In accordance with standing order 41(h), and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 16 June 2010, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Ballarat, Menzies, Throsby, Mitchell and Robertson. These matters will be considered in the Main Committee later today.
In accordance with standing order 39(d), I present two reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Report 111:Treaties tabled on 25 November 2009 (3), 4 and 24 February 2010 and Report 112: Treaties tabled on 9, 10, 15, 16 and 29 March 2010. These matters will be considered in the Main Committee later today.
Message received from the Senate returning the bill and informing the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments Nos 2 to 14 and 16 to 22, disagreed to by the House.
Message received from the Senate returning the bill and informing the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendment disagreed to by the House.
by leave—I move:
That unless otherwise ordered, at the adjournment of the House for this sitting, the following bills stand referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Crimes Amendment (Royal Flying Doctor Service) Bill 2010;Higher Education Support Amendment (Indexation) Bill 2010; andCompetition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2010.
I inform all honourable members that this motion enjoys the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 17 June, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I welcome the opportunity to again speak on this important bill, the National Health Amendment (Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2010. I will add to my earlier remarks. I tendered that many of the presentations to Kempsey hospital were complex and involved mental health issues and violence. I know this is not unique in emergency department terms, but this puts extra pressure on the doctors and nurses in Kempsey. Kempsey hospital services a large area that stretches from Millbank in the upper Macleay across to South West Rocks and down to Crescent Head. It is a huge area, and it is important that the services are maintained and not eroded. I have supported public rallies which the Kempsey nurses have hosted and have shared the frustration and anger they feel towards the bureaucrats and ministers who continue to reject their case for more resources.
The recent acknowledgment by the North Coast Area Health Service that the nurses may have a case is welcome. A review—one of the endless reviews—is taking place and that is indeed long overdue. But there is no excuse for the way Kempsey nurses have been treated in this matter. I, like the Macleay community, will remain vigilant on this matter until Kempsey hospital secures the additional resources required for the emergency department.
There is not a hospital on the North Coast that has stronger community support than the Maclean District Hospital. Whether it be the hospital auxiliary or the local community, lower Clarence residents understand the importance of supporting their local hospital. But there is little doubt that the lower Clarence residents have, over time, been treated as second-class citizens by health bureaucrats. In 2007 the North Coast Area Health Service sold some land next to the Maclean hospital. Local residents thought the funds raised would be invested in upgrading infrastructure in Maclean—but, no, the North Coast Area Health Service decided instead to upgrade the emergency department in Grafton. In 2008 the NCAHS tried to sell more land adjacent to the Maclean hospital, but the community outcry eventually ensured there was little interest in the land and the area health service took it off the market. Slowly but surely the North Coast Area Health Service has been withdrawing resources from Maclean hospital. The hospital no longer has its own executive officer in charge, and a security guard’s position has been axed. Once again, the smaller hospitals are being screwed of every last dollar as services are centralised to larger regional hospitals.
Many of the concerns which I have detailed with regard to the above hospital also apply to Macksville Hospital. Macksville Hospital now has to share a director of nursing and an executive officer with Bellingen Hospital. Staff at Macksville Hospital do a great job in providing services to the Nambucca Shire but they have no choice now but to refer many cases to Coffs Harbour, which is 50 minutes drive away.
I would like to bring the parliament’s attention some comments that the federal member for Page has recently made. In the Northern Star newspaper the member for Page made the following comments in relation to provision of dental care:
These waiting lists grew to more than 600,000 after the Howard Government scrapped the Commonwealth dental scheme in 1992 … Rather than pass legislation to provide dental health care to those most in need the Opposition senators would rather keep a flawed Howard Government Scheme where the poorest people get nothing.
These comments were made in a letter to the editor, so I do not think they were made in the heat of the moment but I do believe that she was not telling the gospel truth. Firstly, the Howard government did not scrap the dental health scheme in 1992—Paul Keating was our Prime Minister in 1992. But, more importantly, the Rudd government has been intent on scrapping the Howard government’s dental program. This scheme allowed people with chronic and complex health problems, where dental health was a contributing factor, to receive up to $4,250 over two years for dental therapies.
The federal Minister for Health and Ageing claimed in parliament that the program had only helped 15,000 people in four years. However, Ms Gay Santiago, acting assistant secretary of the primary care financing branch of the Department of Health and Ageing has told a Senate estimates hearing that the scheme provided 311,943 services between November 2007 and 30 April 2008. These services are vital for those who have the most genuine need for major dental work yet the Rudd government, including the federal member for Page, are willing to turn their backs on their people and it seems they are most willing to bend the truth when presenting their case.
Whether we speak about this legislation today or whether we debate the broader implications of the Rudd government’s approach to health, the real concern here is that the Prime Minister’s focus is not so much on people but on politics. This is why quite often the government falls short when we look at the detail. We should never forget that health is not about headlines, it is about human beings. Politicians like the Prime Minister who dress up new health agreements as a major reform but fail to provide meaningful detail are treating Australians with contempt. The details of health policy are the difference between health and illness, between help and despair, between dignity and embarrassment and, in extreme cases, between life and death. The opposition cautiously welcomes the government’s changes to the CAAS program but we will continue to scrutinise the government’s every move in the health portfolio. They have a track record of failure rather than success on everything they touch.
Before I get to the substance of my contribution to the debate on the National Health Amendment (Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2010 the member for Cowper may like to hear what I have to say about the enhanced Medicare scheme and how it relates to the provision of service for people with chronic and complex dental health problems. I will set the record straight. It was in 1997 that the Howard government ended the Commonwealth dental program that helped many thousands of Australians throughout the country.
In relation to the program the member for Cowper spoke about I would like to give a real live example from the Cowper electorate. My mother lived in the Cowper electorate and I told her about the program. She had very complex health needs—in fact, she died because of the health problems she had. I gave her a handout on the program, and she went to talk to her doctor about it. The doctor said: ‘You wouldn’t qualify for this and, besides, there is no dentist within the vicinity that actually will utilise this program.’ I sent her back again and said, ‘Go and see your doctor, go and talk to your doctor. You would definitely qualify for this program. Surely there must be one dentist in the area. Try Coffs Harbour.’ She lived at Nambucca Heads. Her doctor eventually gave her the referral. Then she had to find a dentist that would provide the service for her under the Howard government’s wonderful scheme. There was no-one in Nambucca Heads, there was no-one in Macksville, there was no-one any closer than Sawtell. She finally found a dentist that would provide the service for her, and she got the dental treatment that she needed. She had quite a significant dental problem. She managed to have it done before she died, but only just.
If that scheme is held up as one that benefits Australians, and if that is something that the member for Cowper is proud of, then he needs to look a little more carefully at the number of people who need dental health treatment and cannot afford it. The Labor Party’s program is about providing dental health care to all those people that need it. I am very familiar with the health services in the Cowper electorate. I would encourage the member for Cowper to be quite honest with this House in relation to the services that are available there and in particular to that dental care program that he spoke at great length about and which his constituents have been unable to utilise. Having had my say on that particular program, I would like to turn to the legislation that we have before us today, which the member for Cowper only briefly mentioned as he concluded his contributions to this debate. This legislation will allow for the introduction of the Continence Aids Payment Scheme. I will refer to it as the CAP Scheme as opposed to the continence aid assistance scheme, which I will refer to as CAAS in my contribution to this debate.
This amendment allows for an instrument for the minister to change the way continence aids are paid for. It allows for the Commonwealth to make payments to people who are eligible under the CAP Scheme and ensures that there is an adequate process in place to facilitate the transfer of clients under the CAA Scheme, which has basically been provided by one provider, to the CAP Scheme, where people who use the scheme can choose their own provider of the continence aid. Obviously, this service will be provided by Medicare, which is a change to the way the first scheme operates.
Mr Speaker, you would be aware, I am sure, that an enormous amount of information has gone out to clients of the CAP Scheme. There are about 75,000 clients throughout Australia who are aware that the CAP Scheme will come into place. This will allow them to access continence aids at a time and in a way which is much more convenient for them. The current scheme provides $470 per person per annum for continence aids, which is what it costs the government, and I think that is indexed and due to go up to $489.95.
I thought it would be worth while having a look at the need for continence aids. Quite a few Australians have incontinence problems. I am referring here to the Australian incontinence data analysis and development report of March 2006. So, yes, the information is a little dated, but, if you look at the population today and make a correlation between the figures I am about to give to the House, you will find that it is pretty accurate, with 2.8 per cent of the Australian adult population experiencing severe incontinence. For 128,000 people living in cared accommodation who also need assistance with bladder and bowel control, this is handled differently.
This scheme relates to people living within the community. To give you the combination of how the 545,000 is made up, 240,800 people living in households experience very severe urinary incontinence and 202,100 people living in households experience frequent or very frequent faecal incontinence. Those figures show that there is a significant need for this program in the community. It is also important to know that there are 723,100 Australians who experience moderate urinary incontinence and another 2,877,500 Australians who have slight urinary incontinence problems. This really brings home the fact that this scheme needs to be in place.
People need to link in easily to the CAP Scheme. It is a flexible scheme which people who need continence aids can access locally. I am sure I am not the only member in this House who has a constituent with this problem—in my case it was a parent with an intellectually handicapped daughter who needed continence aids. There were problems accessing the aids and a delay receiving them because they were not provided in the area in which she lived—even within the Hunter area—and those aids were available from different sources. I think this is such a positive move.
Talking about the prevalence, it is worth while looking at the age factors associated with incontinence. Of the 284,000 Australians who always or sometimes need assistance with bladder or bowel management, 79 per cent are over 50 and 65 per cent are over 70. I bring those figures to the House because it is important for us to note that in a situation where we have an ageing population this is obviously going to become more prevalent. Since the 2006 report, there would have been an increase in the number of people needing continence aids simply because in those four years our population has aged further. It is important to note that females represent two-thirds of the people who are likely to experience severe incontinence and 45 per cent of the people live in cared accommodation. That means that 55 per cent of the people live in the community and these are the people who will benefit enormously from the scheme we are discussing, which will be covered by the legislation. Females represent 55 per cent of people living in households who need assistance with bladder or bowel control and 73 per cent of people living in cared accommodation. It is also interesting to note that 89 per cent of people living in care who are 70 to 84 years of age need assistance. There is a correlation between those people living in the community and an increase in their need for continence aids. So, by looking at these figures and at the fact that we are an ageing population, it is indisputable that a program like this is needed and it is also indisputable that people needing continence aids should be able to receive them close to where they live.
Disorders such as arthritis and related conditions often accompany people that have severe incontinence. Dementia is the most common health problem in relation to people that need continence aids. Based on the demographics and on the condition of incontinence, there can be strong support for having a scheme in place that is flexible and meets the needs of people who require continence aids.
It is interesting to note that the definition of incontinence that accompanies the scheme says that a person must suffer from a moderate to severe level of incontinence. For males, one of the diseases that have in the past led to incontinence has been prostate cancer. I know there have been enormous developments in treatment in that area, and operations and treatments that are now conducted are no longer leading to the problems they did in the past. The CAP Scheme is designed to help people with permanent—and I think that is important—and severe incontinence to meet some of their costs. Under the current scheme the government contribution—as it has always been—does not cover all the costs. It is similar with the CAP Scheme.
Clients who are currently receiving assistance under the CAA Scheme will receive a letter from the department about the changes to the scheme. I know from talking to people in my electorate that a number of clients have already received that information, and I know that there has been correspondence sent out to a number of constituents in Shortland electorate giving them advice about the new scheme. Cash payments made to people that need the continence aids can be made on either a yearly or six-monthly basis. Throughout the transition period the current provider will be in touch with clients of the CAA Scheme to provide information about the new CAP Scheme, and those clients will continue to access their subsidy until 30 June 2010, which is right about now.
It is important that this legislation gets through the parliament before the parliament rises, because it is legislation that will advantage so many Australians who need the continence aids that will become available through the CAP Scheme. The flexible provisions of the scheme will be enormously useful and beneficial to each and every person who needs to utilise continence aids.
There is one important change that is worth mentioning. Currently CAAS clients may be required to complete a CAPS transfer form. The important difference is that Medicare Australia will be the body funding this scheme. Completion of the CAPS transfer form will allow the payment to be made to the nominated bank account of the client.
This is, as I said, a vitally important scheme because it creates flexibility and gives some control to older Australians. As I have mentioned, we have an ageing population, so we need to make things happen easily. We need to be mindful of the quality of life that people enjoy. Through this CAPS program, we will be delivering a service to older Australians that will be extremely beneficial to them. I commend the legislation to the House.
Order! Before I call the member for McPherson I indicate to members that the House has agreed that there should be no points of order during her contribution. The member for McPherson.
Hear, hear!
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: since announcing my intention not to stand at the next federal election, I have spent some time reflecting on my years of service as the federal member for McPherson, on what this role has meant to me, on what the people of McPherson have meant to me and on the many people who have supported me and made my time in this place and in the electorate so memorable. They are memories that I will cherish for a lifetime. I have also spent time reflecting on this great country of ours and on what governments of both persuasions have done, and I hope will continue to do, for the people of this country in the name of democracy. It is the strength of our democracy that means so much to me personally.
As someone who lived under a military dictatorship for many years and witnessed poverty and deprivation of human liberties, I look at the history of this country and what we have achieved through the democratic processes that have evolved since Federation and I am proud of what our forefathers and indeed the modern leaders of our democracy have given us as citizens. However, the world is still facing challenges, with hunger, disease and suffering still at levels that are totally unacceptable in the modern world. With natural disasters and tragedies like floods and fires often imposing a heavy toll on communities and individuals, and with the world still on alert against terrorism which threatens our freedom, I once again say that this country has much to be proud of.
We often hear politicians talk about the honour and privilege of representing people in the federal parliament. It is both and I am no different from others who have gone before me in saying just that. It has been an honour and a privilege. More than that, it has been an unforgettable journey, a journey filled with wonderful people, extraordinary events and unbelievable experiences that will stay with me for a lifetime. But above all it has been the people—the people who have supported me through four elections; the people who did not support me but whom I nevertheless grew to respect for their different views; the people who challenged me with ideas and issues; the people who questioned the policy and policy directions of my government; the people who did not have a voice and looked to me as their voice; the talented young people in my schools and universities whose ideas often shocked me and certainly challenged me; the senior Australians who shared their wisdom, experiences and knowledge; and the new Australians on whom I bestowed Australian citizenship, with their wonderful stories of hope in a new land of opportunity. There have been so many people who have enriched my life and who make up the rich tapestry of people that is the federal seat of McPherson. To all those people: thank you. Thank you for the wonderful and rewarding position you entrusted me with for 12 years. You will not be forgotten.
To my party members, those people who share the same ideals and beliefs as me: thank you. Thank you for supporting our great party, the Liberal Party of Australia, and thank you for supporting me for the past 12 years. I have just one message to you all: stay involved and stay committed to our cause during this election year. Remember why you joined our great party and continue the fight and the dream for tomorrow’s children. We can win in 2010.
Hear! Hear!
As individuals in this place, we are not able to carry the burden of office without the commitment, help and assistance of our staff. As a former staffer myself, I know just how much we rely on these very important people. They are often the first contact with constituents. They are our eyes and ears. They work long hours and often put the office before their own families. I have been extremely blessed over the years to have the most loyal staff, who have worked hard in the electorate office and here in Canberra. They have supported me above and beyond what I could ever have expected. We have faced many challenges together over the years. We have shared some wonderful highs and lows. We have laughed and even cried on occasions. We have celebrated birthdays and milestones, but above all we have respected each other and supported each other, particularly during the long periods away from home.
To my current staff, Karen Embrey, Krystyna Homik, Sandra Tomlinson and Amanda Belton, who are all in the gallery today, ‘thanks’ does not seem enough or indeed appropriate for the years of service, support and loyalty you have given me. You made the job so much easier and I hope our paths will cross as we embark on our different journeys in the future. To each of you, most sincerely and from the bottom of my heart: thank you. I would also like to mention a couple of other staff members who worked with me when I was shadow minister for ageing. To Amelia Walsh and Damian Marwood, who have now moved on to new lives—Amelia in Chicago and Damian in Sydney—thank you both for your individual contributions over a number of years. To Ann Phillips, our wonderful volunteer who comes in every week and has done so for many years: the girls and I will be forever grateful for your contribution to our office. Thank you. And to a number of my past employees, Carol Johnson, who is in the gallery today, Gwen Olsen, Johllene Elson, Sandra McCulloch and Annette Poppett: you all set the bar very high during your time with me and I thank each of you for your contribution to the office and your continuing friendship. There have been so many wonderful people and such a mixture of personalities and age, from baby boomers to gen Ys. I have learned so much from each of them.
During my time as the federal member, I believe my achievements were many and varied. There were some large projects that made front-page stories and there were some great outcomes for my communities, but just as rewarding was delivering, for constituents, outcomes that went under the radar but which made such an impact on individuals and their lives. As someone who believes very strongly in serving my community and that delivering on projects was my job, I am, however, going to put on the record today one of the great outcomes that came about in the electorate because of people power.
I was the voice in Canberra, but my voice was heard because of the voices of many—the people of Tugun. We needed a road—a bypass in fact—that would alleviate the noise, the long traffic delays, the pollution and the thundering of trucks day and night through the streets of Tugun. The fight for this bypass had gone on for many years. The project involved two local government authorities, two state governments and, of course, the federal government. The planning had to be designed around an international airport, people’s homes and the environment. We had a fight on our hands about the route. The Queensland state government wanted the eastern route, which was going to mean the resumption of people’s homes. It was a very sad day when this route was announced, but the people of Adina Avenue and Tugun were not going to have a bar of it. The fight was on, not just a fight for the funding to build the bypass but a fight to save people’s homes and move the route west of the airport.
We had rally after rally—good old-fashioned politicking—at the local community hall and out in the streets. We picketed the state government member’s office in Tweed, complete with megaphone. I think Larry Anthony and I were nearly hoarse, but I loved it. I got to know those people in Adina Avenue so well. They loved their homes. They loved living next to the airport. We could have made our own movie. The Castle had nothing on us. We had real people—people with hopes and dreams that were being dashed by a government and a government bureaucracy who thought they knew better. Well, they did not and the people won. The route was moved and the homes were saved. The Tugun bypass was built—a magnificent stretch of road just 7.5 kms long—and it has made such a difference to the local Tugun community. But I guess the moral of the story is that people can have a say and make a difference. As the local member, I became the people’s voice in Canberra. Even in the dark days when we did not think we would win the fight, no-one gave up. This shows, I believe, the power of people who are living in a democracy to turn the tide, to make the bureaucrats listen and to make governments listen to people’s needs.
As I said before, most of the work we do as members of parliament falls under the radar, but I think some of the most rewarding work we do is helping an individual or a group of people in our electorates to find a positive outcome to a difficult issue. Sometimes we are challenged as individuals to stand up and speak out on a principle or for a belief that is yet to be adopted by one’s party as policy. Unwittingly, I did just that on Friday, 16 May 2008 when I endeavoured to launch a petition in support of the age pensioners of Australia. It was the end of budget week. The pensioners did not get a pension rise. They were hurting. Rising living costs meant that older Australians were finding it difficult to make ends meet. I was angry—angry that we were turning our backs on the most vulnerable in our community. I did the worst radio interview of my political life and I had no shortage of shadow ministers and advisers who let me know just that, but the issue made news and it continued to make news. Our pensioners started to mobilise. They took their clothes off on a street in Melbourne—not a pretty sight, Mr Speaker, but a very powerful message. I collected thousands of signatures on a petition. Seniors groups around the country kept up the pressure. My own party introduced legislation in the Senate in September 2008 for an increase in the pension but the bill was defeated in the House of Representatives. However, the debate over a pension increase continued through to budget 2009 and the pensioners finally received their increase in the 2009 budget. I like to think that my press release, my terrible radio interview and my continued outspokenness made an impact and kept the issue alive for nearly 12 months. Life for me was not easy during this time, but I survived and my pensioners were the winners.
Some of the most valuable work we do in this House is through our committee system. In my view, it is often undervalued. It is not given the recognition it deserves but there would not be a person in this place who has not benefited from the committee system. During my time in this House, I have been a member of a number of committees, which has enabled me to make a difference through policy and, indeed, in the administration of the House. In my first term, I was appointed chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. During this period, I remember visiting the Kosovar people to whom we had given safe haven while civil war raged in their own country. That was a wonderful humanitarian program that we can be proud of.
At a later date, I was appointed chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure—a challenging position but one that brought about some real changes to this place. We changed the sitting hours. I remember when I first came to this place that parliament sat till 11 pm and it often sat through the night—horrendous hours that made a huge impact on people’s lives and their health. The change of sitting hours was made without sacrificing any time for debate. The latest we finish now is 10 pm and we do not often sit through the night. What a relief that is to all of us.
