific things that are in this bill for women giving birth in this country. The whole issue of pregnancy and birth is fraught with politics—it always has been. It is important that this issue be regarded for what it is—it is not a debate about women’s choices versus women’s choices, and it should never be that. It is an issue about how to ensure that we have good access to maternity services across this country for women. The policy intention of the government in undertaking the maternity services review has been to make sure that women do have access to the best possible maternity services. That is what this legislation is about. The issue of homebirth has arisen and the government is seeking to resolve the issue. But the government’s intention in these bills is actually to improve substantially the health of women and their children across the country.
I would like to outline briefly some of the supportive things that other people are saying about this legislation. The Federal Secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation, Ged Kearney, stated:
The government has taken a practical, common sense approach to helping more people get safe, effective health care.
Dr Barbara Vernon, the Executive Officer of the Australian College of Midwives, has stated:
This national legislation recognises for the first time that midwives make a valuable contribution to maternity care in their own right. Evidence confirms that women who receive continuity of care from a known midwife have shorter labours, less need for surgical interventions during birth, reduced rates of admission to special care nursery for their babies, reduced vulnerability to postnatal depression and higher rates of breastfeeding.
I am very proud to be part of a government that for the first time is providing access to the MBS and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for nurse practitioners and midwives. These bills are not only good news for nurses and midwives; they are also extremely good news for patients. These changes bring to patients equal choice and convenience in terms of their birthing experience. Patients will now be able to receive referrals and tests from qualified midwives and nurse practitioners. This change will dramatically improve our nation’s maternity services system.
I want to briefly reflect on just how fantastic those services are when you have some comparison to the experience of women in countries which are not very far away from us that the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, who is here at the table, visited. I acknowledge in my own electorate the work of Zonta and the Ballarat Health Services, who have been putting birthing kits together for a long time now for the women of East Timor. I think if anyone gets an opportunity to go and participate in that experience you will get a pretty short, sharp reminder of just how the birthing experience is for women in the Pacific versus women here.
I think, whilst we are having this debate in this parliament, it is worth reflecting on just how lucky we are to be giving birth in this country. It is fantastic to see increased support being given to women’s birthing experiences in countries who are our neighbours, and certainly we should take the opportunity to thank organisations like Zonta but also to recognise that not everybody’s birthing experiences are as high quality as the medical care that we have here in this country. I just wanted to put that on the record. We are extremely fortunate in this country to have such fantastic access to maternity services. I think the changes that are part of these bills really do put our nation’s maternity services in the top of any in the world. It is a fantastic opportunity for us to have such access, which we have not had previously, to midwifery and nurse services as provided in this bill.
I look forward to the support of my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House and hope that members opposite can support our nation’s highly skilled nurses and midwives that are represented in these bills. The government has proposed significant changes to the Medicare benefits schedule and the pharmaceutical benefits schedule to utilise our health system at a greater capacity. The government reforms are about providing a health system for the 21st century. These bills go a long way towards achieving this, and I commend them to the House.
It is not my intention to speak for very long, but I will make a contribution to the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009, the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009. As a father, I have some appreciation of the subject of childbirth, but I am also thankful for not having had to have gone through the process. Not only do we as men not have to endure the pain—or as the medical professionals might call it, ‘discomfort’—but we do not have to endure the hormonal challenges that make a woman’s pregnancy even more of a difficult experience. What I do recall is the sense of fear I had at the birth of my two daughters as to whether everything would be all right. The experience for a father is that of physical detachment, but with a great degree of emotional concern. What is abundantly clear is that a man faces very little in comparison to the woman. Therefore, in my comments today I will seek to empathise, but I could never speak with the authority that comes with a woman’s experience and point of view regarding midwives and the bearing of children. Nevertheless, I take this opportunity today to make some comments on these bills. Like many others in this place, I support them in the main, but there are elements within this policy that I cannot say that I wholly support. However, I will be a little more specific later.
Before I go to the substance of the bills, I would just like to reflect on my limited but nevertheless valid experience in two hospitals and with the midwives at those two hospitals. My eldest daughter, Emily, was born in 1998 at the John James Hospital not far from here when I was posted here in Canberra in the Army. I was keen for Emily, being our first child, to be born in a hospital to ensure that, if anything went wrong, she and my wife, Kelly, would have access to immediate and substantial care. This was in spite of the fact that there was no indication of any likely problems. Being careful with my children’s safety began then and explains why later, whenever Emily or her sister, Rebecca, were climbing on play equipment when they were toddlers, I was always right behind them, ready to catch.
Similarly, despite no indications of any risk, there was no doubt in my mind or my wife’s mind that our second daughter would be born in hospital as well. My second daughter, Rebecca, was born at Glengarry Hospital in Perth in 2002. Our experiences of both of these hospitals were outstanding. The midwives did all the medical and professional health work to support my wife in the delivery and in the days afterwards. I therefore have the very highest confidence in the skills, training and professionalism of the midwives and the nurses that we had contact with in those two hospitals. In our local area in Cowan I have never heard a complaint about the work of nurses. Indeed, that confidence extends to the Joondalup Health Campus, which is the major hospital in the northern suburbs of Perth.
That being said, we never considered homebirth, and if we were intending to have more children we would still not consider homebirth. That is, above all, a matter of choice. I believe very much in free choice and the making of decisions by the mother and the father with due regard to and acceptance of the risks that are involved. I repeat that it is not a decision I would make, but there are very many people who stand by the advantages of homebirth. If that is a decision they wish to make, then no government should make that impossible or harder than it should be. Clearly then, while I support the majority of the changes foreshadowed in these bills and plans to come from the government, I see that amendments or changes would be required to those plans to maintain the options that some parents seek for having their children born at home.
I will now make some specific comments about the bills. As I previously stated, I support the majority of the items in these bills. Access to doctors, access to diagnostic tests and access to treatment options are clearly detrimental to the best possible health outcomes if they cannot be achieved within reasonable time frames. The authority of midwives and nurse practitioners to assume responsibility for some of these needs should allow better time frames for action on health concerns.
The legislation will give registered midwives and nurse practitioners the capacity to order certain diagnostic-imaging and pathology tests, for which a Medicare benefit can then be paid. The legislation will also allow these midwives and nurse practitioners to prescribe certain medicines under the PBS. The midwives and nurse practitioners will also, when they are working in collaborative arrangements with doctors, have new Medicare items and referrals listed under the Medicare Benefits Schedule. The bills that cover indemnity insurance matters will allow the Commonwealth to reach a contract with an insurer through a national tender process to provide indemnity insurance for midwives operating independently.
Clearly there are significant changes provided for in these bills. It is known that not all stakeholders support every part of the legislation. That is why the coalition supported the consideration of changes by a Senate committee. Unfortunately, the workload and number of submissions, being more than 200, have caused a delay in the finalisation of the report by the Senate committee.
I will now take the opportunity to mention some of the comments made by stakeholders with regard to these bills. I note that the AMA disagree with aspects of these bills, particularly where midwives and nurse practitioners would have access to the MBS and the PBS. They also believe that patient care should be coordinated by a medical practitioner. However, given the decision to pursue these changes, they want to have involvement in the details of the regulations to be created. On the other hand, the Rural Doctors Association have broadly supported the changes regarding access to the PBS and the MBS. However, they also ask for controls and guidelines to ensure good communication between doctors and midwives and nurse practitioners. Both the AMA and the Rural Doctors Association oppose homebirth. The Australian College of Midwives support the bills. However, they want provisions to allow homebirth options. It is worth noting that the college recognises that homebirth is not appropriate in complex or higher risk cases.
The issues raised by stakeholders seem to be consistent. The points raised generally support midwives and nurse practitioners having access to the PBS and the MBS under certain controls and provisions. The division comes with the increased physical separation between the activities of midwives and nurse practitioners and those of doctors. Doctors are less inclined to support midwives and nurse practitioners providing patient care when doctors are not in the immediate area, which explains their complete opposition to homebirth under the supervision of midwives.
The government have negotiated the middle path in this situation with the stakeholders. They have sought compromise on both sides. Where I object is that the choice of homebirth is basically prohibited under plans regarding registration and accreditation. I reiterate that my wife and I would never have sought the homebirth option, but some women do. If they examine and are willing to accept the risks involved in taking that decision then such a choice, which currently exists, should never be taken away from them. It is my view that the government should reconsider their registration and accreditation plans.
To conclude, I thank my constituent Kiera Pedley and others within the electorate of Cowan for bringing to my attention their concerns and perspectives on homebirth. As I said right at the start, childbirth is certainly not an experience that we men ever have to go through—and I for one am pretty happy about that! Provided women understand the risks and the challenges of homebirth then they should always have that choice, and we on this side will always support that choice.
I am delighted to speak in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and two related bills, all of which concern midwives and nurse practitioners. These are three progressive pieces of legislation which in my view go beyond tinkering at the edges to genuinely reforming our health system, which the Labor government has recognised is at a tipping point.
Before dealing with the specifics of the legislation, I would like to say I am absolutely delighted with some of the federal government initiatives that we have seen in the health portfolio. Last December we saw $64 billion in the new health and hospitals agreement signed with the states. We have also seen the recent report of the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, and I look forward to participating in discussions in my electorate regarding its recommendations. We have also had community consultations in my electorate regarding, in particular, the establishment of a GP superclinic, and I am pleased to say that the Minister for Health and Ageing has indicated that we can expect a decision on that soon.
There is also intended to be consultation on the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission recommendations at the Swan District Hospital at Midland in my electorate. We will be very pleased to welcome that discussion at our local hospital. I was also delighted with the announcement in this year’s budget of some $180.1 million of Commonwealth money going towards building a new Midland Health Campus in my electorate, a facility that is long overdue and that will ensure many more patients in my electorate get access to acute levels of care. I look forward to working with not only the Commonwealth government but also the state government and my local government in the City of Swan to see the Midland Health Campus come to fruition hopefully no later than 2013.
I have some wonderful healthcare professionals in Hasluck many of whom have been very supportive of these reforms and of this particular legislation. They provide wonderful care to our community from cradle to grave. In particular, I refer to the Division of General Practice in my electorate, the Perth Primary Care Network, formerly the Perth and Hills Division of General Practice, and also to a particular practice in the suburb of Midland, the Swan Medical Group. These organisations have been in advance of many others in their profession in supporting, recognising and acknowledging the role of nurse practitioners. Indeed, they run very efficient and responsive practices in my electorate already using the professional wisdom and competency of nurse practitioners. They were early advocates for nurse practitioners and I know that they join with me in being very pleased to see this legislation put before the Australian parliament. I know how stretched some of their resources are. Sometimes, unless you are prepared to wait, it is difficult to get an appointment. Nurse practitioners are part of a strategy of ensuring that there is better access to those primary care services in my electorate.
At a personal level I am delighted to see this legislation come to fruition. I was involved in the mid-1980s in discussions in my home state of Western Australia regarding the transfer of nurse education from the hospital sector to the territory sector. That was a very important move in recognising the complexity of their work and the high level of tertiary knowledge required by our registered and enrolled nurses to practise competently in our hospitals and healthcare settings. That is 20-odd years ago now and in those days nurses were often faced with very heavy stereotypes and were, frankly, treated in some cases as the handmaidens of general practitioners and doctors in our healthcare system. I am very glad to have seen the changes in attitudes that have developed over the past 20 years.
Unfortunately, some of those stereotypes have not changed with respect to the fixing of nurses’ wages and conditions. Whilst again I acknowledge that we have come a long way in those 20 years, we are still a long way short of pay equity for nurses in all of their capacities. The ones closest to my heart are enrolled nurses who have an associate diploma and perform a very vital role in our healthcare system. They are often not recognised for their highly skilled contribution to health care. I have been very closely involved with this profession for over 20 years and it is with great pride that I speak in favour of this legislation which will empower midwives and nurse practitioners to operate as professionals in their own right and to provide the best health care to Australian communities.
This legislation has received wide-ranging support. It has support from the Australian Medical Association, the Australian College of Midwives, the Australian College of Nurse Practitioners and various associations of healthcare professionals. It is receiving this support because it facilitates a collaborative model allowing the right healthcare professional to provide the health care needed. It is important to understand that these bills do not change the existing abilities through state and territory legislation for nurse practitioners to prescribe medication or to refer patients. Nurse practitioners are already able to do this and, to a varying extent in the state public health systems, they are in fact doing this. What is proposed is to confer access to services itemised under the Medicare Benefits Schedule and to confer authority to prescribe certain medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
I had the privilege of meeting recently with a nurse practitioner in my electorate of Hasluck. He is one of two practising in the emergency department at the Swan District Hospital located in the suburb of Middle Swan. He is understandably passionate about the value that the role of nurse practitioners brings to our health system. He is currently in a position where he can make referrals and write prescriptions for medication autonomously within the public health system. He makes assessments based on his high level of skill and his experience in the nursing profession. At present, he sometimes identifies the need to refer a patient to a private professional or to a specialist, such as a maxillofacial surgeon, or to prescribe medication for the patient to obtain from a pharmacy. Despite this coming within the scope of his training and experience, he still must find a doctor in the emergency department to provide the necessary documentation. In essence, the immediate ramifications of this legislation for him and his role now will merely make those processes less complicated and give him the professional recognition that he deserves. I am proud to say that these changes are consistent with the Labor Party platform where we indicated again at our recent national conference—(Quorum formed) I thank my colleagues. It is one of the small prices we pay for government and it is a pleasure to be in government. Thank you for popping in and listening to what I have to say on this legislation. I was talking about a nurse practitioner in my electorate of Hasluck, Robin Moon, who I am very pleased to say will see the immediate ramifications of this legislation for him in his role in the emergency department at Swan District Hospital Campus and also give him the professional recognition that he deserves. Unfortunately, in Western Australia it has taken some three years for Robin after he qualified as a nurse practitioner to be able to convince his employing hospital that there was a role for nurse practitioners within the hospital emergency department.
This is still a problem across my home state of Western Australia. We estimate that there are some 85 nursing practitioners currently registered, but around only 30 of those are working and recognised as nurse practitioners. This, in my view, is a great waste of a highly skilled and competent workforce and I encourage the Western Australian government to address this situation at the earliest opportunity.
We have seen a much more progressive attitude in the private sector in Western Australia where the benefits of this legislation will also be immediately utilised. The private sector in Western Australia is poised and ready to deliver community health care to Western Australians in ways that have never been imagined before. I have one large charitable organisation in Western Australia which is currently examining the concept of providing home services which are a virtual hospital. They can employ nurse practitioners and other health professionals to go out into patients’ homes and provide Medicare subsidised elements of health care ordinarily available only in hospitals. We know that that will have some distinct advantages in assisting people to remain in their own homes. Most of us prefer to be at home than to be admitted to hospital.
Another very exciting example of progressive change in health care in WA is shopfront health care. Appearing in WA shopping centres are what we call ‘revive’ clinics, which are staffed by nurse practitioners to treat minor illnesses, including being able to provide prescriptions for medications such as antibiotics where necessary and to provide coaching in areas such as weight loss or in assisting with stopping smoking. In country and regional areas such as Port Hedland in the Pilbara of Western Australia where there are some four doctors available to service the population, the ability of nurse practitioners to access Medicare when operating from such clinics will enable them to fill a critical gap in the provision of health care, especially in areas such as immunisation.
On the broader front of training these professionals, I am pleased that the government has recognised the need to invest in training for the future and that the government has already announced funding of $2.1 million to develop our nurse practitioner workforce. We have provided access to scholarships for up to $15,000 per annum for the two-year masters degree that it is necessary for nurse practitioners to undertake to get their qualification and recognition. I believe that when the WA state government finally starts utilising this resource we in the Commonwealth at least are ensuring that nurse practitioners will be ready, willing and available to fill this need.
I want to talk briefly about midwives. I am a great supporter of midwives and have had the pleasure of being part of the birthing team when my sister gave birth to her four beautiful children. These births occurred in the birthing centre at King Edward Memorial Hospital, a fine facility which is staffed entirely by midwives. My sister created the record for being the first person to have her four children in the birthing centre. My lovely nieces Lauren, Jessica, Emily and Amy were all delivered by a wonderful and competent team of midwives at the King Edward Memorial Hospital birthing centre, and I pay tribute to them. What a fantastic experience it was to be a party to their births.
For those of you who have been around at the birthing of children, I truly believe it is evidence that there is still magic in the universe and you will never forget that first breath that a baby takes upon being born. Being the stepmother of two children myself, I disappointed my mother when she asked me after I had been through this wonderful experience if I intended to have my own, to which I responded: ‘My goodness! Not now that I’ve seen where it all comes from.’ Nevertheless, it was a beautiful experience and I am honoured to have been party to it.
These bills will enable health professionals, midwives and nurse practitioners to work collaboratively with obstetricians and hospitals by giving them independent access to the relevant Medicare items and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and addressing the market failure in indemnity insurance for these people. Currently, midwives have been unable to obtain professional indemnity cover for midwife-led birthing as opposed to obstetrician-led birthing, despite estimates by the Australian Government Actuary that the incidence of claims is likely to be comparable to that of obstetricians and procedural GPs.
This bill establishes a system whereby a private insurer will be able to offer a suitable professional indemnity product, with the Commonwealth assuming responsibility for a substantial part of the liability. I know that those opposite have criticised the legislation because it does not extend at this stage to supporting Medicare or PBS funding for homebirths. Can I say to those members present that none of these bills makes homebirths unlawful and none of these bills changes the current arrangement with respect to homebirths as they have always been. These three bills form part of the maternity services budget package. The Commonwealth is committed to underwriting midwives insurance to enable such an insurance product to be developed. I reiterate that we all look forward to seeing this come to fruition—
Mr Laming interjecting
Order! The member for Bowman will have his chance later.
The Commonwealth had not intended that this new product would be feasible or affordable if it included homebirthing. I know this causes significant and wide concern among some people, but we know that the minister is working hard on this issue, through her department and with the states and territories, to bring about a result which will see that professional indemnity cover eventually applied to midwives and homebirths.
I note the comments from members opposite, who held government for 12 long years and, in all that time, did nothing about the professional recognition or training of nurse practitioners—and I caution the member for Bowman in that regard. These are progressive pieces of legislation welcomed by professional nurse practitioners around Australia. I congratulate the minister on her legislation.
Debate (on motion by Mr Kerr) adjourned.
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 2, item 8, page 14 (line 2), omit “Authority’s”, substitute “Regulator’s”.
(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 14 (lines 4, 7, 11 and 15), omit “Authority”, substitute “Regulator”.
(3) Schedule 2, item 14, page 15 (lines 17, 28 and 30), omit “Authority”, substitute “Regulator”.
(4) Schedule 2, item 14, page 16 (lines 3, 12, 17, 21, 26, 28, 29 and 32), omit “Authority”, substitute “Regulator”.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
These minor amendments deal with administrative matters. They clarify that the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator, which administers the current Mandatory Renewable Energy Target Scheme and will administer the expanded RET scheme, will be responsible for administration of partial exemptions in relation to emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities under the RET scheme. When the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme comes into force, the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator will be absorbed into the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority, which will administer these partial exemptions.
The proposed amendments simply replace several references made in the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 to the ‘Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator’ to the ‘Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority’, as the authority will only come into existence once the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation passes. Consequential amendments in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation will give effect to the requisite change of reference from ‘regulator’ to ‘authority’ in the RET legislation at the appropriate time. These provisions are to commence on the day the bill receives royal assent. As this minor amendment deals with a purely administrative matter required to support the agreement reached in the Senate, I understand that those opposite will support it. I commend the amendments to the House.
Australia will have real renewable energy legislation. Australia will have a 20 per cent renewable energy target and Australia will have the beginnings of a clean energy revolution. This is the legislation which the government itself delayed. This is the legislation that we have brought forward. This is the legislation that we worked to get passed. It is a great result for Australia. It is a great result for the clean energy industry. We support it. We have worked towards it.
I am delighted also that it shows that the parliament can work at its best when the government agrees to negotiate and compromise. We have negotiated and we have reached an agreement. It is a tremendous result for the parliament and it is a tremendous result for Australia.
I thank the minister for his work. I respect the fact that Senator Wong also came to the table, and I appreciate that process of cooperation. It is what the parliament can do. If the government wants work in relation to the emissions trading scheme, they should begin unconditional talks today. No conditions. No strings. Let us begin talking. Let us deal today with the question of green carbon. Let us make sure that burping cows are not taxed. Let us get the taxing of burping cows off the agenda. Let us get green carbon and agricultural offsets onto the agenda. Let us negotiate today without conditions.
Ultimately, having this bill in this place on this day is a triumph for parliamentary process and parliamentary democracy. We support the renewable energy target. We support a clean energy revolution. It gives me great pleasure on behalf of the opposition to give our support and our agreement to the renewable energy target of 20 per cent.
In closing the discussion on this important piece of legislation, which has been through the Senate and is now back before the House for final adoption, it is important to reinforce the fact that the implementation of this legislation represents a commitment made by the Australian Labor Party to achieve 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply from renewable sources by the year 2020. We are pleased that the coalition has entered into discussions with the government leading to this agreement. It implements our policy position and can now, on passage through the parliament and after receiving royal assent, unlock investment in renewable energy and the jobs associated with it. It is a significant piece of legislation.
Finally I would like to thank those who have worked extremely hard to achieve this legislation, including the officers of the Department of Climate Change and other departments. But most particularly I would like to put on the record my congratulations to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, who has had a very difficult portfolio to manage and has managed it tremendously well. I would like to thank her staff on this important achievement as well. I commend the amendments to the House.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
Few in this chamber will not be cheering that finally we have indemnity to support the great work midwives do for mothers around this country. But a very strange thing happened as this legislation, the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and the cognate bills, took shape. As midwives working in the community who do homebirthing were off to do their day’s work, this government managed to slip a bit of rancid ham into the legislative sandwich and serve it up to the midwives, saying: ‘This is what we’re doing for homebirths. We’re going to make registration contingent on your no longer doing homebirths. If you contemplate a homebirth, there will be a $30,000 fine.’ There is no plan to put that on the Medicare safety net, is there, Treasurer? No way. You are attempting to snuff out homebirths. We would be the first country in the world to do it. That is a dreadful shame.
The government should have had this worked out long ago. The evidence speaks strongly to this. The Cochrane database tells us that there is no evidence that homebirths in a proper, hospital-supported arrangement cannot be achieved. We have the evidence from de Jonge and from Olsen. There has been meta-analysis in Denmark. A study of 529,000 Dutch mums has been recently published, as has Symons in the British Medical Journal and there are other sources. If it is done properly, if high-risk mums are taken out of the study and we look at the ratios, we know that there is no significant difference in outcomes.
You can talk to Hofmeyr, who authors the Cochrane collaboration, who says there is no difference in danger for low-risk mums to deliver at home or in a hospital. In fact, Cochrane, which is the gold standard for medicine, goes another step and says that, where a homebirthing service can be supported by a hospital arrangement, mums should be given the choice. But in this Labor legislation I see homebirthing being snuffed out. I can see lots and lots of people in the gallery, many of whom would never choose homebirth, but there are a proportion who would. For those mums out there, I am telling you: this side of the chamber is standing for your choice to do it in a safe environment with appropriate hospital support.
Let us be completely frank about this. Not everyone is going to choose a homebirth. But, in every country in the world bar this one, it can still continue. In the Netherlands, something like a quarter of all births are done at home. Look at the history of midwifery. You can go right back through five centuries. There was a time when homebirth was safer than being in hospital. Back in the 1750s, when they opened the doors of hospitals to mums of lower socioeconomic background—and the other side of the chamber should be listening to this all of a sudden—it was actually more dangerous to go to hospital for a birth because of the lack of antiseptic measures. There was a time, in 1854, in Vienna when 13 per cent of mums died in hospital childbirth compared to two per cent with homebirthing.
Obviously times have changed and technology has moved on, but here is one chance to stand up for homebirthing. What has happened? It has been snuffed out through this sneaky legislation. There is an evolving habit on the other side to sneak nasty bits into the centre of legislation and make it difficult to vote against. But, mums of Australia, you need to know, if you are even contemplating a homebirth, that that choice is about to be removed. We have looked at risk. There is no greater risk. We have looked at finance—after all, actuarial analysis will tell you if it is or is not going to cost a fortune to indemnify home midwifery. Will the government release those figures? It is a big ‘n-o’. There is no chance of that. We cannot even look at what it would cost to indemnify home deliveries. This is for women who ask for home delivery and professionals who want to provide it.
A funny thing happened on the way to work today. Someone turned to me and said, ‘Hang on, so it’s your side of the chamber, the conservatives, arguing for harm reduction so that there can be trained midwives at homebirths, and it is the Labor Party fighting against that, with zero tolerance for homebirths?’ I said, ‘That’s right.’ They said, ‘That’s a bit strange; isn’t it normally the other way round, with drugs?’ I said: ‘That’s right. Illicit drugs are illegal. There is nothing illegal about homebirthing, but it’s about to become that way under this lazy government.’
I do not know what the Minister for Health and Ageing has been up to, but she is developing this habit of turning up here with Treasury bills to save money in the guise of health reform legislation. That is right. Here comes a health bill but the real intention of it is to cut the guts out of health funding, save money for Treasury and start to pay for this Prime Minister’s wobbly, wobbly $106 billion spending of the last six months. To take it out on mums who simply want a home delivery is a disgrace.
You need to look at the choice, the quality of care and the fact that these home deliveries are done by committed professionals. This legislation is snuffing that out, closing it down. What are you going to do? Are you going to achieve a complete elimination of homebirths in this country? N-o. Are you going to drive it underground? Probably. Are you going to take away the qualified midwives by denying them registration if they turn up to a home delivery? Y-e-s. So what are we left with? We are left with further marginalisation of homebirths, less support for homebirths and worse outcomes in a global context where home deliveries can be done safely. Health Minister, you have had plenty of time to get this right. This did not pop up on you yesterday. You have been lobbied consistently by those who support homebirths.
In my electorate of Bowman, homebirths will be snuffed out. I am telling you, sneaking this rancid stuff into the middle of ALP legislation, sticking a bit of ALP dill on the top and trying to pass it off as a revolution in health care is a complete disgrace. It is not too late. I am asking this government to take another look at this legislation. It is time for you to support midwifery, whether it is at home or in a hospital. They are the same women, Health Minister, that need these services. They are no different. Some of them just have a birthing plan that involves delivering at home. Why don’t you allow professional midwives to support them? Do not deny the midwives registration. Do not fine them $30,000. That is a complete disgrace. We are the only country in the world doing it. It is in the context of saving money. When it comes to health, that is an extraordinary shame. On behalf of every woman who chooses to deliver at home and every family who would like to see that happen, I say: why should you run them down? Why should you snuff them out in the guise of health legislation that is mere penny-pinching? This is something that should be changed right now. It is not too late. Make an amendment and allow homebirths to continue in this country.
Order! It being 2.00 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.
I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs will be absent from question time today as he is accompanying the Prime Minister of New Zealand to the Australian War Memorial. I note that both the Leader of the Opposition and I have met with the Prime Minister of New Zealand and he is indeed a most welcome official guest in our country. The Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his confirmation that, despite the Henry tax review being underway, cabinet this year considered increasing income tax. Will the Treasurer reveal to the House what other secret tax increases or new taxes cabinet has under consideration ahead of the completion of the Henry tax review?