We rewrote the standing orders—the rules that govern this place. It was a mammoth task. Our brief was to modernise and recategorise the standing orders to make them user-friendly. Each and every standing order was assessed, debated and, in many cases, rewritten. This job took the best part of 12 months but finally we finished the rewrite and our work was adopted by the 2004 parliament. Those standing orders are relevant today. The committee also recommended a petitions committee be introduced into this place to allow Australians a voice and a more accountable pathway to bring to the House’s attention the issues of the day through their local member. I am delighted that the current government adopted that recommendation after the last election and a good friend, the member for Fowler, is the first chairman of that committee. We had a recommendation adopted to protect members’ time for three-minute speeches in the Main Committee if a division were called. These are small changes but they have made an impact and improved the workings of this place.
My committee tabled 20 reports over the six years I was chairman, including a history of the committee to celebrate the committee’s 20th anniversary. The reports, recommendations and subsequent changes to the practices in this place would not have happened during my period as chairman without the support of my two deputies—the member for Chifley, Mr Roger Price, who I am delighted is in the House today and who is now Chief Government Whip; and the member for Banks, Mr Daryl Melham. who is also in this place. To you both I say thankyou for your support and friendship during my period as chairman. We can be proud of what we achieved on a bipartisan level through that committee for the benefit of all in this place. I would also like to say a special thankyou to Judy Middlebrook, Bernard Wright, David Elder, Robyn McClelland, Joanne Towner and Ian Harris for all their valuable advice to the committee. Without their knowledge and support, our work on the committee would not have progressed to where it is today. Of course, there is more to be done. My own disappointment is that we do not really debate in this House. We do have an intervention rule in the Main Committee but it is not used very often. The public see the very rowdy question time each day and more televised committee hearings but, sadly, I do not think we give the public the opportunity to see real debate. Maybe that will come at a later date.
Another committee that I really enjoyed was the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, of which I was a member while I was shadow minister for ageing. One inquiry and subsequent report that made some very important recommendations was on obesity. We all know in this House how much obesity is impacting on our society. There is the desperate need for education and even the teaching of the basic life skill of cooking. As a devotee of MasterChef and someone who loves to cook, I am very supportive of the kitchen garden idea that Stephanie Alexander developed and implemented first in a Melbourne primary school—a school that we visited and where we shared a meal that was grown, cooked and served by the kids. It was a wonderful experience for the committee and a powerful initiative that I would personally like to see adopted right around the country. I believe practical ideas like this one will go a long way to ensuring a new generation of great cooks but also a new generation of Australians who will understand the benefits of eating properly. I think we in this House could also set a better example to all Australians about the benefits of a healthy lifestyle. Our former Prime Minister certainly had us all hooked on walking. But we do need to do more in this place, even down to the meals that are served, particularly at lunchtime. There is nothing wrong with a great sandwich or a salad instead of half a beast on a plate, swimming in sauce and nothing green in sight!
I joined the Liberal Party 20 years ago, a move I have never regretted as I strongly believe in the values and beliefs of the modern Liberal Party that Sir Robert Menzies formed in 1944. I have always believed very strongly in the individual. I have always believed in reward for effort. And I firmly believe that education and the pursuit of one’s goals and dreams will unlock a wonderful world of adventure, success and fulfilment.
However, there are those in the world who do not have access to education and who just struggle to survive—and without access to education they are trapped in a world of poverty. The key to unlocking that world of poverty is education. I would like to encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the House to support the Millennium Development Goals, to ensure that successive governments in this country continue to increase our foreign aid budget so that men, women and children across the globe have access to the basic necessities of life—food, shelter and clean water—and access to education.
In concluding my remarks today I want to express my love and thanks to the special people in my life, the people who have supported me with unconditional love during my years here in the parliament. To my sisters, Heather and Anne: you are simply the best. I couldn’t want two more wonderful people as sisters who have shared my life’s journey. Both are in the gallery today, along with my brother-in-law, John Stephens. To each of you: thank you for being there during the highs and lows, with wise words of advice to boost my confidence when I was facing challenges. I love you all so much.
To my children and their partners: my daughter Dimity and her husband, Raymond; my son, Dayne, and his wife, Nadine; and my youngest daughter, Kristin, who is also in the gallery today, and her partner, Pete. I love you all and am so proud of what each of you have achieved in your chosen careers, the wonderful individuals you have become and the joy and happiness you bring to my life. And, of course, the beautiful grandchildren you have given your father and me: Jaiden, Emily, Angus, Abby and Sam, and No. 6—another boy—due in August to Dimity and Raymond. These little people just light up my life.
To my mum, Rae Kerr. Mum was there for my first campaign and she has continued to support and encourage me during my parliamentary career. Her wisdom, her belief in me, her advice and her unconditional love certainly gave me the strength and confidence to follow my dream and sit in this place. Simply, Mum, I say thank you for being my mum.
And, lastly, to my husband, David—the person who has been at home with the welcome mat after long days on the road, weeks in Canberra and commitments in my electorate. David has never faltered in his support for me. He is my best friend and the love of my life. Thank you for just being there and keeping me sane, the family together and our marriage strong and happy with lots of love and laughter.
Mr Speaker, I do feel a tinge of sadness in leaving this place, leaving friends from both sides of the political divide. I have given the job 100 per cent. I leave with my integrity intact, my beliefs in the Liberal Party still strong, and I look forward to a new life with my family and long-suffering friends at home on the Gold Coast. Thank you.
Can I begin by acknowledging the valedictory speech we have just heard from the member for McPherson and paying my respects to her for her contribution to the workings of this parliament, for the work she has personally performed in the course of her membership of this place and also for her work in representing the people of her electorate and the people of Australia. I certainly concur with her remarks towards the end of her speech about the importance of education. I also wish her well in the years ahead.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the National Health Amendment (Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2010, and I say that because this is a matter that I raised some time ago with the Minister for Health and Ageing on behalf of one of my constituents in the electorate of Makin. I am pleased to see that the minister has responded with this bill because what I raised with the minister is exactly what this bill now provides, and that is the opportunity for someone who is provided with financial assistance for purchasing continence aids products to do so at their choice with the supplier they wish to deal with.
The intent of this legislation is consistent with other health initiatives of the Rudd government which also provide financial support to enable people to manage their own health conditions. For example, for a child with autism, the government provides up to $12,000 for a child up to the age of seven years, with up to $6,000 of those funds accessible in any one financial year to assist with autism intervention and support. Similarly, payments of around $1,200 a year to cover the costs of day-to-day GP care and additional services are made available for people who suffer from diabetes. In fact, the Rudd government has committed $436 million to provide personalised care for diabetics, with payments of around $10,800 a year also being made available to GPs who become responsible for managing their care, including by developing a personalised care plan; by helping to organise access to the additional services they need, such as care from a dietitian or physiotherapist, as set out in their personal care plan; and by being paid in part on the basis of their performance in keeping their patients healthy and out of hospital. Again, the payment of continence aids funds directly to the patient is consistent with that theme.
In summary, this bill will allow for the introduction of the Continence Aids Payment Scheme and the replacement of the existing Continence Aids Assistance Scheme, which provides financial assistance with the cost of continence aids. This bill will allow a Continence Aids Payment Scheme—or CAPS as it is often referred to—to be formulated by the Minister for Health and Ageing through a legislative instrument. It will allow payments to be made directly to eligible persons under the CAPS, it will ensure an adequate process is in place for the transfer of clients from the Continence Aids Assistance Scheme to the new CAPS and it will confer power on the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing and on the CEO of Medicare Australia to request information in relation to the provision of payments under the scheme.
The existing scheme provides a subsidy for eligible recipients of up to $489.95 per year on continence products purchased through a sole provider. This sole provider is in turn paid directly by the Commonwealth. Expenses above $489.95 are then borne by the user. Under the new scheme, clients will now have a choice between receiving the full payments in July or, alternatively, receiving two payments of half the amount, one in July and the other in January each year. Medicare Australia will make the payments directly into the client’s bank account.
The CAPS is not a reimbursement scheme but a funding support scheme. It is intended that these new measures will come into effect from 1 July 2010. The payment will remain at $489.95 for the 2011-12 financial year and then it will be adjusted annually in accordance with CPI increases. The scheme currently assists more than 50,000 people. I am very much aware that, in addition to those 50,000 people, there are others in nursing homes or under other aged-care packages that will also access continence aids in this country.
The definition of what constitutes incontinence and how eligibility for the support package is determined will remain the same as that for the current scheme. The new scheme will mean suppliers will compete in an open and competitive market, and that will only be good for consumers because it will ensure that prices are competitive. I was approached by a constituent in my own electorate on this issue because the products were being made available by other suppliers in the broader community at a better price than they could be purchased under the previous arrangement and, therefore, consumers were not necessarily getting the best value for the amount of dollars allocated by the government to assist them with these products.
This week—that is, between 21 and 27 June—is World Continence Week, so it is timely that this bill is being discussed in this place today. Incontinence is a universal issue but not one that attracts much public attention and yet it affects so many families. Around four million Australians of all ages are affected by incontinence. They and their families are severely affected. I am sure that all of us in this place know of someone who is affected by incontinence and many of us may have family members whom we have to assist with this problem.
It is not a problem that is talked about widely throughout the community and yet it is a very real problem. In many cases, with the right treatment, the condition can be remedied. In other cases it simply cannot. For those who need the use of continence aids, those aids enable them to get on with their life and those aids certainly make life for their family members and carers much easier.
I also note that between 1 and 7 August this year will be national Continence Awareness Week in Australia. I hope that, as a result of the educational and promotional activities of that week, incontinence may become one of those topics that the community is better prepared to speak about, because it is only by the community at large talking about it more openly that we as a community can in turn respond with the best possible support available for both the people suffering from incontinence and their family members.
Many of the people who suffer from incontinence will clearly be entitled to financial assistance provided under this bill. The changes encompassed in this bill will be welcomed by all of those people eligible for financial assistance under this scheme because, as I said earlier, it will ensure more value, more choice and less expense if they were to normally exceed the $489.95 allowance. The fact that they have choice, I am sure, not only will mean that they will be able to shop around and get the best value for their dollars but also, as I also said earlier, will mean that, because there is a competitive market for the products, the price of the very products themselves can be expected to start to come down. People who need continence aids frequently have other medical conditions as well. If they are able to make any savings at all through the purchase of these aids, I am sure that those savings will be put to very good use to assist them with the purchase of other things in life that they will need as a result of the medical conditions that they inevitably suffer from in addition to incontinence.
This is a commonsense measure that has been implemented by the government. It is again consistent with the Rudd government’s message that health is of paramount importance. Health has become a priority for this government and, to date, the government has reflected that priority by the commitments that have already been made to the nation in health funding. I note that the government has already increased health funding by 50 per cent to $64 billion over the forthcoming agreement with the states. That is a 50 per cent increase to the health and hospital funding agreement with the states. In contrast to that, the previous government cut $1 billion from the agreement.
In addition to that increase, what this government has done is clearly identify where the priorities lie with respect to ensuring that the nation has a much improved health system and has, step-by-step, methodically worked through supporting all of those areas, beginning with committing additional funding to reduce elective surgy waiting lists around the country, providing additional funds for training of our nurses and doctors around the country, providing funding for GP superclinics around the country, providing funding to close the life expectancy gap for Indigenous people in Australia and providing funding to help with what we call low real interest rate loans for those people who are providing residential aged care. These are simply some of the steps that the government has already taken.
I note that in the last budget, announced only weeks ago, there was an additional $2.2 billion committed to providing health services for Australian people. I particularly note that, of that $2.2 billion, $355 million was provided for additional GP superclinics around the country, $417 million was provided to enhance after hours services for people in Australia, $523 million was provided to train our nurses and $467 million was provided for individual electronic health record systems to be established. I particularly note that $2.2 billion because the opposition leader has made it absolutely clear that, if they are elected, they will not proceed with the funding for the GP superclinics and not proceed with the funding for an electronic health record system for Australia, which I think is shameful because the electronic health system in particular is something that will enhance the ability of this country to provide better health services for people wherever they are. I am surprised that they would oppose electronic health funding because they suggested that it ought to be paid for by the federal government and implemented by the federal government when they were in government. I say to them: it is certainly something that surprises me. They should think again because, if they are serious about improving health services to the people of Australia, that is certainly one improvement that is not only long overdue but also needed if we are to provide good health services to people around Australia.
As I said in my opening comments about this bill, this is a matter I support. I have personally taken it up with the minister on a previous occasion and I commend the minister for looking at the issue and coming back with this legislation, which gives choice to the recipients of the funding. I believe, in providing that choice, it will be a very welcome measure. I commend the bill to the House.
If the intention of the National Health Amendment (Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2010 is achieved, it will be a further recognition of the great disadvantages faced by people who have lost certain personal bodily functions and who suffer incontinence. It is extremely expensive because they must equip themselves, at all times, with the appropriate aids. I have no evidence that there is any opposition to this scheme from within the ranks of the opposition. It is worth referring to the explanatory memorandum and making some comparison between the present and the future as proposed by this legislation, but without the detail of the assistance to be given.
This is what the explanatory memorandum tells us: under the CAA Scheme—in other words, the current scheme implemented by the Howard government—eligible people with severe and permanent incontinence are provided with up to $489.95 worth of products each year, indexed annually, to help manage continence. The CAA Scheme is managed by a sole provider on behalf of the Department of Health and Ageing. One can only assume the costs involved in that virtually $500 assistance package are being properly overseen by the health department to ensure that entitlement is stretched as far as possible. That is something that these unfortunate people know about and are receiving at present. So what happens next? Under the CAP Scheme, which is what the legislation is proposing, eligible people will instead receive a payment as a contribution towards the cost of the products. The new arrangement will provide greater choice to the consumer and promote competition and is expected to reduce the administrative costs associated with the continence aids program.
Why will it reduce administrative costs? A person presently has the entitlement to purchase directly from a provider, overseen by the health department. They are able to obtain that on the basis that they are eligible. The new process clearly involves all of the practices of Medicare—that is, each time you incur a cost, as you might in attending a non-bulk-billing doctor, you will have to apply for a refund. The minister, in addressing the House at the end of this debate, might tell me, ‘That is not so.’ Well the parliament does not know. All we are told further on in this explanatory memorandum is that Medicare Australia will deliver the program. The amount of the contribution payment will be specified in the legislative instrument—in other words, delegated legislation—and the parliament is passing this legislation with no knowledge how much that might be.
As is typical in so many matters proposed by the Rudd government, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors around. The people have a program. It is administratively simple. Whilst it could be argued that competitive forces might lower the price of continence aids, with other suppliers involved—presuming that there is competition in the tender to be the sole supplier—if the price is reduced through competition, is the refund going to be a percentage of that or a fixed amount? We do not know. When will these people, with their serious disability, be able to find out?
Clients of the CAA Scheme will be taken to participate in the CAP Scheme—well, that is pretty good—and will be eligible to participate in the CAP Scheme from 1 July, provided they give certain information to Medicare Australia’s CEO to facilitate contribution payments being made to their nominated bank account. In other words, they will pay full tote on purchase and then wait for a refund—back to the bad old days of bulk-billing or not bulk-billing. After 30 June 2011 they must meet the eligibility criteria specified in the scheme. We do not know exactly what they are.
Look it up.
How do we look it up? We have not got the delegated legislation. It raises a rather interesting point as far as I am concerned. Frequently this House transfers huge amounts of power to the Public Service in terms of delegated legislation—which I presume the member for Makin understands is tabled in these two houses; I wonder when he last looked at any of it—and it becomes law, with all the meanings of the law, notwithstanding that it can only be stopped by a disallowance motion in either this House or the Senate.
The financial impact statement is very brief. It says:
The Bill delivers on the 2009-10 Budget commitment to introduce the Continence Aids Payment Scheme.
Funds for the CAPS payments from 1 July 2010 are included in the Department’s Forward Estimates.
As I recollect, the purpose of bringing in a financial impact statement was to tell the House how much something is going to cost, not to send us off on some wild goose chase hunting through the budget for amounts of this denomination. I smell a trick. I will not be voting against the legislation; I just hope that this is not another Ruddism, where promises are invariably broken.
It is all in black and white there. I have only read from the description given to this legislation by the clerks, and I draw the House’s attention to the fact of its brevity. None of the details which people would like to know for overcoming the financial aspects of their difficulty in the future are provided to the House. That is all left for another day and, if history repeats itself, maybe never, because this legislation quite obviously overrides the present scheme. A lot of people took this government on trust three years ago. The evidence is arising that they are very disillusioned by the outcomes.
As this is a health measure, it allows me to address some other health matters, as the member for Makin did a moment ago when he started talking about superclinics. There are serious matters arising in my electorate of O’Connor and, I am sure, in many country regions throughout Australia relating to the availability of general practitioners. There are constant allegations as to who created the shortage and who reduced the number of undergraduate courses. There may be blame laid on both sides of the House, but I can assure the House that the first attempt followed the bulk-billing initiatives of the Hawke government.
Why was the number of undergraduates cut back by, as I recollect, about 4,000? We had the appearance of Dr Edelsten. Remember the bloke who bought the Sydney Swans because he was making so much money out of bulk-billing? There was panic within the Hawke government that all these graduates were coming out, going to highly populated parts of the major capital cities, hanging out their shingles and then freeloaders, if you like, or less needy people were turning up to get prescriptions, in some cases for a packet of aspirin. The money was flowing out of the federal coffers as a consequence. The response of the Hawke government was to cut back on the number of undergraduate places, for the purpose of reducing the number of people who could get on the bulk-billing bandwagon. As I warned the shadow minister for health in that period, when the government becomes the sole customer of the medical profession, the profession will eventually get squeezed, as of course materialised on a number of occasions. Many more doctors today are abandoning bulk-billing, more so in country areas, where it is virtually impossible to run a practice on the rebate.
Let me draw to the attention of the House the fact that last week local government representatives around Australia turned up here for their annual conference. Numerous members arrived from my electorate and each and every one of them had been contacting me regarding their problems in ensuring their community had an adequate GP service. They have been doing it in Western Australian rural areas for years, gradually consuming up to half their rate base on subsidising a GP to stay in their town—up to $500,000. That was even a shock to me, as someone who has been watching this process get worse and worse over the 30 years I have been representing O’Connor; getting worse, getting worse, getting worse. If I had been asked what the typical contribution was from a local authority, outside of the capital commitments they have made in housing, doctors’ surgeries and things of that nature, I would have thought something under $100,000. These are small communities desperate to get a doctor.
The response to that payment, we are told, is: ‘It’s a federal responsibility.’ We know it is a state responsibility and state governments around Australia are refusing to put salaried doctors into the hospitals that exist on the grounds that they are not allowed to claim Medicare rebates if they are a salaried doctor. Too bad for the community. That is the way they deal with it. I know of nothing in this new, you-beaut deal, which seems to be falling apart every day in recent times, that would compensate those councils for this cost, would guarantee that the states provide salaried medical practitioners under the state-Commonwealth agreements. I bet that was not discussed during all the bullying that went on to achieve the loss in every state bar Western Australia of their GST share, attributable, if you like, to health. That was to be brought back here to government, which, under Keating, sold the six repatriation hospitals at a saving to our revenue of $1 billion. Fortunately, in Western Australia, it was taken over by Ramsay Health Care, who, according to the RSL and others over there, has given them a vastly improved service.
But the reality is that, amongst others, a company called Meridian commenced assisting these local government authorities by arranging the importation of doctors and allocating them in various areas on a sort of package with an obligation to provide locum services and at least give these one item GPs the opportunity for leave and have some family time or whatever else. That in itself has become a problem. A retired GP living in the town of Albany was in my office last Friday explaining how, since he retired, he has never worked so hard in his life, trying to fill as many locum positions as he can when his preference would be to be holidaying in Europe or something like that—a responsible man who is seriously concerned about the circumstances that exist in the electorates and in particular the electorate of O’Connor.
Meridian was supplying a doctor in Southern Cross, a town in the district of about 1,500 people, and Lake Grace, I guess of similar size—not huge but it is a long way between stops—and of course others. They have just advised that they are discontinuing this service, not because they have not been remunerated, not because they think they might do something else but because they can no longer get accreditation for the doctors available to come from various parts of the world to service these particular communities. Why is that? Because over the life of the Rudd government there has been an ever-tightening of the accreditation requirements, so much so that this doctor, who continues to work in his retirement to aid the community, openly admitted that he could not pass these exams either. Examinations of that nature are for the young and they are necessary to prove they have learned their lessons. As time goes by, they accumulate huge amounts of experience but, as those of us who have been around a while know, answering the sorts of questions that arise in these accreditation examinations is very, very difficult. Others have said to me that doctors previously admitted and accepted as giving good and reliable service in many communities also could not have succeeded in passing this examination. But it goes one step further: if you are willing to give it a go, you cannot get a slot to undertake the examination. It is a bit like the old French non-tariff barriers: if you did not want a certain product to come into your country, you never put a ban on it; you had one officer throughout the nation sitting in some obscure locality to whom you must apply for an import licence. That is what has happened, and who has lost out? Rural areas.
The member for Makin says we are going to have these wonders called superclinics. The minister wrote to me and said I could have one in my electorate. I said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’ The last thing I want is some nationalised facility with extensive government funding that sucks the last of my individual GPs out of their towns for the easy life of having a nice regulated nine-to-five job or whatever—fixed hours and the weekends off or two days off during the week. I endorse entirely the opposition’s view that these are an unnecessary proposal when the real problem is the availability of doctors. Yes, you might be able to fill up the superclinics with doctors, whatever they will be paid, but somewhere else people will lose them.
It is another one of those promises to which I have just referred. There were 36 to be built in their first term of office, along with millions of computers for school kids, and now we have got ministers pointing fingers at us saying, ‘If you cut back on the funding, people will not get these things.’ They are supposed to be there—not three but 36. If we add another 28, goodness knows when they are going to turn up. But there are opportunities and it was suggested to me by this GP who visited that we should just bring these doctors in, particularly from the UK and other places, and have a mentor here to look after them. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2010, which will amend the National Health Act 1953. The amendments contained in this legislation will provide the minister with the legislative authority to formulate the Continence Aids Payment Scheme, providing for payments to eligible persons as a contribution towards the cost of purchasing products that help them manage incontinence. The CAPS will replace the Continence Aids Assistance Scheme, or CAAS.
To give some background, the National Continence Management Strategy was established in 1998 by the coalition government to provide funding to research and service development initiatives aimed at prevention and treatment of incontinence, which of course is a very serious issue. During 2007, the CAAS was expanded to reach further age groups and those with certain conditions. Through this legislation, CAPS will make direct cash payments to eligible people with permanent and severe incontinence to assist with the cost of their products. This differs from previous arrangements where there was a government agreement with a sole supplier—Intouch. It is envisaged that this change will give greater choice to consumers and facilitate the purchase of products that best suit their needs. The subsidy arrangement will remain in line with the CAAS and continue to be indexed annually.
Incontinence affects nearly four million Australians of all ages and for a broad variety of reasons. According to the Continence Foundation of Australia, 65 per cent of women and 30 per cent of men sitting in a GP clinic waiting room report some type of urinary incontinence. I note that the member for O’Connor referred to regional GPs. My area is one of those that suffers from a shortage of GPs. In fact, in my particular electorate the South West Medical Attraction Taskforce has been formed to try to address this issue. I note that one of their very important recommendations is that we encourage young people from the electorate into medicine in the hope that they will return to practice in the future. I also note that the definition of ‘inner regional’ in the youth allowance criteria is now inhibiting the opportunities and ambition of many young people in my electorate. I have a family where more than one sibling wants to study medicine, but because they will not be able to access independent youth allowance this opportunity is now compromised. The South West Medical Attraction Taskforce is going to continue its efforts to attract and retain general practitioners in regional areas in the south-west of Western Australia, something that will continue to be an issue because the population continues to grow. It is an ongoing issue for my electorate.
I am aware that the risk factors for urinary incontinence include pregnancy and pre- and post-natality. That is why so many women make sure they conduct their exercises while they are actually in hospital and when they get home. It is very important to be involved in those types of exercises, particularly post pregnancy. Younger women who have had children and some women who are overweight also have the same problem. Menopause can cause the same problem, as does obesity. Urinary tract infections are quite common, particularly in mature aged people, and are also a major cause of incontinence. Sometimes surgery can also increase the incidence of incontinence and also reduce mobility.
These issues are really important, particularly in the management of nursing homes and aged-care facilities. Approximately 77 per cent of nursing home residents in Australia are affected by incontinence, which is why these measures are so important. Forty to sixty per cent of people in nursing homes are seriously in need of this type of support. In my electorate of Forrest, there are currently around 19,000 people over the age of 65 and this figure will increase rapidly over the next decade. My electorate currently has 30 aged-care facilities and this number and capacity will need to increase as the demographic within the electorate also increases. Two of these aged-care facilities in my electorate raised concerns that high-care patients are excluded from this scheme, essentially leaving the aged-care facilities to meet the cost of those patients. I am equally concerned to ensure that people in such care receive frequent attention and the care they need for frequent changes in regard to this issue of incontinence. Limiting access of continence products to residents is a very serious concern. It poses a health risk for residents and raises quality-of-care issues. I urge the government to seriously consider the impact the high-care residents subsidy and its effect on aged-care facilities and their capacity to provide the appropriate level of care.
I know that the disability sector has expressed concern to Senator Fifield that the new scheme may incur delivery costs; however, it is hoped that increased competition will ensure free delivery will be offered as an incentive to purchasers. This is a view that has been reinforced by the Continence Foundation of Australia, but I am yet to be convinced that this will actually occur and we need to seriously monitor this during the rollout of the program and beyond to ensure that it is actually the result. In conclusion, I am supportive of a bill that will see payments go to eligible people living with the permanent and serious issue of incontinence.
in reply—I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to sum up debate on the National Health Amendment (Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2010. The debate highlighted the importance of achieving a balance between empowering consumers with flexibility and choice and providing appropriate support and educational safeguards. The bill delivers on the 2009-10 budget commitment to introduce the Continence Aids Payment Scheme. The Continence Aids Payment Scheme replaces the current Continence Aids Assistance Scheme, which provides continence products through a sole supplier. The bill will enable the formulation of a legislative scheme under which the Commonwealth will make direct cash payments as a contribution towards the cost of buying products that manage incontinence. Medicare Australia will transact the payments, with the Department of Health and Ageing to retain policy authority.
The bill also provides for transition arrangements for clients of the current Continence Aids Assistance Scheme to the Continence Aids Payment Scheme from 1 July 2010. Accountability and transparency of the new scheme are supported by the conferral of powers on the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing and the Medicare Australia CEO to request information about eligibility or payments. Prompt investigation into any claims of ineligibility or improper use of funds will be undertaken, and failure to comply with a request for information will be an offence under the National Health Act 1953. Participants in the scheme will also have recourse via the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Consistent with the government’s 2009-10 budget announcements, the program will be funded by a special standing appropriation enabled under section 137(1) of the National Health Act 1953. This is particularly important in the context of an eligibility based, demand driven program.
Subject to the passage of the bill through parliament, the new scheme’s arrangements will take effect from 1 July 2010. The Continence Aids Payment Scheme promotes consumer choice, consistent with the government’s consumer rights and responsibilities charter for community care, released in 2009 and promoted in the Commonwealth aged care programs throughout the Aged Care Act. As a result of the successful passage of the bill, recipients under the scheme will have greater flexibility and choice in where they purchase their continence products. Product suppliers and service providers will have equitable access to the client base in an open and competitive market. Those who wish to continue to have their products provided by the current provider, Intouch, can continue to do so from 1 July. Consumer feedback supports the provision of a cash payment to allow increased flexibility and choice.
I am very pleased to deliver on an important budget measure that provides choice and flexibility to people with severe and permanent incontinence. I would like to thank the members of the House who have made contributions to this debate and those who were involved in developing the new payment scheme and this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Bowen:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Reporting Reform) Bill 2010. The intent of the bill is to improve Australia’s corporate reporting framework by reducing red tape and regulatory burdens on companies, altering disclosure requirements and implementing a number of other refinements to the framework. Reducing the regulatory burden on companies and businesses is a goal that should be supported by both sides of parliament. Reducing government imposed costs on businesses allows them to produce at a more efficient level and offer products or services at a more competitive price. These amendments to the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act make a number of changes to corporate reporting that will reduce the regulatory compliance costs for companies. The coalition supports this legislation and these aims of reducing government burdens on business and corporate structures generally.
The bill contains four measures that I will detail. It also contains a number of minor amendments that I will discuss briefly. Firstly, there are a number of measures designed to improve the reporting requirements imposed on companies limited by guarantee. Currently, companies limited by guarantee are required to prepare a full audited financial report using accounting standards and including a director’s report. The amendments streamline this process by introducing a three-tiered reporting framework that will exempt small companies limited by guarantee from reporting and auditing requirements and will provide other companies limited by guarantee with simplified disclosure requirements in the director’s report. Companies limited by guarantee will no longer be required to distribute an annual report. Instead, they will be required to write to members informing them that an annual general report has been prepared and of how they can obtain a copy.
Companies limited by guarantee will also be prohibited from paying dividends. This is because these companies almost exclusively consist of non-profit organisations, and the government wishes to make it clear in the legislation that this type of company structure is not suitable for dividends to be paid. There are around 11,000 companies operating in Australia that are limited by guarantee. These measures will allow them to spend less time on preparing annual reports and to use their resources more effectively and efficiently. However, it has emerged that there are a small group of companies that will be adversely affected by this bill. For instance, these might include companies currently set up as a company limited by guarantee for purposes including perhaps charitable work and with the intent that dividends will be paid in future years to beneficiaries. This legislation could force a restructure of those firms.
Following concerns expressed by the coalition, the government will be moving an amendment to insert a grandfathering clause which will exempt these types of companies limited by guarantee that are currently operating from being forced to restructure. In particular, the amendment will ensure that the new measures apply only to a company limited by guarantee incorporated after the commencement of this legislation. The coalition thanks the government and minister for responding to the concerns raised and for their willingness to amend the legislation. We will be supporting this amendment.
The second group of measures I will detail relate to parent entity financial statements. The current law requires an entity to prepare a financial statement in relation to itself. However, if the entity is a parent entity, it is also required to prepare financial statements in relation to the consolidated entity. This legislation streamlines how parent entities are treated for the purpose of reporting. An entity will have the option of preparing financial statements either in relation to itself if the accounting standards did not require the preparation of consolidated financial statements or in relation to the consolidated entity if the preparation is required by the accounting standards. By effectively halving the double reporting imposed on parent entities, these measures will assist the management of consolidated holdings and will reduce the compliance burdens of preparing multiple reports.
The third group of measures involves the rules allowing companies to pay dividends. Currently, the law requires that a company may only pay a dividend from profit whilst each director has a duty to prevent insolvent trading. These measures clarify the treatment of dividends by allowing a company to pay a dividend where the company’s assets exceed its liabilities immediately before the dividend is declared and where net assets are sufficient for the payment of the dividend. Payments of dividends must also be fair and reasonable to the company’s shareholders as a whole and they must not materially prejudice the company’s ability to pay its creditors. Importantly, these amendments retain the duty of directors to avoid insolvent trading. This group of measures allows a company more flexibility when determining the level of dividends paid in a particular year. It also allows companies to look at their net asset position for the purposes of determining dividend payments rather than restricting the approach to profits earned during the year of operation.
The coalition notes the concerns from company groups such as the Australian Institute of Company Directors, which thinks a profit based test and these amendments today are still too restrictive on the ability of companies to pay dividends. The AICD suggests that an insolvency test would be a more appropriate measure for companies to use when intending to pay a dividend rather than an assets test or a profit test. Whilst this legislation does allow more flexibility for determining dividend payments, it would be useful for the government to review how the measures operate in effect and the merits of different tests for determining the amount of dividends available.
Finally, the legislation will change the annual reporting requirements for all companies with regard to the annual period in which companies are required to report. The financial year will remain 12 months long. However, an entity will be permitted to vary the length of a financial year subsequent to restarting a 12-month reporting requirement. This will only be permitted in a situation where the financial year is no longer than 12 months, where the previous five financial years have all been of 12 months duration and where the change in the length of the subsequent financial year is made in good faith. This amendment is important for companies wishing to change from an end-of-year reporting period to a 12-month period based on the financial year instead. The ability of companies to do so will be protected by the limits I have just outlined.
The legislation also makes some minor changes to five further areas. Firstly, section 299A of the Corporations Act will be extended to allow all listed registered schemes to report all information reasonably required, allowing an informed assessment of operations, financial conditions and business strategies. Previously, only public companies were required to report. Secondly, companies will be required to make a statement of compliance with the International Financial Reporting Standards in the director’s declaration of the annual report. This statement must be explicit and unreserved. Thirdly, the legislation will allow a company to reduce its share capital by cancelling any paid-up capital that is lost or not represented by available assets. Fourthly, the legislation repeals the funding requirements of the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, which are no longer statutory bodies and whose Commonwealth funding requirements are obsolete. Finally, the amendments will change how the composition of the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board is selected. Previously, three members were selected by the minister from a panel of seven nominated by the board of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and another three from a panel of seven nominated by the board of CPA Australia.
The new legislation allows the minister to select six members without involvement from the two accounting bodies. This allows appointment of members to be chosen from alternative bodies such as the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia and the National Institute of Accountants. Importantly, a person admitted to the board will be required to hold relevant qualifications in accounting or auditing, including membership of a professional body. This is important to protect the integrity of each board and ensure that the oversight is undertaken in a professional and responsible manner. The entire package of amendments contained in this legislation will reduce compliance burdens on companies, while clarifying and streamlining other areas of the law impacting upon the operations of corporate Australia. Whilst the intent of this legislation from the government is admirable, the Rudd Labor government does not have a great record in regulation and in imposing restraints upon the market which increases the operation costs of companies and business in general.
This government was elected on the promise that it would not introduce regulations where it had not also repealed a piece of regulation. Lindsay Tanner repeated this pledge in 2008, where he suggested that Rudd Labor had a ‘one-in, one-out policy’ when it came to drafting regulations. It was revealed in May of this year by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing that the Rudd Labor ministers and agencies had introduced 3,335 regulations in 2009 and removed only 1,845. So, whilst this legislation helps companies dealing with the amount of regulation facing Australian individuals and businesses, the Rudd government is increasing regulations to the tune of around 1,500 new regulations a year. This is just another promise broken by this government. How can businesses trust Rudd Labor to reduce compliance costs with its record of misleading and backflipping on issues of government regulation and control? The coalition agrees that it is important to continually reform corporate law to reduce compliance costs and red tape but, unlike the government, the coalition is also committed to reducing market transaction costs faced by businesses.
The government is constantly increasing transaction costs for Australian businesses by interfering with market operation, sometimes without understanding the effects that policy announcements will have on the market. It has become standard practice of the Labor government to announce broad market-changing policies with no detail and no indication to the market as to how those policies might work. This approach distorts the market and it distorts costs for businesses and companies. We saw this with Labor’s emission trading scheme, which would have pushed the production and transaction costs up for practically every business in every market in Australia. Red tape would have increased significantly, with every carbon-producing business in Australia being forced to comply with the carbon-trading regime. In comparison, these amendments today will be minor in impact.
Labor’s ETS was called a market based approach, but it was an approach that would have prevented the market from working efficiently by increasing transaction and production costs. And now we have the resource super profits tax, Labor’s great big new tax on mining, which will also lift the costs for business in Australia. This is all because this Labor government have plunged Australia into record levels of debt and deficit and need to create new taxes in order to fund their policies. This great big new tax has no regard to the costs of business in markets. The purpose of the tax is simply to deliver revenue to the Rudd Labor government. We know that the statistics used in the modelling for the tax were based on the assumption that it will have no effect on the costs for business and the amount of future investment in mining production in Australia. Chris Richardson of Access Economics had this to say:
The KPMG Econtech modelling—
which the government used for its statistics—
assumes that the RSPT is the perfect tax, causing no harm. Its result —that the abolition of royalties and introduction of the RSPT will increase investment and output in mining in Australia—will therefore presumably hold regardless of the RSPT rate.
This means that no matter what rate of profits tax is placed on mining production will remain constant. The government could have put a tax rate of 99 per cent on the resources sector and it would allegedly have made no difference to production, investment and the impact of the RSPT on share prices. But we now know that this modelling is flawed and the RSPT will increase the costs for businesses. Modelling released today by Ernst & Young concludes that the modelling uses ‘an unrealistic key assumption about complete immobility of mining activity’. Mining companies who can relocate offshore will simply relocate offshore and production in Australia will suffer. According to Ernst and Young, the effects of this tax will result in:
… fewer jobs, reduced investment, and lower personal income tax revenue from workers in mining and associated industries … and will raise the costs of capital required for all investments in Australia (mining and non mining related) due to increased political and sovereign risk, thereby reducing investment spending in Australia.
The modelling also shows that the tax will reduce the valuation of existing mining companies, impacting on superannuation funds and on Australia’s sovereign wealth fund, resulting in lower personal income tax collections from capital gains and other taxes. So despite the positive intent of this legislation today to reduce compliance burdens and red tape, Labor’s approach in general is to completely increase the costs of doing business in Australia through its agenda of tax and spend policies.
The coalition does not take this approach. We have a proven history of paying off Labor’s debt and using a positive budgetary position to pursue reforms that improve the operation of markets and reduce both compliance and transaction costs for business. The coalition supports this legislation because it will reduce compliance costs and red tape. The bill contains a number of small measures, which I have outlined, to create an easier and clarified reporting for companies.
I commend the bill to the House.
It is a pleasure for me also to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Reporting Reform) Bill 2010 because it is an important further step in the reform agenda of the Rudd government in making sure that we help small business and we ease their regulatory burden and their compliance costs and basically make life easier for them to do their business. It is always interesting to follow a speech from a member of the opposition who, on the one hand, supports our reform and the changes we are putting forward in this area, complains about them as you might expect, and then talks about how this is something we are somehow not getting right—yet they had 12 years in government themselves to do something of similar ilk but did not. We have come to this place with a view that you need to take action to make things happen. That is what we have done by introducing this bill. Even though the opposition complain about this bill, I understand they will be supporting it because it is good legislation. That is important to note.
This amendment bill has a number of very important and key parts, particularly reducing red tape and the regulatory burden on companies, improving disclosure requirements and implementing a whole range of important refinements to our regulatory frame work, to make sure that small business, in particular companies limited by guarantee, have the right sorts opportunities in front of them. There are no extra compliance burdens, regulatory burdens or other costs placed in front of them to do their job. It was back in December 2009 that the government announced the reforms aiming to cut red tape. This was part of our wider agenda, part of our agenda coming to government about what we would do in this area. It was also about improving Australia’s corporate reporting framework.
It is well understood in this country and overseas that Australia has well-regulated, strong, robust corporate governance systems and networks through our Corporations Act and our regulatory system. We are further cutting red tape to strengthen and add to those areas, rather than to weaken them. The reforms in this bill will ensure that Australia’s financial reporting framework remains strong and not just in accordance with world’s best practice but ahead of world’s best practice.
This bill will establish a tailored financial reporting regime for companies limited by guarantee and it will predominantly serve those in the not-for-profit area to reduce their burden and their costs, to let them get on with the business of what they are doing—they serve mostly sport and recreation and charitable organisations. The bill will also continue to ensure that we have the appropriate levels of transparency and disclosure and that we maintain a very strong standing in that area.
The proposed amendments introduce a three-tier differential reporting framework, exempting small companies limited by guarantee from reporting and auditing certain requirements and providing other companies limited by guarantee with streamlined assurance requirements and simplified disclosure in the director’s report. It also means that, for example, the distribution of annual reports to members will be streamlined and can be provided only when members actually ask for those reports, rather than being sent out to everybody. The bill also changes the way dividends can be paid: rather than being based on just profit they can also be based on the capacity to pay—that is, based on more flexible solvency requirements, which is also important. The bill will also relieve companies that are parent entities of the requirement to prepare financial statements for both, which really means that it can be done in one place. The bill goes through a range of other transparency and utility of disclosures contained in the director’s report and an extension of requirements.
There is a lot that I have to say in this area, but I am conscious of the time and I want to give the minister an opportunity to sum up debate on this bill. I am very supportive of this. It is part of our wider agenda in terms of reducing red tape, compliance costs and burdens, and to make sure that small business gets a company tax cut—from 30 per cent down to 28 per cent. In the end, while some people may speak of being the friends of small business, it is the ones who actually take action who are their real friends. I have no doubt that, in the amendments that we are putting forward, that is exactly what we are doing. I fully support this bill and I congratulate the minister for his good work.
I thank the members for Oxley and Cowper for their contributions to this debate on the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Reporting Reform) Bill 2010. A robust financial reporting framework is an essential component of an efficient market. Appropriate financial reporting and audit requirements enhance the accuracy of financial information, ensure transparency and comparability, and promote confidence.
While Australia has a well-regarded financial reporting framework, opportunities do exist to cut red tape in several areas, and this bill does that. We are very mindful of the regulatory burden facing Australian businesses. The amendments contained in this bill will ensure Australia’s financial reporting framework remains strong and in line with world best practice. The bill establishes a tailored, three-tiered financial reporting regime, as the member for Oxley outlined. We will be moving a minor amendment to the prohibition on companies limited by guarantee paying dividends to members to ensure the prohibition will apply only to companies incorporated on or after the commencement of the bill. This avoids prejudicing any existing arrangements such companies may have.
The bill also streamlines parent entity reporting, relieving parent entities of the requirement to prepare financial statements for both the parent entity and the consolidated group. Additionally, the bill relaxes the statutory requirement that companies may only pay dividends from profits, replacing the profits test with a more flexible solvency based requirement. In doing so, the government has been careful to ensure that the wording of the new provision continues to protect shareholders and creditors.
I do acknowledge the contribution of the member for Cowper and the concerns he raised in this regard. He raised concerns that have been raised by the Australian Institute of Company Directors. I should note that the Institute of Company Directors support this bill and call for it to be passed, but they do have concerns about this particular element. I should also note that that is not a unanimous view amongst the accounting bodies in Australia and, as I understand, the position of the National Institute of Accountants is that they support the framing of this bill and do not share the concerns that have been expressed by the Australian Institute of Company Directors.