The fear campaign from the opposition on tax follows their fear campaign on the bank guarantee and their fear campaign on the stimulus package and responsible borrowing. Of course, we have only had one question all week from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer.
Why don’t you rule it out?
It has been the same question all week, and I have given the same answer because the government will not pre-empt the Henry review. It is an independent review and I am not getting into the daily habit of ruling things in or out.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on developments in Afghanistan surrounding their elections?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Today marks an important milestone for the people of Afghanistan with the holding of the first Afghan-led presidential and provincial council elections in 30 years—an opportunity for the people of Afghanistan, brutally oppressed under the Taliban regime until 2001, to have their voices heard. Credible elections are critical to strengthening Afghanistan’s democratic process and institutions and consolidating the progress made since the 2004 elections. There will be something like 6½ thousand polling stations, including dedicated polling stations for women, across Afghanistan, which should give access to about 85 per cent of Afghanistan’s 16 million registered voters. I note recent comments by the UN Secretary-General’s special representative, Kai Eide, that the vigorous election campaign represents a milestone in the political maturity of Afghanistan. The government and, I am sure, all members of this place condemn the acts of violence that we have seen by the Taliban and others across Afghanistan in recent times seeking to disrupt this election process—in particular, Tuesday’s suicide bombing in Kabul which claimed the lives of both UN and ISAF personnel as well as Afghan civilians.
Australia, along with other coalition partners and our partners in Afghanistan itself, has worked hard over many months now in preparation for these elections. They are among the most complex and difficult to conduct anywhere in the world, simply because of the terrain of Afghanistan, the challenging geography, and the security environment. Australia has provided extensive assistance to support these elections—including some 120 troops to assist with election security and $9 million in funding for voter registration, education and public outreach activities—and has established the independent Electoral Complaints Commission of Afghanistan. The government is supporting a regional election observer mission, which will see 50 men and women from countries of the immediate region serving as observers throughout the electoral process. We have also supported the training of some 200 female Afghan election observers to allow women to participate more easily in the election process. The government is deploying a small team of Australian civilian observers, the precise role and deployment of which, of course, will be determined according to the security situation.
Australia’s mission in Afghanistan remains clear: firstly, strategic denial of Afghanistan as a training ground and operating base for global terrorist organisations; secondly, stabilisation of Afghanistan through a combination of military, police, civilian and economic efforts; and, thirdly, to work with our partners in Oruzgan Province to strengthen the capability of the Afghan security forces so that they can in turn ultimately assume responsibility for their own security. The Australian government has a clear-eyed view in terms of the challenges which lie ahead, as do our coalition partners, and in this place and across the nation at large we must always be prepared for our nation to suffer further losses of our men and women in the field. This is a difficult, dangerous and bloody operating environment, as I know all members in this place are aware.
It is critical that the international community remain engaged in Afghanistan. The events of recent years, starting with the attacks in the United States on September 11 and the subsequent attacks in Bali, Jakarta and Mumbai, highlight the absolute importance of continuing to tackle the threat of terrorism worldwide and, wherever we can, denying terrorists a training base such as historically they have had in Afghanistan. I also, on behalf of all members of this place and all right-thinking Australians, wish the people of Afghanistan every success on this historic day.
on indulgence—The opposition wishes to associated itself with the Prime Minister’s remarks. There is a bipartisan commitment to Australia’s mission in Afghanistan. The elections are of vital importance and we support the efforts of the Australian troops and other personnel in Afghanistan in ensuring that the terrorist forces are suppressed, in enabling the Afghan national security forces to take over responsibility for their nation’s own security and, in particular at this time, in ensuring that the election is conducted with safety and integrity. We commend the Prime Minister on his remarks and support the government in its efforts in Afghanistan.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his refusal to tell the Australian people about the government’s proposals to increase taxes by hiding behind the Henry tax review. Given that the government has already slugged taxpayers with increased taxes and charges on alcohol, cars, visas, overseas earned income, employee share schemes, software, fringe benefits, superannuation, non-commercial losses and private health insurance, doesn’t this just prove that the Henry tax review is nothing more than a smokescreen for the government’s plan to increase taxes?
This is a bit rich coming from a member of a government that was the highest taxing government in Australia’s history. They were a big taxing and very big spending government, and it has fallen to this side of the House to put some rigour back into the budget to deal with the structural issues in the budget that were created by those opposite. Over in the Senate they are opposing our proposals to means-test the private health insurance rebate. For them to ask this question at this stage, for them to come into this House and conduct a fear campaign on debt, just shows how hypocritical they are. They have not got a fiscal policy. All they can do is run these fear campaigns.
They are running these fear campaigns because the only thing that unites those opposite is their hatred of the government. That is the only thing that unites those opposite: their hatred of the Labor Party. They cannot come together with the government in the national interest to support economic stimulus, to support the bank guarantees and to support all of those things we have done to cushion our economy from the worst impacts of a global recession. They are a rabble, and that has eventuated because of the weak leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. It was on display in this House yesterday and it is on display in this House every time he asks a question where he puts forward a proposal to create a fear campaign. On this side of the House, there is no doubt that we take the nation’s long-term interests very seriously, unlike those opposite who only act in their own self-interest. It is in the long-term national interest for this country to have a mature discussion about tax reform and that is what we are going to do.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on developments in Australia’s natural gas sector?
I thank the honourable member for his question. As the House will be aware from the remarks made by the government and by the companies in recent days, there have in fact been good developments as far as Australia’s natural gas sector is concerned. Of course, those developments hinge in part on Australia being viewed internationally as a reliable destination for large amounts of foreign investment. In that respect, I draw to the House’s attention a Dun and Bradstreet global risk indicator, released just today, which describes Australia as a safe haven for business investment. Australia’s rating was DB1d, which is the equal highest ranking achieved anywhere in the world. The only other countries to achieve this rating were Canada, Norway and Switzerland. Australia has the highest rating awarded to any economy in the Asia-Pacific region. According to D&B’s CEO, Christine Christian:
The latest GRI rankings show that Australia is a low risk environment for business investment.
Furthermore, she makes this observation:
The world is continuing to change at a rapid pace and although Australia is faring well compared to other nations we cannot afford to stand still.
She is right. She is absolutely right. This is good news in terms of international investor perceptions of doing business in Australia and, in particular, investing in Australia. That brings us back to the question of LNG investments and those at considerable scale—and it is good to have the Minister for Resources and Energy back from Beijing.
Earlier this week in Beijing, Exxon Mobil and PetroChina signed Australia’s largest ever export deal, a $50 billion contract to supply liquefied natural gas to China from the greater Gorgon project—a fact which, in itself, seems to have elicited a particular response on the part of those opposite yesterday.
Yes, very unhappy.
And they seem remarkably silent on it today. The project will have a 40-year life and will generate export income and jobs for decades. The first 30 years of the life of this project will boost Australia’s GDP by $65 billion in net present value terms. The project will return more than $33 billion to the economy through the use of Australian goods and services over the project. The project will generate 6,000 jobs in the construction phase and will run for around five years in construction. The return in tax revenue over the life of the project will be in the order of $40 billion.
Mr Pyne interjecting
The member for Sturt, characteristically, mindful that he has the national bipartisan economic interest at stake here, interjects in a most negative fashion and says that there is in fact no role for government in respect of any element of this project. He is wrong on that point.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it offensive that the Prime Minister would put words in my mouth that I did not call out and I ask him to withdraw them. It is called ‘verballing’ and I ask him to withdraw. I said no such thing and he knows it.
Order! The member will resume his seat. On his point of order, there are other avenues and processes of the House at his disposal to rectify the situation that he believes he is in. I would indicate to him, though, that it is a salutary lesson to all members of the chamber about the way in which members place themselves in some trouble if they continually interject.
Mr Pyne interjecting
It would assist if members did not continually interject either other members or the occupant of the chair.
Perhaps the member for Sturt could lead a South Australian walkout of the chamber today, given the success of the WA walkout yesterday! Mr Speaker, his interjection went to this question: what is the role for government in relation to these projects?
I draw his attention to the fact that earlier this week I advised the House that there were three outstanding matters in relation to the Gorgon project which we have been working on with the government of Western Australia and the joint venture partners to resolve. The first was a commitment by government to indemnify the joint venture parties against third-party claims following the closure of CO2 sequestration, (2) the issuing of the necessary production licences of the project and (3) the finalisation of the necessary environmental assessments and approvals. On the first of these, I have today written to the WA Premier confirming the Commonwealth’s agreement to share the long-term liability for the CO2 sequestered under the Barrow Island site. In relation to the production licences, I am advised that the Gorgon joint venture partners lodged an application for these licences with the Minister for Resources and Energy on Tuesday, as I understand it. Furthermore, on the question of the environmental proposals, that is what the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts and his WA state colleague have been asked to work on and they are continuing to do so diligently. It is important that these processes are attended to with all thoroughness, as those opposite will recall from their previous engagement in environmental assessment processes. A referral under the EPBC act was lodged by Chevron in April 2008 and the environment minister and his officers have been working closely with the WA government since that time.
The interjection went to the roles of government. There will be three sets of regulatory roles, the first of which involves an act of indemnification that is actually unprecedented in the country. Therefore, the decision taken conjointly by this government and the WA Liberal government to indemnify the project against CO2 sequestration liabilities long term has in fact been one of those factors which has underpinned this decision. This is what the government has embarked upon in its support of these resource projects. As I indicated to the House yesterday and the day before, there are other LNG projects alive not only in Western Australia but also in Queensland as well as off the Northern Territory. The government will continue to work positively, proactively and constructively with each of these major companies because it is all about long-term development of Australia’s infrastructure and long-term development of Australia’s jobs.
These development projects also dovetail with the government’s long-term strategy of nation building for recovery and nation building for the future—nation building for the future and what must be a building decade for Australia, a building decade which involves not just the investment and public infrastructure—the roads, the rail, the ports that we need for the future as well as the high speed broadband—but also, in conjunction with our partners in the private sector, the long-term rollout of private sector infrastructure; hence, why we have developed Infrastructure Australia and hence its role in working out long-term plans for the proper provision of public infrastructure in Australia necessary for long-term productivity growth and, equally, to learn from the lessons from the past through the development of Skills Australia to work out the long-term skills needs which this economy will need, particularly given the tens of thousands of jobs which will emerge from these resource projects over time. We should be mindful of the fact that inadequate planning in this respect in the past led to excessive inflationary pressures through a failure to plan for long-term infrastructure and skills needs in the economy. That is the howling lesson from the end of the nineties through until the middle of the first decade of this century.
We must learn by that. That is why the government is committed to a building decade ahead. That is why we intend to get on with the business of partnering with the private sector in advancing the Australian national economic interest. I would suggest to those opposite that they get with a national interest argument here, back the government and back the private sector in getting on with the business of building Australia’s economic recovery for our long-term future.
My question is to the Treasurer. Given the Treasurer has indicated that he wants a mature debate on tax, does he agree with Dr Ken Henry that the states should be allowed to levy their own state income taxes?
This is yet another example of those opposite being so desperate that they have to conduct and misrepresent the Treasury secretary, which is what they have done. The Treasury secretary gave a speech yesterday. He said all options are on the table. He is producing a report independently of the government. We will debate it in a mature way, irrespective of how divisive those opposite want to get. I have absolutely no intention of pre-empting the Henry report. Those opposite are just flipping and flopping all over the place, because we have had the shadow Treasurer say he supports the Henry review and we have had the Leader of the Opposition come in the House today and describe it as a smokescreen. Which one is it? Do you support it or not?
Mr Speaker, I asked the Treasurer—
No, the member for Goldstein will await the call. The member for Goldstein does not have to sit but he will await the call. The member for Goldstein has the call.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I did not ask about other people’s opinions; I asked the Treasurer about his opinion on whether he supports state income taxes.
Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the member opposite has just clarified that his question was clearly out of order because it was seeking an opinion.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The member for Sturt. The member for North Sydney. Those on the frontbench on both my left and right.
Mr Secker interjecting
The member for Barker will withdraw his remark.
I withdraw.
The Leader of the House will know that, in response to a point of order yesterday, I indicated that retrospective points of order on a question have not been permitted in the past. If a mistake was made, then I have made a mistake.
Mr Pyne interjecting
Order! Sometimes I am just not sure which book of standing orders the Manager of Opposition Business is using. He just cannot continue to interject all the time.
Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I understand your point. I am asking you for a ruling based upon the shadow minister’s own point of order, where he declared he was seeking an opinion.
I am in a position to rule on this point and my ruling is that the Treasurer has the call.
What we have is another example of a split on that side of the House—a split between the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition. What a rabble they are! The only things that bind them together are hatred and fear. They have proved their lack of judgment time and time again.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order which goes to relevance. I would ask that the incompetent, inconsistent Treasurer answer a single question.
The member for North Sydney is warned, not for raising a point of order but for the rider he gave to his point of order. On the point of order, the Treasurer has the call. He will respond to the question.
The shadow Treasurer was very sloppy when he made that statement—
The Treasurer will refer to the question.
He was very sloppy yet again, because he went out and said he supported the Henry review. He was encouraged by it. We now have the tactics in this House this week. He has obviously been rolled. There were something like eight question times when there was not a question from the shadow Treasurer to me.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. With due respect to you, the Treasurer was asked whether he agreed with Dr Ken Henry’s remarks about state income taxes. None of what he is now engaging in could be regarded as relevant to the question.
The Treasurer has concluded. I call the member for Hasluck.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Will the minister advise the House about the outlook for Australian LNG in the Asia-Pacific region?
I thank the member for Hasluck, a Western Australian who is proud of the announcements this week on achieving long-term export opportunities for Australia to the tune of $75 billion. The first ever long-term LNG supply contract with India was achieved on Monday of last week, and a $50 billion long-term LNG supply contract with PetroChina was achieved earlier this week. These contracts make a very strong statement that Australia is open for investment and, importantly, a very strong statement to the Asia-Pacific region that we are committed to developing our mineral and energy resources so as to not only maximise jobs and wealth in Australia but also meet the emerging needs of countries such as China and India.
Let us deal with the recent history of the LNG industry and its potential in the very near future. In 2008-09, Australian LNG generated almost $10 billion in export earnings. That is nearly three times the value of LNG exports only three years ago. Today we have 20 million tonnes per year of production capacity on the North West Shelf in Western Australia and in Darwin. That LNG services key markets such as Japan, China and Taiwan and, in the foreseeable future, India and other Asia-Pacific nations. Perhaps more importantly, on achieving the Gorgon investment decision, with the good progress on Pluto 1, which is close to production, we have the capacity to double our export opportunities to the tune of 40 million tonnes and, in doing so, double our export earnings.
I am also pleased to report to the House that the government will continue to work with the governments of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland in close alliance with the petroleum companies, because the race is on with respect to a number of other major LNG projects. I refer to Ichthys and its potential for the northern part of Australia, principally Darwin; Pluto 2 and Pluto 3 and the announcements by Woodside yesterday; Sunrise and our relationship with the Timor-Leste government; Wheatstone; Prelude; Browse; Scarborough; and Gladstone, the new frontier on the east coast of Australia, where there is great interest in coal seam methane based LNG, a new export opportunity for Australia.
For Australia, that is not just about doubling or even tripling our LNG export opportunities; it is also about potentially achieving investments to the tune of $100 billion over the next couple of years. That creates wealth for the private sector and export earnings for the government to improve on the requirement to properly service the Australian community in areas such as health, education and basic infrastructure. It also creates real jobs on the ground.
We should not forget that LNG is regarded as clean energy in the transition to a low-emission global community. By way of information to the House, for every tonne of CO2 produced in Australia when LNG is made, nine tonnes are saved when it is used for power generation in China. That is why I was also involved in a number of key conferences in China this week, going not only to the Gorgon export opportunities but also to our capacity to fuel their economy as they return to high growth and, in doing so, assist the global community to return to what we all want sooner than later: better economic growth.
I am pleased to report that in meetings with the China National Petroleum Corporation—better known as PetroChina—the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, CNOOC, and Chairman Zhang Ping of the National Development and Reform Commission they have been vitally focused on Australia’s export opportunities—not only in LNG but also in the expansion of our uranium sector and, very importantly, our capacity to work with them on clean coal technology and also the renewables sector. From Australia’s point of view, we are well placed not only to service the requirements of the Asia-Pacific region on LNG, with terrific export opportunities and jobs in Australia, but also to take forward the clean energy debate in a very close, cooperative way with our counterparts in places such as China, Korea, India and Japan.
In conclusion, I simply say that the outcomes of negotiations over recent months, which will hopefully conclude in the finalisation of the necessary requirements for the Gorgon investment decision, are in Australia’s national interest. I am pleased to say that the government has worked with Western Australia and the business sector so as to facilitate that investment sooner rather than later. Perhaps more importantly, I simply remind the House that there are a wealth of other LNG opportunities that will create further investment, wealth and jobs in Australia and in doing so will serve emerging economies such as China and India.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Joan Child AO. Joan was the fourth woman to be elected to this House and its first female Labor member. She was the first female Speaker of the House and the only person to be Speaker in the provisional Parliament House and this Parliament House. August 22 this year marks the 21st anniversary of the first sittings in this House and Mrs Child taking the chair in this chamber for the first time after the move from Old Parliament House. On behalf of all members I extend to Joan Child a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer, and I refer to his earlier request to have a mature debate where he does not give an opinion. Given that the government was able to rule out an increase in the GST but all week has declined to rule out the introduction of a capital gains tax on the family home, will the Treasurer today rule out the introduction of a capital gains tax on the family home?
The shadow Treasurer has a new-found interest in tax, and I can imagine why he is so embarrassed considering that some weeks ago he suggested that this year’s tax cuts in the budget should have been cancelled. I think he would be fairly embarrassed about that performance. He is correct to identify that, in terms of the Henry review, we said we would not be looking at any change to the GST and tax-free super. We said that. Of course when the Australian ran a story on Saturday I made the government’s view on capital gains tax on housing very clear. I made the point that we did not ask the review to look at it, that they were not going to recommend it and that we had not considered it. That is the point I made on Saturday, and I will say it again very clearly: we did not ask the review to look at it, they are not going to recommend it and we are not going to consider it. I went on to make the point that we were not going to be in the daily habit of ruling things in or ruling things out. But I have one suggestion for those opposite—I wonder whether they could get together enough energy, and whether they could get together enough unity, to put in a submission to the Henry review on tax.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. How important is it for the renewable energy target legislation and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to both pass the parliament, and is there a relationship between these two pieces of legislation?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. Just before question time the government secured passage of its expanded renewable energy target legislation through both the Senate and this House. That delivers on the commitment that the Australian Labor Party made to the Australian people to guarantee that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply will be delivered by renewable sources by the year 2020. This is an extremely important achievement and it is one of the key institutional changes in the battle that the government is undertaking to deal with climate change. The passage of the legislation will help unlock investment in renewable energy generation and of course in jobs associated with those industries in areas like solar and wind power amongst others.
It is important for the House to understand that, even with the expanded renewable target renewable energy target in place, Australia’s emissions will continue to rise without the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Projections show that without the CPRS emissions will be 20 per cent higher in 2020 than they were in the year 2000. That is why we need the CPRS legislation to be carried by the Senate and by this place. It is the principal mechanism by which we will go ahead to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country and play a constructive role in international negotiations over climate change.
The opposition has attempted to present itself as ‘greening up’ this week by supporting the government’s renewable energy target legislation, which is important. But of course it retains a thoroughly incoherent position on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—and we know why they are so incoherent on this issue; there are still problems with climate change sceptics. They are hopelessly divided. The evidence that we saw yesterday in the House during question time was perfectly graphic on this issue. But the incoherence goes to the extent that, after spending all of last week and some time before arguing for the decoupling of the renewable energy legislation from the CPRS, the coalition has now agreed to amendments—which have enabled the passage of the renewable energy legislation—that provide a direct relationship between the renewable energy legislation and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Let there be no mistake about it: after arguing for that decoupling, the renewable energy legislation provides for assistance or relief from the renewable energy target for industries in the emissions-intensive trade-exposed category on the same basis as the CPRS. That was the government’s position in the first place. It is an acceptance of reality by the coalition at last on that issue—but not only that. The coalition has also agreed in the amendments to look at industries potentially affected by the renewable energy legislation on the basis that it will open up assistance under the Climate Change Action Fund—a fund, of course, which we funded by the establishment of the emissions trading scheme. So, firstly having argued to decouple everything, this is a double recouple. There is a direct relationship between both pieces of legislation.
There appears to be some confusion on the other side about this issue, and I refer to some comments reported in the Australian yesterday from Senator Boswell, and this is in view of the fact that we need the CPRS to go through to address climate change. Senator Boswell said the following:
… our support for the renewable energy target in no way weakens our stand against the emissions trading scheme.
It remains very, very doubtful whether we could ever vote for an ETS.
The government has news for Senator Boswell, the National Party and the Western Australian Liberals. The agreement on the renewable energy legislation makes the case for the CPRS even more compelling—absolutely, fundamentally important. The time for vague principles, for reports from Frontier Economics and other consultants, for seeing the parade of sceptics on the other side of politics and for all of that is over. It is critical to have the CPRS legislation pass through this parliament and it is critical for the coalition to stand up in the national interest. They are behaving like a rabble on this issue. It is time to come forward with the specific amendments that the government can deal with to secure passage of the CPRS. Stand up for what is right.
My question is to the Treasurer, and I refer to his desire to have a mature debate on taxation reform without him giving an opinion. Does the Treasurer agree with the International Monetary Fund that the current tax treatment of owner-occupied housing is too generous and that capital gains tax should be levied on the family home?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question about tax. I also have now the statement he made to the House on 11 August this year. He said this:
We look forward to the tax and welfare reform initiative of the Henry review. We look forward to seeing that.
Back then, only a few weeks ago, he was a full supporter of the Henry process. Today the Leader of the Opposition comes into the House and calls it a smokescreen—very sloppy, Joe, very sloppy. What it shows is just how divided—
Order! The Treasurer will refer to members by their parliamentary titles.
It just shows how divided they are.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 64(c), you have twice asked the Treasurer to withdraw that remark this week, and I would ask you to ask him to withdraw that remark on this occasion.
To progress proceedings, and offence to the expression being expressed, I will ask the Treasurer to withdraw. The more important thing that I would like him to have in mind is the need to refer to members by their parliamentary titles.
Certainly. I do withdraw, but it was very sloppy of the shadow Treasurer to quote the IMF paper in the way that he just did in this House because the IMF paper is about tax policy. It does relate to housing policy but it is all about tax deductibility for home mortgage interest repayments. It is principally about that and its impact in a number of other countries around the globe, and it is not specifically directed to this country. So it is just another example of the lack of judgment and the sloppiness of the shadow Treasurer.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister please outline Australia’s approach to the admission of foreign citizens, and are there any challenges to this approach?
I thank the member for her question. The question goes to the rigour and the sanctity of Australia’s longstanding immigration procedures and processes. When people want to visit Australia—non-Australian citizens—they of course apply for a visa of some description. There are a range of assessments that are done in the course of that. For example, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship make assessments in respect of character. Our security organisations make assessments in respect of security. And from time to time under our arrangements it is open for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to make assessments with respect to foreign policy matters and foreign policy implications. Ultimately, as a result of that law, that practice and our longstanding procedures, from time to time it falls to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make a judgment as to whether the issuing of a visa would be appropriate or not as the case may be.
This, of course, is precisely the process which I followed in the recent issuing of a visa to the Uygur leader Rebiya Kadeer—a matter of some controversy and a matter of remarks in the chamber this week. I have detailed to the House that prior to the issuing of the visa, and prior to my decision to not disturb our longstanding arrangements and to not disturb the normal processes of the issuing of a visa to her, I received representations, and Australia received representations, from the Chinese authorities at pretty much every level, including from my own counterpart. The representation from China was that this would not be something which China would welcome, and China asserted that Rebiya Kadeer was a terrorist. After exhaustive assessment, I came to the conclusion that I should not disturb the visa arrangements and the visa was granted. As I said to the House earlier this week, China responded to that by indicating it was most unhappy, and I have detailed to the House a number of measures which China has taken in response to that, which of course Australia regrets.
The reason why we issued a visa and the reason why we did not disturb that is that we have values and virtues of long standing. We understand, respect and recognise freedom of speech. We value the capacity of someone to come to our country and say things even if we do not agree with them, and a range of things which Ms Kadeer said, including arguing that the western provinces should be under separate autonomy, is not something that the Australian government agrees with. We have a longstanding position to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the western provinces so far as China is concerned and, as I have indicated to the Chinese authorities, just because someone comes here does not mean that Australia agrees with them. But it is part of our system—our values and virtues—that people have the right to exercise a view.
Yesterday in the House, in response to a question, I said to the shadow minister for foreign affairs, and the Leader of the Opposition as well, that I was a bit unclear as to what the Liberal Party’s position on the issuing of the visa to Rebiya Kadeer was. I said I was just a bit unsure as to whether they supported it or opposed it. That was in part confirmed by the press release which the shadow minister put out yesterday, 19 August, and I quote:
“Most recently, the Rudd Government failed to work constructively with China regarding the visit to Australia of Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer.”
I said to myself, ‘Work constructively? I am not quite sure what that means. I listened to the representations of the Chinese authorities. I made a decision. And before that decision was made public, as I indicated to the House, I let the Chinese authorities know.’ So I was a bit unsure as to what working constructively meant. Maybe this meant that the Liberal Party did not agree with the government’s decision and the visa should have been refused? I was much edified this morning when I saw the transcript from the shadow minister’s doorstop at Parliament House today, 20 August. In commenting on the China-Australia relationship, she said, ‘There was the bungling of the handling of the visa to the Uygur leader.’ When you decide as a nation state to issue a visa you do one of two things: you either grant it or you refuse it. You either say yes or you say no. There is only one way you can bungle the issuing of a visa and that is if someone else forms the view that the visa should not have been issued. I am just assuming, because of what the shadow minister has said and because of her and the Leader of the Opposition’s deafening silence on this issue until the last couple of days, that the Liberal Party does not and did not support the granting of the visa to Rebiya Kadeer. So the Liberal Party does not believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Maybe that is just reading too much into it? Maybe there is a simpler explanation: incompetence and trying to take craven domestic political advantage. Maybe it is just incompetence. Maybe it is speaking before you think. Or maybe it is doing what I said yesterday the Leader of the Opposition had done: broken the longstanding tradition of political parties on both sides of this House of a bipartisan approach to the Australia-China relationship? Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, when we were in opposition for 12 years we did not seek to take domestic political advantage of our relationship with China. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition and unlike the shadow minister, we do not take a naive, crass, simplistic, miscalculated, misjudged view of China. So it is there for all to see: the shadow minister on the doors today saying that, when the Australian government issued a visa to Rebiya Kadeer, that was a bungle. It was a bungle because, according to the Liberal Party, the visa should not have been granted. So either they do not believe in freedom of speech in accordance with our longstanding traditions or they are trying to take craven political advantage out of an important relationship.
On the other hand, the government takes a long-term view of our relationship with China. In the last 24 hours we have seen the largest trade deal between Australia and China in our nation’s history. We also have seen a range of difficulties associated with the relationship, crystallising with the issuing by the government of a visa to Rebiya Kadeer. And that was done because it was the right thing to do. If the Liberal Party had been in government at the time it is quite clear that the Liberal Party would not have issued that visa to Rebiya Kadeer. That would not have been in our nation’s interest and it would not have been in the long-term interests of the relationship between Australia and China.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I refer the minister to media reports that she will intervene on behalf of the horticulture sector and possibly spare them from the job losses, business closures and other impacts of the government’s so-called modern awards. Will the minister also commit to providing a similar stay of execution for the workers and small businesses in the retail, pharmacy, aged-care and hospitality industries?
Opposition members interjecting—
Of course, I commence my answer over the voices of those who support Work Choices on the other side. We are involved in a reform, an award modernisation reform, that when the Liberal Party was in office it said it thought was a good reform too. Indeed, the member for Menzies and others used to come into this parliament each and every day and talk about the compliance burden from the awards system and say that the awards system needed to be modernised. As it turned out, the Liberal Party proved too incompetent to get that done and chose instead to go down the route of Work Choices, where of course the award did not mean anything because you could always have an Australian workplace agreement forced on you that would strip the award away. But this remains an important reform for employers, called for by employers for decades, and I direct the shadow minister to views expressed by organisations like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry when they said:
Workplace relations policy is too important for horse and buggy era approaches to persist.
… … …
… many businesses are subject to overlapping, multiple sets of regulation … within the one workplace.
They went on to say that this situation creates:
… profound difficulties in identifying workplace rights and obligations.
When did they say that? It was in 2005. Who is fixing it? This government is. It is fixing it through an award modernisation request that went to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission is well into this two-year task and it is on a journey to reduce 2,400 outmoded state and federal awards and industrial instruments into 130 simple, modern awards—2,400 complex, overlapping documents into 130 modern awards. That is an important reform and one I assume, from this question and the conduct of the Liberal Party, they are opposed to. They are opposed to lifting that burden from the shoulder of employers.
As this award modernisation process has gone on there have been times when employers, and indeed unions, have raised with me concerns about the award modernisation process. I have said consistently to all groups, ‘This is a job for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, which overwhelmingly is doing it well.’ But if I become persuaded that an individual example raises legitimate concerns about the public interest and legitimate concerns about the implications of my award modernisation request and the framework of that request then I will consider those requests and respond to them if necessary. I did that in the restaurant and hospitality sector. The shadow minister has woken up this morning and read the Australian newspaper and has obviously seen that we have been in dialogue with the horticultural industry. We will continue dialogue with industries as necessary.
What I can promise to the shadow minister opposite and the Liberal Party generally is, whilst they sit there turning their faces against reform, turning their faces against the hard work necessary to achieve it, dreaming of the days of Work Choices and its reintroduction, over on this side of the House we are delivering the Fair Work regime complete for employers, with new, simple, modern awards.
Under the standing orders, I will fill the void.
I thank you for your help!
Thank you for the call, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on Building the Education Revolution and the responses to the program?
I thank the member for Lyons for his question, which did much more than fill the void; it is a great question. It enables me to celebrate with him and with members on this side of the House the fact that we have received advice from the Ouse district school in his electorate that it is the first Tasmanian school to complete construction in the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, so that is great news. The school received $250,000 and now has a new multipurpose hall, of which they can be very proud.
I am also pleased to say to the member for Lyons and to the members of this House that supported this important program, building the education infrastructure that we need for the future while supporting jobs today, that this project in the member for Lyons’s electorate has supported local jobs. It has supported a total of approximately 35 on-site workers in the member for Lyons’s electorate and approximately 12 of those were apprentices employed on the project engaged in carpentry, joinery, electrical work, mechanical services, plumbing, painting, plastering, glazing and concreting—and I think that is terrific news as well.
I am asked about responses to the Building the Education Revolution program. For those who care about education—government members and Independent members in this House—it has been a response of enthusiasm. On the other side we see the opposition in disarray and acting as a complete rabble. They come to this parliament and criticise Building the Education Revolution. They go back home and they cannot wait to be associated with it. The shadow minister for education does not do much work on education. He gets on the internet occasionally and pulls up a photograph and then runs into this House and makes completely incorrect claims. Yesterday the member for Sturt came into this parliament and claimed, with props and all, that the Perseverance Primary School was going to receive $60,000 per student for their five students. Let me quote the words of the Australian newspaper on this.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Can it be relevant for the minister to tell untruths in her answer when yesterday I said they were entitled to $250,000 plus the $50,000 they had already received.
Order! The member for Sturt has made his point of order. As I indicated to an earlier point of order raised by the member for Sturt, there are other processes of the House that he can use to rectify this situation if he is concerned.
Mr Pyne interjecting
I could actually place that on the record for you if you would like it, but I do not think you want that. The Manager of Opposition Business has assured me that there will be no walk out by Tasmanian Liberal members of the House.
Opposition members interjecting—
Settle down. I appreciate it is the end of the fortnight but please take that as it was meant—in jest. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Mr Speaker, it just goes to prove how smart Tasmanians are. On the question of the Australian newspaper I know that the shadow minister does not like to be revealed as a dud and a dissimulator, but this is what the Australian newspaper had to say today:
… a criticism by Mr Pyne about up to $300,000 being granted to a Victorian primary school with only five students backfired after it emerged the school had not sought most of the funding.
… … …
Yesterday, the school’s principal … denied it had sought the funding.
Of course, the shadow minister, who does no work and has no policy, was not the only one making false claims yesterday. We had the member for Macarthur making a claim about Douglas Park Primary School. He made a claim that there was a quote for $285,000 for a new library. Of course, that too is completely untrue. There was never an official quote for $285,000 for a new library—claim not true.
But, whilst they are in here as a rabble with their false claims about Building the Education Revolution, there are some people who cannot wait to get back home and associate themselves with this project. My attention has been drawn to a very extensive multipage brochure called From Andrew to you. From Andrew to you actually takes us in the beginning—with the youth shots and all the rest of it—right back in time to when there was only black-and-white film, apparently—right back then.
Mr Anthony Smith interjecting
Order! The member for Casey will not encourage.
We have the member for Goldstein in a hard hat and a vest—imagine that! Then, as we keep going through, there he is in a construction site. There he is, helping with a bit of construction. And what construction is he claiming to be involving himself in, and is it of importance to his electorate? There are pages and pages of lists, and what is it? It is this government’s economic stimulus package and Building the Education Revolution—pages and pages and pages of it, right here in Goldstein. Of course, this was published somewhat earlier this year, when the member for Goldstein’s electorate had received $4.5 million through Building the Education Revolution. One can only imagine the width of the next instalment, when he records the $64 million that his electorate currently has under Building the Education Revolution. The poor old voters in Goldstein will not even be able to lift it! The opposition are a rabble with no unity, no discipline, no policy and no ideas, and the only thing they have to sell in their electorates is associating themselves with government programs, and here is the proof.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I refer the minister to her promise of 12 April 2008 to build 750 houses for Indigenous Australians in remote communities in the Northern Territory. Minister, when will one house be built?
I thank the member for his question, as we know just how important it is to deliver housing to Aboriginal people, particularly those in remote parts of Australia. Just to make it very clear, over the last 18 months in the Northern Territory, in fact, 90 houses have been built. But I would also highlight—
Not under that program, Jenny.
The critical issue, of course, is how many houses have been built, and I have just indicated to the member how many have been built. But, that said, I do want to address the critical issue that he raises, because one of the things that this side of the parliament is very—
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance.
Member for Cook, I have the point of order.
No, the minister—
No, the member for Cook has raised the point of order.
My question related to her statement; she is not referring to her statement. It is a different program.
The member for Cook will resume his seat. The member for Cook has raised the question of relevance. The minister is responding to the question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member does refer to a major program that this government is committed to delivering on. We have announced that 750 new houses will be built in remote parts of the Northern Territory. It is a five-year program. There are 230 rebuilds that will be done. There will be 2,500 refurbishments of houses. This is the largest program of rebuilding and new housing development ever embarked on in the Northern Territory.
It is also part of a major commitment by this government to reform. We understand that the old ways of delivering housing in remote parts of Australia have failed Aboriginal people terribly. What we see in every part of remote Australia is terrible overcrowding, and we know that this has to be addressed. This government has decided that we will invest, over the next 10 years, $5.5 billion in housing for Indigenous people in remote parts of Australia. It is a very large program.
We have also decided that we will make sure that we address some of the failings of the past. We are insisting on major reforms. We are insisting on secure tenure. Leases will be negotiated and agreed before we embark on building houses for Aboriginal people in remote parts of Australia. This has never been done before. We are also insisting on proper tenancy management. We want to make sure that there is a very clear line of sight and responsibility so that it is clear who is responsible in the future for the maintenance of houses that we build. That has never been done before. We are also making sure that rent is paid and that tenants have to look after their homes. This sort of responsible tenancy management has never been clear before. Under this program, it will be.
My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport. What are the consequences of the Senate’s decision on the student services and amenities bill for regional Australia?
I would particularly like to thank the member for Ballarat for her question. I know just how concerned she is about the impact of this decision on the University of Ballarat in particular, just as the member for Macquarie is particularly concerned about the impacts that the visiting students from Charles Sturt University have told us about today in the House—because we on this side know that the decision of the Senate is going to have a particularly devastating impact on regional campuses and regional universities. But the thing that I would like to point out today is that it is not just we who realise this. Though they have failed to act and once again have toed the Liberal Party line, the National Party themselves know exactly how devastating this is going to be for regional universities.
As I outlined yesterday, Senator Joyce said as recently as November last year that VSU has been a fiasco for regional universities. It is interesting that he also said in 2005 that he believed that universities:
… should have the right to raise a fee to support facilities intrinsically part of a university.
But today I can tell you that Senator Joyce is not on his own on this one; he is joined by his colleagues in the National Party. Just this morning another National, Senator Williams, said on ABC New England radio: ‘In the Nationals we support in principle a levy being placed on students.’ Well, this is one of those occasions when supporting something in principle does not actually amount to anything. It is standing in this place and voting for it which will deliver for regional students. But once again they choose to talk the talk when they are on the radio and when they are talking to regional Australians but come into this chamber and betray them. Now they have to face the consequences of that, because there are almost 150,000 students who attend regional universities and campuses and it is those students who will be paying the price for the National Party’s cowardice.
I would like to draw attention to a couple of those students. One wrote to me last night—Billy, who studies at James Cook University, in the member for Leichardt’s electorate.
Opposition members interjecting—
You might want to listen to this one. Billy said,
‘VSU has smashed my campus. We lost our welfare and academic help on campus and it was not able to support me and the other 3,500 students on campus. When we needed help we had to at some stages call or webcam Townsville just to receive some counselling.’ Perhaps the National Party would like to stand up in this place and explain exactly why they do not think that regional students, many of whom are living away from home for the first time, deserve face-to-face counselling—but the National Party do not think that is important. Perhaps they can stop pretending to care for regional students who are moving away from home to commence their studies and listen to the likes of Marshall, who moved from the small town of Clonbinane in Victoria to study at Victoria University. I will tell you what Marshall said to me. He said,
‘Moving to the city from a rural area was honestly uncomfortable. To move from a place where everybody knows everyone by name to a place where you are recognised as a number was a very sobering experience for me. Coming to university, I was under the impression that there would be clubs for every interest, whether they be debating, music, theatre or sport. However, sadly, these programs all had to be cancelled.’
But it is not just the students who are suffering. We know that there will be a decline in jobs in regional Australia as a result of this. The thing is that at least the Liberal Party do not pretend to care. The National Party stand in this place, pretend that they care about regional students and, when we give them the chance to vote to prove it to all of Australia, they cowardly follow the Liberal Party line. If you would like one further demonstration of just how it is that the National Party have been using politics instead of policy in their decision making—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Those on my left will come to order. The minister has the call.
It is all right, Mr Speaker. I can deliver one more example of this if they want it so much.
I understand that you are doing well ignoring them but I think, for other people who might wish to listen to proceedings, that they should be quiet. Minister, you have the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. In a great example of the inspired policy-making process that the Liberal Party follow, I would like to draw to the attention of the House some quotes from Senator Joyce. When he talked about just how he was going to make this decision, which is so crucial to regional Australia, he said, as is quoted in the Australian:
I still believe that university is more than just the academic, it’s the development of the person as a whole, but this issue is now secondary to the state election in Queensland …
While the Queensland election is on, I’ll have to fall into line … but (if the vote comes after the election) it’s a different kettle of fish.
Sadly, it is not a different kettle of fish, because the National Party are still just meekly falling into line with the Liberal Party, where we on this side of the House will continue to deliver for regional universities, for regional students and for our higher education sector.
The member for Mackellar may have a point of order.
Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the minister could table the fairytale she was reading from.
Is the member for Mackellar asking for a document to be tabled or not?
Indeed I am, Mr Speaker.
She knows that she cannot argue the case, in that case. Was the minister reading from a document? Was the document confidential?
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Does the minister have any plans to change the government’s proposal to cut funding for chemotherapy drugs given the strong opposition voiced by cancer physicians, pharmacists and patient groups to this budget measure?
Yes, Mr Speaker, I can inform the shadow minister and the House that we certainly do. As the shadow minister is aware, this is a measure that was announced in last year’s budget. We have been negotiating for a period of time and we announced publicly that the introduction of the measure from 1 July would be delayed to 1 September. We certainly do intend to delay that further and we will provide the details in due course.
Mr Dutton interjecting
I think the shadow minister would understand that this is a very complex measure. We believe that—
Mr Dutton interjecting
Order! The minister has the call.
If the shadow minister wants to have a serious answer to what is a serious question, I can tell him that the measure has not been implemented; it is quite wrong for him to suggest that patients have suffered in any way. There have been a lot of negotiations. I might just give members of the House an example of one of the issues that is being negotiated. One of the issues that is being negotiated is the cost of Herceptin. Many of you on all sides of the House would know that it is a very expensive drug and a very important treatment for breast cancer sufferers. In Australia, the pharmaceutical company Roche provides the vial in only one size. In other countries, like Japan, it is provided in a range of different sizes, which means that the wastage is less. We have other pharmaceutical examples where the production process allows for some waste, and there are many other parts of the procedure where we believe that there is an extraordinary amount of wastage of highly expensive drugs funded by taxpayers.
We believe that it is in the interests of taxpayers to ensure that we get value for money and that expensive cancer drugs are not wasted. We intend to pursue the measure and we certainly will advise the House and the shadow minister in due course of the timing of that. It will be delayed, and we make no apologies about that; but, unlike those opposite, we believe that taxpayers’ money should be spent wisely. There should not be an abuse of processes. It is important to make sure that the health dollar goes as far as it can. New drugs, like Avastin, would not have been listed on the PBS because they would not have met the cost-effective test by PBAC unless this measure was in place. If the shadow minister would show just a skerrick of responsibility, he might just like to think about the sorts of drugs he wants taken off the PBS because he does not support these types of measures.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. What are the implications for Australian farmers of the government’s plans to promote renewable energy, and what are the preconditions for these benefits to be available to farmers?
I thank the member for Dawson for the question. The member for Dawson is very well engaged with the sugar industry in his electorate. There are very exciting times ahead for the sugar industry in Australia. Already we have seen record high sugar prices—28-year highs. My department has advised me that the futures contracts have risen from less than 12c a pound in October last year to 22c a pounds now. With the passing of the RET legislation, we have a new opportunity for extra money to be going through to the sugar industry through co-generation.
The Sugar Milling Council has looked to potential co-generation sites up and down the sugar coast, from Queensland down to northern New South Wales. In Far North Queensland, in the seats of Leichhardt and Kennedy, they believe that there is now a capacity for co-generation to provide service of electricity to the same capacity of 70 per cent of the households in that area. In the electorate of Dawson, through North Queensland, in Herbert and the Burdekin, there are three mills to be upgraded. In the Whitsunday hinterland and Mackay in the central region there are two mill upgrades. In the first of those, in the Burdekin, we are talking about more than 140,000 households being able to be serviced with their electricity supplies through use of the bagasse back into the grid. That is more than the requirements for the total region, as a result of the RET now having been passed. These benefits go all the way down to the southern areas where sugar is grown, into Hinkler and Wide Bay, through the Wide Bay-Burnett southern region, and into northern New South Wales and the electorate of Page. To be able to turn this from an immediate advantage into a long-term drive for investment in renewables, it is not enough to simply have the renewable energy target in place; we also need to have the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to be able to continue to drive long-term investment into renewables.
To be able to deliver on this, we need to get the certainty which is only possible if the coalition resolves its differences. It was not long ago—just on a year ago—that the member for Higgins was quoted in the Australian as saying:
In the Coalition agreement, there has never been a Liberal Party position and a National Party position … If you are in coalition, you have a Coalition position.
That was what the member for Higgins said last year. This morning, on the doors, the Leader of the Opposition was asked, ‘Well, what if the Nationals vote differently to the Liberals?’ Instead of acknowledging it as a fundamental break within the coalition, he said, ‘That is less than ideal.’ What for decades on decades has been a cornerstone of that group—being able to say that they could be a coalition, being able to say that they could be an alternative government—is, instead, now simply something that is just ‘less than ideal’.
In an article by Matthew Franklin in today’s Australian, we read that the Nationals have found a strategic genius who has come up with the pathway back to recovery as a political party.
Mrs Hull interjecting
The new idea that was come up with today that the National Party member quoted to Matthew Franklin was: ‘We have to start talking to regional Australia.’ A brand new idea for the National Party: start talking to regional Australia! I suggest that, on the way through, they start listening to regional Australia as well. There is no damage that any of us in this place can cause to the coalition that comes close to what they have been inflicting on themselves. They have become a rabble that makes Mal Meninga’s political career look strategic.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, how many families will miss out on IVF as a result of the government’s changes to the safety net?
I thank the member for the question, another question on an issue that is affecting many people and concerning many people. One of the main reasons that so many families are particularly concerned is because of a lot of the speculation before the budget that items were going to be removed from the Medicare safety net or in fact were going to be means-tested. I can assure your constituents, along with all others, that neither of those things is correct. The government is not removing any item from the Medicare safety net and is not means-testing any item on the safety net. The steps that are proposed from the budget measure are to limit the exorbitant fees that can be charged and are being charged by some IVF practitioners—not all of them but some.
The answer to your question, to be honest, rests entirely on the providers of the services. Those who are charging an average fee for a typical cycle of $6,000 a year will have no increased expenses at all. I know because we have had very many representations from parents but also from providers to say that they do charge those fees and that they understand that we are taking a sensible move because there are some excessive fees, frankly, being charged by some providers who know that there are many families who are very desperate to be parents and quite rightly should be supported by the government, but that 78c in every dollar should not go into the pockets of highly paid health professionals preying on parents who are desperate to have children. People who are charged average fees will not be worse off. I have said that on the record before and I continue to say that. It is in the hands of those specialists, who can still make very good incomes, to make a decision whether they want patients to pay for this or whether they are prepared to moderate their fees. This is a sensible measure and the opposition should support it.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How has the response of local government contributed to the important objective of a united national response to climate change?
I thank the member for Banks for his question. Indeed, responding to climate change was a theme at this year’s Australian Council of Local Government meeting held in the last week of June in conjunction with the parliamentary sitting here. Local government is working constructively with the national government to deal with the impacts of climate change. Many of the local community infrastructure projects that are rolling out around the country are creating jobs as well as building sustainability at the local level.
I am asked about the importance of a united national response to climate change. I have to report, Mr Speaker, as you would be aware, that a united response has been lacking. We have seen from those opposite chaos and division—not a single amendment proposed to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation because they could not agree between themselves. Those opposite have all week once again behaved like an absolute rabble. It is the climate change sceptics and the deniers who are controlling their party room, and the Leader of the Opposition has a very difficult task to bring his party, let alone the Nationals, into line so that we can truly have a united national position on climate change.
We have seen some of the veterans of this House, the dinosaurs, in their position of climate change denial. I have to report that they are also coming up the ranks through local government. The leader of the Liberal Party in the inner west of Sydney is a local councillor, Nick Adams. He provides an insight into what the rank and file view in the Liberal Party is when it comes to climate change. Just a few days ago he declared climate change to be a crock. He said:
The whole thing is a hoax—it’s a swindle.
He went on to say:
Even if every single Australian simultaneously broke wind, it would have zero impact on the environment.
He is a sophisticate, this bloke. He went on to say, in a criticism of people in his own party:
Anyone that supports the ETS is not a true patriot.
There was more:
Anyone that supports the ETS does not want jobs for all Australians. They are traitors.
That is the position coming up from the ranks of the Liberal Party that the Leader of the Opposition has to deal with.
Yesterday we saw the extraordinary position whereby we had a walkout at question time over a deal that they said they support. The extraordinary thing was not the walkout—they walked back about three minutes later. It was like they had a collective dunny break and came back in. They came back into the chamber because they did not know why they had left in the first place.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Clearly this is unedifying in the national parliament but neither is it relevant to the question. I ask you to sit the minister down if he cannot rise above this pathetic gutter level.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We on this side of the House did not ask people to leave yesterday. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition was incapable of showing any leadership whatsoever. We all saw the member for O’Connor waving his finger, giving instructions to the Leader of the Opposition. What an absolute rabble. But the big problem is that it is a problem for the nation. It is a problem for them, but it is holding back reform.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked a question about climate change, so how could this lunatic rant actually be relevant to the question? I withdraw ‘lunatic’. How can this rant be relevant to the question?
The minister is responding to the question and the minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.
To be fair, the Manager of Opposition Business has ruled out a leadership challenge between now and the next election.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
As they stagger out of this place for the two-week break, they do not know if they are walking in or walking out of the chamber. They do not know if the Leader of the Opposition will be staying the Leader of the Opposition or is on the way out. We will find out. The caucus meeting on 24 November, I predict, will be a cracker. That is the word around this building—24 November. Do a little circle in your diary; it should be a beauty. Good luck!
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention page 125 of the standing orders and a matter which relates to the original remarks of the Leader of the House in his recent reply. The standing order relates to the right of reply of persons who are denigrated in this House where they have otherwise no right of defence. I request, therefore, that this matter be drawn to the attention of the person notified so that the standing orders can apply when they get attacked by the double-dipper across the road who gets a wage out of the state parliament and another wage out of this one.
Order! The member really does himself a great disservice when he adds the sort of rider that he added to what possibly could be conceived as a genuine point that he is making to me, and that is regrettable. I will look at the resolution that he has referred to me to see if there is any obligation for me to take any action, or whether by raising this he has at least on the public record indicated it to the person he thinks may or may not have been aggrieved. But I do caution him to not ruin things that are positive by the types of additional remarks that he makes.
On advice, I confirm to the member for O’Connor that the motion that he raised did of course give a right-of-reply procedure, but it is up to the aggrieved party to take action under the motion.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
In question time today, the Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to my criticism of the government’s bungling of the handling of the visa to the Uygur leader Rebiya Kadeer and said that it meant I would have refused that visa, that it was my view the visa should not be issued and therefore I did not believe in freedom of speech. That is not correct. I, in fact, referred to half a dozen examples of the government’s bungling of the handling of the whole relationship with China, which culminated in the situation where the government was unable to work effectively with the Chinese about the visit of Ms Kadeer and not further damage the relationship. I said, ‘Now, altogether this adds up to an incompetent handling of a relationship that in the past had been based on mutual respect.’
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cook proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The impact on Australian families of the Government introducing a tax on the family home
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 move:
That the business of the day be called on.
Question put.
Debate resumed.
The cruel subtext of the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 is that you are consigning homebirths to the underworld of health service delivery. That is the ridiculous position this legislation places us in. It will effectively do four things: (1) it will oblige registered midwives to sneak off and assist with home deliveries without anyone knowing and, in so doing, potentially make them reluctant to refer young mums for hospital care when needed; (2) it will potentially place registered midwives at risk of $30,000 fines purely for attending a homebirth; (3) it will lead to midwives not becoming registered, not falling under indemnity protection and continuing to deliver at home at greater risk, without hospital support; and (4)—worst of all—it will mean non-registered midwives operating parallel to if not in isolation from the health services.
The one thing that we know is that the best way to incorporate homebirths in an overall obstetric plan for a nation is to have them supported by a functioning hospital system. Let us remember that Australia is not the Netherlands and it is not Denmark; Australia is the second most sparsely populated country in the world. Yes, that presents certain challenges in health service delivery and it means that often mothers are not delivering just around the corner from a fully equipped hospital. As was said by my colleague Senator Eggleston, who has also worked in the area, we need to remember that in this debate about homebirthing there is a third party involved—the baby.
At a birth there is the clinician or the helper—the doula or whoever is involved; perhaps a midwife—there is the mother and the family, and there is also the baby. Australia stands proud in having some of the lowest morbidity and mortality statistics in the world for birthing. If we look purely at the intrapartum neonatal mortality statistics for healthy full-term babies, Australia compares very well. Overall statistics for neonatal deaths around the world usually sit between one and two per thousand.
In this debate we are excluding the high-risk pregnancies—women delivering earlier than 34 weeks, breech deliveries, twins, someone with a history of a caesarean attempting a normal delivery—from analysis. What you have left are what we call low-risk deliveries. You can read the volumes; you can go right through Cochrane, de Jong and Jules, and every one of the world’s leading experts in this area say the evidence in this area is inconclusive—and I do need to note the exception of a recent Dutch study, which did have its own weaknesses—or that at best there are virtually comparable mortality statistics for low-risk children born at home.
So we all need to cool down a little bit about the safety debate, because we in this chamber have access to the best possible studies and most of them are inconclusive. I have already referred to one that showed a slightly higher neonatal death or stillbirth rate, but overall through these huge studies—I am talking national cohort studies; I am talking anonymised meta-analyses; I am talking the US homebirth study—we can be fairly confident that we can send the actuarial analyses out to look at homebirthing and make a dispassionate decision on whether it is safe.
Can I now approach this debate from the provider’s point of view—and I need to acknowledge, Mr Deputy Speaker Washer, your long involvement in medicine and obstetrics. Fundamentally, providers are not out there trying to do wacky things with high-risk mums. Intrinsically, what midwives are doing, be they community midwives or working in a hospital, is looking after the interests of both mum and the baby. We do not have to fear that we will be promoting high-risk deliveries in the furthest corners of Australia. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is making provision for mothers in Australia who want a homebirth to be able to have one.
Can I cast some light on two concerns that we have not yet mentioned. The first one—and it sounds awfully callous and very focused on cost-effectiveness—is that mums who deliver at home deliver an enormous saving to the healthcare system. That is not the pervasive consideration here, but let us remember that the thousands of dollars in bed days, the enormous risks of high-intervention deliveries—the use of forceps and vacuum extraction—and the ballooning number of caesarean sections come at a cost. The savings from homebirths would more than pay for extending indemnity to those mums who seek it and who are low-risk. We are following a common-sense approach so that we pull home deliveries into the warm embrace of high-quality, hospital-supported obstetric care. I do not think, Minister Roxon, that that is too much to ask.