It is also the case that we have taken the advice of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ASIC, who are very strongly of the view that the framing of the bill is appropriate. It is not surprising that there is a divergence of views on this matter, but it is important this bill be passed. The government, of course, will continue to monitor the situation and is more than happy to talk to the Australian Institute of Company Directors, but it is important that I note for the House that their concerns are not unanimously held amongst accounting groups.
The bill also facilitates an easier change of a company’s balance date, reducing the burden on companies and their auditors particularly during peak reporting periods. Finally, the bill implements a number of important refinements to the corporate regulatory framework that will improve the usefulness of financial information provided to users. The bill underwent a two-month public consultation period and stakeholders were very supportive of the reforms that it delivers.
In summary, this bill improves Australia’s corporate reporting framework by reducing unnecessary red tape, a regulatory burden on companies, improving disclosure requirements and implementing a number of other important refinements to the corporate regulatory framework. I welcome the support of the opposition and the comments from the member for Cowper. I thought the first half of his speech was well constructed. The second half left something to be desired when he misrepresented the position of superannuation funds and the resource super profits tax, but that is a debate for another day. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Reporting Reform) Bill 2010 and move government amendments (1) to (4):
(1) Schedule 1, item 52, page 21 (after line 23), after subsection 1510B(1), insert:
(1A) The amendment made by item 6 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act applies in relation to a company limited by guarantee incorporated on or after the commencement of that item.
(2) Schedule 1, item 52, page 21 (line 24), omit “6,”.
(3) Schedule 1, item 54, page 23 (after line 23), after subsection 1515(1), insert:
(1A) The amendment made by item 6 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act applies in relation to a company limited by guarantee incorporated on or after the commencement of that item.
(4) Schedule 1, item 54, page 23 (line 24), omit “6,”.
Among its red-tape-reducing changes this bill contains measures to significantly reduce the regulatory burden on companies limited by guarantee. Consistent with this objective and in order to avoid disrupting existing and, in some cases, longstanding corporate arrangements, I am moving amendments to grandfather the prohibition on companies limited by guarantee paying dividends to their members. The corporate structure of companies limited by guarantee means that they are not well suited to conducting activities involving the payment of dividends to members. This is because members are not shareholders, generally invest only nominal amounts of capital into the company and do not expect financial returns from the company. For example, in the case of a small sporting club, members receive returns in the form of access to facilities and discounted goods and services.
Almost all companies limited by guarantee have a not-for-profit focus and will not pay dividends to their members in any case. While the structure of such companies is not suited to the distribution of dividends it is still technically possible for a company limited by guarantee to pay dividends. Recently some stakeholders have raised concerns with the proposed prohibition as the constitutions of a very small number of companies enable them to pay a dividend and the prohibition had the potential to inconvenience the longstanding arrangements. For example, these companies would be required to change their corporate structure should they need to pay dividends. This in turn would increase their regulatory burden.
This issue was not identified during the public consultation process but was raised more recently. After giving these issues due consideration, the government recognises the merits of making amendments at this stage. Consequently I am moving minor amendments to ensure that prohibition will only apply to companies limited by guarantee incorporated on or after the commencement of the bill. This grandfathering avoids adversely affecting the existing arrangements that a small number of companies limited by guarantee may have in place for the payment of dividends.
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.
On indulgence, I would like to make some brief remarks about the plane missing between Cameroon and the Congo on which are aboard six Australian citizens and one permanent Australian resident. I know the House will be both concerned and distressed at the news over the weekend of a plane chartered by Sundance Resources—a well-known Western Australian mineral resources industry player. The plane took off from Cameroon for what was a flight of an hour’s duration and after three or four hours was reported missing. We are, of course, very seriously concerned about the welfare, wellbeing and safety of the six Australian citizens and the one Australian permanent resident on board.
Consular officials have been providing every assistance to Sundance Resources and have been providing consular assistance to the families. That is being effected out of Canberra and out of Perth. Our High Commissioner to Nigeria is currently on the ground in Cameroon liaising directly with the Cameroon authorities and company representatives. The search is being coordinated and directed by Cameroon authorities in close consultation with the company itself. The company has had an interest in the iron ore prospective region near the border area of Cameroon, the Congo and Gabon since about 2006.
It is still the early hours of the morning in Cameroon in West Africa. At first light this morning the search will resume. It will resume with the assistance of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Yesterday’s search provided no conclusive evidence, but the general search area is in the border area between Cameroon and the Congo. The plane made usual procedural contact after 30 minutes of a one-hour flight.
A number of the board members of Sundance Resources would be well known to members of this House. This will be a very, very difficult time and a time of great distress for the families, for other management of Sundance Resources and also for employees of the company. I am sure that all of the thoughts, wishes and prayers of the House will be with the family members, the company managers and the employees at this very difficult time. I will keep the House informed, as appropriate, of any developments when the search resumes. I thank the House.
On indulgence, on behalf of the coalition, I confirm that we join with the government in expressing our deep concerns about the safety of the passengers aboard the charter flight from Cameroon which failed to reach its destination in the Congo yesterday. The Australian miners on board would be well known to a number of members of this House. Indeed, Sundance Resources is a Western Australian based mining company that is emerging as a global iron ore company. The miners on board epitomise the pioneering and entrepreneurial spirit that has made the Australian mining sector so great in this country. I know, as my West Australian colleagues will know, that the West Australians on board are indeed very active members in our local community.
At this stage we can only hope, and we join with the government in hoping, that tomorrow will bring better news. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those missing.
I inform the House that the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts will be absent from question time this week, as he is attending the International Whaling Commission meeting in Morocco. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his claim yesterday that large mining companies are using strong-arm tactics to prevent others in the industry from supporting the government’s great big new tax on mining. Is the Treasurer prepared to back up this unsubstantiated claim with evidence in the parliament today? If not, will he apologise to the industry and its leaders for this latest slur?
I stand by everything that I said yesterday. I said that consultations were going well with very significant sections of the industry, that we were talking to many companies—both large and small—and that we were doing that in a genuine and productive way, and I said that their behaviour had been honourable. I also said that there were a small number of companies that were not behaving in an honourable way. I went on to say that this is information that has been given to me confidentially. I also went on to say that it is well known to many opposite and to many in the gallery that strong-arm tactics have been used in the industry. I would note that one senior journalist yesterday confirmed this on television.
I stand by everything that I said yesterday. I also said that I had admiration for the mining industry as wealth creators. We should get the record right here. I said that we were having a vigorous debate. We will continue to have a vigorous debate of ideas. We will continue to have a vigorous debate about Australians receiving a fair share of their mineral resources. That is a debate that will go on, as it should. I stand by everything I said yesterday.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government’s progress in increasing productivity by building a stronger Australian economy through the delivery of a superfast broadband network?
I thank the member for Braddon for his question, because each time I have been to his part of Tasmania local small businesses and local government have asked me, ‘When is the National Broadband Network going to be connected?’ We already have that connection work underway. In fact, in the honourable member’s electorate we will be connecting up the first homes to the network in July of this year.
Yesterday was a good news day for the future of the Australian economy, because what we need for the future is the infrastructure of the future. The government has committed to building a stronger economy and also to delivering for families across the nation. A national broadband network is a key part of the infrastructure of the future. In the 19th century we had the state governments of Australia then laying out the infrastructure of that century and the one that followed—laying out the railway system and laying out the telegraph system. For the needs of the 21st century we need the infrastructure of the 21st century, and that is a national broadband network. That is why we are delighted with the agreement reached yesterday between the National Broadband Network and Telstra. This is a good agreement.
In 2007, Australia had the third most expensive internet services in the world. Also, in 2007, our broadband was 35 times slower than that of the fastest nation. So we were the third most expensive and we had a system 35 times slower than that of the fastest nation in the OECD. That is why in March 2007, we, then in opposition, committed to building a national broadband network. Since then, we have had sustained negotiations with Telstra. As a consequence of those negotiations, we have reached an important agreement with them on the future of the network. This agreement paves the way for faster, cheaper broadband services right across the nation. It paves the way for a more efficient rollout of the National Broadband Network across the nation. It paves the way for families having access to broadband across the nation, for small businesses having access to broadband across the nation and for schools and hospitals having access to broadband across the nation.
The government is committed to delivering optical fibre with speeds of 100 megabits per second. That is around 50 times faster than is received today. Furthermore, with a mix of next-generation wireless and satellite technologies, we will be delivering broadband to all Australian families. That is because we make no distinction between Australians who live in the bush, who live in the regions and who live in the big cities. We want to make sure that they are all wired to the economy of the 21st century.
In practical terms, what will this mean for families and businesses out there? It will mean that we will have slashed telephone bills for small business. I would think that would be good for small business. We are going to have enhanced business services such as teleconferencing. We are going to have videoconferencing. We are going to have virtual private networks. So the need for small businesses in one part of the country to fly or drive to another part of the country just to do a deal gets removed as a result of this brand new technology. It helps businesses right across regional Australia to sell their products or their services to the markets of the world, to sell to them online. It enhances the capacities of our hospitals to deliver e-health in regional and rural Australia. It produces e-education as well, and high-definition, multichannel and interactive TV services. It will also help farmers to electronically track their livestock, monitor their crops and have instant access to market and weather conditions.
They can do it on their mobile phones.
I notice that the voice for the future over there interjects—the member for O’Connor. Wilson, this is welcome even in your electorate. They want it in your electorate, because it helps them in their businesses, it helps them in their primary industries and it helps the schools in your electorate, as it does in the electorate of every other member represented here. There is just one difference: you are not prepared to admit it.
For students across Australia, it will open up new opportunities: 3-D interactive learning experiences and specialist training. When mixed with the computers in schools program brought about by the Minister for Education, it will ensure that our students have full access to this technology for the 21st century. Then we come to the question of jobs. This project alone is capable of generating 25,000 jobs across the country, including in areas such as north-west Tasmania, where jobs have been lost as a result of closures in other industries.
The Australian government is proud of this achievement. It is proud of the agreement which the minister has reached with Telstra. This is a good agreement for Telstra, a good agreement for the National Broadband Network, a good agreement for the nation, a good agreement for small business and a good agreement for families who need access to the technology and the infrastructure of the 21st century. That is the practical stuff we are engaged in in building a stronger economy for the future and making sure that all Australian families have a share of that future as well.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the plight of Clark Equipment, a supplier of forklifts and bobcats based in my electorate and employing nearly 500 people. Since the great big new tax on mining was announced, the business has experienced a sharp drop in orders from the mining sector and other regional customers, including half a million dollars of lost business in Western Australia. When will the Prime Minister stop pretending that his new tax is somehow good for the mining industry and listen to the concerns of real people like those at Clark Equipment and dump his job-destroying tax?
I thank very much the member for Bradfield for his question. In response to his question I would draw attention to the fact that the modelling produced as part of the Treasury’s report underlines not only the growth in the economy and employment overall as a consequence of the government’s tax reform package but, on top of that, the growth in employment activity within the mining industry as well. That is underlined in the Treasury’s analysis and reflected in the Econtech report.
Secondly about tax reform, I would say to the honourable member that he should also pay attention to the fact that in his electorate he would have some thousands of small businesses who are currently, frankly, in line to obtain a new tax advantage from what the government has put forward. We are also, in terms of those incorporated companies within his electorate, promising them a two per cent tax cut; he is promising them a two per cent tax increase. That is the difference between us and them. The overall impact of these tax reforms on the business community therefore generates a more competitive business sector. They draw its costs down and therefore boost its profitability and the activity and employment it generates in the whole economy.
I would also like to know how many working people in the honourable member’s electorate would benefit from increasing super from nine per cent to 12 per cent. Let me say to the honourable member: there will be many people in his electorate of Bradfield whose current anticipated retirement income will not be adequate to service them effectively in their retirement years. What we are on about is better super for something like 7½ million working families. What we are on about is a tax cut and tax breaks for about 2.4 million Australian businesses, as well as a reduction in the company rate, affecting about three-quarters of a million Australian businesses.
The honourable member goes to the impact specifically of our proposed tax reform on the mining industry. I simply alert the House to one fact—that is, let us look at how the old stock market is performing today. The Rio share price just prior to the time that the government announced its tax reform proposals was $72.10. As of today, Rio has passed that level and is now trading at $72.25. I say to the honourable member opposite that we should look at the market’s assessment of the real impact of the proposed tax reform on the bottom line performance of the mining industry overall. There is a difference between fact and fear, and what the honourable member has done in his question is to have sought further to perpetrate fear. I would suggest that we have a debate based on fact.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Why is universal high-speed broadband vital nation-building infrastructure, and what progress is being made to implement this? Are there any threats to the rollout?
I thank the member for Franklin for her question. I am surprised that the member for Bradfield is not asking questions about broadband and communications, because I know the member for Bradfield actually understands the need for structural separation. But it seems when they go across there and sit on those benches the intellectual integrity gets drained away.
Every Tasmanian knows about the importance of broadband. They know that this government’s plan for a national broadband network is the largest nation-building infrastructure project in our history. The announcement of a financial heads of agreement between Telstra and NBN Co. is indeed historic. The agreement clears a path to move Australia from the copper age to the fibre future. The agreement ensures structural separation—reform promoted by the member for Bradfield in his book and reform that will boost services, competition and innovation in Australia. For the first time we will have a national wholesale only network that is not controlled by any retail company.
In total, this agreement guarantees a faster, cheaper rollout of the National Broadband Network, with higher take-up rates. This is a win for Australian businesses and a win for all Australian households. This is recognised particularly in regional Australia. That is why it has got such strong support from Tasmanians, who understand the threat that those opposite present to the future of the Tasmanian economy. But it is not just in Tasmania; it is not just in the south.
Up the in the Far North, the Far North Queensland chairman of the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:
I think this will be good for the regionalisation of Australia, particularly e-commerce … We need people to come to regional Australia, with good broadband it will create opportunities.
Indeed it will. But those opposite are determined to oppose this forward thinking. The opposition spokesperson, Tony Smith, has said:
This hugely expensive and risky venture is something that no responsible government would contemplate in the first place …
He is half right, because no coalition government would have the vision to contemplate such a proposition. The shadow finance minister has gone out there and opposed it as well. Indeed, their alternative is that they are going to create a $1 billion fund to:
… invest in 21st century education and communication tools to improve learning opportunities in the regions …
It is like trading in your iPhone for a walkie-talkie.
The opposition are stuck in the past. The problem is not just that they are stuck in the past but that they want the rest of Australia to stay back and keep them company. That is the problem with this Leader of the Opposition. No matter what area of policy you look at they are stuck in the past, too afraid to make the leap into this century that is so necessary for our economic future.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the plight of Wallis Drilling, a company that operates 40 drill rigs and employs about 225 people. Since the announcement of the Prime Minister’s great big new tax on mining, Wallis Drilling has cancelled orders for two new drilling rigs worth about $5 million in business to other firms and has also suspended plans for a $1.5 million extension to its workshop. This means less work for engineers, boilermakers, painters, mechanics, builders, carpenters and plumbers. When will he stop pretending that his new tax is somehow good for the mining industry and listen to the concerns of real people like those at Wallis Drilling and dump his job-destroying tax?
I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. In response to his question I refer him in part to the answer I gave to an earlier question from the member for Bradfield, and that goes to the aggregate impact of the overall tax reform package which the government has put forward and its impact on growth, employment and investment in the mining industry. In fact, it is projected that investment in the mining industry will increase by between 4.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent as a result of the reform, and that employment within the mining industry will increase by seven per cent as a result of the reform being brought in by the government. And that is because we are bringing in a profits based tax as opposed to one which is based on production.
The Leader of the National Party talks about the impact of this tax reform proposal on the industry more broadly. I also note in passing, as in fact did the Treasurer in answering a question, that if you look at the National Party’s constituency—and they had their conference over the weekend—it is pretty interesting to know where they actually stand on the question of the National Broadband Network. What is the Leader of the National Party, claiming to represent the interests of all those regions out there, actually saying about their desire to have decent, reliable, cheap, broadband services?
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order going to relevance. The question was about a great big new tax on mining. It had nothing to do with the National Broadband Network. How could this answer now possibly be relevant to the question?
Order! I will listen carefully to the Prime Minister. He understands that he has to be relevant. The Prime Minister has the call.
As those opposite would be aware, we in the House are pleased today to be welcoming the Vice-President of the People’s Republic of China. Earlier today with him I witnessed the signing of a number of agreements. The nature and content of some of these agreements are quite interesting. One is a facility agreement—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Speaker, I know this might be difficult for those opposite to listen to but it does go directly to the question which has been asked by the Leader of the National Party, which is: what is the impact of tax reform on overall perceptions of confidence in the mining industry? Today, together with the Vice-President of the People’s Republic of China, we witnessed the signing of a facility agreement for $US1.2 billion between Karara Mining Ltd and the China Development Bank Corporation. Furthermore, we also saw a cooperation agreement between Resourcehouse Ltd, Export-Import Bank of China, the Metallurgical Corporation of China and China Power Holdings to establish a $US8 billion China First Coal Development project involving the construction of a mine and a 476-kilometre railway to the port of Abbot Point near Bowen. That is what was signed in our presence earlier today. Perhaps there is a third one which I should draw our attention to as well, and that is an engineering and procurement contract cooperation agreement for China Gezhouba Group Company Ltd to provide procurement engineering and design services to Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. At current estimates the expansion, I am advised, would add up to $A5 billion of annual export revenue to Australia.
Here are three sets of agreements which have been signed in my presence and the presence of the Chinese Vice-President about one-and-a-half hours ago. I know that those opposite have difficulty in confronting the facts in this debate; they would much rather run a fear campaign. This government is interested in tax reform because it delivers better super for working families—7.5 million of them; better tax arrangements for our 2.4 million small businesses right across the country; tax cuts for some three-quarters of a million incorporated Australian businesses; and a dedicated infrastructure fund for our resource states, Queensland, WA and elsewhere, to build the road, rail and ports that they desperately cry out for for the future. So I say to the Leader of the National Party—apart from the fact he is not interested in representing in this chamber his constituency’s interest in the National Broadband Network—that on the question of the impact of our tax reform proposal he should look very carefully at the facts and the content of what is occurring out there in the community, and if his overall argument is that there is no confidence on the part of international investors in the impact of the government’s tax reform proposal, I would ask him to look very carefully at the three sets of agreements which were signed in my presence and the presence of the Chinese Vice-President today.
To keep the Tasmanian theme going, my question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Why is the agreement between Telstra and the National Broadband Network Company an important step in telecommunications sector reform with major benefits for the Australian economy and, of course, Tasmania?
I thank the member for Lyons for his question and I acknowledge his longstanding commitment to improve broadband access for his constituents. In fact, I recall meeting with his constituents on the very issue on a number of occasions. The agreement that was announced yesterday is a very important step for the telecommunications sector in Australia for microeconomic reform and for the Australian economy, and indeed the Tasmanian economy where the Broadband Network is being rolled out first. I understand that it is supported by none other than the Tasmanian Liberal Party. It is good to see that progress is occurring in Tasmania and in Australia on this vital area of microeconomic reform that is crucial for kick starting productivity growth in the economy and also for reform in our health and education sectors.
It is a crucial reform. In particular, this agreement is critical because of the need to transition from copper to fibre and to ensure that we have a genuinely structurally separated industry where no one telecommunications retailer controls the infrastructure. I first raised the issue of structural separation as shadow minister for communications back in 2002, with the active support of the then Leader of the Opposition, now Minister for Trade. Since that time the Labor Party has been committed to solving what was one of the great public policy disasters imposed on this nation by the Howard government, and that was privatising Telstra without reforming the structure of the telecommunications industry, which therefore left Australia with a totally dominant player, a privately owned monopoly player, in a sector that is rapidly becoming as important to the economy as the financial services sector. Since that time Labor has been committed to ensuring that we have a genuinely productive, efficient, competitive telecommunications industry sector that delivers world class broadband to all Australians and ensures that we have a truly productive, competitive infrastructure and do not have an industry structure that impedes that.
The problem with the stalemate that emerged from the former government is that we had massively complex regulatory arrangements that delivered incentives to Telstra to gain the regulation and to delay innovation and to delay competition and, as a result, Australia progressively fell further and further behind comparable countries in the quality, the speed and the access of broadband that was being made available to our citizens and our businesses. In that scenario, in that stalemate, there was no legitimate prospect of anybody—private or public player—building a universal national broadband network. We had over that period 17 different Howard government broadband plans—
Government members interjecting—
I am now told it is 18, so maybe I missed one, but we had dozens of different plans, all window-dressing and all designed to cover up the stalemate that was put in place by the Howard government on broadband. The Rudd government is in the process of breaking that stalemate and yesterday’s agreement was a landmark step in breaking that stalemate. It means that the government is now working in partnership with the entire telecommunications sector to deliver world-class broadband throughout Australia, to kick-start productivity in our economy and to kick-start reform of sectors like health and education.
Not only is this agreement good for our economy, not only is it good for Tasmania and for the rest of Australia but also, in my view, it will be good for Telstra shareholders. As broadband unfolds, more and more of our business activity will shift into the digital world and, as the single biggest player by far in the telecommunications sector in Australia, Telstra is superbly positioned to benefit from the improved opportunities that that will provide to all telecommunications providers. We as a government are also providing a range of compensation to Telstra, for the customers being transitioned by Telstra to the new network, for the infrastructure that Telstra owns that the NBN will now be able to use and, of course, for the government taking on board the heavy lifting of the universal service obligation that has previously been dealt with by Telstra.