I will make a second point that has not yet been made in this debate. In 1992 I walked the corridors of an obstetrics ward in Farnborough and Orpington in the UK fearful of my senior registrars, who brooked absolutely no deviation from obstetric protocols, and knowing that we operated there on a margin for error of 0.6 in a thousand deliveries. That is not a great deal of room for error. The term ‘margin for error’ sounds very clinical, but what it means is that we do not want to lose a single life. When, as you have in Australia over the last decade, you have reduced mortality in low-risk deliveries from 1.2 to about 0.8 per thousand it seems only small but it is 224 babies every year, out of an enormous number of deliveries. So it is absolutely imperative that with every delivery we are thinking: how can we maximise safety in mum and baby, No. 1?
We need a system that pulls homebirths into that view and says: what is going to work at home and what is simply too risky? I have outlined what is too risky, but quite often mums will say, ‘I can’t handle the pain anymore; can I be transferred?’ or, ‘Things are moving slowly with the dilation and in the progress of the second stage; can we transfer to a hospital? I think that common sense would dictate that if you were to provide indemnity to midwives they would simply say, ‘I accept the indemnity on the condition that I will do the following things.’
I used to be a high-risk clinician and surgeon myself—not because I was not terribly good at it but because I did high-risk operations—and I was told, ‘If you move into this clinical area you will pay more for your indemnity.’ So it is only reasonable that in homebirthing, were you to choose to deliver high-risk mothers at home or to deliver further from a hospital obstetrics unit, your premiums would rise. My point to those on the other side of the chamber is a simple one: let risk be paid for; let risk find its level in the healthcare system, as it does for every other clinician.
Think of what the other side are achieving in government. They are effectively proposing that any clinician can practise at home except for a midwife. It is an extraordinary proposition: a doctor can prescribe and any other allied health professional can practise from home but a midwife cannot; it is all because of some confected idea that it is either unsafe, that it needs to be driven underground or, most concerning off all, that it cannot be afforded. I think that is the subtext of this legislation—for some reason they believe they cannot afford to extend indemnity across to midwives.
I want to go back to 2001 for a moment. Back in those days, when we used to work under claims incurred rather than claims made, we basically had doctors being indemnified through mutual organisations. They did not fall under APRA and they did not fall under the Insurance Act 1973. Over the nineties the gradual demand for state tort law reform, which never came, meant that premiums started to rise. Eventually clinicians had calls made upon them by their insurers to try and pay for an explosion in payouts.
Let us go back a step. There are 2,000 payouts a year. The majority of them are under $100,000. About five per cent of medical indemnity cases where a plaintiff takes a doctor to court are for over half a million dollars. Those massive cases comprise about 40 per cent of indemnity cases. So it is no easy task to be able to work out the number or the size of claims in any one year. That is why you cannot leave a small number of midwives out on their own. It makes eminent sense to incorporate midwifery with medicine and with the range of other indemnities available, as it does to include homebirths.
Back in 2001 I was flying across the Gulf of Carpentaria when our party received a satellite phone call saying that United Medical Protection had gone into liquidation—that it had collapsed. That was a turning point—a lightning rod for the reform of medical indemnity, which many thought could never be fixed. This problem festered like a sore under both governments for over a decade until it was fixed in 2001, and I give credit to Kay Patterson, former Minister for Health and Ageing, and the state ministers who brought in tort law reform. What we knew was that the incurred but not reported cases had to be covered; that the ultra-high costs had to be covered; and that we needed a provision for practitioners who had retired, become ill or taken maternity leave. We needed a roll-on cover provision for those who were no longer covered. Of course in the old days it was simple: the practitioner, when they were potentially being sued, simply phoned up their insurer and said, ‘I used to be a member when the case occurred. Can you cover me now?’ And that was usually obliged. No longer.
The government stepped in in 2002 and said, ‘We need to have roll-on cover and it needs to be at a cost that does not actually make insurers unviable.’ The result again was roll-on cover that protected all practitioners, as it does to this day, even after they finished practising. That is important, as I said, because it is very difficult to determine when these cases are going to come forward and how large they will be. It is impossible to forecast how litigation changes over time. Cases that may not be prosecuted now may well be in years to come. It is very challenging for insurers. But we know that a study has been done—the actuarial analysis of covering homebirths has been done but has not been released by this government. It is truly disappointing that we cannot actually have informed debate of that actuarial analysis of homebirths.
What has become more important than anything for mums in the last two decades, if I can make an observation firsthand, is the emergence of perinatal testing, neonatal evaluation and birthing plans in the suite itself. Can I say that the one strong signal that was always there for me as a clinician was, when that mum was sitting there, often surrounded by family, in those final moments of labour—and they are often of course forgotten in that miasma of celebration when a healthy baby arrives—just how important it is to adhere to that birth plan. Families go to great trouble to develop a plan, and I recognise hospitals in this country for making sure that they are carried out to the letter for mums. We know that by doing that we improve the odds of a successful second stage. Reducing stress often means a more successful labour, less need for surgical and other forms of medical intervention, and less pain relief. That has always been the banner flown high by supporters of homebirth—that, no matter what study you look at around the world, the degree of intervention and the need for pain relief is far lower. A mother is far more likely to have a normal, uncomplicated delivery when birthing at home. We tend to take our focus away from that and shift it onto neonatal death and stillbirth, issues which are still very difficult to prove. One thing is clear: the importance of delivery at home for mothers who choose it—for mothers who are mentally ready to deliver at home and who actively seek out that kind of service.
I can see people thinking, ‘Would that be me? Would I choose to deliver at home?’ The thing is that Australia is a nation of choice. But this is a Labor government taking the choice away. I cannot put it any more simply than that. Delivery at home should be a right. We have the hospital service that can support it and we should be fighting hard to make sure that indemnity is extended to the low-risk deliveries cohort. Of course we need provisions for high-risk deliveries. I acknowledge that. We may have to look at ways to achieve that in a large nation like this. But let us not become the first country in the world to effectively liquidate, to effectively airbrush away or to effectively snuff out the right to deliver at home. For those who choose it and know they can do it successfully, and for the professionals who make it as safe as it is anywhere in the world, we on this side of the chamber stand up for the rights of women to decide.
This has been a very interesting debate to listen to on the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and related bills. I think there have been a number of very good contributions made on both sides of the chamber. Indeed you yourself, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Washer, are someone who is well regarded on both sides of this chamber, for a lot of very good reasons not least of all being your expertise and judgment in matters to do with health. A lot of the debate, perhaps understandably, has focused on homebirthing—and I too will be making a comment about that. But before I turn to that I think it is important to recognise that this bill contains very significant positive improvements in the recognition of midwives.
If you listened to much of the debate from many of those opposite, you would have the impression that this bill somehow attacks the standing of midwifery in this country. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill is a significant advancement in the recognition of midwives and providing them with access to the necessary support mechanisms to enable them to do their work. This is a bill which has been crafted after a good deal of consultation, and I want to congratulate the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, on her preparedness to engage in very extensive consultations, across her portfolio but particularly in respect of this bill, with those engaged in the birthing process.
The maternity services review which she oversaw had more than 900 submissions, and that is an indication of the interest in Australia in the laws governing the arrangements for birthing. But this bill contains major acknowledgements of and improvements for midwives. For the first time, it will grant access to the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to provide benefits for services from eligible midwives. This has been a major issue for many in this section of the health industry. Like, I suspect, most members of this parliament, I have had regular and longstanding discussions with midwives in my electorate, with mothers in my electorate and also, in a related sense, with breastfeeding mothers, and in some cases there is an overlap. Some of the people who come before you to talk about these issues of access to midwifery are also engaged in activities associated with the Breastfeeding Association. I think it is a substantial recognition of the importance of the work of midwives that this bill will ensure access to medical benefits and also to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
The bill also sees a government supported professional indemnity insurance scheme for eligible midwives being put in place. The previous speaker, the member for Bowman, concluded his contribution here by referring, quite rightly, to the problems that occurred with the entire professional indemnity industry—and indeed the insurance industry as a whole—after 9-11. Those of us who were in this place at that time, and indeed those who were in one of the professions affected, realised that indemnity insurance was becoming unattainable. It did not matter whether it was indemnity insurance for a midwife, a doctor or a lawyer, or if it was some small town country hall that the CWA wanted to operate. To get indemnity insurance of any kind was a major obstacle in the aftermath of 9-11. It is a serious issue and a complex issue, and this bill addresses many of the problems which confront midwives which are associated with that issue. It does not address all of the problems, but we should acknowledge that it does address many of them.
Importantly, the government has also committed to extra scholarships both for GPs and for midwives, and that is going to expand the maternity workforce. That is going to be a benefit for all Australians. As the member for Brisbane, in an inner city area, I want to acknowledge that I think it is going to be of particular benefit to those in rural and remote areas who presently do not have the sort of access that many of my constituents do—who invariably have a choice of hospitals, a choice of specialists and a choice of midwives. This is an important improvement in genuinely providing access and choice for women in many parts of Australia.
Providing access to the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the MBS, and also the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, for nurse practitioners is going to cost somewhere in the order of $60 million over the next four years. That is a substantial commitment from this government to ensure those new procedures are put in place. That is going to improve the flexibility and the capacity of Australia’s health workforce and it is going to improve patient access to services that in the past would not have been available. The government is also committed to providing eligible midwives with access to those two schemes for the first time, expanding choice for women, at a cost of some $66 million over four years. These are substantial commitments.
I was a bit annoyed, I have to say, at some of the contributions from those opposite, who tried to focus on other areas that for 12 years they took no action to fix and, in the process, ignored the improvements that this bill does make. There can be no question that the commitment this government has made and the provisions that are in this bill and in this budget are a dramatic improvement in ensuring the availability of midwifery to more Australians than would otherwise be the case.
In the second reading speech, the Minister for Health and Ageing said:
At this stage, the Commonwealth is not proposing to extend the new arrangements for midwives to include homebirths.
That has been the focus of a good deal of comment from a number of people opposite. Understandably, the nature of debate in this place tends to mean that we focus on the things we disagree about rather than the things we find in common, but it is nonetheless a serious issue. I have had a number of meetings with constituents in my electorate concerned about the homebirthing option and I think there is genuine cause for concern. We need to look at some additional adjustments to ensure safe, viable homebirthing options are available. At the moment, homebirthing is done at some financial risk to the midwife engaged in the activity. It is not as though the current system is a desirable final outcome.
I received a letter from one of my constituents a month or so ago that I think puts the case that many have put to me, and it puts the case quite well. I want to read a couple of paragraphs from that letter. My constituent said:
The intersection of this legislation with the national registration and accreditation of health professionals from July 2010 will prevent registered midwives from attending homebirths. I believe this to be an unintended consequence and ask that you, as my representative, take steps to ensure home birth remains a viable option.
Interestingly, she then referred to the experiences of some of her friends. It draws, I think, a useful comparison. She said:
Two days ago a friend of mine gave birth via a planned—that is, from conception—elective caesarean section. Her first child’s birth some seven years ago caused her great psychological distress. She grappled with depression and her desire to have more children for five years before finding an obstetrician who would provide her with an elective caesarean birth, giving her choice and control.
She has now experienced two planned caesarean births in 18 months with the same care provider and is a very happy woman. Society has supported her choices through taxpayer funds for surgery, hospital stays and by indemnifying her health carer.
She went on in her letter to say:
Next Friday, the wife of an employee of my husband will give birth by a primary planned elective caesarean section for no medical reason. It’s their first child. She doesn’t like the idea of labour and vaginal birth so she found an obstetrician who would support her right to the birth she wants. As a society we support her right through taxpayer funds for surgery, hospital stay and possible special care nursery for her baby and by indemnifying her carer. Any day now I’ll give birth too. All going to plan my baby will be born at home, as my daughter was eight years ago. I will be attended by two registered midwives. While currently society accepts my right to birth at home, I am not supported by taxpayer funding, nor are my midwives indemnified. And yet I’ll save those same taxpayers thousands of dollars.
She concluded by saying:
Women should be at the centre of their care and hold primary responsibility for the decision making. It’s not that the baby is unimportant or doesn’t have needs, but no-one has a greater interest in a healthy baby and a happy outcome than the pregnant woman herself.
I share those views. I think she has quite fairly put the case and drawn the comparison from her own personal experience. And I think it is time that we recognised in Australia the validity and importance of homebirthing. The sort of statistics that the previous member spoke about, which I have to say the people who have come to lobby me have also inundated me with, do demonstrate that there is a lot of empirical evidence to support the view that homebirthing in most circumstances, under proper supervision, is no more a health risk than birthing in a hospital environment. For some of us that may seem an alternative that we do not wish to consider and that is fine. But it is clear that homebirthing is very much the option that some women choose, and choose very strongly. Indeed, I have met with women who have had homebirths and who are now pregnant—I am thinking of one lady in particular who is now pregnant and intends to have a second child by homebirth. She is—I hesitate to use the word but I think it is the appropriate one—actually scared of going to hospital. She does not want to give birth in hospital.
For some of us that may seem odd, but I am reminded of when my first child was born. My eldest son is now 30 and when my wife was pregnant and we were considering the options for the birth of our first child, we wanted to both be in the labour ward together—it was a hospital birth. It was not easy to find obstetricians and hospitals that would let you do that. That may seem strange—and 30 years ago is really not that long a time—but 30 years ago a number of doctors would refuse to have the father in the delivery room. Some hospitals would refuse to allow you to be there. The expectation was that you would wait down the corridor in a room doing the sorts of things that you saw in movies from Hollywood for decades prior to that. We did actually thankfully have a very good obstetrician who was quite welcoming of the thought that I should be there, and not long before that one of the major hospitals in Brisbane had changed its policy to allow partners to be present in the labour ward. (Quorum formed)
Quorums are indeed a very small price to pay for government; I am more than happy to sit on this side of the chamber and endure quorums as often as you like. If the tactical high point for those opposite is to call quorums and get their happies and jollies out of doing that, long may it stay the same. The only sad thing about this particular quorum is that a number of members were engaged in a function paying respect to a former Speaker, who was acknowledged here at question time. It is a pity that the tactical team on the other side of the chamber could not comprehend that perhaps quorums could have been called at a time that did not involve disruption to what is a proper function in the Speaker’s suite to acknowledge the outstanding contribution of the first female Speaker of the Parliament of Australia. People can make their own judgments about the efficacy of those opposite in doing that at this time.
Before the quorum was called I had just completed reading a passage from a constituent of mine. I think the points made by my constituent are legitimate. There will still be many women who seek to have homebirths and we are going to need to look at the best way of dealing with that. This is part of a much broader issue. Yes, there are complexities with indemnity—which even the previous speaker on the other side of the chamber raised—which cannot just be swept away or ignored. The indemnity risks involved with homebirthing are different to those involved with hospital birthing. But these are not insurmountable problems. We need to ensure that women do have proper choice and that homebirthing is properly supported.
Another thing that has concerned me is the number of caesareans that occur in Australia. When you look at the statistics, it is hard to believe that they are all performed for medical reasons. The OECD average number of caesarean sections for every 100 live births is 22. In Australia that figure is 29. Only three countries have a higher rate: Korea, Italy and Mexico. In countries like Sweden, Belgium, France and Finland the figure is 17. There is a substantial difference between the rate of caesarean births in Australia and other countries that makes me wonder whether or not all of those caesareans are done for good and proper reason.
This was one of the issues that were looked at as part of the national study that was overseen by the Minister for Health and Ageing. I think it is also part of the mix of options that we need to look at. At the moment, as my constituent correctly points out, the arrangements allow indemnity, public funding for hospitalisation and all of those services to be supported by the public purse. We need to look at doing the same for homebirthing. But we should not forget that this bill provides very substantial improvements in the recognition of midwives. It is a good bill and it deserves to be supported by both sides of the chamber.
Debate interrupted.
The following notice was given:
To move:
That the House:
Last week I spoke a little bit about remote living in Australia, the remoteness of the nation and how people deal with their isolation, but I did not go on to say that Ailsa and Chris Richter, at the Wilsons Promontory lighthouse, live in a place that can only be reached by foot. They keep the Wilsons Promontory lighthouse in the most beautiful condition. I spoke last week about the 150th anniversary, the trauma it was to try and get yourself in there and the way that this family had lived.
The Richters have had an association with lighthouses for some 35 years. During recent celebrations, Ailsa held the audience enthralled with tales of the difficulties of living and working as lighthouse keepers. Having groceries delivered by helicopter or ship requires very careful packing to make sure that your groceries arrive in one piece. They have to withstand high winds, rough seas, storms and landings by helicopter or ship, which are rather bumpy. She described the anguish of watching a sick child in the middle of the night when the winds are gale force and you know a helicopter cannot come in for your child, hoping that the doctor can diagnose the problem over a very shaky phone and then hoping that there are enough supplies in the medical kit to get you through the next day.
They had no television and no mobile phones. This is a very peaceful place, but it is a busy lifestyle, as Chris explained. They wash each building after each major storm; that is how pristine this beautiful place is. Maintaining the light requires constant work and attention to detail. Mr and Mrs Richter raised and educated three children, Amanda, Tara and Nerissa, at the light station and spoke fondly of their strong family bonds. They played a major part within their community as well.
I had a personal involvement as well, because my uncle Keith was the first mate on Her Majesty’s lighthouse ship Cape York, and as an 11-year-old I was taken from place to place on that ship. It covered the whole east coast of Tasmania in the days when they serviced those lighthouses.
Today, our lighthouses are automatic. They are basically solar powered. They still do the job to keep our shipping lanes safe, and the work that these people do right across the nation has been fantastic. I pay tribute to all of the lighthouse keepers who gathered there for the 150th anniversary. We know that parliamentarians appreciate that they live in remote and difficult conditions.
I am pleased this morning to have the opportunity to talk about an issue that is extremely important in my community. Of the $77 billion that this government is spending to keep the economy going—I would say quite successfully—70 per cent is being spent on infrastructure. But the expenditure on Building the Education Revolution is, of course, an area where the community is most pleased to receive the funding, and it has had the most impact in all our schools. In fact, under the National School Pride and P21 projects, every single school in Australia has received some funding. In particular, schools in my electorate have all received funding.
I can tell you that from one end of the electorate to the other, everywhere I go, whether I am talking to school principals, teachers, staff, P&Cs or even the students themselves, they are constantly telling me how this allocation of funding is making a real difference in the way they can educate. It is giving them better facilities and making it easier for students to learn in the classroom. Under the National School Pride program in the seat of Robertson, my schools have received almost $7 million. In relation to P21 projects, in our primary schools, schools in my electorate have received some $42 million.
What I am most concerned about is the fact that the opposition saw fit to oppose such a worthy project. Despite the fact they opposed it in this House, and in the greatest hypocrisy we have unearthed, over and over again members of the opposition are going into their communities and pretending that they are delivering, when in fact they did everything possible in the House to stop this money being allocated. In particular, I call on the Liberal party representative in my seat, Darren Jameson, who is being dragged around by Malcolm Turnbull as their Liberal candidate, to call on Malcolm Turnbull to make an apology to my electorate and to say that he was wrong for having opposed the allocation of these funds. He should come out and urge the opposition to do the right thing by my community and by the Australian community, by supporting our schools and the Building the Education Revolution program.
On Friday, 21 August, the newest school in the Cowan electorate will be officially opened. Ashdale Secondary College is a long-awaited and greatly appreciated addition to the education facilities in the district. It is a new school, with a new attitude that truly reflects the character of the surrounding suburbs of Darch, Madeley and Landsdale. By that I mean a drive and a sense of determination to succeed through hard work and innovation. Under the leadership of Carol Strauss, deputy principal Steven Beaton, and student services manager Tony Granich, the school pursues innovative and flexible pathways for learning. The school is very much technology focused, and technology is embedded throughout the school in both physical terms and in the way learning outcomes are delivered. There is a strong and clear focus on high standards and student excellence.
What is clear is that we can expect great things from Ashdale Secondary College. Starting in first term this year but based at Madeley Primary School, year eight students and the college staff have begun well although in somewhat challenging circumstances due to having to operate in a shared primary school environment. These students are drawn from Landsdale, Ashdale and Madeley primary schools. These are new suburbs that have expanded very rapidly over the last 10 years. It was clear to us all that Ashdale Secondary College has been greatly needed to meet the needs of the community, saving students from having to travel to other, more distant, secondary schools. Ashdale Secondary College operates in a discrete area of just those three suburbs of Darch, Madeley and Landsdale. As I said before, those suburbs are new and they have grown rapidly. The families are young and the primary schools are full of students. Ashdale Secondary College covers an area of just those three suburbs and those three primary schools.
Carol Strauss, the principal, is now seeking to have the college recognised as an independent state school under the Barnett government’s recently announced initiative. Independent school status allows principals to have more independence, including in areas such as staff choices, expelling students and tailoring the delivery of education programs, with the sole objective of raising educational standards. I will be supporting the Ashdale Secondary College in their application for independent status and I have great faith that they are exactly the sort of school that will make the most out of the opportunity. Ashdale is a success story for our local area and a success story in progress for the students and young people of Darch, Madeley and Landsdale. It is a team effort that goes beyond just the school and I am informed that the support provided by the district education office, particularly Rose Moroz, has been instrumental in realising the success achieved so far and that which will be achieved in the years ahead. I have had a great deal of contact with the students and the parents of Ashdale Secondary College. From my contacts with them I have formed the view that they have embraced the opportunity that this new school holds out for them. They are motivated to succeed and I am highly confident that we will see that success, not only in future exam results but also in terms of producing fully rounded young adults who are fine members of the community and will achieve great things for Australia.
Geoff Meyers is a constituent of mine. He is 73 years old, recently widowed and very proud of his four children, 11 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. He had a loving and long relationship of 52 years with his recently deceased wife, Marion. Meeting and speaking with Geoff it is hard to appreciate that behind this picture of family happiness is a dark past which Geoff has only been able to speak about in more recent times.
He was abandoned when 14 months old and made a ward of the state. He spent time at Bidura and at the Roylestone Children’s Home, in between periods of being fostered out to eight different families. The scars of being orphaned and institutionalised make a deep impact, particularly on a child as young as Geoff was. If this was hard to bear, it was made manifestly harder living through sexual and emotional abuse. He was totally alone, without anyone to turn to, and deeply mistrustful of adults. He recounted to me that the first present he ever received was at the age of 20 from his then fiance, Marion, later to be his wife of 52 years.
Geoff’s story is but one which sheds light on the pain of the 500,000 children who grew up in orphanages and children’s homes. After almost nine years of public hearings, the Senate Community Affairs References Committee recently tabled its report Lost Innocents and Forgotten Australians Revisited. It found that many of the 500,000 Australian children raised in more than 500 institutions between 1920 and 1980 had been the victims of brutality. Of the 900 former wards surveyed, 21 per cent had been sexually abused and 35 per cent had suffered physical abuse.
Many former wards have gained strength from their membership of the Care Leavers Australia Network, CLAN, and they are known as ‘Clannies’. They are very much assisted by the inspirational work of Leonie Sheedy, their leader. Mr Meyers is one of hundreds calling for an apology from the federal government for the abuse and humiliation suffered in institutional care. They are also calling for funding for support services and for their organisation, CLAN.
Geoff Meyers said to me that an apology was an important issue for him. In his own words: ‘I would like Mr Rudd to come to my door and say, “Mate, I know it happened to you and even though I’m not responsible I’m very sorry for what happened.” I would then invite him inside and offer him a cup of coffee.’ I hope that one day his wish for an apology, along with the wishes of so many other former wards of the state and the CLAN group, will be fulfilled.
It is a great irony of the members opposite that their communications minister is apparently unable to effectively communicate. And it is a great irony that the same man should also be made responsible for ‘broadband and the digital economy’ when he has demonstrated, at best, a superficial understanding of the technology. The minister has been the subject of much mirth in online forums, particularly the Whirlpool discussion group. One stunned member there even reported that the minister responsible for digital communication responded to his email with ‘snail-mail’.
Although he is a figure of fun in some circles, the minister should also be seen with fear, for the authority which he wields so ineptly has potentially disturbing implications for us all. Of even greater concern than the farce of the National Broadband Network is the minister’s planned internet filter—a program widely condemned by IT professionals and internet service providers, and which recently won the minister the British ISP industry award of ‘internet villain of the year’. That is one victory the members opposite should not be taking any pride in. To be seen internationally as the biggest threat to the internet in the world takes some doing—especially against the likes of China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. But that is the direction in which this minister, this government, is taking us.
What began as a plan to prevent access to child pornography has now grown into a scheme where unaccountable bureaucrats would be able to block access to any sites they deem unfit for Australians to view—and with the power to make that list a state secret. Already, we know—and we know because the minister told us—that the bans will be extended to sites which distribute or host games some bureaucrats find undesirable. What next? Will words alone be sufficient for the material to be blocked? According to the experts in this field, this scheme is a dud. It will not work in stemming child pornography. It will only hamper internet access for the rest of us, increase access costs and reduce efficiency. There are too many questions about this plan for the minister to duck, as he did again this month, saying that he will have some answers in the next few weeks. It is time for the communications minister to communicate.
Today I want to mention two functions I have attended during this week of sittings. Last night the parliamentary press gallery conducted a function at the Press Club to raise money to assist one of their own, Pete Veness, who is currently undergoing cancer treatment. Present on the night were a great many of Pete’s colleagues from the gallery and his employer, AAP, a testament to the high regard in which he is held amongst those with whom he works.
Also present were a number of MPs and senators, including both the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, and many others who work in this building in one capacity or another. That was an acknowledgement that, no matter what our role here, we are all colleagues; we are all family. Pete really is family to me. His paternal great-grandfather and my maternal grandfather were brothers. Our first meeting during the 2007 election campaign, when he was travelling with then opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, is fast becoming family legend, though I fear already much distorted in the retelling.
The Veness family were the founders of the town of Manilla, near Tamworth, and using the flimsy excuse that he was married to ‘a girl from Manilla’ Senator Barnaby Joyce conducted an auction of donated items. His skills extracted every last cent of value from those items. A considerable sum of money has thus been raised to help Pete fight and overcome his cancer, thanks to the efforts of his gallery colleagues. On behalf of his family, particularly his father, David, mother, Cheryl, and partner, Rebecca or Bec, I want to place on record our sincere thanks to all who contributed.
Earlier in the week I was privileged to attend a dinner held here in Parliament House in conjunction with the annual conference of principals from Lutheran schools and colleges Australia wide. On the night a special presentation was made to Fred Stolz, Principal of Grace Lutheran College, Rothwell and Caboolture campuses, who is to retire at the end of this year. Fred Stolz has been Principal of GLC for 30 years. He was the college’s founding principal and has been its only principal.
Although not located in my electorate of Longman, GLC’s Rothwell campus has educated many hundreds of young people from families I represent, who have nothing but praise for the college and for its legendary principal. Such was the demand for places at GLC from families in my electorate that a decision was made to locate a second campus of the college in Caboolture, and in 2008 that campus was opened under the leadership of Campus Principal Allan Dallas. I was much honoured to take part in the official opening ceremony and celebrations acknowledging then and again now the financial contribution of the Howard government. Commencing with 80 students the campus will, in its third year, 2010, have a student population of around 220. The influence that Fred Stolz has had on countless young people from my electorate is immeasurable and through the Caboolture campus’s very existence will continue for many years into the future. On their behalf, and on their families’ behalf, I say to Fred a sincere thank you and extend to Fred and his wife, Lois, best wishes for a long and happy retirement.
Today I rise to talk about healthy children and healthy schools. The Active After-school Communities program was an initiative introduced by the coalition in 2005 and began with 900 primary schools participating. Three years later, in 2008, there were 3,200 primary schools participating. Concerns about childhood obesity and declining participation in physical education and sport were the drivers behind this popular initiative. The program has been very successful through partnerships with the local community to create sustainable programs that encourage lifelong participation in structured physical activity.
As recently as July 2009 a new national campaign, Turn to Sport for Good Health, was launched in partnership with Diabetes Australia. This campaign will reach around 150,000 schoolchildren and will promote the benefits of a healthy and active lifestyle while raising awareness of the prevalence of diabetes. I will be visiting schools such as Cattai and others and I am very pleased to support and encourage schools in my electorate to participate in this program. The regional coordinator for Active After-school Communities, Chris Tate, does a superb job and is always looking for coaches for schools in the region. Opportunities are offered across a range of activities including sport, dance and martial arts and even frisbee throwing and circus skills. All this is done in a structured, safe and supervised physical activity program between 3 pm and 5.30 pm. Turn to Sport and Play for Life is a theme that encourages a healthy lifestyle and, ultimately, healthy children.
I turn now to another issue, and that is healthy schools, by which I mean schools that receive funding to spend in the way they think best, not on unwanted assembly halls to provide photo opportunities for a minister. The perfect example of healthy schools is in the area in which the coalition’s Investing in Our Schools Program was running. That program was started in 2005 and saw total funding of $1.2 billion invested in a range of projects: classroom improvements, library resources, outdoor shade structures, playing fields, floor coverings and so on. The program reflected the priorities identified by school communities, parents, friends, citizens, teachers and students. Consultation with the school communities was real and relevant and was actually responded to. There is a great difference between the coalition and the current Labor government. The coalition designed programs that met the needs and responded to schools, whereas the Labor government have designed programs that, in my view, make photo opportunities to meet the needs of their ministers and their members. The school communities are calling on the government to respond to their needs. (Time expired)
I rise this morning to put on the public record the massive infrastructure investment that will benefit the people of my electorate, Franklin, now and well into the future. Of course, I am talking about the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, a plan that has been integral to ensuring Australia’s economy was cushioned from the effects of the global financial crisis and continues to be so.
Across my electorate there are more than 130 local infrastructure projects that are underway or just about to start, thanks to this nation-building plan. The investment in local infrastructure so far will inject up to $61.8 million into my local economy. It will build roads and social and defence housing. It will make improvements to dangerous black spots. And, of course, the largest school modernisation program is improving our schools—primary schools and high schools—with the construction of multipurpose halls and libraries and with refurbishments. It will provide both short-term and long-term economic stimulus for the local Franklin economy. The 130 individual projects are supporting local jobs.
I have spent some time during the break talking to the local businesses—the small businesses and the tradies—as I went around the electorate looking at some of the social housing that has already been constructed and is available for families in my electorate and as I visited some of the schools. The schools that I visited during the break include Blackmans Bay Primary School, which is having a complete refurbishment. We have the Snug Primary School, which is having a refurbishment and a hall constructed, and the Lauderdale Primary School, which is having a large hall constructed. Altogether, there is $6.26 million under the National School Pride program for 47 primary and secondary schools in my electorate. There is also, under Primary Schools for the 21st Century, more than $37 million for the transformation of 20 primary schools. Next week I have some other visits scheduled. I am going to the Howrah Primary School and the South Arm Primary School to look at their proposal for the third round of funding under the Building the Education Revolution and Primary Schools for the 21st Century programs. They are all really important projects. They are important to the schools and to the local communities.
What I have been concerned about this week is that the Liberal opposition voted against all of this investment in my electorate. They voted against these schools getting these projects, and now they want to roll it back after voting against it. I would really like to hear from the Tasmanian Liberal senators who are in my electorate, specifically Eric Abetz and David Bushby, about which projects in my electorate they do not support and would roll back. I call on them to tell the school communities and the people who are on the list for social housing which projects they will not be supporting that are happening in my electorate of Franklin now and, as I say, into the future.
Before I get started, I will say that the member for Franklin is quite right about development in schools, and we in the coalition certainly support development in schools around the country.
What about the Investing in Our Schools Program?
Yes, we put $1.2 billion in through the Investing in Our Schools Program, so we are very supportive of that.
I am here to speak this morning about a person in my electorate named Sarah Hilt. Sarah is a survivor of meningococcal disease and is a quadruple amputee. I would like to give you a bit of an insight into the trauma that Sarah has undergone. Sarah remembers that she felt ill one morning, so she decided to go to bed. She woke up two weeks later to find that she had had both of her hands amputated. She spent the next nine months in hospital.
The disease had rotted her bones to the extent that she had to have her leg amputated as well, but, sadly, this ordeal was far from over. She had capillary and skin damage to 60 per cent of her body. Sarah was also required to constantly have dialysis to filter her blood as her kidneys had suffered dramatically through the ordeal and could no longer function efficiently.
Sarah then had the option of undergoing a kidney transplant that would allow her to go back to study—but she would have to lose her remaining leg. As a result, she has lost both her legs and both her arms and hands from meningococcal. For Sarah, though, this would allow her to return to university and complete her studies—an extraordinary achievement given the circumstances. However, it is Sarah’s positive outlook that resonates with most people, including me. After all that she has gone through she remains optimistic that she can and will achieve whatever she sets out to do. I am positive that she will.
Sarah’s biggest obstacle, however, is access to suitable prosthesis. Many of the better models, which feature myoelectric capabilities, are incredibly costly and are not available under the New South Wales Artificial Limb Scheme, an omission that—given the quality of life that they promote—I believe should be changed. Throughout Sarah’s battle she has been an advocate for people that have suffered through meningococcal. She speaks publicly about her condition and about the trauma that she went through suffering from meningococcal, and she is helping other people through the Sarah Hilt Foundation to be able to get prosthesis when needed, and to be able to get much-needed assistance.
I believe the federal government, together with the state government, should put a lot more money into research on this subject and, certainly, assist all amputees as a result of the policies that we make.
As part of Fair Trade Fortnight in May this year, a competition was conducted to ascertain which supermarkets stocked the biggest range of Fairtrade certified and labelled products in Australia. One of the supermarkets that were successful and found to stock the most was Coles in Belmont, which is in the electorate of Shortland. It took out top honours in Checkout Fairtrade across Australia, along with Leo’s Fine Food and Wine in Kew, Victoria.
In conjunction with the competition to look at the supermarket that stocked the most Fairtrade products, there was also a competition to put forward the best idea promoting Fairtrade. That was also won by somebody within my electorate, Lorna Bateman, of Valentine, whose suggestion of a Fair Dinkum Fairtrade in-store promotion was the best entry based on its creativity and the combination of Australian ideas. Her idea was a ‘fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work’ and that is right at the heart of what Fairtrade is about.
The stores that performed very well across Australia had a wide range of Fairtrade products, but they were mainly limited to coffee, tea, chocolate and nuts. In Europe, and particularly the UK, customers can choose from a huge range of Fairtrade products. I would like to see this increased within Australia. Australia’s sale of Fairtrade products has been growing strongly. It has increased by 80 per cent since 2008. But I would like to see more options for Australians when they go to the supermarket.
You might ask why you would become a Fairtrade community. It gives positive publicity to the issue of Fairtrade and really provides people the opportunity to think about what they are buying and to be able to buy products that take into account fair trade, and look at the issues of where that product is produced, how it is produced, and the kinds of conditions under which it is produced. I refer the House to Tackling poverty through trade, which is put out by Oxfam. It is an excellent document and really sets out the background to Fairtrade. There is also a Fairtrade procurement guide that is available for people to utilise when they go to the supermarket. (Time expired)
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 15 June, on motion by Mr Dreyfus:
That the House take note of the report.
As deputy chairman of the committee it surprised me, when we commenced this inquiry, to find out that some one in five Australians do in fact suffer from some form of disability. In a democratic and equitable society, it is important that people with a disability are treated as equally as possible with those who do not have a disability. The Disability Discrimination Act was introduced way back in 1992 and over the period it has operated it has benefited greatly people who do have a disability.
However, equity is very much a work in progress. While that act was an enormous step forward and helped to bring about a change of culture and helped to bring about a sense of understanding, particularly on the part of those people who do not have a disability, that those who do have to be treated equally. Even though all of these positive things have occurred as a result of the passage of the Disability Discrimination Act, more needs to be done particularly in the area of access to buildings. That is why I am pleased to participate in this debate on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled Access all areas.
The Attorney-General, on behalf of one of his ministerial colleagues, referred to the standing committee the following reference:
Committee is to consider and report on the draft Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards covering:
They are fairly broad terms of reference, which did enable the committee to get its teeth into the problem. It encouraged people from around the country to make submissions to the committee so that in our public hearings, which were held in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, a wide range of people were able to express their views and to clarify what they had put into their written submissions.
I am a great believer that committees should travel to where people are who make submissions to committees. If we are serious about enabling people to convey to committees their actual concerns, sometimes face-to-face contact and sometimes personal evidence given by the people who make submissions can be very effective, particularly, in that it gives the committee the opportunity of cross-examining or perhaps questioning or obtaining clarification on some of the points that have been raised.
The House committee is fortunate that during most of its existence in recent years all of its reports have been unanimous. The report we are discussing, Access all areas, was similarly a unanimous report of the committee. When a committee brings down a report that is unanimous it is infinitely more powerful. Sure, the government has the ability on any committee to ram through a list of recommendations. But if the committee is seen as being partisan and if the recommendations are not broadly supported by all members of the committee then that report does not have the same compelling impact in the Australian community. That is one of the reasons why I am particularly pleased to be part of this committee. The 19 recommendations, which were supported by all members, will certainly assist in improved outcomes in due course for people with a disability.
One of the problems of the Disability Discrimination Act is that, while there were certain provisions put in there as to what sort of access should be given and how people with a disability should be taken into consideration, the onus on actually enforcing the provisions of the act often rests on the shoulders of the disabled person. Given the cost of justice, not only in this community but generally, very few people were prepared to take matters to court, quite understandably. Also, there was a concern that the Building Code of Australia did not interact particularly well with all of the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.
The draft Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards take a new view towards accessing premises. The benefit of these standards is that they actually seek to harmonise the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act with those of the Building Code of Australia. As the chairman of the committee mentioned in his foreword to the report:
The result will be that access requirements will be applied consistently to new buildings and new building work throughout Australia, and will be enforced through existing and effective State and Territory building approval processes.
This is certainly a step in the right direction. One of the key recommendations of the committee was that the premises standards should be introduced without delay. There was an argument that maybe these standards ought not to be introduced until all outstanding issues had been finalised. However, the committee felt that it was important to implement the standards, and then any outstanding matters could be sorted out subsequently.
When one comes to disability and the provision of access, particularly in relation to buildings, there is of course a cost to the landowner. What one needs to do in the interests of equity is to make sure that disabled people have as equal access as possible while not sending commercial property owners to the wall. This sense of finding the appropriate balance is always a challenge. Everyone recognises that disabled people ought to be given access to buildings and ought to have their disability minimised as much as possible, but obviously there are people out there in society who have a vested commercial interest in avoiding as much as possible the additional costs which inevitably flow from having to provide access to people with a disability.
I consider that the committee got the balance right. We listened to all sides of the argument. The report which we brought down was reasonable and moderate and will, if implemented, greatly assist in improved outcomes for Australians who are unfortunate enough to have a disability. As I said, there are 19 recommendations. I am certainly not going to go through all of them. Some are relatively minor and some are relatively major, but all of them when added together will improve the situation for those Australians with a disability.
The committee secretariat did an outstanding job, as they always do. We are fortunate in this parliament to have committee staff of a very high quality. In fact, I will extend that further and say that the clerks and the other people who administer this place are of an extraordinarily high quality. It means that parliamentarians, when they go about their work both in the chamber and in committees, are able to achieve much more than they could if they were dealing with people of lesser capacity.
We need more of them!
We do need more of them. One of the unfortunate things about the government is that they have reduced the budget of the parliament. This makes it more difficult for our very excellent officers to carry out the roles that they carry out so well. Having said that, I do admire the way that the clerks and the other staff of the parliament have been prepared to look at the budget they have been given and do the best that they can with it. I certainly commend them for it. I did not want to move away from my bipartisanship, but the honourable member for Kooyong did slightly divert me. I commend this report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to the House. I would ask the government to give it a speedy consideration, with a view to full implementation of its recommendations as quickly as possible.
I am pleased to speak on the report Access all areas. Nearly four million Australians, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, suffer some form of disability. That results in them being excluded in large part from access to buildings, from access to the kind of employment that they wish to enjoy and from access to participation in cultural and community life, and we need to do something about it. That means that one in five Australians suffer from a form of disability. Whilst since 1992 we have had the Disability Discrimination Act on the Commonwealth statute books, the complaints mechanism has resulted in the prosecution of very few cases relating to disability concerning access to premises. The act does not provide detailed guidance with respect to buildings or detailed guidance for a building owner, designer or manager on what they must do to ensure that a building they construct, manage or design is accessible to all members of the Australian community. The consequences are that people who feel they have suffered unlawful discrimination pursue their cases on a case-by-case basis, and they seek outcomes through the Australian Human Rights Commission and, if not successful there, through the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Court of Australia.
The Building Code of Australia has been developed and maintained by the Australian Building Codes Board to provide a uniform system of building standards for this country. It provides guidance as to how buildings should be designed and built in accordance with appropriate standards. The Building Code is implemented with the concurrence and cooperation of the states and territories of this country, through building regulation laws, thereby ensuring we have a uniform building code throughout our nation. Since the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act, it has become very obvious that there is not a good marriage between the Building Code and its regulations and protocols and the Disability Discrimination Act at a Commonwealth level. So premises standards have been developed. Those premises standards have been in draft form for about five years. They have had a long and protracted history. The Building Access Policy Committee was established by the Australian Building Codes Board in 1995. Stakeholders, representatives of the building industry, disability groups and the federal government were involved. Some recommendations to change the Building Code were made after the wide consultation.
The premises standards were tabled by the then Attorney-General in parliament on 2 December 2008. Given the years and years of consultation, review and consideration, the committee felt it was necessary that action should be undertaken and undertaken without delay. The committee urged that the finalisation of the premises standards should be a priority in the circumstances. The transport standards have had a long and protracted history as well and we do not want to see the outcome of the premises standards go the way of the transport standards which, seven years on, a final report of the review of the transport standards has still not been released.
I want to pay tribute to the secretariat for their great work they have undertaken in the circumstances concerning this very technical area of law. I want to pay particular tribute to their fine work, their competency, their diligence and their capacity—and the fact that they make us look so much better than we really are by the assistance they give us.
We need to ensure that the premises standards harmonise the Building Code and the Disability Discrimination Act so that people suffering from disability can get access to common areas. The premises standards in their draft form provide accessibility requirements for access and egress, accessible car parking, signage, hearing augmentation, tactile indicators, wheelchair seating spaces in class 9b assembly buildings, ramps, glazing on access ways, and braille and tactile signs. There are a number of objects in the premises standards: to ensure increased access and certainty; to ensure that we achieve a degree of equity and not just rely solely on cost-effective access to buildings; and, of course, need to give certainty to builders, designers, developers and managers. There are 19 recommendations. However, like the deputy chair, I am not going to recite all of those.
The committee supports the introduction of the draft access standards. The committee also looked at a number of classes of buildings. Class 1a buildings are detached or semi-detached residential buildings. Most residential housing in Australia falls into this classification. The draft premises standards do not apply to these private homes, because they are simply not open to the public and access to premises, accordingly, should not be classified. Class 1b buildings are, by and large, smaller buildings used for short-term accommodation—B&Bs and eco-lodges. The premises standards do impose certain accessibility requirements for these buildings with four or more bedrooms or dwellings. They include a special bedroom and access to common areas. Class 2b buildings are buildings containing two or more sole occupancy units. In general they are residential apartments and flats, but not hotels, motels or the like. The 2004 draft premises standards impose accessibility requirements in relation to pedestrian entrance to units on at least one floor and to certain common areas serviced by an accessible ramp or lift.
It is important that we ensure that people suffering from a disability have access to class 1b and class 2b buildings. We heard evidence from people suffering from disability who could not get access to these types of buildings, could not find suitable accommodation when on holidays, could not find access to their rooms, could not find access to lavatories and found it difficult to get through common areas. The humiliation, desperation and feelings of isolation were quite clearly demonstrated in the submissions we received.
This committee received 146 submissions and held six public hearings and one roundtable. There was an enormous amount of interest in this particular committee’s report. The committee recognised that many class 1b buildings are run by smaller businesses with limited resources, but it is clear also in the circumstances that, in the case of new and purpose-built class 1b buildings, we need to provide greater access for people with a disability. The committee also recognised that, regardless of the number of bedrooms that these class 1b buildings contain, there should be access for people suffering from disability and changes need to be made. So we are recommending in relation to new and purpose-built class 1b buildings but not existing class 1b buildings.
We also heard evidence in relation to fit-out and the implications for people suffering from disability of what fit-outs in buildings look like—and not just in the common areas and the lifts. The committee considered this and recommended that consideration be given to the development of disability standards in relation to fit-outs in buildings. It is important to consider how buildings look, whether people suffering from visual impairment can move around without bumping into things and how they can respond in circumstances where there is a fire or other type of emergency.
We recommended there be a review and that that review be undertaken in five years from the commencement date of the premises standards.
Perhaps the most contentious aspect was not just the ‘regional or remote location’ part of the unjustifiable hardship provisions but the presence of the unjustifiable hardship provisions as a limitation on the application of the premises standards. The premises standards provide that it is not unlawful to fail to comply with a requirement of the standards to the extent that compliance would impose unjustifiable hardship on a person or organisation. Unjustifiable hardship can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis and, even when unjustifiable hardship is proven, compliance is still required to the maximum extent not involving unjustifiable hardship.
We heard evidence from some people who were travelling around Australia, particularly in regional and rural areas, who could not get access to buildings which were suitable for them in their particular circumstances of disability. We also heard evidence from stakeholders from various parts of the building industry and the tourism and hospitality industry who, I must say, did not always show the degree of compassion, understanding and empathy with people suffering from disability that I would have liked them to have expressed.
It is important that there be less emphasis on dollars and more emphasis on people. People count a lot more. I would like to see more compassion shown and the industry have a really good, close look at itself in the circumstances. I know a number of members from this side of the House had a number of quite testy confrontations, almost, with people in those industries. I know the member for Moreton and I both had very interesting conversations with people who gave evidence from time to time. Even the chair, who is quite measured, cautious, diplomatic and dignified in the way he conducts the meetings, had some interesting discussions from time to time.
This is a bipartisan and unanimous committee report. It makes very important recommendations that will help provide dignity for people suffering from disability. I commend the report and urge the government to give serious consideration to it, to get a uniform national approach in relation to these matters and to ensure that we give all Australians, regardless of the geography and the circumstances in which they find themselves, the same kind of access to buildings, social inclusion, employment opportunities and lifestyle that we expect for all of us, our children and the generations ahead.
A few weeks back I had the pleasure of going to the ACTU Congress dinner. It was my second congress dinner. It was held in Brisbane; normally those dinners take place in Melbourne, wonderful city that it is.
Not as good as Brisbane.
But not as good as Brisbane, obviously. This dinner was held on a Wednesday night in Brisbane. It was actually State of Origin night, and only a Victorian based establishment like the ACTU could hold a congress dinner on State of Origin night in Queensland! I was actually there with Richard Marles. We were a little bit late and we had to run into the convention centre. We did not go up the 100 steps at the front of the building; instead we went up an escalator on the side and made our way into the dinner. I do not want to be a name-dropper but I ran into a friend of mine called Kevin. As you know, Kevin probably is not known for his long connection with the trade union movement, although he was a trade union member when he was younger. Strangely enough, Kevin and I come from the same home town.
There we were, in the convention centre in Brisbane. I should stress that this man’s name was Kevin Cocks, not the other more famous Kevin. Kevin Cocks is famous certainly in disability circles. I know Kevin from when I was a kid. He is the same age as one of my brothers; we both used to play football at St George. In fact, I was at the Rowden Park football ground in St George on the day that he was playing against St George. He had been a shearer and then he had joined the bank and went to another country town—Dalby, I think it was—and they were playing against St George. I vividly recall where I was sitting on the day that a scrum collapsed. I was in grade nine, so I was whatever age that is—12 or so. I remember there was a bit of a kerfuffle and they took him off in the ambulance and then we found out later that Kevin Cocks had broken his neck and was now a quadriplegic.
Fast forward quite a few more years, Kevin Cocks in his wheelchair had became an advocate for people with disabilities and the Queensland government, in their wisdom, had decided to build a brand new convention centre. Strangely enough, it decided to put 100 steps at the front of the building. It is about 100; it seems like about 500 when you walk up them. It is certainly not something you could take a person up in a wheelchair, like Kevin Cocks. So Kevin said, ‘Before you finish that building, maybe you should consider, rather than saying we can go around to the goods entrance at the side, making reasonable allowance for the fact that people in wheelchairs, maybe people who are getting on in years, or people with prams would find those steps a little bit hard to navigate.’ Obviously the Queensland government, in their wisdom, said, ‘Don’t be ridiculous—we are the government; we know what is best. It would cost a lot of money to make such an adjustment’.
Thankfully Kevin triumphed in his case at the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland and we now have a convention centre that, while not perfect, is much improved. Maybe if we had our time over some of those universal design concepts might have led to a slightly different design. Certainly every time I walk up those front steps I think of Kevin. So it was fantastic to be at the ACTU Congress dinner. I was at one table and there was my mate Kevin from St George there as well. I have ended up in federal politics, and my mate Kevin was there sitting near the Prime Minister. In terms of a tale of two Kevins, there were two people who despite their different lives were sitting in the same room. It was a very touching moment.
This brings me back to the reason I am on my feet, which is to talk about the report put forward by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I am proud to be associated with that report. As the member for Blair pointed out, it was a unanimous report and there were some great contributions put forward. I acknowledge the great work of the chair, Mark Dreyfus QC, and the deputy chair and all the members of the committee. The report is called Access all areas: report of the inquiry into draft Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards. On the cover—it was my idea, actually—there is the idea of a backstage pass. It did not quite a translate, but the concept was that if you have a pass at a rock concert that says ‘Access all areas’, you can meet all the rock stars, you can drink all the drinks and consume everything in the green room et cetera.
That was the concept. Certainly for me the idea would be that we should be doing what we can with our design principles for everyone in Australia—whether you have a disability or not, whether you are young, old or in a pram—to make sure that we can all access all areas. Obviously, we start off in a pram and then, maybe, at the end of our lives our mobility may decline somewhat.
This report addressed public areas only. I have my own beliefs about the ideas of universal design principles eventually extending to all buildings, be they private dwellings or public buildings, but this report only looked at public buildings. It was a fantastic process in terms of hearing from witnesses, from people who had been affected by these governmental decisions and from people who count the beans when it comes to the cost of building design. I do believe that this report and the legislation which will follow are important steps towards the day when our ageing population and the 1.3 million Australians with a severe or profound disability will be able to access all buildings, be they private dwellings or public buildings.
Universal design is the simple and powerful concept of building homes that meet the needs of all people, regardless of age or impairment, and that can be easily and cheaply adapted to meet the changing needs of occupants. As I said, we start off in a pram and then our circumstances change over our threescore and ten—or whatever it is that we are allotted. The report certainly opened my eyes, as had Kevin Cocks when I met him and had a lot to do with him over the years when I started off my post-teaching career as a lawyer. He made the point that you can assist if you design properly at the start; then the costs are minimal when it comes to redesigning rooms later whether private or public.
I know that there were lots of confrontations in the corridors when we had these hearings throughout Australia—corridors that were sometimes a little bit too narrow and at other times were able to accommodate all. But it was a fantastic process and I thank all my fellow members on the committee for their input. I look forward to the legislation that flows from the report.
I was not a member of the committee and I only learnt about the report when I was up here this morning—and I admit that is nobody’s fault other than my own.
This is an issue that is very close to my heart. Prior to becoming a member of parliament I worked on a spinal injury team and with people who had disabilities. I saw firsthand the problems that they experienced. Whilst there have been numerous improvements over the years it is still very difficult for people with a severe disability—the 1.3 million people that the member for Moreton spoke about—to actually be able to access a number of public buildings. The fact that was brought out in the report was that the Disability Discrimination Act was passed by parliament in 1992 yet still there are significant access problems for people with disabilities. It also goes on to point out that equal access to premises is crucial to justice and social inclusion. It talks about how the Disability Discrimination Act recognises the importance of access to premises and about the disability access to buildings draft standards. It looks at this as being a fresh approach and giving more teeth to the Disability Discrimination Act. Recommendation 19 lists a number of issues that I think are also very important.
I received a letter in my office on Friday, when I was back in my electorate. I want to read it into Hansard, because I think it is pertinent to this report and pertinent to the fact that we need to look at putting in place the recommendations of this report, Access all areas. That is what it is all about. This letter is from Mrs Betsy Mary Allington, who will be 85 at her next birthday. She says:
… During the past 20 years I have had hip replacement operations and a knee and shoulder replacement. Over the past six years I have needed a walker, both inside and outside my home, to improve my mobility.
The point of this letter is that when out of my home visits to the toilet are fraught with complexity. Entry through doorways, even of disabled toilets, is sometimes difficult because of the heavy doors. Double doorway entrances to toilets are impossible to manage. Toilet seats are too low and using a walker to go to the toilet is impossible if disabled toilets are not available. In fact, I have yet to find any public toilet of adequate height.
I would like you to look into this concern on behalf of all disabled and elderly frail people not only in your electorate but for all of us across Australia.
I think this report has done that, to some extent.
I have a young woman who comes and works in my office two days a week, Tracey. Tracey, who I have mentioned in the House before, has had an operation for a brain tumour. As a consequence of that operation she is confined to a wheelchair. In the building where my office is there is a disabled toilet. One of the problems that Tracey experienced when she first started coming to my office was that the disabled toilet was totally inappropriate and set up in a way where it was not accessible to people with disabilities. Tracey is on the Lake Macquarie City Council Disability Access Committee. She looks very closely at the guidelines and the codes that are in place for new buildings in that area and helps the council develop a policy in relation to disabled access.
The fact that there can be variations in standards, the fact that these problems exist, really demonstrates that there do need to be standards and there does need to be the fresh approach that is referred to in this report. It is important that buildings in Australia do conform to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, because so many people’s lives are affected by the fact that they cannot access buildings and cannot access toilets or other facilities when they are outside their houses. To some extent that does confine them to their own homes. The story that the member for Moreton told us about Kevin Cocks is replicated just about every day in this country, where a person who has been in a football accident, a car accident or has had some other mishap ends up a quadriplegic or a paraplegic. Unless we have in place the right sorts of standards, the kinds of standards that are recommended in this excellent report, then things will not change.