All of these things are opening up new opportunities for our economy, for Telstra, for our education sector, for our health sector and for other parts of the Australian economy. But this does raise one big question: where now, in the wake of this agreement, does this leave the opposition? With the entire telecommunications sector now working cooperatively and constructively with the government to deliver world-class broadband across Australia to kick-start our productivity for the future, where does this leave the opposition? At this point, it is still blocking in the Senate, still opposing and still proposing to put forward John Howard’s program No. 18 or No. 19—yet another rinky-dink, you-beaut, acme broadband proposal that is all about window-dressing, all about pretending to tackle the problem but is in fact doing nothing. It is time the opposition reconsidered its position, got with the strength and understood that the entire sector now is working hand in hand with the government to improve broadband for the future of Australia and for the future of Tasmania and for delivering the productivity gains that we need to improve our economy and for delivering long-term sustainable growth for all Australians.
I refer the Prime Minister to the comments of Indigenous leader and Western Australian magistrate Sue Gordon, who said that the job prospects of thousands of Aborigines were at risk unless the new tax on mining was scrapped and that:
We are now beginning to be part of wealth creation in this country … but not if projects don’t go ahead.
Will the Prime Minister listen to Indigenous leaders like Sue Gordon and scrap his tax or will he guarantee that no Indigenous community will be worse off as a result of developments suspended or mining projects not proceeded with because of his tax grab?
I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. She asked specifically about the impact of our proposed tax reform on employment and Indigenous Australians. I would say in response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the government’s advice is that we will see an overall increase in employment in the mining industry to the tune of some seven per cent. Activity in the mining industry would increase by 4.5 to 5.5 per cent.
Furthermore, I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for this particular question, because it goes to what I would describe as previous campaigns concerning the impact of reforms by previous Labor governments on employment and in this sector in particular. I recall in particular the virulent position of those opposite to the introduction of native title legislation. I recall in particular the position of those opposite, which was that if we were to introduce native title legislation in the 1990s that would be the end of the mining industry, it would be the end of certainty in the mining industry, there would be no growth in the mining industry and there would be no further jobs in the mining industry. That proved to be false, false, false and false.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister is dismissing the concerns of an Indigenous leader and I ask him to answer the question: will he scrap the tax or will he give a guarantee that no Indigenous—
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The deputy leader knows that she should approach the dispatch box with her point of order first. On relevance, the Prime Minister is responding to the question.
Therefore, the deputy leader’s question goes to the impact of our proposed tax reform on employment in the mining industry and, as a consequence therefore, for Indigenous Australians. I would simply again say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: when it comes to consistency of standards, she should reflect fully and honestly on the campaign waged by those opposite against the introduction of native title legislation and its impact on employment in the 1990s.
Mr Abbott interjecting
The Leader of the Opposition interjects, ‘Why is this faintly relevant?’ I seem to remember he had something to do with Work Choices and the campaign which was run—
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister was not asked about either Work Choices or native title; he was asked about the job-destroying impact of his great big new tax on mining. I would ask you to bring him back to the question.
Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. As indicated by the Manager of Opposition Business’s—
Mr Randall interjecting
I thank the member for Canning for his addenda that those words were not actually used in the question, but, as the Manager of Opposition Business’s point of order goes, amongst the matters raised by the question are job prospects for Indigenous Australians. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
Therefore, when it goes to the impact on employment as a result of government policy change and government policy reform, we have already seen two very large fear campaigns in the past, one on native title and the other on Work Choices, which those opposite projected would result in the collapse of the mining industry, a collapse of investment and a collapse in confidence—and, frankly, all of those claims have been proven to be untrue.
The second point I would make is this, in terms of the role of the mining industry in generating employment. I was talking to the Minister for Resources and Energy about this just the other day—in the recession last year, the global recession, can I say to those opposite there are some claims around that in fact the mining industry, on the employment impact, helped see Australia through. Well, of course, the mining industry played a role. I would also draw attention to the fact that they were the first sector in the economy to shed jobs during the global financial crisis—
Fifteen per cent in six weeks.
Fifteen thousand jobs, I am advised, in the middle of 2009 had gone from the major companies across the various sectors of Australia. I would simply ask people to reflect on that fact. I am advised by various ministers behind me that that the fall in employment in the sector could have been by as much as 15 per cent. The rest of the economy, backed by a government stimulus strategy, continued to generate employment, including in retail, including in small business and including in the rest of the economy, because we got in there and we worked together to generate further activity, further profits and, therefore, further employment. Therefore, the overall argument that employment was somehow held up as a consequence of a 15 per cent shedding of jobs by the mining industry during the GFC is palpably untrue.
Again, let us simply confront a few facts here, because what we have dealt with is the hypocrisy of the opposition’s claims concerning previous campaigns. But, on this theme, let us also reflect on how the share price is going for the member for Dickson. The member for Dickson’s share prices have been doing very well—
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. So far you have indicated that, whenever the Prime Minister talks about employment, in even a general sense, it is relevant to the question. This is about the stock market, and under no circumstances could this be deemed relevant.
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her place. The Prime Minister will relate his material to the question.
I would have thought the House would be interested to see how the member for Dickson’s share price had been performing.
Mr Speaker—
Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his place. The Prime Minister will respond to the question. The member for Dickson was not involved in the question. The Prime Minister will relate his material to the question.
In my discussions with the mining companies over time, both Rio and BHP—and other mining companies, including FMG—in fact have been providing significant employment programs for Indigenous Australians, and we have welcomed that. In fact, the work that we are doing in terms of GenerationTwo with ‘Twiggy’ Forrest for added employment for Aboriginal Australians, both in the mining sector and beyond the mining sector, has been important. BHP has been one of those companies, which brings me to their share price—on 4 May it was $38.59—
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Apart from being deeply un-prime-ministerial, it is also irrelevant and I would ask you to sit the Prime Minister down.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Yet again he destroyed a solid case he could have put by adding the preamble, which is the debate. The Prime Minister will come to the conclusion of his answer and relate material to the question.
BHP, like other companies, have actually performed well over the course of the last month. Their share price is up. Therefore, that reflects that in fact the sector overall, despite the fear campaign being mounted by some, is actually progressing well relative to other resource companies around the world. So, on the question of employment and activity in the mining sector, can I say to those opposite, who continue to interject on this matter in their new-found concern for Indigenous employment in Australia, that once again this flies in the face of facts and reality.
My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, why is it so important that this mining boom be managed better than the last one?
I thank the member for Page for this very important question because it is very important that mining boom mark II is managed much better than mining boom mark I.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Treasurer has the call. He will be heard in silence.
I am sure everybody in the House is aware how those opposite ignored something like 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank about the emergence of capacity constraints in our economy that put upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates, and how they used to come into this House, day after day, and say that infrastructure was nothing to do with the Commonwealth government; it was all the responsibility of state governments. They simply washed their hands of important responsibilities during mining boom mark I, and, of course, the consequence of that was rising inflation and rising interest rates.
One of the key challenges this government faces is that there is a resurgence in global commodity prices, and that brings great opportunity for Australia because even in the middle of all of the uncertainties that we see in the global economy, particularly caused by uncertainty in Europe, what we do know is that this region is growing strongly. I want everyone to think about this at the moment. Take the first three months of this year, the first quarter of this year: on an annualised basis, the Asian economies have grown by 10 per cent. Think about that and think about where we have come from in such a short period of time, and compare that with the gloomy outlook elsewhere in the global economy. This demonstrates that we have a two-speed global economy. And, when that translates to this country, it can also translate into a two-speed domestic economy. We certainly welcome the fact that global commodity prices are up. We have the price of iron ore doubling since last year and very large increases in coal prices. This is great news for Australia providing we handle it properly, plan for the future and invest in infrastructure.
And, as the Prime Minister pointed out before, the agreements that were signed here today with the Chinese officials point to very strong inward investment into the sector. Seven out of the 10 agreements that were signed today were in resources and energy. And, of course, our terms of trade are expected to rise to their highest level in 60 years. The terms of trade are going to hit their highest level in 60 years. That exceeds the peak of the previous boom.
Consider that in this context. There was a report from the IMF last week. This is what the IMF had to say:
… within five years Asia’s economy … will be about 50 per cent larger than it is today—
think about that—
… account for more than a third of global output, and be comparable in size to the economies of the United States and Europe.
Why is all this important? This is important because what it does bring is great opportunities and great challenges for our domestic economy.
Last week we had the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Battellino, talk about the stresses and strains that are put on an economy when you have a terms of trade boom and implications for inflation, particularly if we do not deal with the capacity constraints and particularly if we are not concerned with those sectors of the economy that are not the immediate beneficiary of a terms of trade boom. Many small businesses and many medium-sized businesses have to compete for labour and have to deal with the higher dollar. All of these things become a reality in the middle of this great opportunity that Australia has that comes from the Asian Century. And we can only maximise our opportunities from that if we are forward-looking and we put in place tax reforms which deliver the benefit to everybody in the economy and tax reforms that recognise that we are having a terms of trade boom and that the price for our mineral resources—the mineral resources we own 100 per cent; the mineral resources that can only be dug up once—should be reflected fairly in the return to the Australian people. If those prices are going to be permanently higher, then we, as the owners of those resources, are entitled to a share of it.
What do those opposite say? They want to see this boom, this windfall, walk right out the door and do nothing about these essential challenges facing our economy. They want to do nothing about investment in infrastructure, do nothing about making our companies more competitive by giving our small businesses a tax break, do nothing about making the corporate rate lower and do nothing about any of those things because their approach to this is to do nothing—except to say the miners are paying too much tax, and not even the miners are game to say that.
So we do need to talk about this as a nation because what we need to do is to leave to our children a lasting legacy from this boom that comes from the bounty and the opportunity of the Asian Century, and that is why we on this side of the House are so determined to build up our national savings so that we can fund some of that investment. We know how important national superannuation was, and that pool of savings was used last year to recapitalise our companies coming out of the global recession. We are going to need our savings increased to fund further investment in this country as we go forward.
But what is the view of those opposite? Do nothing, ignore it. We know that there is a two-speed domestic economy. We know that even now, despite the fact that we are one of the strongest growing advanced economies, many in small business are still struggling, and they will continue to struggle in a two-speed domestic economy. That is why it is the responsibility of government to face up to the hard-nosed reforms that are required to make our economy more prosperous. But, of course, those opposite only have one solution: to bring back Work Choices, cut wages and oppose any future reforms. We on this side of the House understand the challenge of reform, how to maximise the opportunities flowing from the Asian century and how to support our businesses and their employees, and we will continue to do it.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to reports that the government is in live option negotiations with the coalseam-gas-fed LNG companies for the first of the government’s backdowns over the mining tax grab. Have you got something to say, Prime Minister? I am happy to entertain debate.
Order! The member for North Sydney will go to his question.
Honourable members interjecting—
It’s psychobabble!
Order! The member for North Sydney with a question.
Will the Treasurer inform the House what the financial implications of carving out the LNG industry from the impact of the mining tax are for the budget’s bottom line?
As I have said on numerous occasions, the government is having very constructive discussions with a wide range of companies, both big and small—serious companies that see Australia as a very attractive place to invest and will continue to invest here for a long time. Only late last week the Prime Minister and I and the resources minister met with representatives from Chevron. They are making a $43 billion investment in this economy and are considering doing more—and that is what they said to us in their discussions with us at the end of last week. And there are many companies like that; many companies outside of the petroleum and gas sector are looking to this country. Only late last week we had a report that Peabody was looking at substantially investing more in coal in this country.
Opposition members interjecting—
They announced they were.
Mr Hockey interjecting
You might want to believe your own propaganda, but it is simply not true.
Order! The member for North Sydney will stop interjecting. The Treasurer will ignore the interjections.
Australia is a very attractive place for them to invest in and many of the investors from China that were here have the same view; they have this view in the United States and they have it elsewhere. This is an attractive place to invest, it is a very good place to invest, and they are continuing to invest. The question that I have been asked is: what have the government done in relation to one particular company? What the government have done is to sit down and talk to companies, as we said we would do.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. He was asked what the impact is on the budget.
The member for North Sydney will resume his place. The Treasurer is responding to the question.
All of the estimates in terms of the budget and our resource super profits tax are there in the budget papers. We are doing now what we said we would do from day one, which is to sit down and talk to industry about this proposal, to talk to them about generous transitional provisions, to talk to them about all the detail of the tax as it affects their sector and as it affects individual companies. Those discussions are ongoing and those are discussions which I am confident will be successfully concluded.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Will the minister advise the House of the strength and importance of the relationship between China and Australia with regard to the resources sector?
I thank the member for Flynn for his question. The visit to Australia by a high-level delegation led by His Excellency the Vice-President of China is a very strong statement about the strength of the trading relationship between Australia and China. Nowhere is that more important than for my own portfolio responsibilities of Resources, Energy and Tourism. In 2010 alone China was Australia’s largest two-way goods and services trading partner with over $85 billion in total trade. I therefore welcome, on behalf of the House today, the signing of 10 agreements between Australia and China worth over $10 billion, seven of which relate specifically to my Resources and Energy portfolio. These agreements will see major upgrades to infrastructure and in doing so deliver jobs and economic prosperity not only to Australia but especially to our major regional communities.
For example, I go to the Bowen Basin and I refer to a US$8 billion agreement relating to China First Coal Development, Resourcehouse, the Export-Import Bank of China, Metallurgical Corporation of China and China Power Holdings. That agreement alone will lead to the construction of a mine, a 476-kilometre railway to the port of Abbott Point, near Bowen, and a coal-loading terminal. It could result in approximately $4 billion in export earnings a year for 25 years alone. Other agreements refer, for example, to an undertaking reached between Fortescue Metals Group and China for procurement, engineering and design services to fast-track the expansion of Fortescue’s iron-ore project in the Pilbara. On current estimates the expansion will add more than $5 billion to the annual export revenue of Australia.
I then go to the agreement between Karara Mining, the China Development Bank and the Bank of China, which goes to the potential development of the Oakajee iron ore project in Western Australia, a project supported by an investment by the current government of $343 million to facilitate the port development for that key project, a project neglected by the previous government. In terms of South Australia, I refer to the Arckaringa Energy project, which could see high-value, clean-energy products including liquid fuels, chemical feedstocks and power as a result of that particular opportunity. I am also pleased to report that my department has entered into a memorandum of understanding with China’s National Energy Administration for further close cooperation on energy, notably in oil and gas, coal, coal seam methane, low-emissions technologies, renewable energy and uranium.
Also, I do not forget the importance of tourism in a $30 million marketing package announced by the Prime Minister, going to boost tourism from China. That market alone is currently worth $2.8 billion to Australia’s burgeoning tourism sector and is expected to grow by over 10 per cent on average to $5.5 billion by 2017. I am pleased to say that a high-level engagement will be held with the Chinese administration in tropical North Queensland for the purposes of trying to extend some of that growth out of the Chinese market to Cairns and related regions.
These announcements are a very strong statement about the strength of the trade relationship between Australia and China. They are also a very strong statement about the fact that Australia is a very attractive place for investment. I simply say that from the Australian government’s point of view we will continue to work to deliver agreements such as this. I also indicate that we will continue to engage with the resources sector to put in place major taxation reform which delivers a profits based tax system whilst also ensuring as a result of those consultations, as evidenced by the announcements today between Australia and China, that Australia is a very attractive place for investment and that there will be jobs growth and ongoing investment in Australia.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. In light of the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement that foreign corporations are paying only 13 per cent tax, is the minister aware that a good example of the counterproductive nature of foreign takeovers and the appallingly failed ‘marketism’ policies of this place is that the one million people living in North Queensland are now to get their milk from southern Queensland, 2,000 kilometres away, while North Queensland’s Malanda Milk, locked out of Woolworths and Coles, must travel 2,000 kilometres south? Is the minister further aware that Woolworths and Coles, with 83 per cent of the food market, are paying dutch auction prices to the dairy corporations? This oppressive pricing from the chains has seen 240 North Queensland farmers tortured down to just 60. Five dairy companies, all once Australian owned, are now, bar one, foreign owned. Finally, our six giant mining companies were all Australian owned pre-marketism but now all are foreign owned. Why should the super-destructive Henry mining tax be applied when a small increase in tax on all foreign corporations would ease the very real threat to the only vibrant industry Australia has left—mining?
I just want to clarify: was the member for Kennedy addressing this question to the Deputy Prime Minister?
To the Deputy Prime Minister, yes. I am quite happy to go on—
Order! I call the Deputy Prime Minister.
I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I assume it is to me because in the broad it raises matters associated with employment. I think that was the connection that the member for Kennedy was thinking of. I can understand that the member for Kennedy is concerned about a reaction in the community of Malanda relating to local milk supplies no longer being available for sale, with one of the big supermarket chains coming into town and consequently creating a circumstance where local milk will be transported thousands of kilometres and processed and transported back. I can understand his concern about that. I can also understand his concern about the implications of the resources super profits tax for employment.
Whilst I understand the member for Kennedy’s concerns are genuinely and personally deeply felt, and we have had the opportunity to discuss his concerns directly, the modelling for the resources super profits tax, and the modelling particularly of the impact on employment, shows that it will expand the resources sector and its output by 5.5 per cent and expand jobs in mining by seven per cent. So, whilst I do appreciate that the member is representing some concerns about marketing changes in his electorate that could be causing community concern, and I do understand he is raising some matters that are on his mind about the resources super profits tax, the modelling does show a growth in employment.
My question is directed to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How is the government supporting families, and are there any challenges to this support?
I thank the member for Bonner very much for her question. As she knows, last Thursday legislation was passed through this parliament to deliver Australia’s first paid parental leave scheme. Australian families have been waiting decades for paid parental leave, and the wait is now finally over. It is this government that will deliver paid parental leave to Australian families on 1 January next year. Our scheme is going to be fair to families and fair to business, and it will be low-income women in particular who will be the biggest winners. These are the women who are working as cashiers, working as hairdressers or working as food attendants, all of them most unlikely to have had paid parental leave in the past.
Many of these women also work in regional areas of Australia, and they will now get paid parental leave for the first time. Our scheme is fair to those working mums in regional areas who are going to get the same level of paid parental leave as the high-income earners in the city. Of course, we know that for 12 years those opposite refused to deliver paid parental leave, and this Leader of the Opposition said that paid parental leave would happen over his dead body. I just have to let the Leader of the Opposition know that it is finally happening, and someone had better call the undertaker!
The Leader of the Opposition is now saying that he is in favour of paid parental leave, and he has dreamt up a new scheme. But this scheme that he has recently dreamt up is going to deliver a triple whammy, especially in regional Australia. He is going to deliver a new tax that is going to hurt business in regional Australia, there are going to be higher grocery prices for families in regional Australia and he is also going to deliver an unfair scheme that will see higher income earners in the city get up to $75,000 as a part of his scheme.
We have recently discovered that the Nationals were not consulted when the opposition leader decided on this new scheme. This is what the Leader of the National Party, Mr Truss, had to say just last week:
We’ve expressed some reservations about elements of the scheme. We have expressed some concerns about the size of some of the payments.
Others, like Nationals senator Fiona Nash, have been even more forthcoming. She has been out there, sighted in a Win News package that was played all around regional Australia on Friday, welcoming the government’s scheme and its benefits for regional Australians and regional families. So we see more and more cracks emerging in this so-called coalition. On paid parental leave we see the Nationals walking away from the Leader of the Opposition. They know, just like families know, that this Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted on paid parental leave. It is only this government that can deliver paid parental leave to the families in Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister and goes to the fact that his disastrous Home Insulation Program is now running at around one house fire every day. Prime Minister, now that the toll from this Home Insulation Program has reached no fewer than 174 house fires, when are you finally going to concede that random safety checks simply do not cut it when it comes to safety and agree to inspecting every one of the one million or so Australian homes that have been affected by this program—if so, when; if not, why not?
I thank the honourable member for his question. On the question of the impact of the government’s insulation safety program—that is, the inspection program—as the honourable member would be aware, we currently have that program underway for a foil insulation safety program, and that is designed to cover some 50,000 homes. In relation to non-foil insulation we also have a program of inspection, which covers a considerably larger number of homes.
The minister responsible for the area continues to keep our inspection regime under review. Should there be any changes to it in the future, the House will be informed. I say to those opposite that, as a consequence of problems which have arisen in the implementation of this program, we are seeking to ensure that safety is maximised in the community, and the minister is attending to this task with full diligence and full application. I thank the House.
My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the minister inform the House of progress with the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, threats to its future rollout and threats to other government programs, especially in western New South Wales?
I thank the member for Macquarie for his question. He is someone who stands up for his electorate in this parliament. Particularly, he has stood up for his electorate when it comes to investment in local schools. I am asked about our Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, and I am very pleased to report to the House that already the Rudd government has approved funding for 230 trade training centres, benefiting 732 schools. This is a program that is being rolled out exactly as was promised. Over 10 years, each school is entitled to a grant of between half a million dollars and $1½ million, and schools have chosen to work together to make multimillion dollar facilities. Every time the opposition criticises that, it is criticising the choices made by school principals to get bigger facilities. By the end of this year, approximately 68 trade training centre projects will be complete, benefiting 173 schools. Trade training centres are going to enable kids to get the real skills they need for real jobs.