I would like to recommend to the parliament that this report be endorsed. I congratulate the committee and everybody involved with it because I know that they have put a lot into it, and I emphasise just how important it is that those standards are introduced, because it is all about quality of life and about people being able to really join in and be part of mainstream Australia.
Debate (on motion by Mr Broadbent) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 18 August, on motion by Mr Danby:
That the House take note of the report.
This is an important report. It was undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and it was to consider the facilities, services and transparency of immigration detention facilities in Australia.
Obviously our immigration detention facilities have a very important role to play in Australia in terms of making sure that people are secure while all sorts of inquiries are made; perhaps about their identity or where they are kept pending being sent out of the country. You have such a variety of detainees. At one end of the continuum you might have people, who may include women and children, who arrived unauthorised at Ashmore Reef for example, and then go to Christmas Island where they are kept in mandatory detention while their identity, security and health status is checked. At the other end of the continuum you of course have people who came out to Australia on visas and who, as non-Australian citizens, offended seriously in Australia and may have served prison terms. At the end of those prison terms these people are kept in detention until they are able to be put on a plane to return to their home countries. So this is an important inquiry.
Unfortunately, the inquiry itself did not receive the information, the full cooperation, the sorts of details and data that you would normally expect of such an important inquiry. So in my minority report I pointed out that, with that information often missing, it was very hard to justify or have a depth of data to support the recommendations made. Unfortunately, I joined the committee on 10 November 2008 after most of the evidence and inspections that form the basis of all three reports had been taken. I was not able to question those submissions or to visit most of the facilities that were the subject of the three reports. The committee visited the facilities on Christmas Island prior to the current surge of detainees, which commenced in September 2008, and so its observations on the functioning of the facility are based on its appearance while empty of any detainees and without community or DIAC feedback on the functioning of the facilities or adequacy of services following the arrival of over 1,000 detainees over the following 12 months.
Unfortunately, my several requests to officially visit and inspect Christmas Island facilities since the surge have not been made possible and have not been facilitated by this government. I cannot, then, support any recommendations in relation to the major offshore facility at Christmas Island given the absence of any relevant observation or commentary on the performance of the island detention facilities now in operation. The committee was also not able to obtain a detailed breakdown of the costs associated with the various detention options, except for those at the Christmas Island secure facility. Neither the costs of the transit accommodation available in the capital cities nor the community detention options were provided to the committee despite requests for that data—very earnest and serious requests. This makes a meaningful discussion of the viability, comparisons, efficiency or alternatives to various facilities very difficult. No data was supplied to the committee about any security breaches—for example, escapes from detention facilities—and yet the committee made recommendations about the appropriateness and adequacy of the security infrastructure itself. So, clearly, the data about security breaches was essential for a reasoned debate about the adequacy or performance of different physical infrastructure. We are aware of this anecdotally. I provided some data on people literally going over the wall at Maribyrnong and changes then being made to the infrastructure, but that information was not made available officially to the committee.
We also have recommendations 6 and 8, which refer to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s service delivery model and the Immigration Detention Standards or their current equivalent. The ANAO is called upon to thoroughly review detention facilities with these models in mind. I hope the ANAO has better luck than the committee, because we were not supplied with the Immigration Detention Standards and so were not able to compare the functioning of these facilities with the service delivery model, which apparently does exist. One excuse that was given was that there were tenders in process. Quite clearly, being aware of a detention standard model does not interfere with competitive neutrality or a process of tendering that in fact had been completed some time before. So that was a great disappointment. The data and inquiry methodology were missing, which led to problems associated with not being able to genuinely compare and contrast or account for costs and value for money. All of those pieces of data were essential for our report. They were missing, so I was not able to support the recommendations in this report.
On the other hand, let me say that, of course, the priorities, strategies and values underpinning Australian detention centres are of critical importance to our nation in terms of our humanitarian treatment of those who come to Australia unauthorised and whose identity, security and health status then must be quickly and efficiently checked. It is also important that those who have failed to abide by their visa conditions or who have broken the law in Australia are treated humanely but are kept very securely while they are prepared for exit out of our country. Therefore, I was disappointed with the report and with the cooperation that was extended to the committee as it tried to complete this report. I do hope we have more cooperation with our next report, which seeks to look at disability and immigration and visa applications in this country.
It is my pleasure to speak today on this report, entitled Immigration detention in Australia: facilities, services and transparency. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I am pleased that the committee took on the challenge of addressing some of the most important issues that remain outstanding in immigration detention in Australia. Those issues are: the criteria that should be applied in determining how long a person should be held in immigration detention; the criteria that should be applied in determining when a person should be released from immigration detention, following health and security checks; options to expand the transparency and visibility of immigration detention centres; the preferred infrastructure options for contemporary immigration detention; and options for the provision of detention services and detention health services across the range of current detention facilities, including immigration detention centres, immigration residential housing, immigration transit accommodation and community detention.
In considering the options for additional community based alternatives to immigration detention, the committee inquired into international experience and the manner in which such alternatives might be utilised in Australia to broaden the options available within the current immigration detention framework. It compared the cost-effectiveness of these alternatives with current options. These considerations formed the terms of reference for the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia.
It is true that the closure of Woomera and Baxter detention centres was to the benefit of detainees and improved the way that Australia treats unlawful noncitizens. However, the mere closure of some facilities did not resolve the ongoing problems of existing facilities or new facilities being built, such as the Christmas Island facility. It did not determine on what basis people should be released from detention and the support that should be provided to those people and their families while applications for visas are considered or arrangements made for their removal. The joint standing committee sought to address those significant issues through this inquiry.
The committee has previously released two reports in relation to this inquiry and has now released the third and final report. The first report dealt with the criteria for release from detention. The second report dealt with the community based alternatives to detention. This final report focuses on the options to expand the transparency and visibility of immigration detention centres, the preferred infrastructure options for contemporary immigration detention and options for the provision of detention services and detention health services across a range of current detention facilities, including all of those that I have already identified.
It is true, as we have already heard from other speakers, that it was difficult in some cases to do a full analysis because of the lack of data that is currently collected. We certainly appreciate the conversations that have been had with DIAC about the need to improve on that data collection and have that data—
It was also a product of arbitrarily shortened timelines by the committee.
There was a need for that data to be made transparent not just to members of this parliament but also to the public and to the many community organisations that support the unlawful non-citizens in this country.
Recommendations 1 to 5 in this report focus on the infrastructure of detention centres. The committee reiterated that the reconstruction of stage 1 of Villawood remains an urgent priority for this committee. Villawood was never a purpose-built facility. It has had extensions and alterations made to the facility over time. Old buildings have been closed off from use and fences put around them. This facility is in desperate need of modernising and adapting to better suit the needs of those detainees.
The committee also recommended the upgrade of the Perth IDC as it has been proposed that it proceed. This is the one facility I did not get to visit with the committee, but I certainly support the committee’s recommendations based on their observations and the evidence given by persons who are involved with that IDC of the need to proceed with that upgrade. But, given the limited lease arrangements, the Australian government, as recommended by the committee, should also examine long-term options with the intent to establish a purpose-built long-term facility.
The committee recommends that detention in immigration residential housing should certainly be used in lieu of detention in immigration detention centres provided that it is feasible, as these facilities are much more suitable to manage a healthy environment for the detainees and would assist in the transition for those detainees from those centres into the community upon release. The committee also recommends that the razor wire and barbed wire fencing be removed from all detention centres and replaced with more appropriate fencing.
We had the opportunity to go to visit a recently built prison in Canberra that I personally thought would be of benefit to committee members who had not previously visited a prison to give us a perspective and see what our detention centres’ facilities and infrastructure are like compared to those of a modern prison. I was certainly surprised to see that our modern prisons have taken a much softer approach to their security. There was no visible barbed wire in the outer perimeter fence; it was actually just a normal perimeter fence that had sensors on it so it could alert security if it were breached. There was no electrification of that fencing; there was no barbed wire on that fencing. In fact, with those security measures—the electrification and wiring—I do not think there was much barbed wiring in the new prison, but any electrified fencing was actually situated at the top along the gutter lines of the properties within the prison and was a lot less visible than what we had seen in every detention centre that we visited—not just Villawood, but even most modern detention facilities such as the North West Point immigration detention centre. In relation to that centre, the new North West Point immigration detention centre, the committee has recommended that all caged walkways, perspex barriers and electrified fencing be removed from the facility and replaced with more appropriate security infrastructure.
When I am asked how to describe that facility, after I attended inspections of the facility with the committee, I had to say that what immediately came to mind was the movie Jurassic Park. The massive perimeter fencing, the electrified wiring going all the way up the external perimeter fencing, the multiple internal perimeter fences in addition to the external one, and the steel framed doors and buildings were all very confronting. I have never felt claustrophobic—I have been down mines and I have been in very small places—but I have to say that while standing in the North West Point immigration detention centre I felt extremely confined. Every door is sealed. There are big, steel framed doors which, we understand, cannot be painted on—they have not been able to find any substance that will stick to that steel so that the facility can have a much softer look. It was quite confronting, and it was an experience to go through that facility knowing that it was a new, modern facility and that is the way we had sought to make this facility look.
The committee observed that the security measures implemented at this detention centre on Christmas Island are, in our view, extreme and inhumane. This is despite the fact that this facility was purpose-built and modern. The committee has recommended that if the centre is to be used on an ongoing basis more permanent measures are required to reduce the internal security to a more appropriate level—some of those are listed in the recommendations. If our new prisons are able to have such an approach then we should certainly be able to provide more appropriate levels of security and fencing for a detention centre than that which currently exists at the North West Point detention centre.
Recommendations (6) to (9) go to the provision of services in detention facilities. Without taking this chamber through the specific recommendations, overall the committee felt strongly about the need to have a full review of the current immigration detention service providers and of the immigration detention facilities within the next three years. It is recommended that this review be conducted by an independent auditor, the Australian National Audit Office. Much work needs to be done to improve the support services that are provided to our detainees in detention centres. This includes mandatory ongoing training for all staff so that they are better trained and are assessed as competent to deal with cultural appropriateness and sensitivity issues, basic counselling skills, first aid, managing conflict through negotiations and to provide appropriate security measures. It is difficult for the staff, we understand that. A number of staff of have come from the prison system and so come with that culture in relation to how they manage the detainees—it is important that we provide an appropriate level of training to support them.
The remaining recommendations deal with greater transparency and visibility. What the committee has recommended is access for the Australian Human Rights Committee—full access for this committee to the detention centres. We have also recommended access for the media. Of course this has to be subject to privacy laws and to the rights of detainees but if we are to have true accountability and true transparency with our detention centres and the way we deal with unlawful non-citizens, we need to make these centres much more open to the public so they can see what is happening. We need to publish the number of detainees who are there and we need to have consistent public media protocols for every detention centre.
In closing, it is pleasing to see that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, has already provided leadership in the area of immigration reform. I believe that the recommendations of the committee provide further opportunity for the minister to make positive changes into the future. This will ensure that Australia focuses not only on the security of the nation but also on our role as a humanitarian nation. I would like to thank the secretariat for all their work in relation to this inquiry and the production of the three reports. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the great work of the chair of the committee, Michael Danby, the member for Melbourne Ports, and also Danna Vale, the member for Hughes.
I rise to speak on the third and final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration in its inquiry into immigration detention, Immigration detention in Australia: Facilities, services and transparency. I have written a dissent to the report, as I have a number of concerns with it, and I will speak to them now. The first concern is the committee’s repeated failure to adequately address in its reports the issue of the detention of children at immigration detention facilities both in Australia and offshore. The second is the lack of a recommendation in this report regarding the establishment of an immigration detention health review commission. The third is the inadequacy of the committee’s recommendations on improving transparency.
The issue of children being detained in immigration detention facilities has been raised on many occasions. It has not been effectively addressed in the committee’s reports. This report is no exception. According to the latest publicly available Department of Immigration and Citizenship figures, as of 24 July 2009 there were 78 children in immigration detention, only 26 of whom were living in the community on residency determinations, four being held in immigration residential housing and 48 being held in what is described as ‘Alternative temporary detention in the community (Christmas Island) and the mainland’. The notion of ‘alternative temporary detention’ is nowhere defined.
In its submission to the inquiry, the Australian Human Rights Commission raised significant concerns about the detention of children in immigration residential housing and in transit accommodation. The evidence has not been addressed in this or any of the other committee reports. In relation to residential housing, the commission stated:
It is important to recognise that IRH facilities are still closed facilities, and a mix of detainees with different needs, and detention experiences, may all be contained in the same facility.
It goes on:
HREOC has been aware of several cases where children and families have been detained in IRH facilities for a significant period of time.
It goes on:
While the IRH facilities are significantly better than the IDCs, they are still a closed detention facility and, for children and their families, are inappropriate for anything but the briefest of periods.
The commission says it must be made crystal clear that both immigration residential housing and transit accommodation are closed environments. It needs to be made clear that detainees are monitored by guards and they are not able to freely come and go, and that applies to the children.
In this report before us, there are no detailed descriptions of security arrangements in operation at immigration residential housing and transit accommodation. Indeed, a failing of the report is its failure to provide detailed factual descriptions of security and infrastructure in the immigration detention facilities. When information from DIAC regarding security infrastructure was requested by the committee, insufficient time was allowed for its provision before the report was completed. In the end, I am afraid that the committee sacrificed the inclusion of substantive and highly relevant material in order to meet the requirements arbitrarily imposed by reporting time frames that were not related to reality and were too tight to allow important material to be included.
The third report makes mention of the detention of children on Christmas Island. The report records that on 29 May 2009 at what the committee designates as ‘construction camp immigration detention centre’ there were 18 female children and 43 male children detained. The report makes no comment about the suitability of the construction camp for the detention of children. With regard to its consideration of the detention facilities on Christmas Island, the report is, as elsewhere, inadequate in its representation of the concerns of the Australian Human Rights Commission. It does not, for example, include the Human Rights Commission’s opinion:
DIAC classifies the construction camp as ‘alternative temporary detention in the community.’ The Commission is of the view that this is not accurate. The construction camp is not community based accommodation; it is a facility being specifically used as a place of immigration detention.
Also not included is a reference to the commission’s recommendation:
Children should not be held in immigration detention on Christmas Island. However, if DIAC intends to continue this practice, children should be accommodated with their family members in DIAC’s community based accommodation.
The end of the quote is this:
They should not be detained at the construction camp facility, the Phosphate Hill IDC or the new Christmas Island IDC.
While nothing is said of this matter in the majority report, my dissenting report recommends:
Children and their families should not be held in any immigration detention facility either onshore or offshore.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you would recollect that in 2005 the Howard government implemented significant reforms, including reforms to ensure the release of children and their families from immigration detention. This principle was passed by the parliament and introduced into the Migration Act, in accordance with international law:
… a minor shall only be detained as a measure of last resort.
In July 2005 all children and their families were released from immigration detention through a mechanism known as a ‘residence determination’. Current reports that children are now being detained in immigration residential housing for extended periods and that so many children are being held at the construction camp immigration detention centre on Christmas Island are deeply troubling because they seem to indicate a regression, despite the government’s claims that it is strengthening the protection of children. I am concerned that a new tolerance of the detention of children in facilities, euphemistically described as ‘alternative’ and ‘family style’ facilities, is emerging. This tolerance is apparent in the government and the department of immigration and, I believe, is in this committee’s report, which blurs the distinction which had formerly divided incarceration in immigration detention facilities from residence determinations, where people are free to come and go.
The health, particularly the mental health, of immigration detainees is widely recognised as a critical area of concern. The provision of health services is an area in which the department of immigration has been shown repeatedly, and often in the courts, to have failed in its duty of care. The report, in fairness to it, cites a large volume of evidence expressing concern about the adequacy of both physical and mental health services being provided to detainees. Evidence was provided by the community and such authorities as the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Refugee Council of Australia, the New South Wales Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors and the Australia Psychological Society.
In 2005, in a report that was a landmark report and that managed to shock even people who thought themselves unshockable, the Palmer inquiry into the unlawful detention of Cornelia Rau identified serious deficiencies in the immigration department’s provision of health services to detainees. The report concluded:
… the delivery of adequate and appropriate health care for immigration detainees, and their welfare in general, need to be safeguarded by continuous oversight by an independent, external review body …
To achieve this, the Palmer inquiry recommended:
… the Minister for Immigration establish an Immigration Detention Health Review Commission as an independent body under the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s legislation to carry out independent external reviews of health and medical services provided to immigration detainees and of their welfare.
The Palmer inquiry recommended this immigration detention health review commission be empowered:
… to initiate reviews and audits of health care standards and the welfare of detainees.
It said it needed to be:
… appropriately staffed and resourced, with a core of experienced people with relevant skills …
In the course of the committee’s inquiries it was revealed that this major recommendation put forward by Palmer was never implemented. DIAC has confirmed that a decision was instead made to establish the Detention Health Advisory Group. At the inquiry hearings, Professor Harry Minas, the chair of this committee, told the committee that the Detention Health Advisory Group was not set up to discharge the responsibilities of the immigration detention health review commission as recommended by Palmer. Professor Minas advised the committee that DeHAG was only an advisory body. It had no role in monitoring the welfare of detainees and no statutory right of entry to detention facilities. It was not independent; it was not statutory; it could not gain access as a right. Professor Minas told the committee that the Palmer recommendation:
… has not been implemented and it is our—
DeHAG’s—
view that such a body remains essential.
When the Commonwealth Ombudsman was questioned about the fact that his office had not taken up the role as intended by Palmer, he told the committee that he had at the time expressed concerns about the capacity of his office to undertake that role. However, in testimony before the committee he added:
… if this Committee or the government proposes that a function of that kind should be located in the Ombudsman’s office then I will take a very open minded view of the need for the function and how it can be sensibly located within the office.
Unfortunately, despite the failure of the implementation of Palmer, despite the openness of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to re-examine the situation and despite the copious evidence provided in the committee report about the ongoing problems in the delivery of health services, the committee chose not to recommend that the Palmer recommendation be implemented.
One of the problems with governments is that there is a deep trench between the intention to act and the implementation of action. Had it been known before this committee’s hearings, and especially after the Palmer report was originally brought down, that a fundamental recommendation had not been implemented by bureaucratic agreement, there would have been outrage. I express that outrage now. I believe that the Australian government should redress past failings by implementing Palmer recommendation 6.11 and establishing an immigration detention health committee.
Finally, regarding transparency, I reiterate the view articulated in the dissenting report to the committee’s first report presented by me, Dr Alan Eggleston and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. Judicial review of detention decisions is the only reliable mechanism for ensuring independent and effective oversight of detention decisions. There is one thing that the sad history of detention of people seeking refuge in this country has demonstrated: if you create closed institutions and you do not subject them to external scrutiny—and external judicial scrutiny—then inevitably abuses will arise. I am concerned that we have ameliorated the situation significantly but have still left the fundamental conditions under which it is possible for abuses to arise and to go unchecked.
In speaking on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration’s third report of the inquiry into detention in this country—Immigration detention in Australia: Facilities, services and transparencycan I say from the outset that I certainly acknowledge and respect the sincerity and passion that the member for Kooyong speaks with in respect of this matter. Can I also place on the record my appreciation to the chair of the committee, the member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Danby, and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, as deputy chair of the committee, for your leadership role in the work that that committee has done. The very fact that we are now presenting the third report highlights the extensive amount of work that that committee has undertaken and, in turn, the level of commitment that the committee has put into its work evidenced by the sheer fact that these three reports contain recommendations on a whole raft of measures.
I suppose it also reflects the substantial problems that were inherited by the Rudd government when it came to office with respect to the matter and manner in which we dealt with refugees in this country and in particular the manner in which we managed our detention facilities. What I am pleased to say as a member of that committee, however, is that the minister, Senator Chris Evans, has in fact responded to both the issues that the Rudd government inherited and the recommendations of all three reports. He has already put into place a number of steps, made a number of policy announcements and proposed pieces of legislation that go a long way to meeting what we the members of the committee believe would be the appropriate way of dealing with refugees in this country.
I want to talk about some of the changes that we have seen, changes that started with the announcement on 29 July by the minister of the new policy with respect to immigration in this country. Within that policy there are some seven values that the minister has adopted. We know that the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 and the Migration Amendment (Immigration Detention Reform) Bill 2009 are currently before the parliament. But it goes further, and I want to speak specifically to some of the recommendations contained in the third report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, bearing in mind that there were some 11 recommendations. I will not go to all of them, as I am aware that other members already have. Recommendation 1 says:
The Committee reiterates that reconstruction of Stage 1 at Villawood remains urgent and a priority of the Committee.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has committed a total of $7 million to undertake urgent interim works at Villawood: early works to improve the conditions in the high-care unit, which is the old management support unit in stage 3, and reduce the extent of razor wire and minimise the impact of palisade fences in stage 1, which have already been completed. I welcome that. Further works, including the living room and office extension to the stage 3 higher care unit, improvements to the high-security stage 1 accommodation, and realignment and a reduction of fences in stages 2 and 3 have begun and are all scheduled for completion by November 2009. These projects will improve the operation of the facility pending the completion of the longer term redevelopment. The government, in its 2009-10 budget, provided a further $186.7 million for the redevelopment of the Villawood centre. This will include the replacement of stage 1. I understand that DIAC, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Deregulation, is actively managing the project, which is now before the Public Works Committee for their approval.
Having visited that centre, I know that is a huge commitment by the Rudd government towards upgrading those facilities. I certainly share the concern, I am sure, of all other members who did visit that facility that it was totally inappropriate—inappropriate in design; inappropriate in terms of its age; and inappropriate that it was clearly never, ever designed to be a detention centre and had been used for that purpose under obviously some urgent need but in truth was never, ever designed to be used for such a purpose.
Recommendation 2 says:
At the very least, the Committee recommends that the upgrade of the Perth immigration detention centre proceed as proposed.
The refurbishment works at the Perth Immigration Detention Centre have already been completed. The department is considering options for the replacement of the Perth Immigration Detention Centre at the end of its current lease in 2016. Again, having visited that centre, I believe that is the right thing to do. That centre, whilst it was certainly a little bit more modern than Villawood, was, in my view, totally inappropriate for the purpose for which it was being used.
Recommendation 5 says:
The Committee recommends that all razor/barbed wire fencing is removed from all immigration detention centres and replaced with more appropriate fencing.
Razor wire in all centres, except in stage 1 at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, has now been removed and replaced with more appropriate alternatives. I welcome that, as I am sure all other members do. Fifty per cent of the razor wire has been removed from stage 1 at Villawood as part of the improvements announced by Minister Evans in 2008, and stage 1 will be replaced by a purpose designed facility that does not have razor wire, as part of the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre development.
There have also been some improvements in respect of the way people are dealt with once they come to our shores as refugees. I want to quickly talk about some of the other changes that we have seen, changes which have been, as I said from the outset, driven by much of the work of this committee and simultaneously by the change in policy announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on behalf of the Rudd Labor government.
When the Rudd Labor government came to office, I understand there were some 74 persons who had been in detention for two years or more. I understand that, as at 18 August 2009, only 18 people have been in detention for longer than two years. I will just break down the cases of those people who were in detention for over two years and what has happened to them. In March 2008, the minister announced his review, with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, of all 72 clients who had been in detention longer than two years. As at 18 August 2009, of the 72 cases reviewed, all but six had been resolved. Two cases have ongoing processes. Of the 49 people now on a visa pathway, 47 have already been granted permanent or temporary visas. Two are progressing with their permanent immigration checks. Of the 21 on a removal pathway, 19 have already been removed. Only the two removal clients remain in immigration detention centres, and others are in community detention or on bridging visas in the community.
I believe that that says a lot about the change in policy and the change in attitude towards the way asylum seekers are being dealt with in this country. Yes, we have a long way to go. I am sure that all members of the committee would like to have seen a lot more changes already in place. However, as someone who was part of that committee, visited most of the centres we are dealing with and personally spoke with some of the people in detention centres as well as with a number of the agencies that we heard evidence from, it is clear to me that, with all the best intentions in the world, the truth of the matter is that we are quite often dealing with very complex situations and therefore it is simplistic to say that there is a simple solution. There is not. It is our responsibility as a parliament to ensure that whatever policies are in place are the best possible under the circumstances that we are confronted with. I believe that that is what the committee is aiming for. I believe that that is what the minister is aiming for. As a member of the committee, I am pleased with the progress that we are making on this issue. Once again, I thank all of those involved in the work so far and I thank the secretariat for its support of the committee.
Debate (on motion by Mr Broadbent) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 18 August, on motion by Mr Hayes:
That the House take note of the report.
I wish to speak on the report of the inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission into legislative arrangements to outlaw serious and organised crime groups. Before I go on, I would like to thank the secretariat, Dr Jacqueline Dewar, Dr Robyn Clough, Ms Nina Boughey and Ms Danielle Oldfield.
The inquiry was established on 17 March 2008 and the terms of reference required the committee to:
… examine the effectiveness of legislative efforts to disrupt and dismantle serious and organised crime groups and associations with these groups—
I repeat: ‘associations with these groups’—
with particular reference to:
They also said:
Sadly, the committee in some way got lost on the way to Rome. We were supposed to focus very much on association and doing something about tackling serious and organised crime at the highest levels in this country, and that is something which I firmly believe was necessary. We look around the country and we see outlaw motorcycle gangs causing mayhem, especially in South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales, but I congratulate those governments for taking it head on. Victoria does not have an outlaw motorcycle gangs task force, so that would be one of the reasons why it does not appear to be a problem in Victoria.
In saying that, though, the Liberal and Family First members of the committee did not want to put out a dissenting report. Why? Because we believe we worked very effectively with the government members, in particular on unexplained wealth. We did not want to take anything away from that. The report’s recommendations do not go far enough when looking at anti-association laws, especially after committee members met authorities in Italy where anti-association laws have been very effective in dealing with the mafia. To bring down the mafia, and of course regarding unexplained wealth, the authorities there said that anti-association laws were the way to go. It was the same case in Canada, with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police targeting laws to specifically look at people participating in outlaw motorcycle gangs. The same applied in Hong Kong where they have used them to great effect with the triads.
The report has no hard and fast recommendations that look at serious and organised crime, especially gang related members, whether they are outlaw motorcycle gangs or any other type of gangs involved in serious and organised crime. In some ways, when it comes to outlaw motorcycle gangs, it seems that the report was written by the bikies for the bikies. As a former policeman, that part is fairly embarrassing. You can see what the bikies have done in Australia.
I go back in time to show that outlaw motorcycle gang members have persistently caused havoc, whether that is against themselves or other members of the public. In 1998 a member of the Bandidos was shot dead outside their club headquarters in Geelong. In 1999 two bombings, also in Geelong, targeted the Bandidos. Obviously I am talking about Victoria. In 1999 there was the torture murder of a member of the Comancheros. In 2007—this really haunted Victorians—Christopher Wayne Hudson from the Hell’s Angels fired shots in the Melbourne CBD and killed an innocent bystander. At Sydney airport in 2009, there was the outright show of disrespect for society in general when a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang, the Hell’s Angels, was bashed to death in front of people wanting to go on holidays et cetera. It was an absolute disgrace.
I congratulate in particular Assistant Commissioner Harrison from South Australia police. I thought his evidence was first-class. He talked about police and said:
… we traditionally have the investigative focus which is very reactive. We wait for the crime or the criminal activity to occur and then the police put a response strategy in place.
Invariably that has not been overly successful when you look at serious and organised crime, established criminal networks and outlaw motorcycle gangs, because of their composition, structure and culture …
The antiassociation aspect … is all about trying to prevent those associations occurring. We try to disrupt the planning processes and we would like to hope that we then have some impact on preventing crimes occurring within our communities.
On the other side of the argument, if you read the report regarding the outlaw motorcycle gangs you find it is laden with examples of those who do not support it, such as Mr Ray, President of the Law Council of Australia, who said:
Consorting-type offences have attracted a great deal of criticism, particularly from academics, lawyers and judges because they are argued to impinge on the freedom of association.
Again, if you look at the outlaw motorcycle gangs and the United Nations Office of Drug and Crime report on amphetamine and ecstasy and its 2008 global ATS—amphetamine-type stimulants—assessment, when it refers to Australia it specifically refers to two groups: Asian organised crime groups and—guess what the other one is?—outlaw motorcycle gangs. This is a bizarre situation. The committee did go to other countries, and I remember Canada and America in particular. The authorities told us about the outlaw motorcycle gangs and what mayhem they have caused, especially in Canada. Let us look at the first recommendation in the report:
The committee recommends that the ACC work with its law enforcement partners to enhance data collection on criminal groups and criminal group membership, in order to quantify and develop an accurate national picture of organised crime groups within Australia.
This will be the defence to some committee members, who were not convinced about the need to have laws specifically targeting outlaw motorcycle gangs. On numerous occasions—I do not know how many—committee members asked the ACC to provide a national picture of those outlaw motorcycle gang members who have committed murders or been involved in serious crime from state to state to give the committee members a picture of what is actually happening at a national level. Committee members asked the ACC for this information at meeting after meeting and it was never forthcoming.
In defence of the ACC are two very telling aspects. One is that there have been significant cutbacks to the ACC—22 per cent in its staff—and there is also the issue which I have spoken about numerous times: the seconded state members involved in investigations being sent home. So out of 150 it is down to 20. They do not really have enough members at the moment to organise a booze-up in the pub—I had another term, but I thought I would be very polite. That is a really sad state of affairs.
If you go to the Examination of the Australian Crime Commission’s annual report 2007-08 you see:
The Outlaw Motorcycle Gang National Intelligence Task Force (OMCG task force), which was Board-approved,—
that means by all the chief commissioners across the country—
… and formed under the High Risk Crime Groups special investigation determination, expired on 30 June 2008.
It was put together by the previous government 12 months earlier to target and find a national snapshot of what was actually happening with outlaw motorcycle gang members. The government should bow its head in shame because it actually disbanded this group. It is an absolute disgrace, and part of the reason the ACC no longer has members specifically looking at this. How can it supply that information? The annual report continues:
The ACC explained the rationale for the expansion of the Task Force’s jurisdiction:
This brought in these much broader linkages that we were seeing developing in the OMCG context.
If that were the case, I say to the ACC, ‘Why, under this new regime with your new task force, could you not provide the committee members with information about what was happening with the outlaw motorcycle gangs at a national level?’ The simple reason is that there have been government cutbacks on that.
I will give the Australian Crime Commission a huge plug now. The Australian Crime Commission’s Illicit Drug Data Report 2007-08 was absolutely brilliant. That is the sort of report the ACC can do, as opposed to looking at what happened with the OMCGs, because it was probably budgeted for and funded.
Another aspect I have great concerns about is what happens around the world when it comes to other countries dealing with organised and serious crime. I briefly talked about America. They have the Racketeering Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act, otherwise known as the RICO laws. They find this to be the best way to bring down the mafia. It does not work on anti-association laws; it works in reverse. It looks over a period of time and finds all the people working together. If it can be proved that there is a criminal enterprise network for the purpose of committing crimes within their association over a number of years, the law enforcement agencies use the RICO laws to target not the membership but those who have committed the crimes, and it then seizes their assets.
We can look at what happened in Canada. Throughout the 1990s in Quebec—and committee members heard this—they had major problems with the Hell’s Angels war. There were so many people killed. It was an awful state of affairs. They went after the Hell’s Angels with anti-association laws. Sadly, Canada now has a situation where their bill of rights allows freedom of association and they can no longer use the anti-association laws.
The committee recommended that the Australian government, in consultation with regional partners, give consideration to establishing an intelligence fusion centre in the Oceania region. I fully support this. The government talks about getting all of these countries to work together. The Australian Crime Commission’s 2007 annual report gave a huge plug to the Asian Collaborative Group on Local Precursor Control, the ACOG, which met in 2008 with 16 countries attending. But, sadly, the Australian government has removed the funding.
Finally to some good news. I congratulate all members on the unexplained wealth legislation. I see that the member for Werriwa is in the chamber. I know that he has been very passionate about this, as have the committee chair, Steve Hutchins, and Senator Parry and all the committee members. This is a fantastic way of going forward. When we talk about anti-association laws and targeting criminal gangs, the key point is to go after the money. As an ex-police officer, I know that is something we did not do in the past. We heard members of the Italian police say mafia members are happy to spend time in prison but it is their assets that they are greatly concerned about.
If we look at the Northern Territory and Western Australia, through the unexplained wealth legislation they have seized $40 million. There are great concerns, though—and I have a letter from the Australian Federal Police Association. We have to make sure the unexplained wealth legislation is going to be as tough as what everyone hopes, because at this stage it must be linked to a specific federal offence, which I have great concerns about. It is going to be very hard for police to prove that. By the time they have proven that it has a federal aspect, they may as well be charging the person. I believe this should be looked at in the context of persons who have criminal associations and unexplained wealth—basically, where their genuine income is greatly exaggerated. I commend the members of the committee for working together on what was a long inquiry.
I do not often have the opportunity to follow my colleague from La Trobe. I would normally have some difficulty with his political views but, when it comes to the issue of law enforcement, whilst we may have some differences about the application of federal laws and some elements of constitutionality, I have to say that the member for La Trobe has been very consistent in his fight to ensure that the police officers and other enforcement agencies who represent us are front and centre in the minds of government when it is considering resources. I congratulate the member on his comments.
I would like to continue the remarks I made when this report was introduced in the House. It is a significant report about something that does go unnoticed. It seems to me that great attention has been given, and rightly so, to counterterrorism since 2001. I will come back to this point a little later. We have seen a considerable diversion of law enforcement resources into counterterrorism, not only across Australian law enforcement jurisdictions but across the globe and, in my opinion and certainly in the opinion of others—and I am sure the member for La Trobe shares this view—it has created an opportunity for organised crime and for criminal enterprises to put down their roots in various areas of our society. We need to be conscious and always vigilant of that and we need to ensure that those people who are sworn to protect us have the appropriate tools and resources with which to do their job.
The Prime Minister, in his national security statement to the parliament on 4 December last year, said:
Organised crime more broadly is a growing concern for Australia, one the Government is determined to combat. The Australian Crime Commission has estimated that organised crime costs Australia over $10 billion every year.
The Government will develop two initiatives in the related areas of border management and serious and organised crime …
Second, we will clearly define the role of the Commonwealth in combating serious and organised crime and enhance coordination among Commonwealth agencies.
He went on to say:
We have highly capable police services which respond to a spectrum of challenges from threats to public safety to terrorism; and emergency response organisations that protect the community in our most vulnerable times.
At any time, this country faces a threat from a range of different sources; our respective institutions of state, our people, our economy and even our technologies are placed at risk. In the past, people may have had the view that, if there is a criminal enterprise and there is certain money to be made from it, a criminal will likely be involved. That is true, but the underpinning thing in all this is that there is a monetary value to crime.
One of the less contemporary approaches to modern policing is to evaluate our police services simply on their arrest rates. That is after a crime is committed; and, after every crime is committed, there is a victim of that crime. If I were to follow the theories of defence lawyers, the appropriate application of criminal law is to wait until the crime is committed, prosecute that crime and, should the case be made, record a conviction. But the whole problem with that notion is that there has to be a victim of crime in the first place; the crime must take place. One of the things that we have been agitating for regarding the committee overseeing the Australian Crime Commission is to look at those underpinning models of criminal enterprise itself. Criminals operating out there operate businesses. I will not say that there is no difference between them and any other businessperson out there—they are certainly nefarious and they are there to pursue an illegal enterprise—but they have a for-profit motive in mind; they are there simply to get a return on their capital and they will operate in the areas of least resistance possible. Areas which are overburdened with regulation, where courts are hamstrung in terms of prosecution or where police are perhaps less resourced are all areas of opportunity for criminal enterprise. This is something that the Australian Crime Commission committee has been trying to get out there for some time—that this is not just going through a statistical exercise and working out how many people have been convicted for crimes that have been reported. We are more concerned, on behalf of the community, about how much crime we can prevent, how much criminal enterprise we can disrupt and, by doing that, and by looking at strategies that underpin that, we think we are in a better position to protect the community in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are well aware, the committee members had the opportunity to look at some international jurisdictions and contemporary law enforcement, particularly the regulations and laws that underpin their fight against criminal activity, particularly with regard to organised crime. Together with the member for La Trobe and other members of the delegation, I had the opportunity to visit North America, Europe and the UK. From that journey we found five consistent things. We have summarised them this way: the importance of following the money trail, which I will come back to; the need for greater information sharing amongst law enforcement and other agencies within the government and between governments; the benefit of developing measures to prevent organised crime rather than simply reacting to it; the critical role that political will plays in combating serious and organised crime, and I will come back to that as well; and the need for governments to take a holistic approach in tackling organised crime through a whole package of legislative and administrative measures.
When we travelled overseas we found a range of things. The contemporary method of overseas law enforcement agencies is no longer to simply react to crime, because they know they are on a hiding to nowhere, quite frankly. As soon as you put one enterprise down, another is going to spring up in its place. And more often than not the principals behind these various enterprises are in common. Raffaele Grassi, of the Italian national police, put it best when he said criminal members:
… are prepared to spend time in prison, but to take their assets is to really harm these individuals.
As the member for La Trobe will recall, while we were in Italy we were told that there were many members of the mafia who are quite happy to parade around in a T-shirt and not draw attention to themselves by wearing flashy things, gold charms and that sort of stuff. But to pin them down, their assets are not necessarily in Italy; their assets are all around the world.
Melbourne!
The member for La Trobe, as he volunteers—we will not go to his campaign fund. I withdraw that! It is a fact that these assets are being dispensed internationally. The member will recall that one prominent European jurisdiction that we visited made very clear to us when we asked about what sort of due diligence they imposed for international investment in their country that, unless there was evidence that the money was the proceeds of crime that had been committed in that very prominent country, there was nothing for them to do. In other words, that was a very green light. For anyone who wants to invest their proceeds of crime in hospitals, roads or anything like that, then this country is all but saying it is free for business. They are the things that legitimise criminal engagement; they are the things that legitimise all those things that people want us to stop—crime being peddled on the streets and drugs and all that sort of stuff. If these big fellas out there are earning that sort of money, but can legitimise their assets, protect their criminal empires and go to the most prestigious functions with Prime Ministers—not ours, of course—and other leaders around the globe and in Europe, they are bound to do that. They are the people who underpin the drug sellers on the streets. People out there selling drugs are an expendable commodity. Every time you knock one of those drug dealers over, someone else will take his place. But there are not that many Mr Bigs out there, and they are the ones we have to get to.
I am concerned that in every jurisdiction we visited they all agree that since 2001 there has been a diversion of law enforcement resources into counterterrorism. Clearly, if we have a terrorism event, it would create great damage to the targets and also affect the psyche of the nation. We understand that. We understand that it is a real and live threat and that therefore we need to take measures to meet it. But clearly simply diverting law enforcement resources into counterterrorism should not be seen to ameliorate the position that we need to take against serious and organised crime. That is consistent. It is there and it is a business model. It goes back to what I said a little earlier about a line of least resistance. Maybe these guys are not about to set up some form of jihad, but they might decide to go out and do some credit scams, get into car rebirthing or go into the processing of amphetamines and other drugs.
There is one consistent thing that has emerged when we have talked to each of the law enforcement jurisdictions, and the member for La Trobe will know this from his own experience in Victoria Police. These blokes are not committed; they are not specialists in one particular area. We see people who travel from state to state. They will move from one form of crime into another. It will depend on the return on capital. Just as any other business decision is likely to revolve around that, so their business revolves around it. To that extent, this is why we need to have a consistent national and global position on the way we deal with crime. I am saying that crime in this country moves from state to state and region to region, but clearly it actually moves from overseas and internationally.
I cannot recall the circumstances, Jason, but someone made a comment to us when we were in Europe. Actually, it was the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. They did an assessment. Kevin Rudd says that organised crime is responsible for costing this country $10 billion annually. Across the world, the UN gives an estimated figure that I cannot recall off the top of my head. But, if you were to add it up in terms of all the advanced economies, the criminal empire would come in as the 18th largest economy in the world. On those sorts of statistics, next time we have a G20 meeting we should actually have the don there, because they probably represent a significant portion of wealth. It is at that sort of magnitude.
That is why we are saying that in this country you cannot put your head in the sand and think that you can fix this just by having more coppers out there on the beat and all the rest of it, doing all those things that they have to do out there to ensure the wellbeing and safety of our people on the streets. That is a form of policing. It is also a form of policing to ensure that we are not subject to a terrorist attack, that we have all that intelligence and that we process it. Again, in this day and age, regrettably that is also core business. But it is core business for us to keep our focus on organised crime because, whilst terrorism may or may not occur, if we allow organised crime to flourish then we will be damaged, because their whole business plan is underpinned by the damage that they can wreak not only on people but on our economy. As I say, going back to the Prime Minister’s comments, there is $10 billion annually that flows out of this country into organised crime.
I have probably wandered on long enough, but I commend this report to my colleagues to read. There are some very serious recommendations. The unexplained wealth provisions, I think, are a key tool that should be given to our law enforcement agencies. (Time expired)
Debate (on motion by Mr Briggs) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Garrett:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to complete the contribution to this debate, which was adjourned yesterday. Indeed, I have waited several months to speak on the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. As I was saying yesterday, before the debate adjourned, the bulk of the concerns about this bill rest with the requirement that the royalty right is only attached to works acquired after this bill comes into effect. An artist will only receive royalties on an existing piece of work when it is resold for a second time after the scheme is up and running. In an article in the Australian the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts argued:
… “Haven’t Australia’s visual artists, including our significant indigenous artists, waited long enough?”
It is lucky that visual artists have well-developed patience because it seems as though they still have a bit of waiting to do. Not only has this bill been repeatedly delayed by the government; it is also fundamentally drafted to keep artists waiting for some time after the scheme is eventually implemented. The royalty right, as designed by the bill, means that an artwork acquired before the operation of this bill must be resold twice before a royalty can be generated. The minister described this requirement as important to ensure that purchasers of artwork are aware at the time they make their purchase that a royalty may be payable to the artist if they chose to resell the work. I understand that there has also been some concern as to the constitutionality of the scheme where a royalty is paid for every resale of artwork, regardless of when it was acquired. I note that the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts recommended that further legal advice should be sought to clarify the position. The Coalition for an Australian Resale Royalty noted:
In all other countries where the right has been introduced, the royalty is payable on resales, after commencement, of works acquired before commencement as well as after commencement.
This is an issue that will have a real impact on artists. According to research undertaken by the Coalition for an Australian Resale Royalty and Viscopy of artwork sold at auction, it generally takes longer than 10 years to transfer the ownership on the secondary art market. Viscopy said:
If we take a very conservative estimate of an average of 20 years between sales then it is likely that a work first sold in 2008 will not resell through an art market professional until 2028. Under the proposed scheme the artist will receive no royalty for that sale as the work was acquired before the legislation comes into effect. It is not until the work is resold again in another 20 years … that the artist receives resale royalty income …
as Viscopy went on:
40 years after the legislation comes into effect.
It would seem as though the government have found themselves in a tricky position, having campaigned before the 2007 election promising to introduce a resale royalty scheme for visual artists and yet artists who have been asking for this for 20 years will now probably have to wait 40 years more to see those royalties. The Chief Executive Officer of Viscopy, Joanna Cave, recently noted:
As the bill is drafted it is fatally flawed. And the risk is that it will deliver bureaucracy and no money whatsoever. So, there’ll be a lose lose situation.
Following the publication of the committee report the National Association for the Visual Arts, one of the most vocal advocates of a resale royalty right scheme, commented:
For the Government to truly fulfil its election promise, it must deliver a robust and fully functional scheme so that artists are eligible to gain an immediate income stream. As things stand, Clauses 11 and 23 are a real impediment to Australian artists benefiting as they deserve.
I can certainly appreciate these concerns and feel that the government owe it to those artists to whom they promised a resale royalty to ensure that this system works as effectively and efficiently as possible. While the government agreed in May to implement a review of the operation of the scheme five years after it had been implemented, it is clear that much more could be done.
Sadly, as with most things that we discuss these days, the art market is not exempt from the consequences of our current financial conditions. Within the media there have been several calls for the measure to be delayed or abandoned for fears that the scheme will negatively impact the already fragile art market. I cannot say that I agree with that perspective but, in any event, commercial art dealers in particular are worried that this scheme will further flatten the market. The government has, at least, an obligation to this group to monitor the success of the scheme and to work constructively with all interested parties to ensure that the range of interests are addressed.
Throughout the plethora of commentary on the bill, there is a common acceptance that this scheme will have a particularly beneficial effect for Indigenous artists. In an article in the Indigenous Law Bulletin entitled ‘Australian visual artists: joining the resale rights arena’ it was said that there had been ‘numerous examples of dramatic disparity between original and secondary sale prices of Indigenous artworks’. I suppose one of the most alarming examples of this, or one of the most graphic examples at least, was when a painting by Clifford Possum Japaltjarri was sold in 2007 at Sotheby’s auction for $2.4 million, yet in 1977 it had been bought for just $1,200.
This legislation will ensure that artists and their heirs will get a share of the money that is generated by their artworks eventually. For the Indigenous art community, this means that they will no longer miss out on the success that their work enjoys—a development that I am sure will be most welcome. The royalties will contribute a new income stream into remote communities and will help to ensure that the ancestral link of artwork is maintained, with new artists receiving the encouragement and support that they need. There is no doubt that there are still a number of significant concerns among the wider community and within the arts community specifically over this legislation. These are concerns that I think the government does need to engage with and perhaps may in time be well disposed to address.
Despite these flaws, it is imperative that Australia’s visual artists have their rights to resale royalty recognised in legislation. When we look around at the community halls-cum-gallery walls of local art exhibitions, as I do frequently, or the high-end auction houses selling famous works, which I definitely do not do very frequently if at all, it is important that we know that the skills and passions of these fine artists are being rewarded. For the visual artists, it is important that they know that not only their work but also the contribution that they make to society is recognised and cherished and valued in a very real way.
Whether your favourite art is a Tom Roberts or an Ian Fairweather painting or a Robert Klippel sculpture, art does enrich and enliven not only us as individuals but also our communities. I am pleased to say that in the Pearce electorate we see art being used in the landscape, and I think that is a welcome development. I note that that is the case here in Canberra, too, and I think it adds a dimension to a city that perhaps is difficult to otherwise achieve. I certainly appreciate those developers who give consideration to incorporating art into the landscape.
I have a relatively new housing subdivision in my electorate called Ellenbrook. The developers had the vision early on to incorporate art into the landscape, featuring sculpture and artwork that showed a great sensitivity and appreciation for the local flora and fauna, for the local environment and of local products, all created by local artist Philippa O’Brien. It is a joy to visit that community. Here you have a vast housing estate, a lot of closely linked houses, and yet you can go to the public spaces within that estate and enjoy the art in the landscape. I think it adds a dimension to that community that otherwise would not be there. I commend those who develop both our urban landscapes and our cityscapes for the thoughtfulness they put into it, where they do incorporate art into the landscape. I chaired the Public Works Committee for nine years in this place, and there were several occasions when I encouraged developers developing government buildings to also incorporate art into the landscape and into the building design.
The private and public spaces in this parliament are enhanced by an eclectic and vast collection of artwork. I very much appreciate the people in this place who take the time to select the artworks that we all benefit from. I know there has sometimes been controversy over the kinds of works that are incorporated into that collection. Nevertheless, many of us are grateful for that collection in the conflicted and sometimes bruising work of this place, because we can go and pause and ponder the powerful distraction that fine visual art provides. It really should serve to redouble our political will and our efforts in this place to make sure that artists are indeed fairly rewarded for the work that they do. While this bill takes a step in the right direction, there are issues and matters in it that we probably could improve with a little more thought and perhaps a little more consultation with the various sections of the art community.
I have been waiting to speak on this bill since last year. It has been put off and put off. I feel very strongly that art plays a very important part in the community. It can enhance your appreciation of the natural beauty around you. Artists have the capacity to cause us to consider the past and to look into the future. Sometimes art can challenge our perceptions of how things are, and that is not a bad thing. Sometimes we need to be challenged. I think art has the great capacity to cause us to challenge our perception, to look on things a little differently and to consider things from a different perspective. As I said, whatever your favourite piece of artwork, anybody who loves and appreciates art as I do will agree that it definitely enlivens and enriches all our lives.
I speak in support of the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. Unlike most coalition members opposite and particularly the member for Moncrieff, who gave such a pretentious performance on 19 March this year, the Rudd government and, in particular, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts are prepared to stand up for and to support the rights of Australia’s 20,000 visual artists. Over almost 12 years in office, coalition members gave lip-service to the arts community but delivered nothing.
I listened to the comments of the member for Pearce a moment ago and I accept her sincerity in wanting to support artists in this country. But the fact of the matter is that for 12 years coalition members had the opportunity to do so—and I will come to that in some detail in just a moment—but did not. I also accept her comments about the fact that this bill will mean that it will be 20 years before some artists gain any benefit. Again, I believe that is possibly the case. However, had we started 12 years ago with this kind of legislation, we would now be 12 years into the 20 years that the member for Pearce referred to. It is my view that the sooner we get legislation into place the sooner artists will be able to benefit from it.
The new-found empathy of some opposition members for Australia’s visual artists can only be described as sheer hypocrisy and desperate political opportunism when one actually looks at the track record of coalition members when they were in government. On this issue, the facts not only speak for themselves but certainly tell a different story to what the member for Moncrieff would have had us believe when he was speaking on 19 March in the House.
Let me refer to some of those facts. In March 2004 Labor Senator Kate Lundy introduced a private member’s bill simply because coalition members would not act on this issue. The bill was unsuccessful and was clearly not supported by the coalition members at the time. And so, not only did the coalition members not make the move themselves to introduce the legislation but when it was introduced by Senator Kate Lundy, they did not support it. They voted against it. It is one thing to come into the chamber now and pretend that you are the friend of Australia’s artists, but it is another thing—when your vote counts—to actually not support it.
I give another example. In May 2006, after sitting for four years on the 2002 Contemporary Visual Arts and Crafts Inquiry report, the coalition government decided against the introduction of resale royalties, which they said, ‘would adversely affect commercial galleries, art dealers, auction houses and investors’. The member for Moncrieff—who is the opposition spokesman on this matter and who I referred to as having made a dramatic speech in the House on 19 March—was a member of the House at the time. Where was he in standing up for the rights of artists in 2006?
It is clear that on this issue of resale royalties coalition members are on the side of auction houses, commercial galleries, art dealers and investors, and not on the side of Australia’s visual artists. They had the opportunity to support Australia’s visual artists when they were in government and they failed to do so. The coalition’s view is: let others profit from the work of artists, but not the artists themselves.
The other point I make about the response to this bill by the member for Moncrieff is that for all his criticism of the bill—and he had a lot to say and made much criticism of it—not once did he make a suggestion about how it might be improved and not once did he put forward any amendments to the bill. He simply attacked the government on it. Why? Because when it comes to form on this issue, the opposition has form in not supporting a resale royalty scheme for artists within this country.
The Rudd government and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, made an election commitment to bring in a resale royalty scheme for Australia’s visual artists in the 2007 election—and the minister for the arts is getting on with delivering on that promise. This bill flows from the Berne Convention of 1971. The bill is intended to give effect to article 14 of the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works. I want to quote part of article 14 of the Berne Convention:
The author, or after his death the persons or institutions authorized by national legislation, shall, with respect to original works of art and original manuscripts of writers and composers, enjoy the inalienable right to an interest in any sale of the work subsequent to the first transfer by the author of the work.
There are two other parts but that is the critical part that I want to quote. Australia acceded to the Berne Convention on 28 November 1977. That is some 32 years ago and we still have not acted to implement that section of the Berne Convention. To date, 54 countries out of 164 contracting parties to the Berne Convention have introduced a resale royalty right, including the UK and other European Union members. While those schemes vary between nations—in the rate of royalty paid, the minimum threshold level, how the schemes are administered and other administrative matters—the schemes all uphold the principle that artists should retain an interest in future sales of their work.
In short, under the scheme, a five per cent royalty will be paid to artists, commencing with and from the second sale after the scheme comes into effect. The five per cent royalty payment applies to art work resold for $1,000 or more. The royalty remains in place and continues to apply for 70 years after the death of the artist, with all royalties then paid to the beneficiaries of the artist’s estate. All royalty payments will be collected and distributed by a central administrative agency.
Importantly, under the Berne convention of 1971, reciprocal rights must exist in Australia for overseas artists if Australian artists are to receive royalties from sales in overseas countries. That is one of the critical things about this bill, because some of the works of our own artists are sold offshore and then resold. We cannot enjoy those reciprocal rights unless we have our own legislation in place—so the artists clearly miss out.
This legislation was referred to the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts on 28 November 2008. The primary purpose for referring the bill to the committee was the that resale royalty payments would not commence until the second sale. The committee subsequently received and considered some 40 submissions. A public hearing, which I attended, was held on 6 February 2009, where evidence from 20 witnesses was presented. The committee reported back in February 2009 with 10 recommendations. I believe that all but one of those recommendations are non-contentious and quite properly respond to matters raised during the course of the inquiry.
The one matter that is still of concern to artists is the matter relating to the commencement of the proposed scheme. Under this legislation, royalty payments to artists commence after the secondary resale or transfer of ownership of the artworks. In other words, the scheme will not be retrospective. The particular issue in question is clause 11 of the bill, having regard for section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, which deals with the question of acquisition of property on the other than just terms. If I can just quote that section of the bill:
If an artwork exists on the commencement of this Part, there is no resale royalty right on the first transfer of ownership of the artwork on or after commencement, even if the transfer of ownership is under a commercial resale.