Of course, the opposition is completely opposed to giving kids that kind of chance of getting real skills for real jobs. If the opposition is elected, it will stop approximately 900 schools benefiting from the trade training centre program over the next four years, and 1,800 schools will be prevented from benefiting in total. Even worse than that, it will rip money directly out of the hands of around 200 schools which have been promised that money—the Leader of the Opposition is going to come along and rip that money out of the schools’ hands.
Today I can report to the House that round 3 of the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program closed on 4 June and, when the closing date arrived and the applications came in, there were 73 applications from 214 schools. The funding requested was $242 million; the funding available in this round is $103 million, meaning that it is oversubscribed by $139 million. Under the Rudd government an independent panel will assess these applications, pick the schools to benefit in this round and then schools that have not benefited in this round or earlier rounds will be able to apply over the 10-year program so that every school benefits. But, if the Leader of the Opposition is elected, none of the schools that have put applications forward in this round will ever see one cent—not one of those schools that have laboured hard on their applications will ever see one cent.
Of course, the hunt continues for someone in the opposition who will stand up for their electorate and stand up to the Leader of the Opposition about these cutbacks. I ask today: will the member for Calare be someone who stands up for his electorate? He represents 27 schools participating in six trades training centre projects. He wrote to me in December last year asking for more money for training apprentices in schools and he said in relation to some of the successful trades training centre schools: ‘I congratulate those schools for their foresight in applying for and receiving this funding.’ Well, I trust the member for Calare will now go back to his constituents and suggest that they have the foresight to select a member of parliament that will stand up for their interests and deliver trades training centres to their local schools.
Mr Speaker—
Government members interjecting—
The member for Dickson will resume his seat. The member for Dickson has the call; he will be heard in silence. The member for Dickson.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to comments by Professor John Mendoza last Friday when announcing his resignation as Chair of the National Advisory Council on Mental Health:
… it is now abundantly clear that there is no vision or commitment from the Rudd Government to mental health … The Rudd Government is publicly claiming credit for the increased investment in mental health when almost all of this is a consequence of the work of the Howard Government.
If the Prime Minister cannot be trusted not to take credit for other people’s work in mental health, how can he be trusted to be straightforward with the Australian people in any other area?
I thank the member for Dickson for his question, because it goes to overall reform in health and hospitals and it goes to the question—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The question has been asked. The Prime Minister is responding. He has had 17 seconds!
The question goes to the overall reforms in health and the role of mental health within it.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has been going for 25 seconds. Nobody on my left seems to even want to listen to anything. The question was asked. The Prime Minister has the call. He will be heard in silence.
It’s a human vuvuzela, isn’t it?
I think the member for Dunkley is trying to get that title. The Prime Minister has the call.
In the most recent budget, the government made a $175 million investment in the important reforms needed in mental health. These will, in part, deliver more youth-friendly mental health services, more mental health nurses and more support for people with mental illness, including funding for 30 new headspace youth-friendly services, as the national advisory council has in fact recommended. Already, funding for mental health specific programs will double over the next four years, to $1.1 billion between 2010-11 and 2013-14 from $516.5 million allocated between 2004-05 and 2007-08. This is on top of the funding for mental health through the Medicare Benefits Schedule, including psychology services subsidised through Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Many in the mental health sector would prefer that patients with mental health problems be treated in community settings where that is appropriate. The government’s $1.6 billion investment in subacute care beds will help provide more step-up and step—
What about John Mendoza?
Order! The member for Dickson has asked his question.
The government’s $1.6 billion investment in subacute care beds will help provide more step-up and step-down subacute services for people with mental health needs, easing their transition from acute care to the community. Furthermore, this means that patients can be given more appropriate and timely care out of a hospital, helping them to get the treatment that they need more quickly.
As part of the establishment of the National Health and Hospitals Network, the Australian government will also undertake structural reforms so we can improve mental health services in the future. The government will take full funding and policy responsibility for primary health care, including mental health services for common disorders such as anxiety and depression, including those currently provided by the states and territories. The government will also establish Medicare locals in communities across the country who will be a platform for providing better coordination of primary healthcare services and help address gaps in services, including for Australians suffering from mental illnesses. Furthermore, the government also agreed with the states and territories that it will consider changes to roles and responsibilities for specialist community mental health services which the Council of Australian Governments is considering in 2011. These are important first steps, and the government is acting to put the foundations in place so that it can improve mental health services into the future.
On the question of the overall investments that we have undertaken within mental health in the most recent budget, let me further inform the House that $78.8 million will be spent over four years to deliver up to, as I said before, 30 new headspace sites around Australia, providing extra funding for these sites and expanding telephone and web based support services for young people.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is on relevance—not one mention of somebody as highly distinguished as John Mendoza, who has resigned in disgust—
Order! The member for Dickson will resume his seat. The question was a fairly broadbrush question about—
Trust.
yes—whether the Prime Minister can be trusted; if not, why not. That is paraphrasing it a bit. The Prime Minister is addressing his case.
Therefore, in response to the member for Dickson’s question—animated as I know he is by a range of considerations in the debate in the parliament today, including the performance of his BHP shares—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will go to the question.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The House will come to order.
Mr Abbott interjecting
The House will come to order!
Mr Abbott interjecting
Order, the Leader of the Opposition! Again, on important questions about certain matters, I would think that the House might be inspired by the higher ideals that people expect of us. This would appear to be one of those matters, no matter what the political situation and debate about the subject matter is. The Prime Minister has the call and he will be heard in silence.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I welcome this question concerning mental health services and I certainly appreciate the predisposition now for the Leader of the Opposition to listen to this reply calmly.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a very serious and important question about mental health and the resignation of John Mendoza. He then started talking about—
Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Mr Pyne interjecting
Order! The Manager of Opposition Business, who often gives me the absolute impression that he is above the standing orders, will resume his seat. I will remind the House that the question was asked and the Prime Minister went to the despatch box. It was difficult to hear the Prime Minister because of those on my left and the uproar. Now I am trying to get the House under control, and the interference from certain people is not helpful. The Prime Minister has the call. He will address the question.
The government is investing $175 million to improve our mental health system. These figures were contained in the most recent budget. Members opposite might be interested to know that the particular additional investment for Headspace will result in additional treatments for some 20,000 young people across the country. This is actually quite a large investment. Furthermore, I say to those opposite who are interjecting that the service provided by Headspace did not exist prior to the election of this government.
That is a total lie!
No, I am going to say that it did not exist on the scale which now exists under this government.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The failure to listen and the lack of respect are becoming hallmarks of this chamber, which we are all judged by, and that includes me. Often I am told that I should get the place under control. I am now indicating to people that my tolerance level is at absolute zero. The Prime Minister has the call. He will bring the answer to this question to a conclusion so that we can move on.
Mr Speaker, I was asked about mental health services and I am outlining in detail the additional investment made in the most recent budget—an investment of $175 million. Secondly, I was indicating the additional investment we provided to the Headspace services, which provide additional support for 20,000 young Australians each year. I would have thought, given the nature of the question, that that may have been of interest to the House.
Furthermore, we are providing $58.5 million over four years to be directed to deliver care packages to better support up to 25,000 people with severe mental illnesses through the access to allied psychological services arrangements. Thirdly, we are investing $25.5 million over four years to expand the Early Psychosis Prevention Intervention Centre—otherwise called EPPIC—model, building on its successful implementation in the state of Victoria. Fourthly, there is $13 million over two years to employ an additional 136 mental health nurses to provide an estimated 11,700 additional services. As I said, that reflects the government’s additional investments in this area so far.
I also draw the House’s attention to the additional investments we are making overall in the training of medical students in the future and to their training places within the hospitals. The government’s plan is to increase the overall number of GP training places by 5½ thousand over the decade ahead and to increase the overall number of training places in a given year—doubling it, I think, to about 1,300 a year, starting a year or two into the future. Additional medical staff around the country will assist in the wider provision of general health services, including necessary referrals for specialist mental health services as well.
We regard this as an important area of priority in the overall health reform agenda. We have, with the states and territories, engaged in a substantive negotiation on the reform of the health and hospital system. We have produced a reform for the National Health and Hospitals Network. In that system, for the first time, the Australian government will become the dominant funder of the public hospital system of Australia and the dominant funder of the recurrent costs of that system as well. That system also provides a range of services for those suffering from a range of mental health conditions.
On top of that we have fully recognised—and I have said this in previous debates—that when it comes to further priorities for reform we have to place more emphasis on outstanding areas of demand in mental health on the one hand, and aged care on the other. Those constitute the collective priorities of the government. We have made a good start with the National Health and Hospitals Network. We have made some start in relation to the priorities for mental health. We intend to address these priorities together with those in aged care in the rolling implementation of our reform program. Better health and better hospitals for the entire Australian community are fundamental priorities for this government. We intend to get on with the business and I simply make this point to the House: our additional investments in this sector account for some $7½ billion over the three years to come in contrast to the $1 billion which was ripped out of the system by the Leader of the Opposition when he was minister for health prior to the last election.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. What action is the government taking to help rural and regional communities make the transition to a future with less water? Are there any impediments to this transition?
I thank the member for Makin for the question. As a South Australian, he would have been alarmed to read in the Advertiser on the weekend the comments of the coalition spokesperson on water, suggesting that the solution for South Australians with what has happened with water was for them to move north. The government’s plan is to help people with the difficult transition. We have the Water for the Future plan within the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program and the water purchases under the Restoring the Balance program—which have all been water purchases from willing sellers. Let us not pass over the threat that we have in the Basin. Water going into the Murray over the last 10 years was at half the long-term average and over the last three years it was at one-fifth of the long-term average.
I am asked about impediments. I have to say—and this will probably not help me get another question here—that the Leader of the House has been saying something which I believe is untrue. He has been saying that those opposite say one thing here and another thing when they are away. Going through the transcripts on water, I have discovered that they say at least two things here and make hundreds of contradictory statements when they are away from here. In what was a carefully scripted, ‘gospel truth’ statement from the Leader of the Opposition on 14 January—all written out for the Sydney Institute—he said that, if the states have not given federal control by 2012, a coalition government ‘will put the appropriate constitutional change to the people at a referendum’. That was put forward as coalition policy.
The other part of that coalition policy is meant to be a group of nine people in this room, those known as the National Party. The Leader of the Nationals on 18 June on Sky News said ‘The Nationals have never been keen on the idea of a referendum.’ For the Nationals these issues came to a head in National Party heartland on the weekend when they held their conference in Canberra. Here in Canberra, in the lead-up to the conference, the member for Mayo—not usually an object of sympathy but for whom, on this one, I have some sympathy—held the line and committed to the importance of a referendum, just as his Liberal colleague Senator Birmingham started to describe the referendum as ‘only being a last resort’. But, as the National Party rolled the coalition’s view here in Canberra on the weekend, Senator Joyce—who is meant to be the coalition spokesperson on water, presenting the position of the coalition on water—said:
My view on a referendum is that it is the last proposition before the coming of Christ.
Keeping with the ‘gospel truth’ theme, Senator Joyce really said:
My view on a referendum is that it is the last proposition before the coming of Christ.
On water, those opposite have held every possible position, but let us not forget where this began. It began in a carefully scripted statement—the one we are told we are meant to be able to able to believe—which was presented not as a Liberal Party position but as a coalition position. For some reason, those opposite are willing to let nine people in this room dictate to the rest of their party everything when it comes to what happens outside the major cities.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to Professor John Mendoza’s resignation, citing the Prime Minister’s tendency to take credit for the previous government’s work in mental health. I also refer the Prime Minister to his previous answer where he again tried to take credit—this time for the operation and establishment of headspace, the National Youth Mental Health Foundation. Can the Prime Minister now explain why in his opinion Professor Mendoza has resigned from the National Advisory Council on Mental Health?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question on mental health. I say in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s question on mental health that, when it comes to the Headspace program, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, this government has expanded services in this sector—and I made that quite clear in my additional remarks in my earlier answer. The reason that we have expanded those services is that, together with the Minister for Health and Ageing, I visited one of those services which was operating in Sunshine in Melbourne—
Opposition members interjecting—
This question is, I think, highly relevant to the usefulness of these services and why we as a government took the decision to expand them by some 20 or 30 sites across the country. These services are providing for young people in the community a place where they can comfortably go and then access the whole range of services which may affect their current mental health condition. It is designed specifically to be done in a non-threatening environment. It is specifically designed to be a welcoming environment—
Mr Speaker, my point of order is on relevance. I asked about Professor Mendoza, and the Prime Minister cannot bring himself to even mention his name. He cannot even bring himself to mention Professor Mendoza’s name. He should explain why Professor Mendoza has resigned.
The Prime Minister is responding to the question. He was referred to comments that he had made in the previous answer about the program and he was asked for an opinion in the last part. The Prime Minister has the call.
I would say in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s question again that on this specific program, the Headspace program, one of the things which he himself might reflect upon is why when health minister he did not, I am advised, provide continuing future funding for the program which was previously established. That is one question which we are interested to hear the answer to. This government in fact chose to continue that funding and, furthermore, we chose to expand those services. We chose to expand those services because of the key value which they provide to young people in the community.
When I visited the one at Sunshine, I saw the number of young people accessing it because it was friendly, open and non-threatening, enabling young people to go there, outside of a school environment, where they may be concerned about presenting particular mental health problems to school counsellors et cetera. That was why it was judged by many professionals in the field to be so successful—which was why we have backed its expansion.
The Leader of the Opposition asked more broadly a question about the government’s priorities when it comes to health and the debate which surrounds that. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that, on the question of mental health, we as a government intend to continue our investments in this area because it is an area of continuing and outstanding concern for the whole community. It does not matter where you go in Australia, mental health concerns are real.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister has now been talking for nearly three minutes. Why has he airbrushed Professor Mendoza out of his answer?
That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.
On the question of mental health, we believe that this is a huge priority for the future of the country. We welcome debate on the subject. We welcome debate from those who agree with the government’s reforms and those who disagree with the government’s reforms. We do that more broadly in the health and hospitals debate of the nation. On the health and hospitals debate of the nation, it is passing strange that the gentleman asking the question—the Leader of the Opposition, who engages in this debate—was the person who gouged a billion dollars out of the public hospital system of Australia when he was the health minister.
Dr Southcott interjecting—
Honourable members interjecting—
The only matter that the member for Boothby could be rising on is the point of order on relevance that has been taken on two occasions. I am well aware of that point of order. I have given the Prime Minister the call. As is well known, I am not in a position to dictate the way in which the Prime Minister or any other minister at the dispatch box decides that they want to respond to a question. In the past, when a minister or Prime Minister has been responding to part of the question, that has been seen to be relevant, whether or not those who have asked the question believe that there is some other way in which the question should be answered.
The government is passionate about health and hospitals reform. We know that we have a lot more still to do when it comes to reform in mental health and a lot more to do when it comes to the whole need for reform in aged care as well, as I have said repeatedly in recent debates. But do you know something? We are getting on with the job of this, and that is what the National Health and Hospitals Network is all about—$7½ billion worth of additional funding flowing from 1 July, compared with $1 billion gouged out of the system when the Leader of the Opposition was last responsible for the health portfolio.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister update the House on the implementation of the government’s election commitment to deliver more elective surgery to patients? Are there any impediments to this performance, particularly in North Queensland?
I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question, because I know that as a Queenslander he is particularly interested in the outcomes of our early investments in elective surgery and what they have delivered across the country. It is not surprising to me that those opposite, particularly the member for Dickson, have not asked this question, because the previous government’s record on investing in elective surgery was the grand total of zero dollars. Never in their entire time in government did they invest a single dollar in elective surgery, despite the large numbers of people waiting for surgery.
I have released today the latest report of the Elective Surgery Waiting List Reduction Plan. It shows that since our election an extra 76,774 elective surgery procedures have been performed across this country. That is over 70,000 working families, mums and dads, grandparents and others who are having their hip replacements done, who are not waiting as long for their ear, nose and throat surgery and who are having cataract surgery done, all because this government was prepared to invest in elective surgery—something that the previous government never did. If we compare, in fact, the first nine months of 2009 with the same period in 2007, when the Leader of the Opposition was the health minister, 35,000 extra patients received elective surgery because of the blitz money that came online immediately when we were elected to government. What we see now is that the percentage of patients being treated within clinically recommended times has risen from 79 per cent under the Liberal Party to 86.3 per cent now. Of course, we know that there is much more to be done. That is why we have introduced, as part of our national health and hospitals reform plan, a commitment to lifting that over time to a 95 per cent target and making sure that if people are not seen within the clinically recommended time then they are able, under an elective surgery guarantee, to have that procedure undertaken somewhere else.
I was asked specifically about the issues in Queensland and whether there are any impediments to this good news. Of course, the largest impediment to the ongoing benefits flowing from the national health and hospitals reform investments is the Leader of the Opposition. His record is one of pulling a billion dollars out of hospitals, and now the investments in Queensland will be at risk if the Leader of the Opposition is elected as Prime Minister. I am sure that the member for Capricornia would be concerned about the $76 million being invested in Rockhampton Hospital. I am sure that the member for Brisbane would be concerned about the more than $100 million being invested in a new oral health centre in Brisbane. I know that the member for Leichhardt, who is not here today, would be worried that the—
Opposition members interjecting—
I beg your pardon—the member for Herbert is not here today; the member for Leichhardt is always here.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The House will come to order. I know that this is in a different vein to earlier, but let us just quieten down.
Of course, it is a major mistake to confuse the member for Herbert with the member for Leichhardt. One who has not been protecting the interests of his community—the member for Herbert—and one who has been arguing for investments in health which have been committed and are starting to deliver in Cairns. In fact, the report that was released today makes clear that the additional surgeries undertaken in Queensland were only possible because our investments allowed seven major hospitals, including Cairns hospital in the member for Leichhardt’s seat, to expand capacity. Ipswich, Mackay, Nambour, Princess Alexandra, Royal Brisbane, Women’s, Toowoomba and Townsville—all of these hospitals are expanding.
We have not heard a single thing from those opposite, even from the Queensland members who stand to benefit from these investments, on how they will make sure that they are protected from the knife that Mr Abbott always wields when he gets to be in charge of health expenditure. One billion dollars ripped out of our hospitals and now we have these investments at risk. He has already promised in the budget reply that more than $800 million will be ripped out. The member is in such intense discussion now, because he does not like looking at me when I talk from the dispatch box for some reason, and will not even commit to extra investments in primary care. The member for Dickson has promised to rip nearly half a billion dollars out of diabetes initiatives.
We just ask, simply: what is next? What expenditure in health is free from the razor gang that are in cahoots over there because they do not like listening to these success stories when 76,000 extra people have been assisted by our investments and many, many more thousands stand to benefit in the future, so long as Tony Abbott does not wield the knife that he wielded when he was the health minister.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
On indulgence: I acknowledge in the gallery today the presence of family and friends of the Montevideo Maru. They are here to listen to an upcoming ministerial statement to the parliament by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Most Australians are familiar with the circumstances surrounding those tragic losses and on behalf of the government, and I believe on behalf of the parliament, I welcome them to the chamber today. I am sure that the minister’s statement on these matters will deal with many of the concerns they have raised about the sinking of that vessel.
Hear, hear!
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
In an article in today’s Australian it is alleged that I have told an unknown individual that the government had no more money for mental health, dental health or aged care. It suggested that this alleged statement has partly or wholly caused the resignation of the chair of the government’s mental health advisory board. I want to state to the House that I did not make these statements and I do not have the unilateral authority to make such statements or decisions. I would urge that anybody who is proposing to make a serious decision based on second-hand reports of statements that I am alleged to have made perhaps might want to consider checking with me first before they make any such decision.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
I acknowledge the presence in the House today of many of the family, friends and loved ones of those lost on the Montevideo Maru, some of whom have travelled great distances to be here today. I also acknowledge that this tragedy has touched so many Australians, including members of parliament both past and present.
Former patron of the Rabaul and Montevideo Maru Society, the honourable Kim Beazley AO, lost his uncle on board that ship. My colleague the honourable Peter Garrett’s grandfather was also lost when the ship sank. Minister Garrett is the current patron of the Rabaul and Montevideo Maru Society. I am sorry Minister Garrett is unable to be here today as he is attending the International Whaling Commission in Morocco.
I address this statement to the families and to the House. On behalf of the Australian government and the Australian parliament, I would like to express our sincere regret and sorrow for the tragedy that occurred with the sinking of the Montevideo Maru on 1 July 1942.
The opening months of 1942 were a dark time in Australia’s wartime history. Singapore and Java had fallen, our defensive outposts in Rabaul, Timor and Ambon had been lost, and the Japanese had already begun a series of bombing attacks on Australia beginning with Darwin on 19 February 1942.
Success in the battle of the Coral Sea provided a check to Japanese plans but even so, in May 1942, the war was brought home to Australians on the east coast when the Japanese attacked Sydney Harbour from the sea. And we were not to know that in a matter of weeks our nation was to suffer its most terrible maritime disaster—when, in a matter of moments, more Australians would be killed than would be lost in all the nation’s wars and conflicts since the end of the Second World War.
But let me step back in history a little bit first. The fall of New Britain in January 1942 was one of many disastrous battles involving Australians in the first months of the Pacific war. Lark Force, as the Australian defenders of the island were known, was hopelessly outnumbered, poorly equipped and had no plan of withdrawal. The chiefs of staff recognised that the force had no chance of repelling an invasion but felt, nonetheless, that the Japanese should be made to fight for the island and the deepwater harbour at Rabaul. The defenders put up a brave fight but the outcome was never in doubt. Of some 1,500 troops, 30 were killed in the fighting and about 400 escaped the island. Another 160 were killed in the Tol plantation—one of a series of massacres of prisoners committed by the Japanese in the opening months of the war.
The survivors became prisoners of war. Several hundred civilians who had been living and working on the island were also interned. Little was heard of, or from, either group again.
There was one occasion, however, in April 1942, when prisoners were given a chance to write to their families. The letters were dropped in mailbags over Port Moresby and about 400 were delivered.
For many who received these letters it was their last contact.
On 22 June 1942 just over 1,000 men, military prisoners and civilians, were marched from their camps to Rabaul’s harbour. On other days they had walked the same route to work on the docks, but this time they carried whatever kit they possessed and were flanked by guards with machine guns. Chinese and New Guinean dockside labourers saw them board a ship, the 10,000-ton Montevideo Maru. They were among the last to see her human cargo alive.
Lieutenant Commander Wright, captain of the American submarine, USS Sturgeon, wrote in his log that early on the morning of 1 July 1942 his submarine chased a large ship as it sped from the Philippines westwards into the South China Sea. He guessed that it was heading for Hainan and for some time doubted whether he could catch it. But by 2.30 in the morning the submarine had drawn close enough to fire its torpedoes.
Four were fired from 4,000 yards, two hit, and the tragic fate of the Montevideo Maru was sealed—the ship sank within 10 minutes.
Only three lifeboats were lowered, all capsized and one was badly damaged. After the sinking there were few survivors in the water and the Japanese crewmen and naval guards who had made it onto the lifeboats headed for the Philippines coast.
According to Japanese accounts, the captain and more than 10 of his crew reached land where most of them, including the captain, were killed by Filipino guerrillas. Five survivors set out on foot for Manila, two died en route, the rest took 10 days to reach the city.
They reported the sinking and a search was immediately ordered, but too much time had elapsed and no trace of either the Montevideo Maru or survivors was found.
For the families of the men who had been on the ship, there was never any news during the war but Japanese authorities had known of the loss since shortly after the sinking. The ship’s owners were informed three weeks after it happened, and in January the following year the Japanese Navy Department forwarded details of the sinking to the Japanese Prisoner of War Information Bureau, together with a nominal roll of the prisoners and civilians on board.
During the war, the International Committee of the Red Cross made several inquiries concerning the men who had been captured on Rabaul but received no answer. In 1944 the Japanese Foreign Office sought information on the missing civilians from Rabaul, but no response was forthcoming and the Swiss legation made at least seven unsuccessful attempts to get the same information.
Like many who waited in Australia for news of the men who had been lost as the Japanese advanced through Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific in 1942, the families and friends of the soldiers and civilians who had been captured on New Britain, had spent three-and-a-half years wondering and hoping.
Mrs Rhoda Coote was one of those wondering and hoping and writing letters to try and find out what was happening to her husband.
Evacuated to Australian with her daughter just before Christmas 1941, Mrs Coote only expected to be separated from her husband for a few months.
In 1942 G. F. Haughan, from the Red Cross in Port Moresby, wrote a letter in response to Mrs Coote:
I am unable to give you any news of any great importance but would like to point out that the news you mention regarding your husband is not, I’m sure, correct. Please do not let that worry you.
I have made a careful check on all the records held here and the only news I can give you is that just after the Japanese invasion your husband was seen at Gillalum Plantation in the company of Ernest Banks, Bill Yarrington, Tom Walker, Ted Allan, Tom Herkut, C. Clunn, P. Ryan, H. Fulton and Dick Moore.
I shall keep a close check for you; as a resident of New Guinea for some years I know a number of those persons who are missing and I will forward any news that comes my way.
I can only ask you to look on the bright side and hope all will turn out for a happy reunion for your husband.
This letter was dated 18 November 1942—five months after Philip Coote had perished on the Montevideo Maru. It was three more years before Mrs Coote would find out that there would never be a reunion with her husband, Philip.
It was a difficult time for the families waiting and hoping, especially for those like the Cootes who had been evacuated to Australia. They left behind their husbands, sons, brothers; they left behind their homes and their community—they faced some very long, lonely years.
I know some of you are here today, including Philip Coote’s son, daughter and three of his granddaughters; along with some of the families of those men mentioned in the letter—Walker, Ryan and Fulton—and I acknowledge your strength and fortitude.
By the end of September 1945, lists of men recovered from Japanese prison camps were being published every day, but more than 5,000 Australians remained unaccounted for, including those from Rabaul.
I think it is important to note here that over the years there have been suggestions that the Montevideo Maru either never existed, or that the Japanese actually massacred the prisoners and used the Montevideo Maru’s sinking as the explanation for their disappearance.
Such speculation is understandable when the loss of a ship and almost all on board is at question and the evidence lies mostly at the bottom of the sea. But the existence of the ship is beyond doubt as the Australian War Memorial holds photographs of it in its collection and the material that is available indicates that the Montevideo Maru was indeed sunk and that more than one thousand prisoners died when this happened. Stories suggesting the loss of a Japanese prison ship carrying many of the missing men from Rabaul first appeared in Australian newspapers on 26 and 27 September 1945, and on 28 September an Australian officer fluent in Japanese, Major HS Williams of the 1st Australian POW Enquiry Unit, was searching through records in Tokyo’s Prisoner of War Information Bureau when he found a list of 1,056 names. Many were of servicemen identified by name and serial number; the rest were civilians. Their place of capture was given as Rabaul and many appeared to be Australians—but the names having been translated from English into Japanese script and then back again created considerable difficulties.
The Director of the Japanese Prisoner of War Information Bureau admitted that full details of what had happened to the men from Rabaul had been in Japanese possession since the beginning of 1943 and he expressed regret that no details had been transmitted to Australia. The translated roll reached Canberra in late October 1945—telegrams were sent to families across the country confirming what they had feared: few of the men taken prisoner or interned on Rabaul in 1942 had survived the year.
From these records—although not all the names were on them—it was clear that they were made up of members of the 2/22nd Battalion, 1st Independent Company, Fortress Artillery, Signals units, 17 Anti-tank Battery, Anti Aircraft Artillery, 19 Special Dental Unit, detachments from New Guinea Volunteer Rifles, 2/10 Field Ambulance, Ordnance Corps units, 8th Division Supply Column, Canteen Services Headquarters New Guinea Area, Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal Australian Navy and Australian civilians. To date the original Japanese nominal roll has not been recovered, but the Department of Defence is still undertaking a search.
In common with all those who died in our name in the world wars, each of those lost on the Montevideo Maru is officially commemorated by name on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The service personnel are commemorated on the memorial to the missing at the Rabaul (Bita Paka) War Cemetery, and the civilian dead are commemorated on the roll of honour located in Westminster Abbey.
Collectively, the service and sacrifice of those who were lost is commemorated on the Montevideo Maru memorial that is co-located with the official memorial to those lost at Rabaul on the waterfront of Simpson Harbour, at the national POW memorial at Ballarat, and more recently plaques have been placed at the Hellships memorial at Subic Bay in the Philippines.
These commemorations provide a physical base of remembrance that complements the tireless efforts of the loved ones left behind to keep this terrible tragedy at the forefront of our minds, and in doing so to keep the promise that ‘we will remember them’. Quite rightly, the story of the Montevideo Maru will not end here. I expect historians in Australia and across the world will continue in their search for the missing pieces of the puzzle including the lost records. And I know fundraising efforts are also underway to erect a memorial here in Canberra at the Australian War Memorial.
As we stand here today, I would like to formally mark the great loss of the Montevideo Maru and honour those who died. Australia is forever grateful for their service in defence of our nation during the Second World War. I would especially like to acknowledge the great emotional suffering of the families and friends they left behind. These people endured many long and painful years waiting for news of their loved ones and they deserve to be remembered. The fortitude needed to survive the three years it took for the tragic news of the death of their loved ones to reach them is exemplary. And I extend to them my wholehearted condolences. Their experience is an integral part of our wartime history.
I acknowledge their grief has extended beyond the years of uncertainty. Not having a marked grave to signify their loved one’s life has weighed on many families—even to the present day. The Australian government will continue to work with them, the Rabaul and Montevideo Maru Society and others interested in this tragedy to ensure the Montevideo Maru remains a part of our living history.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Greenway to speak for 17 minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mrs Markus speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 17 minutes.
Question agreed to.
Wives, daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, those who survived the events of 1942, loved ones and friends of the Montevideo Maru: in this place on Monday, 21 June 2010, the Australian parliament is formally recognising remembering and commemorating the loss of lives during the fall of Rabaul, the Battle of Kavieng, the Tol Massacre and the sinking of the Montevideo Maru by torpedo in the early hours of 1 July 1942. It is a time for us to honour the service of those who were lost, killed or are missing from the Montevideo Maru and from activities on and around the mandated islands of New Guinea—from New Britain, New Ireland, New Hanover and the surrounding islands. It is my privilege and honour to speak on behalf of the federal coalition in response to the ministerial statement of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister for Defence Personnel on the Montevideo Maru.
Today is an important day, tinged with sadness for survivors and families of the lost. Equally, it is a day for Australia to remember and commemorate those who gave their lives and who paid the ultimate sacrifice. Sixty-eight years is a long time to wait for such a moment. I would like to acknowledge the attendance today of the Rabaul and Montevideo Maru Society and the representatives and members of the Montevideo Maru Foundation. Specifically, I would like to acknowledge the presence of veterans of the campaign in the mandated territories and survivors of Japanese prisoner of war camps. I also wish to welcome the wives, sons, daughters and other family members of those who we honour today. Many have travelled long distances to be in Canberra today for this historic moment. Many people have played a role in bringing this to pass. They are too numerous to name. However, to the Rabaul and Montevideo Maru Society and the Montevideo Maru Foundation, led by Keith Jackson AM and Cynthia Schmidt respectively: I place on record the appreciation of all those involved with bringing about this occasion today.
The events which led to the death of 1,053 men on the Montevideo Maru on 1 July 1942 are important moments in Australia’s military and national history. The 1919 League of Nations mandate over the New Guinea territories permitted Australia to administer the former German territories but not to militarise them. Australia strictly abided by the terms of the mandate. The island of New Britain was never significantly fortified by the Australians. In 1939, with the threat of war in the Pacific looming, the Australian government established a token militia. The voluntary New Guinea Volunteer Rifles were the core of military defence in the territory. They consisted of fewer than 300 men.
Responding to the growing threat to Rabaul and Australia’s broader strategic interests in the 1930s and 1940s, in February 1941 the Australian government assembled the Lark Force and dispatched it to Rabaul. The Lark Force consisted of a group based on the 2/22nd Battalion, raised in Victoria as part of the 23rd Brigade, 8th Division, 2nd Australian Imperial Force. These 1,400 troops were never in a position to properly defend Rabaul or even repel an attack.
Days after the 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, the Australian war cabinet authorised the compulsory evacuation of women and children from Papua and New Guinea to Australia. Males over 16 were to remain in Rabaul with their fathers. Six brave government nurses were offered evacuation but volunteered to stay. The Australian Army Nursing Service nurses stayed, as it was deemed their duty to stay with the men. In total, almost 1,800 women and children were evacuated by 29 December 1941. Christmas 1941 was, for many, the last time they would see husbands, brothers and sons alive.
By 19 January 1942, a few weeks before the fall of Singapore, the Australian war cabinet decided to evacuate non-civilian personnel. Sadly, this came too late. Four days later, the Japanese landed at Rabaul. Rabaul fell on 23 January 1942. Hundreds of Australian servicemen and locals were interned in local POW camps. Four hundred and fifty men were reported to have escaped through the New Britain jungle, although few of them survived. No provision had been made by Lark Force commanders for guerilla warfare or for escape through the jungle. No supply depots in the thick jungle of New Britain had been constructed.
During the course of World War II, my father-in-law, Masa Markus, a national of Papua New Guinea—and, if you do not mind, I would like to mention him today—served in what came to be known as the Pacific Islands Regiment. As a New Guinean, he was interned by the Japanese in a prisoner of war camp at Malaguna, only three miles from Rabaul. He escaped and, fortunately, was picked up by a US ship while swimming in the ocean.
On 4 February 1942, a massacre at plantations at Tol and Waitavalo saw 160 men shot or bayoneted. On 22 June 1942, an estimated 845 prisoners of war from Lark Force and 208 interned civilian men were marched from their camp in Rabaul to be sent via ship to another camp in Hainan, in China. Ordered into the Montevideo Maru, these men were marching to their deaths.
Japan’s occupation of Rabaul provided them with a key base to launch attacks against Australia and the United States. Bombing raids over Townsville and Cairns were made easier by Japan’s Rabaul base. At the end of the war, 100,000 Japanese soldiers and auxiliary staff were stationed at Rabaul.
The stories of those who were lost on the Montevideo Maru are truly moving. There is indeed an overwhelming sense of loss for those who remain who are searching for the truth, endeavouring to understand what happened on 1 July 1942. Just who was aboard the Montevideo Maru when she sank? Who escaped the Japanese advance, only to perish in the jungle of New Britain? There are still questions left unanswered.
I am aware of five survivors of that terrible time in early 1941 who are here today with us: Stan Cooper, Lionel Veale, Norm Furness, David Harper and Fred Kollmorgen. Your stories are ones of sheer bravery, courage under fire and mateship. They are values that we honour as those of the Anzacs. Your spirit and endurance place you also in their league. While every story is significant, in the time available it is not possible to cover every one of the recollections of those who were there. One story about Fred Kollmorgen particularly caught my attention. The story given to me goes like this:
Fred was the sole survivor of the Salvation Army Band. He escaped down the south coast of New Britain.
Fred is a survivor of the 2/22nd Band. This was a military band largely composed of bandsmen from the Brunswick Salvation Army but also included members from Springvale, Moreland and Hawthorn. They were led by Bandmaster Arthur Gullidge, who was the Bandmaster at Brunswick and to this day is recognised internationally for his brilliance as composer and musician.
Some of the bandsmen were on the Montevideo Maru and some were murdered in the Tol Massacre. Fred escaped by walking 700 miles, canoeing 60 miles, wading 25 miles and boating 80 miles along the south coast of New Britain.
That in itself is no easy feat. Together with my husband, who grew up in Rabaul, and our children, I have walked through the jungle of New Britain. It is tough going. It goes on:
It was an epic journey, punctuated by aggressive aerial surveillance by the Japanese, severe malaria, malnutrition, crocodiles, little clothing, the crossing of fierce streams and a treacherous jungle.
There are wives and children here today. The impact of these tragedies on families is important to acknowledge. Barbara Selby is the wife of survivor the late David Selby, who, I am told, was one of the first troops to be in action on Australian territory in the Second World War. David’s brother, Benn, is also here today, as are David and Barbara’s three children, Alison, Elizabeth and Bill. I am told that, after the ‘every man for himself’ order went out as Rabaul fell, David ensured that his guns were destroyed so that they would not fall into enemy hands. He and his mates then fled through the jungle of New Britain. Sadly, some did not make it through. After six weeks they were found and repatriated to Australia. After the war, David Selby QC had a distinguished legal career, including time in Papua New Guinea as an acting judge of the Supreme Court. He served as Deputy Chancellor of the University of Sydney for 15 years. David’s story is another one of great endurance.
Mary May and her daughter Dr Marian May are also here with us. Mary’s husband, Reverend John May OBE, was chaplain to Lark Force in Rabaul. John was a POW sent to Japan on the Naruto Maru before he was released in August 1945. Returning to Australia after working in Japan after the war, John May became the chaplain at the Royal Military College at Duntroon here in Canberra. Sadly, John died earlier this year. Marian has recorded:
Before his stroke in January, John was making a big extra effort to walk every day so that, should such an event take place, he would be in a fit state to attend! He’d even bought a new pair of shoes in readiness!
Marian, on behalf of the House today, we extend our condolences and sorrow that John is not here.
Nancy Ward is here today from Ocean Grove in Victoria. Nancy’s father is presumed to have been lost on the Montevideo Maru. She, like many other sons and daughters of those lost, has waited a long time for some form of recognition of the circumstances which led to the loss of their parents.
A person who hoped to be here today is George Hill from Western Australia. Sadly, he is too unwell to come to Canberra. His father was lost on the Montevideo Maru. George was just nine when he lost his dad. His mother was left to raise six children in Mildura in northern Victoria. George’s brother, Frank, wrote a book about the Montevideo Maru which was donated to the RSL in Mildura. George says the book was never finished; Frank did not know how to write the final chapter.
In South Gippsland in the member for McMillan’s electorate is the small town of Leongatha. In 1941, 16 young men left Leongatha to fight in the Lark Force, and only three came home. Their story has been documented by local historian Lyn Skillern, who writes:
One of the saddest stories I have uncovered is that of the 16 local men from the Leongatha and District who went to Rabaul with Lark Force. Of the sixteen, six were on the Montevideo Maru, six were massacred at Gasmata, three returned home to South Gippsland and Bill Owen was killed in action later in the war after escaping from Rabaul.
Lyn recalls the names of the soldiers presumed lost on the Montevideo Maru: Jack Howard, Fred Broadbent, Fred Ketels, Jimmy Kavanagh, Arthur Oliver and Tom Sangster. About Fred Ketels, Lyn writes:
Fred was born in Foster [in South Gippsland] in 1913, grew up in Leongatha and attended Leongatha State School. His mother waited for him for the rest of her life. His brother Cliff was killed in New Guinea with the 2/5th Battalion. She used to travel to Melbourne often with Mrs Howard and Mrs Broadbent to visit the Battalion Headquarters. They found support there with the mothers and wives of the 2/22nd Battalion men.
There are stories of other families:
The Bellington brothers, Bill and Tom, who were executed at Gasmata. They were from Nerrena East, near Leongatha. Bill was born in Nerrena in 1907 and Tom there in 1908. They lived on the family farm. The boys had spent much of their time since leaving school unemployed. Joining the army probably seemed a good idea. Their father Harry wanted someone to tell him what happened to his boys and no one ever did. It was too much for him and he took his own life.
I have had the privilege and honour of visiting Bita Paka War Cemetery, observing the tropical jungle. Today it hides the secrets of that time, that dark hour in Australia’s and Papua New Guinea’s history. The remnants of Japanese occupation remain in Rabaul today. Jungle tunnels contain submarines fitted on rails, ready for deployment into the ocean. Maintenance facilities and concrete bunkers are still in place, now covered by overgrown jungle. Unexploded ordnance remains.
Later this year, the 70th anniversary of the formation of Lark Force will be commemorated in Benalla in regional Victoria. I understand the state member for Benalla, Bill Sykes MLA, has coordinated an event in response to community support for such a commemoration. It is a shame that more Lark Force veterans are not alive today to receive their due recognition for service rendered to Australia.
I want to close today with another quote, this time from Wing Commander Lerew. At the time of the Japanese landing, 24 Squadron had a small number of Wirraways on New Britain. As the Japanese arrived, Lerew signalled RAAF HQ in Melbourne with the Latin phrase ‘nos morituri te salutamus’—or the English translation: ‘We who are about to die salute you’. Today it is we who are living today in freedom who salute the men and women of that time in New Guinea in 1942. Lest we forget.
In order to ensure that the unanimous support across the chamber for this statement is clearly understood, I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Kennedy speaking in reply to the minister’s statement for a period not exceeding two minutes.
Question agreed to.
I wish to acknowledge, on behalf of my colleague the member for New England, Helen Seizan and Ian Adams, representing the Armidale families who lost their grandfathers on the Montevideo Maru. Lex Fraser, in my electorate, was one of the commandos that were fighting in and around Rabaul and his entire command perished on the Montevideo Maru. Lex has carried almost to the point of obsession the loss of all of his men. He was not there; he was on another ship, being taken as a prisoner to Japan. He has fought hard for their widows. All of his life he has fought hard for recognition of the men that died. So I would like to comment on that today.