I am aware that there have been opposing legal views on this matter. I have read some of those legal views. I am not a lawyer, but I certainly accept that there is a difference of opinion about the interpretation of section 51 of the Constitution and whether section 11 of the bill contravenes section 51 of the Constitution. It is true that the committee sought further legal advice in respect to that. But, having sought further advice, it is also true that the committee did not oppose the bill; it simply sought further advice. At no point within the recommendations of the committee did the committee oppose the bill because we did not have that advice or because we did not accept that that may well be a concern that needed to be dealt with. We heard from the minister’s department in respect of the concerns about clause 11.
The point I emphasise here is that, whilst it was accepted and acknowledged that section 11 was a contentious matter, it nevertheless did not cause the committee to come to the conclusion that the bill should be opposed in its present form because of section 11. What I can say, however, is that as a result of the inquiry that was conducted by the standing committee there is widespread support for the bill and that the bill does take into account the interests of a very wide cross-section of artists. The bill has been carefully worked through to ensure that it is as fair and equitable as possible. It is my view, having listened to the submissions, that the bill does do that, and with the amendments that have been proposed by the committee—which I understand the minister is looking at—I believe that the bill accommodates pretty much all of the issues that ought to be accommodated as a result of the public inquiry that we went through.
Artists have been calling for over 25 years for a resale royalty scheme in Australia. I know that part of the reason why a resale royalty scheme was not introduced was the concern expressed by gallery owners, auction houses and art dealers that a resale royalty would add to the cost of the artwork and therefore dampen sales. There is no evidence whatsoever that that would happen. If you look at what happened when the 10 per cent GST was introduced or if you look at the buyer’s premium of anywhere between eight and 20 per cent that is included on artwork, it is difficult to accept the proposition that the five per cent will dampen sales, because neither the GST nor the eight to 20 per cent charged by gallery owners, auction houses and art dealers has done that. In fact, my understanding is that, since the GST came into effect, the opposite has occurred—art sales have actually increased.
The beneficiaries of this bill are the artists, and so they should be; it is their work that creates the value. I hope that the introduction of this bill will not only encourage artists with potential to continue with their artwork but also enable some of the good artists of this country to continue with their artwork where they have been unable to do so because they cannot generate enough income. We certainly have some very, very talented artists in this country.
I will close with a brief reference to the aspects of this bill that deal with Indigenous art. One of the main groups that will benefit from this bill is our Indigenous artists. In 2007, Indigenous artists sold something like 1,578 artworks, to the value of $175 million. Indigenous artists tend to sell their work at the lower end of the market, and ultimately their works may go up enormously in value. The member for Pearce referred to Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri’s painting Warlugulong, which sold in 1977 for $1,200 and was sold for $2.4 million at Sotheby’s in 2007. Again, who benefited from that? Certainly not the artist involved.
There are a number of other recommendations in the bill which I will not go through in detail, but I will say this: the other issues that were raised relating to the needs of and support measures for Indigenous artists were, I believe, recognised in the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts. I believe that those needs are real and I believe that the minister is looking at the recommendations of the committee to see what can be done to ensure that those recommendations are adopted. I welcome the recommendation also that this proposal be reviewed in three to five years.
The truth of the matter is this: the sooner we can get this bill through parliament, the sooner artists will be able to earn some additional revenue from the resale royalty. Every day we delay is delaying their ability to do so. Even with the concerns relayed to us in respect of clause 11, it is my view that it is better to get the existing bill through the system and to have it in place so that the time starts ticking away in which artists can start to get a benefit from it. For that reason, I hope that the bill will be supported by the coalition and supported by the members of the Senate. I commend the bill to the House.
The purpose of the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 is to create a resale royalty right scheme for visual artists. The resale royalty right will be inalienable and endure for the life of the artist plus 70 years. A resale royalty right is the right of an artist to claim a percentage of the proceeds of each successive resale of their original work. It is often referred to as ‘droit de suite’, meaning right of follow-up. This bill will entitle artists to a royalty payment of five per cent on the sale price of any commercial resale of the artist’s original works of art over $1,000. The right is a means of countering discrimination against artists in the copyright system.
Artists, as copyright owners, are entitled to receive payment for reproduction of their works, as authors receive royalties for books sold and composers receive payments for a record sold. However, for many visual artists the principle purpose of their work is the original rather than the reproductions of it. Therefore, this enables them to share in another’s profit from the resale of their original.
The bill intends to give effect to article 14ter of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Australia acceded to the Berne Convention on 28 November 1977, with entry into force on 1 March 1978. Fifty-four countries out of 164 contracting parties to the Berne Convention have introduced a resale royalty right, including the UK and other European Union members. This bill is supportive of our international treaty obligations and would assist artists in recovering resale royalties from overseas. This bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts for consideration. The committee, of which I am deputy chair, found widespread support for a resale royalty scheme for visual artists.
Out of the numerous issues that were raised in the inquiry, two key issues were thought to be critical to the success of the scheme. The first was whether existing artworks should be included in the scheme from the outset. Currently clause 11 excludes the first resale of existing artwork from the date of introduction of the scheme. The explanatory memorandum states:
The prospective application of the right will help protect the property rights of people who bought artwork not knowing that a resale royalty would be payable when they resold them.
In all other countries where similar schemes have been introduced, the royalties have been payable on all resales from the date of commencement. The problem with excluding the first resale of existing art work is the indication that turnover of artwork is around 20 years. This would mean minimal benefits to most artists. The Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts submitted that exclusion was not their original intention but was based upon potential constitutional issues. Section 51(31) of the Constitution states:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth in respect to: the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has the power to make laws.
The issue is whether the proposed scheme involves an acquisition of property on just terms. Advice by Mr Robertson SC and evidence provided by Mr Dearn and Dr Rimmer drew the committee’s attention to the 2009 High Court rulings in relation to events that may or may not involve acquisition of property on other than just terms. Given the significance of these rulings, and the impact of clause 11 on the scheme and the benefits to artists, the committee recommended that the minister seek further legal advice on whether omitting the clause would make the scheme unconstitutional. The committee also asked legal advice be sought on the possibility of amending clause 20 to exclude sellers from those persons who are jointly and severally liable to pay the royalty on a commercial resale of an artwork. If this was acceptable then it may have removed the necessity to include clause 11.
The government responded to this recommendation by seeking further legal advice and is of the opinion that the removal of clause 11 and the amendment of clause 20 would expose the Commonwealth to significant risk. Therefore, although clause 11 may have had a negative impact on the benefits to artists, it would appear to be constitutionally a legal necessity for the operation of the scheme.
The second key issue raised by the committee was whether individual artists should be able to opt out completely and personally have the right to collect royalty. Clause 33 states the resale royalty right is absolutely inalienable. This is in line with article 14ter of the Berne Convention. Clause 15 does allow for artists to transfer this right to a charitable institution that works for the benefit of the community. The intention is not to create a right that is tradeable as a commodity or to be held as a commercial entity but one that can be passed to natural heirs and not-for-profit organisations. Clause 33 provides a safeguard for artists being pressured into giving up their rights to obtain a royalty for the resale of their art work. However, clause 23 states that artists can exercise their right to say no to the collecting society to collect the royalty—
Debate interrupted.
I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
I rise today to congratulate the Senate on rejecting the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. This represents a great win for students on university campuses across Australia, who now no longer have to pay the $250 that was proposed by the government for the privilege of attending university.
The minister for youth and for sport, yesterday in the House, proceeded to instruct us that students around the country were devastated at the news that this bill had been rejected by the Senate. I can record for the House that every single student I have spoken to, subsequent to the rejection of this legislation, far from being devastated, is in fact delighted that they no longer have to turn up to university and pay a $250 fee for the privilege. This is a great boon for students.
We also had the minister regale the House that this was some sort of ideological extremism, as if having a different view makes you extreme, as if rejecting the imposition of a $250 tax on students were somehow ideological. The reason that students around the country oppose such retrograde legislation is that they have the right to choose what to do with their own money. If you are putting forward the proposition that, if you ran a university campus you could not provide services to students, such as at the University of Sydney, with 30,000 students, and turn a profit through food service provision, let me tell you: I do not think that is a valid proposition; I think that is total nonsense. There are 30,000 students at the university I went to. There is plenty of scope for a person to choose their own food, to choose their own services and pay for services that they require. They do not need a student body, or a student service representative organisation, to choose for them. They do not need to be taxed for the privilege of going to a university campus.
Ever since the passing of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Act, what we have seen on campus is a rebirth of the ability of people to choose with their own money. When I went to university you would pay up to $400 a semester for the privilege of joining a union that you did not want to join. Freeing up students from joining such an organisation compulsorily has been of great benefit—they have enjoyed that new freedom and life has continued on campuses all around Australia.
Funnily enough, the minister seemed to want to regale us with a tale of how things were devastated on campuses, how student life—of course, we do not understand what the term means; I think it is supposed to mean hanging out at bars, listening to music and those sorts of things—had somehow stopped, somehow these things had ceased since the abolition of the compulsory unionism model. Far from ceasing, life has continued. Western Christian democracy has gone on. The world continues to revolve around the sun. Students now have more money in their pockets to make their own choices. They can choose the services that they wish to have, the services that are best for them—and they can do that without the aid of a body that they do not wish to be a member of.
The minister for youth and sport seemed to want to say, ‘We will be back with this legislation’, as if somehow the imposition of this tax on students was a top priority of the Rudd government, one of the first things that it would seek to do, at a time when what we see in Australia is a downturn in the economic climate. We see many people who are young being unable to access employment. Why would any government in this climate seek to impose an extra burden on students for the privilege of going to a university? Why would the minister for youth and sport say, as she did in question time, that somehow people in lower socioeconomic demographics would somehow be worse off through the rejection of this measure? It is self-evidently the case that students who come from lower socioeconomic demographics are now demonstrably $250 better off than they would have been if this government had its way, and that helps the people who have the least money the most. I applaud the Senate for standing up for students around this country and rejecting the notion of taxing students for the right to go to university.
Last Thursday I rose in this place to put on record my disgust that Telstra is introducing a range of fees for people paying their bills across the counter. When I got home on Friday, I, like many thousands of other customers, received a letter from Telstra outlining the new schedule of fees for the payment of bills, particularly across the counter. Today I have written a letter to Telstra, and I would like to share that letter with the House. I am sure that many members are receiving some flak from constituents on this—I can tell you that we are in my electorate. I think it is time we took on Telstra over this issue, which is in effect a tax on the poor or a penalty on poverty. My letter reads:
Dear Mr Thodey
Greetings from the beautiful NW Coast of Tasmania!
I write to you on behalf of many hundreds of loyal Telstra customers from my region who pay their Telstra bills, across the counter, in person, and do so as part of their way of doing business.
Recently you announced two things—both of which I believe contradict each other to some extent.
Firstly, you rightly announced that Telstra should once again become ‘an agent of the customer’ and suggested that Telstra staff and agencies should be ‘customer ambassadors’. All your Telstra customers would congratulate you on this measure, and look forward to seeing these changes occur in the near future.
Secondly, you have circulated customers that Telstra will be charging a ‘… new $2.20 payment administration fee for each bill payment sent through the mail or made in person at a Telstra Sop or Australia Post’, as well as increasing the existing payment processing fee for credit card payments. The notice also states: ‘If you use your credit card to pay your bill in person both the payment administration fee and the payment processing fee for the credit card will apply.’
I put it to you Mr. Thodey that the imposition of the latter charges or penalties is not in the least ‘customer friendly’ or the action of ‘an agent of the customer’.
Thousands of your customers in my region and throughout Australia do not access a computer and or do not wish to do their business transactions via this medium. In addition, many of these loyal customers want to do their business by paying in cash or credit card, across the counter, face-to-face with a customer service person. They do not want to be forced to use direct debit or cheque or savings account payments (some of which carry their own bank fees) nor do they want to use electronic payment methods over the internet for security reasons.
In addition, many of your customers and my constituents have contacted me, angry about the principle of being penalised for paying their bill in person. It is one thing to pay for a service, but to be penalised for doing so in a particular way, angers many people. Thousands of your customers who pay by this means are often older citizens, used to transaction their business in person, distrustful of and somewhat intimidated by the internet and new electronic technologies. They are also often people on low incomes.
I urge you on behalf of the many thousands of loyal customers who will be negatively affected by this penalty, to revisit the decision and to scrap it. Telstra is a mighty company, often a monopoly service provider particularly in regions like my own, and has the financial ability to encourage its customers to consider alternative practices rather than punish and penalise them into doing so. I consider this latest action to be an unfair penalty on a large and loyal segment of your customer base and a none-too-subtle attempt to herd customers onto electronic means of payment. It may be Telstra’s view of the future but it is not the way thousands of your customers want to do their business and custom with Telstra.
And so on. Many hundreds of people in my electorate are already signing petitions to Telstra objecting to this penalty for paying a bill. They are happy to pay, but it makes them very angry to be penalised because they want to do face-to-face transactions or use their credit card. I am happy to take up the case for them. (Time expired)
I applaud the member for Braddon for his contribution. I too have had many calls from angry Telstra customers and I have done some work on my website about the same issue. I am sure the Telstra people cannot wait for your letter!
Homeswest housing density is a controversial issue in Perth, particularly in my electorate of Swan. I have briefed the House before on homelessness problems in Swan. At the last glance though, the Homeswest waiting list had blown out to beyond 20,000. It has been high for some years now. I am a supporter of more Homewest housing and my office has helped many people with their problems. Homeswest staff do a fantastic job, in often challenging circumstances. Most West Australians would agree that more Homeswest houses need to be built to address this shortage. With a list of over 20,000, the federal government needs to address the issue of having more than just 20,000 nationally, and should look at the total number required Australia wide.
However, the approach of the former West Australian government has caused considerable angst, concern and upheaval across the electorate. Their approach was to concentrate new Homeswest housing developments in certain suburbs. Many of the suburbs in my electorate of Swan were part of the Labor government’s density plan. In 2007, the Western Australia minister said in a written response to Troy Buswell, the current Treasurer of Western Australia, that the Swan suburbs of Karawara, Bentley, Manning, St James, Rivervale, Belmont, Redcliffe, Carlisle, Cloverdale, Queens Park, Wilson, Kensington, East Victoria Park and Cannington all had public housing densities exceeding the average of 4.14 per cent.
I have never supported these Homeswest housing hubs as a solution to the Homeswest housing shortage. Development must be spread evenly throughout the Perth metropolitan area. Community organisations in Rivervale and Manning have been particularly active on this issue. I recently met with Steve Neates, from the Manning Community Association, who informed me that Manning has Homeswest allocation levels at 18.24 per cent of the suburb—supplied by the Department of Housing—compared to Como which has 3.27 per cent, Kensington which has 7.72 per cent and Salter Point which has 3.14 per cent, and so on. Many other residents of that area have spoken to me about the problems with anti-social behaviour, as well as the public housing density in that particular suburb.
In Rivervale, Christina Bylinski, who is involved with the Belmont Resident/Ratepayers Action Group, otherwise know as BRRAG, has been an active voice, pointing out a Homeswest housing density of 14 per cent, and in particular in her street, over 50 per cent. Christina has been passionate about her street and suburb and is committed to seeing that the integrity and value is maintained. Christina first approached me during the 2007 election campaign and I applaud her tireless and committed work.
Both of these groups have called for the gradual reduction of housing densities and a halt to any new developments in their affected suburbs. I support these calls. I note that the urban renewal living homes problem has stated objectives of: (1) the reduction in high concentrations of public housing; (2) the refurbishment of houses for sale, to both the public and existing tenants; (3) better land utilisation through the re-subdivision and refurbishment of public rental housing; (4) infrastructure enhancements, upgrading of streetscapes and public open space; and (5) community development.
The only such project in my electorate is the Queens Park Quattro project, which is described as an ‘innovative, urban renewable project’ to redevelop the former Maniana housing area. The actual project was initiated by the previous government—I will recognise that—but is being continued by the current government. The website states of this particular area:
Since the first release at Quattro: The New Queens Park in December 2008, demand for lots has been extremely strong. The latest release, Stage 2B, was no exception with all lots selling within one day!
This is a fantastic program for public housing. I have had a look through the area. It is modern, it is refreshing and it is a place that may people would like to live in. Queens Park is a suburb that is dear to me. I have many friends there who are involved with the Queens Park Football Club, the junior football club, and it is great to see that this area, Maniana, has actually been revived from its previous life of a run down state housing area. Rivervale and Manning, with 14 per cent housing density, should be considered for any future similar schemes, as long as the focus is aimed at reducing the density back to the target amount of 11 per cent. I am pleased to hear that the Minister for Housing and Works, Troy Buswell, is committed to reducing public housing in Rivervale to 11 per cent over time, but I am here to remind Troy that he needs to make sure that he keeps his promises to the people of Rivervale and Manning and to make sure that he implements that target and works towards it.
May 2012 will mark the 70th anniversary of one of the most significant naval battles of World War II, certainly as far as Australia is concerned, as damage inflicted on the Japanese Navy altered the course of the war in the Pacific and in Papua New Guinea.
On 7 and 8 May 1942 allied and Japanese naval forces engaged in a ferocious carrier battle off the north coast of Queensland—a battle that has become an enduring symbol of the strong relationship between Australia and the United States. Three US navy ships—the destroyer USS Sims, the fleet oiler USS Neosho and the aircraft carrier USS Lexingtonwere lost in the battle and rest in Australian waters. The battle is commemorated each year by both Australians and Americans, and is regularly marked in Brisbane by visits of US warships.
The Coral Sea is now the focus of a campaign that advocates world wide the establishment of a small number of very large, world class no-take marine reserves aimed at providing ecosystem scale benefits and the conservation of global marine heritage—the Coral Sea being one such park. Former Australian naval chiefs, retired vice admirals David Shackleton and Christopher Ritchie, have leant their weight to this campaign, urging the Australian government to support the submission on a proposed Coral Sea Heritage Park sponsored by the Pew Environment Group, the Australian Marine Conservation Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Not surprisingly, National Party Senator Ron Boswell has come out in opposition to the plan. Notwithstanding the involvement of distinguished retired Australian naval chiefs, the senator labels the linking of an environmental proposal with naval heritage as disgraceful. In contrast, I believe that such a heritage park would be a fitting tribute to those who lost their lives in the Battle of the Coral Sea and an acknowledgement of the special relationship between our two countries. The senator expresses concerns that such a park would mean an end to commercial fishing and the elimination of extractive industries. In both these matters, the proponents have done their homework. The two fisheries that would be affected, the northern portion of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery and the Coral Sea Fishery are modest earners with a combined annual income of less than $10 million. The majority of licence holders in the fisheries have indicated their willingness to participate in a licence buy-out package in order to allow this proposal to go ahead, but it should be noted that three of the 13 or so participants in the Coral Sea Fishery remain opposed at this time. Game fishing within the area tends to take place within the existing Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, but there are a few charter fishing vessels—game fishing and otherwise—that do go into the Coral Sea. I am advised that the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, APPEA, have indicated that they have no strong view about the proposal to exclude the area. Although they would be naturally inclined to oppose the locking up of any area, on this one they are ‘leaning more towards neutral’.
So, in virtually ruling out any commercial opposition to this proposal, we should at least consider the benefits. First, as I said earlier, it would be a fitting tribute to those who lost their lives in the Battle of the Coral Sea. Second, as a relatively untouched or intact ecosystem, it is both rare and has what is regarded as high conservation values. Protecting such land-base areas is well established in principle and in practice. Third, to effectively conserve pelagic fish species which move large distances requires a large area. Fourth, the Coral Sea contains some 70 of the 440 demersal fish species found in the Coral Sea that are not found anywhere else on the planet. At a time when we bemoan the rapid rate of extinction of various species, this is of great importance. Fifth, while this is a distinct ecosystem to the Great Barrier Reef, there are synergies between the two such that a healthy Coral Sea is important for the continuing health of the Great Barrier Reef. Sixth, it is an important nesting and breeding area for sea birds, 14 species of which nest and forage there—including the threatened green turtle. And seventh, the spectacular underwater mountain landscape and remote reefs and caves, as well as providing refuge, breeding and feeding grounds for a large variety of ocean life, also provide outstanding opportunities to develop tourism products complementary to those on the Great Barrier Reef. The Coral Sea is acknowledged as among the top ten dive locations in the world.
While this is not an exhaustive listing of the benefits, when coupled with the very limited opposition remaining among those with commercial interests in the Coral Sea, these alone should indicate that there is a case worthy of consideration. A hundred years ago, in 1908, US President Theodore Roosevelt did two things relevant to this discussion today: he declared the world’s first marine park in Key West, Florida and, at the invitation of Prime Minister Alfred Deakin, sent 16 ships of the US Navy—the Great White Fleet—to Australia, thus beginning 100 years of naval alliance between our countries. There could be no more fitting symbol of that alliance than a marine park on the site of the battle where many lives paid great dividends for our country. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on behalf of my state. Western Australia has long driven this nation’s economic development. Blessed with some of the world’s richest resource deposits and backed up with an enormous agricultural sector, Western Australia has, for decades, been putting the shirts on all Australians’ backs—and giving them trousers, and shoes, and socks, and hats. The tremendous Western Australia-driven national boom of recent years was curtailed only by the global economic crisis, and already there are indications of a mining-led recovery in my state while most of Australia and most of the world remain in the doldrums. We are rich in Western Australia partly because we have been blessed by nature, but also because we have worked hard and worked smart to get where we are. A strong entrepreneurial streak and the willingness to take on some of the toughest environmental conditions in the world have played a large part in our success.
We have been generous with our wealth, accepting almost without question that with such progress comes responsibility, and that it is reasonable to expect Western Australia to help out less fortunate states. We have poured billions into the federation and into other states and territories of this nation, consistently contributing far more than is proportionate to our population. The advent of the GST saw the extent of the subsidy by Western Australia to the rest of the country clearly demonstrated. For every dollar in GST Western Australia contributes to the federal coffers, more than 40c goes to subsidise the rest of the country. We get back only a little over 50 per cent of the GST we pay, and, at the same time, this must be used to finance massive infrastructure projects spanning vast distances in harsh environmental conditions in order to maintain economic output and growth. The rest of Australia then double dips in Western Australia, siphoning off the high level of income tax drawn from our strong economy and its generous wages.
On a per capita basis, our gross state product is about a third higher than the national average. More than one-third of Australia’s exports come from Western Australia. The state produces more than 20 per cent of the world’s alumina, 15 per cent of iron ore and 75 per cent of Australia’s gold. Oil, gas, uranium and coal are all in abundance. The state produces half of Australia’s wheat and 50 per cent of live cattle exports. It also has significant wool and lamb sectors.
So when you collect your pension in Melbourne, or drive down a new highway in Sydney; when you see a new school in Hobart or go to school in Adelaide, remember that the men and women of Western Australia are paying your way. We are happy to continue to do so. The days when Western Australia would vote overwhelmingly to secede from the rest of Australia, as 68 per cent did in 1933, have long since passed. But what we will not tolerate today is being taken for a ride by slothful elements in what one of my state party colleagues in Perth last week called the ‘rust bucket’ states.
The New South Wales Treasurer was engaging in the most pathetic form of parochial politics when he recently branded WA and Queensland ‘the axis of evil’ because the Commonwealth Grants Commission had decided to return a little more of the GST contributions made by these two states—the two which have done the most to drive economic development which has given all Australians the quality of life we enjoy today. That decision came just a year after the commission actually cut the amount returned to WA. But the changes in both directions have made no difference to the simple fact that WA receives substantially less per capita than it contributes. We get little more than a taste of the vast sums we hand over every year in GST so that the rest of Australia can share in our good fortune. Of course, we are all part of the great nation which is Australia and we must all work together for the common good, but balance is required. A more equitable arrangement is essential. WA deserves far more than it receives in dollars, gratitude and respect.
I rise today to speak about one of the most important challenges facing not only Australia but the rest of the world. Global food security is now coming onto our radars as a really serious problem, given the booming world population and the increase in long-term demand for produce. It has been on the radar for some time but recent events, particularly the global financial crisis, has caused people to think of other matters. The effect of this shortage through rising food prices and the rise in global poverty, particularly extreme poverty, are serious issues and ones that ought to be given carriage in this place.
The following statistics from the World Bank and from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation will give a little bit of a perspective for those in the chamber today. From March 2007 to March 2008 wheat prices rose 130 per cent; soya beans rose 87 per cent; rice, 74 per cent; and corn, 31 per cent. They are massive increases in the prices of these products. Poor families spend up to 80 per cent of their budgets on food. It is estimated that a further 100 million people have fallen into poverty in just the last two years. Twenty-one of the 36 countries in food security crisis are in sub-Saharan Africa. The region imports 45 per cent of its wheat and 84 per cent of its rice. We can all understand with these figures that it is simply not sustainable.
In Indonesia a 10 per cent rise in rice prices means that two million more people will be living in poverty. Over the last year food security concerns have shifted from very high food prices to the global economic downturn. Although food prices remain high in many poor countries, this is compounded by the effects of the global recession. I want to make sure that our problems in the global financial crisis do not overshadow the vastly more serious problem of people dying from hunger. I want to congratulate the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for his good work in this area in raising these issues in the parliament and also for taking a proactive approach, following through on Labor’s commitment to agriculture, to farming and to the global food crisis. I will talk about those in a moment.
The food and economic crises have seen a substantial increase in global poverty, with the number of undernourished people having now reached one billion for the first time. Consequently, the achievement of poverty reduction targets now appear almost impossible. Longer term population and income projections indicate that global food production needs to increase by more than 40 per cent by 2030 and 70 per cent by 2050 to feed an extra 80 million people every single year. This is a massive challenge for all of us.
What can we do to start to address some of these problems? Certainly the biggest challenges we face are population growth, political instability, climate change, extreme weather events and the conversion of food crops to fuel crops. The OECD says that 38 per cent of the US maize crop and 50 per cent of Brazilian sugar production is diverted to ethanol production. That is not necessarily all bad but bad where countries that were producing crops particularly for food convert that to fuel. Almost all of Europe’s oilseed harvest will be needed to meet the community’s 2008 target for biodiesel. Climate change is causing agricultural lands to become unproductive. Extreme weather events are causing not only temporary hardships but permanent land use change, while geopolitical events continue to place more and more people into extreme poverty. But certainly one of the greatest challenges we face this year is population growth. While we continue to grow at unsustainable rates in countries such as China and India, which the face the greatest challenges of all—challenges they are trying to meet—certainly their food security becomes an issue of great concern. As we generally become wealthier in places right around the world, particularly as people come out of poverty in India and China, the demand for protein-rich foods and protein-rich diets places even more pressure on their own food sources and on global food stocks.
What is this government doing? We have some good news. Firstly, we are meeting all of the commitments that we made prior to the election. We have also seen the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry announce $6.4 million to help 15 regional businesses boost innovation in Australia’s food security for domestic and export markets. We have also taken the challenge up on the global front. We have established a team of dedicated people to work on food security issues, and we have provided $100 million to improve global food security and a further $50 million to contribute to a World Bank trust for food security for some of the world’s poorest people, including emergency food relief for places like Indonesia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and North Korea. This is a global problem and we need a global effort. The Rudd government is meeting that challenge.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 1.01 pm, until Monday, 7 September 2009, at 4.00 pm, unless in accordance with standing order 186 an alternative date or time is fixed.