In concluding my few words, I note half a dozen members of my immediate family were fighting in the islands during the Second World War. One of them ended up in Changi prison. He came home but died soon afterwards—and I acknowledge all the mothers, particularly those from that period. His uncle was at Gallipoli. Seven years after his death at Gallipoli there was a letter—there is a number of letters on the file, including this one—from what was obviously his girlfriend. She was still writing in the hope that he was still alive. She said she had heard rumours that he was still alive. How many hearts were broken as such people died. Mark Dale is here today. I think his family should get special respect: three brothers were killed on the Montevideo Maru and their poor mother also lost a husband later in the war. The entire male side of the family was wiped out. I think this incident is the worst incident in warfare, including battles, that Australia ever suffered. It is very good, Minister, that we acknowledge today each of these men that died for us. Although we lost most of the battles up there, they were lost in such a way that we were able to defeat the Japanese and throw them back and defend our country from invasion. That was the very real contribution made by these people in the great losses that they suffered. (Time expired)
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee’s report entitled Report of the 2009 New Zealand parliamentary committee exchange, 24 to 27 August 2009.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Does the member for Hinkler wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
by leave—I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Bowen:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 GST Administration Measures No. 3) Bill 2010. This bill was introduced into this place on 26 May 2010 and it implements some of the 46 recommendations made by the Board of Taxation from its review of the legal framework for the administration of the goods and services tax. Legislation implementing some other recommendations from the Board of Taxation’s review included the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 GST Administration Measures No.1) Bill 2010 and the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 GST Administration Measures No.2) Bill 2010, which passed through the House earlier this year. As I did with those earlier bills, I would like to say at the outset that the coalition will be supporting the passage of this bill through the House and the other place.
Schedule 1 of the bill amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to ensure the supply of goods transport services in Australia GST free if that supply is made as part of the international transport of goods to a nonresident that is not in Australia. Schedule 1 also changes the liability for paying GST on the transport of goods within Australia, where that transport is part of the international transport of imported goods from the transport service provider to the importer of the goods. The amendment will mean that importers will add the cost of domestic transport into the ‘value of taxable importation’ used to calculate GST liability on importation and remove the GST liability on the supply of domestic transport services made to a nonresident. This will ease compliance costs for domestic transporters and nonresidents. The amendments in schedule 1 were announced by the then Assistant Treasurer in the 2009-10 budget on 12 May 2009. Schedule 1 has a revenue cost of $2 million a year.
Schedule 2 of this bill amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to ensure that global roaming telecommunication services remain GST free. Schedule 2 was initially announced by the former coalition government. The then Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Dutton MP, announced, on 21 December 2006, that the government would clarify the law to maintain the intention that supplies of global roaming telecommunication services would remain GST free. There was a requirement for clarification in this area of GST law because a tax ruling by the Australian Taxation Office cast doubt on the treatment of such supplies. These supplies were always intended to be GST free in accordance with Australia’s obligations under the Melbourne agreement on international telecommunication regulations. The former coalition government began consultation with the telecommunications industry to ensure that the amendments were properly targeted. As the amendments reflect the original intention and operation of the law in this area, the amendments will apply retrospectively from 1 July 2000.
Schedule 3 of this bill amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to allow entities to make appropriate adjustments where the entities are members of the same GST group, GST religious group or GST joint venture. These amendments are in addition to the amendments made in a previous bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 GST Administration Measures No. 1) Bill 2010, which was passed with the support of the coalition earlier this year.
As I said at the outset, the coalition supports the measures in this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
I speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 GST Administration Measures No. 3) Bill 2010. Amendments to tax laws are made by schedule, and the first schedule deals with GST and cross-border transport supplies. It has been suggested by the industry that this change is necessary and it is important reform to allow certainty and clarification with respect to the transportation of goods from export as well as import. The second schedule deals with GST relief for telecommunications supplied for global roaming in Australia. That has been on the cards for some time, as the member for Farrer said. It deals with the Melbourne agreement, which was an important reform. The third schedule deals with GST amendments to the third-party payments adjustment provisions. Again, that is an amendment as a result of consequences which were unintended by previous legislation.
The first schedule, as I said, deals with the GST and cross-border transport supplies. It is important that nonresidents are not drawn into the Australian GST system, and it is important that jurisdiction with respect to the collection of tax is clarified and made certain. You do not want companies or individuals caught up in our system when they should not be. Parts of the transport industry have expressed concern in relation to this. They have expressed concern about compliance costs, and they have expressed concern about difficulties in complying with the GST law. The first schedule amends the GST act to ensure that the transportation of goods by subcontractors within Australia that forms part of the international transport of those goods by another entity from or to Australia is taxable unless the transport supply is made to a nonresident that is not in Australia. Those amendments operate from 1 July this year. The changes, as I have said, have been sought by the industry. It is consistent with what the government has said previously, and it is about reducing tax compliance and ensuring a regulatory system in which small businesses and medium businesses have the best opportunity and climate to operate free of regulation. At the same time, it improves the integrity of our GST system.
The second schedule deals with GST relief for telecommunications supplied for global roaming in Australia. The Melbourne agreement, particularly the provision known as article 6.1.3, provides that the tax levied in accordance with the national law of a country on collection charges for international telecommunications services can only be collected in respect of international services billed to customers in that country. It was always thought, as the member for Farrer said, that international telecommunications supplies were not considered to be taxable under our GST law. I always take the view that inherently rulings by the Commissioner of Taxation are a good thing—they prevent litigation, reduce administrative costs and provide certainty with respect to the businesses and practitioners who deal with taxation law, with compliance costs and also with business generally. However, sometimes the Commissioner of Taxation can get it wrong, and sometimes decisions made by the Commissioner of Taxation can confuse and cause difficulties. What we are doing here is restoring the situation to what the business community and the accountancy field always thought it was and what the government policy always intended to ensure.
Global roaming by Australian residents when travelling overseas is not subject to GST as it is not connected with Australia for the purpose of GST, and we intend to ensure that we fulfil our obligations under the Melbourne agreement. We want to make sure that nonresidents are not subject for GST purposes. The previous government made the announcement, as the member for Farrer said, in December 2006 that it would take steps in relation to this matter but, as is so often the case when the Rudd government brings in legislation, we hear that the previous government thought it might deal with this in its 13th or 14th year but never got around to actually doing anything. This is important reform. The business community will think it is sensible, the accountancy industry will think it is sensible, and anyone who deals with this area will also think it is a prudent measure by the government.
The third schedule relates to adjustments for third parties. This is a confusing area, but what it actually means is that the inappropriate interaction of the GST will not create third-party payment adjustments which are unintended. It means that the correct amount of GST outcome will be achieved in circumstances where there are third parties involved in the supply chain. We want to make sure that there are no consequences adverse to consumers or to groups such as religious groups or joint ventures or in fact GST groups. Entities that deal with one another also need to be aware of the consequences of that. This has been relevant especially to the automotive industry, who have expressed some concerns particularly in respect of the public consultation process. They will welcome this change. The member for Farrer spoke about this and I do not intend to outline exactly what the consequences of the schedule 3 amendments will be.
I think this is important reform. All three schedules add to the certainty and clarification of tax law in this country. They add to business certainty. They promote a climate in which business can operate with less regulation and a lighter burden. They create a climate in which we can ensure that businesses—particularly small and medium-sized businesses as well as those in the transportation sector and the automotive industry—can operate profitably, employ more people and create the jobs which we hope will get us through the difficult days we face now and in the future.
I rise today to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 GST Administration Measures No. 3) Bill 2010 and take the opportunity to concentrate on one component of this bill. I begin by referring to my media release of 29 September 2006 when I was a member of the Howard government. I was ecstatic at being able to release this information, because a plan that I had worked on for so very long had started to unfold. It was not a panacea, it was not going to rebuild the lives of people caring for disabled children in a flash and it was not going to be the answer to everything; but it was the beginning of an understanding that we had to provide some mechanisms to enable parents to prepare to look after their disabled children. These children may have been born with intellectual disabilities or physical disabilities. They may have acquired disabilities through brain tumours, accidents or simple things such as a cricket ball or cricket bat hitting them in the head and rendering them brain damaged. They may have had illnesses that had afflicted them with a disability from then on. But in each case the lives of the parents of these children are in turmoil as they try to determine how to prepare to care for their disabled child through their adult lives when the parents themselves become aged persons.
I concentrate today specifically on schedule 4 of this bill, which centres around changes to the taxation of the unexpended income of special disability trusts. I recall that I put out my press release of December 2006 after I had lobbied the former Minister for Family and Community Services, Kay Patterson, over an extensive period, had talked to many parents of disabled children and had listened to the advocacy of Judy Brewer—who was the wife of the Hon. Tim Fischer, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia—on the needs of parents with disabled children. We wanted to ensure that they could be cared for in the future by ring-fencing property and allowing people to save into a trust while not being penalised for doing so. The idea was that they could put money, property et cetera into a trust and not be penalised by losing their disability support through having an income tax penalty applied to them. I lobbied very hard on both this and a system that could be applied either at birth or at any time afterwards to insure families in their management of the care of disabled children over many years.
I was not successful at the time in getting a national insurance scheme up and running, though not for want of trying. However, we were successful in putting in place special disability trusts. I recall welcoming the fact that families were able to start to prepare for the future care of their disabled sons or daughters through the special disability trusts created at that time by the Australian government. I talked about the measure that would enable families to make preparations financially to provide current and future care and accommodation for a son or daughter with a severe disability without being affected by social security means-testing. I talked about the fact that they could place up to $500,000 in a special disability trust and not have it impact on the beneficiary’s income support, such as disability support pension or the gifter’s pension if they were of pension age. I talked about needing to support both people with a disability and the people who care for them.
I concentrate today on a submission that was sent into the discussion paper on this issue. I will not identify the author of this submission, but it puts everything into context and determines the real issues confronted by parents who are facing the lifelong care of a child. This submission talks about the problems associated with one particular family, and it was so well put together that I could not do better than to come into this House and quote extensively from it. I think it clearly picks up many of the issues.
I welcome the changes in this bill. I think they are good changes. They are the beginning of a recognition of the issues that confront our families, but they do not go far enough, and I am acutely aware of the fact that there should have been changes made by the last government. I am not saying that this government is responsible for making all the changes. I am acutely aware of that, because I lobbied hard for changes while we were in government, and I am just adding that the change needs to continue to happen.
In this submission, the author—who, as I said, shall remain nameless because I do not believe it would be correct to put their name in, although the submission is public—says:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Exposure Draft. At the outset I would like to make the following comments—
and I have been in touch with this person on numerous occasions.
a special disability trust or SDT—
from 46.5% to the beneficiary’s marginal tax rate is a very significant and positive step—
which I absolutely agree with—
that will be appreciated by those who have established or those who are contemplating setting up a SDT.
There are many other disincentives relating to tax issues that have not been stated in this document or whether they will be considered or addressed in the future.
The author goes on to say:
One example is the CGT impost of placing a residence, however meagre, into a SDT. This is particularly the case for elderly couples who have been extremely frugal during their lives to save sufficient to house their severely disabled son or daughter. Many have been caring for a disabled offspring in excess of 40 years, as in our case.
… … …
Data provided by FaHCSIA in September 2005 gave an initial estimate of 5,000 trusts to be established by 2010 however, very few trusts have been established and these are by carers with an average age of 78 years, which is indicative that the SDT was an option of last resort before they themselves lost legal capacity or met their demise. Currently the only means for elderly parents to avoid the substantial financial impost of CGT on placing a residence in a SDT is through their death, whether that is brought about by natural causes, tragic accident or suicide. In the press release to herald the Exposure Draft, the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Nick Sherry and Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Bill Shorten MP stated:
‘This Bill will rectify an inappropriate taxation outcome and further assist immediate family members and carers to make private financial provision for the care and accommodation needs of people with severe disability.’
The author goes on to say:
The question arises then, what other inappropriate taxation outcomes are a disincentive hindering parents from establishing a SDT?
It is worth noting that the only change to the administration of SDTs prior to the 2009/2010 budget was to permit agencies/institutions to combine aids and accommodation expenditures. This was possibly sanctioned specifically for accounting/auditing purposes. It appears that very little thought has been given to the concept of social inclusion within the community in the legislative framework of SDTs. Many severely disabled people with complex health problems and needs may not survive within the confines of an agency’s institutional care and accommodation. In the case of our 43 year old severely disabled daughter, she would not be alive today if she had been subjected to such ‘care’. Currently, after at least two years we are still waiting for approval to be granted conditions for inclusion in a SDT that are outlined in Guidelines 2006, subsection 2.8 ( 1 ).
In raising this issue and quoting extensively from the submission outlining this family’s plight, I wanted to thank the government for making some changes to this legislation that will ease one very small part of the burden for carers who are trying to make arrangements for the future care of their children. But I also ask the government to continue to make these changes—to continue to understand that these changes are sometimes the most important thing that a carer who is an ageing parent can hope for when they care for a disabled ageing son or daughter.
The pure fact of special disability trusts being established, I thought, could be the beginning of monumental change in the future. As I said, when they were established, I saw their limitations; I was not advocating that they were the best thing that had ever happened to families struggling through such a crisis in their lives, but I did feel proud that we had made movement on it and that people were being recognised for the pain they have suffered and for their endurance. They have been asked to accept these things without receiving true and proper recognition. When I speak on the carers bill, hopefully later this week, I will quote extensively from a book that has been released, which I have been fortunate to receive a copy of, detailing the feelings and experiences, the fun and the pain of dealing with someone with a severe disability. I am looking forward to making that speech.
But in this speech I want to appeal to the minister: please, this is a good movement, but let us look at capital gains tax; it should not apply. You should be able to place a family home into a disability trust. You should be able to secure and ring-fence that home. That is what I thought was the intention of the special disability trusts. I do not know how I missed the fact that it would attract capital gains tax and that this would be a major impediment for people wanting to take this up.
If you could ring-fence and put your home or a future home for your child in the trust and earn income from it and leave that in the trust and not have tax implications or capital gains implications for it, imagine how much relief you would have in actually being able to provide for the future care of your child should something happen to you and should you not be the one who is able to provide that care. One of the carers in my region is 93 years old, and he has been caring for 70 years full time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There seems to be no real answer to how we could structure an appropriate vehicle to enable families to adequately provide for the future of their child.
In speaking to this bill, I want to say to the government: thank you for making a small change. We appreciate it. The people of Australia who have disabled children and who want to enter into a special disability trust thank you as well. But I do ask you not to say: ‘Well, we’ve done something there and that is all we need to do.’ It is not all we need to do. Regardless of who is in government and who runs this country, we have so much to do—and it begins with removing things like capital gains tax and implementing things like a national insurance scheme that people can pay into in order to care for their children.
I will continue to raise this before I leave this parliament. It has been one of the things that I have advocated most for and railed against in this parliament. I feel that the recognition of carers with disabled children is still far from top of mind in any government that I have witnessed since being in this place. I would like to see it far more top of mind and I would like to see more effort put into trying to resolve the issues of carers of disabled children and particularly those carers with ageing disabled children. I thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I rise to speak briefly on the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 GST Administration Measures No. 3) Bill 2010 and I begin by providing a brief outline of this bill. The bill provides three schedules which amend the GST legislation. Schedule 1 amends the GST law to provide that the transport of goods by subcontractors within Australia that forms part of the international transport of those goods by another entity from or to Australia is taxable unless the supply of transport is made to a nonresident that is not in Australia.
Schedule 2 amends the GST law to ensure telecommunications supplies under global roaming arrangements provided to subscribers of nonresident telecommunications suppliers while roaming in Australia remain not subject to GST. The global roaming telecommunications supplies covered by the amendment are mobile telephone global roaming and mobile internet roaming. The amendment makes GST-free the following supplies of global roaming services: the supply made by an Australian resident telecommunications supplier to a nonresident telecommunications supplier of use of its network in Australia and provided to subscribers of the nonresident telecommunications supplier when visiting Australia and the supply by the nonresident telecommunications supplier of global roaming facilities made to its subscribers visiting Australia.
Schedule 3 amends the GST law to ensure that the appropriate amount of goods and services tax is collected and the appropriate amount of input tax credits claimed in situations where there are payments—often referred to as third-party payments—between parties in a supply chain which indirectly alter the price paid or received by the parties for the things supplied but where certain parties in the supply chain are members of the same GST group, GST religious group or GST joint venture. The amendments correct an unintended consequence of recent changes to the GST legislation which created an adjustment to apply in situations where third-party payments are made.
Let me briefly explain each of the schedules. Schedule 1 will reduce GST compliance costs and provide greater certainty for the domestic transport industry by streamlining the application of the GST law to this industry. The changes to the GST treatment of cross-border transport suppliers have been sought by industry and I am sure will be welcome. The changes will reduce nonresident involvement in the Australian GST system, make the GST law consistent for postal and nonpostal goods, and assist subcontracted transport suppliers with tax compliance. This measure is consistent with government initiatives to reduce tax compliance costs particularly for small and medium businesses.
Schedule 2 talks about relief for telecommunication suppliers for global roaming in Australia. Australia is a party to the Melbourne agreement. Article 6.1.3 of the Melbourne agreement provides that tax levied in accordance with the national law of a country on ‘collection charges for international telecommunication services’ can only be collected ‘in respect of international services billed to customers in that country’. This means that international telecommunication supplies made under arrangements for global roaming in Australia provided to subscribers of nonresident telecommunications suppliers’ customers while those subscribers are ‘roaming’ in Australia should not be subject to GST. I understand that up until 14 December 2005 these international telecommunication supplies were not considered to be taxable under the Australian GST law. However the Commissioner of Taxation then determined that these supplies were taxable. Therefore it is necessary to amend the GST law to ensure that the treatment of these supplies remains consistent with the Melbourne agreement.
The type of telecommunication supply provided to the user of a portable device under a global roaming arrangement is not limited by this amendment. Those supplies include transmission of voice, pictures and text messages, email and internet access. A charge that is for the content delivered to a portable device, as distinct from the transmission service to deliver that content, is not covered by this amendment.
Due to the convergence of telecommunication device capabilities in recent years, there are many portable devices which subscribers of non-resident telecommunication suppliers may use to access global roaming in Australia. These include mobile phones, smart phones, personal digital assistants, laptop computers and universal serial bus modems. Global roaming by Australian residents when travelling overseas is not subject to GST as it is not connected with Australia for the purposes of the GST.
Schedule 3 refers to adjustments for third-party payments. The amount of GST paid or input tax credits claimed in a previous tax period may need to be adjusted to ensure that the correct GST outcome is obtained when circumstances change. Adjustments may arise due to, among other things, changes in consideration such as a change in price due to a discount. The law was recently amended to allow a third-party payment adjustment to arise where there is a payment between parties in a supply chain which effectively alters the consideration paid for a thing but which would not have given rise to an adjustment because it would not, ordinarily, alter the consideration for the supply by the payer to its customer, or the consideration paid for the acquisition by the payee from its supplier.
This amendment ensures that an entitlement to a decreasing adjustment will still arise in situations where an entity supplying things to another entity for resale makes a monetary payment to a third party in the supply chain in connection with the third party’s acquisition of something and this payment effectively reduces the price the payer receives for the thing but where the payer and the other entity are members of the same GST group, GST religious group or GST joint venture. The amendment also ensures that an increasing adjustment arises for the recipient of a third-party payment where the payee is registered for GST and has acquired the thing for a creditable purpose but where the payee and the entity from which it acquires the thing are members of the same GST group, GST religious group or GST joint venture. The government has foreshadowed further amendments to the GST legislation to ensure that the appropriate GST outcome is also achieved in situations where the taxable status of a supply which is the subject of a third-party payment changes as it moves through the supply chain.
I make the observation that GST laws and tax laws generally often have unintended consequences as new services become available and as the way services are provided change. There are also unintended consequences as a result of globalisation and international service delivery as both schedules 1 and 2 highlight. As we all know, people are today travelling more often and in greater numbers. With travel comes the need for services, the purchase of goods and the use of communication services and equipment—and we see that on a daily basis around the world today. It does not matter where you are, you will inevitably see people with their iPhones, their normal phones or even laptops carrying on their work, even if they are on the other side of the world. Those services have to be provided by someone from the country from which they are departing originally and then perhaps through the use of other contractors along the way. The use of those services has clearly complicated the GST arrangements in respect of this matter. Not surprisingly, the intent is to try to make the whole process and the transaction much simpler with respect to the application of the GST.
This legislation will simplify Australia’s tax system with respect to the GST, particularly in those areas that I have just spoken about. But the measures are also consistent with other measures that the Rudd government has taken to simplify Australia’s tax systems for all Australians, and particularly for Australian businesses. In the recent budget handed down by the Treasurer, we have seen that there will be a reduction in the company tax rate—from 30 per cent to 28 per cent. That will support some three-quarters of a million businesses here in Australia. By way of making taxation laws much simpler in this country, there will be an asset write-off provision that will be made available to all small businesses in this country, whereby they will be able to write off up to $5,000 of their assets rather than the current $1,000—again, making life for them easier than it was in the past.
In the year 2012-13 we will see standard deductions of $500 for household taxpayers. Again, that will make their life much easier and save them money. I understand that some six million plus household taxpayers would normally use the services of an accountant in order to lodge their tax returns. That figure of $500 will go up to $1,000 in 2013-14. I understand that that will mean that some 8.9 million Australians will find lodging their tax returns much easier and it will save them money because they will not have to, in many cases, engage the use of a tax accountant. For those who do not normally engage the use of a tax accountant, it will simply make their life easier because, if they have a standard deduction of up to $1,000, they will not have to keep a record and track every expenditure they have along the way, as many of them are possibly doing right now.
But I guess the biggest beneficiary of streamlining our tax laws would be small business in this country. The GST measures that I alluded to in this bill would effectively be measures that would be imposed on small businesses—because, along the way, all of the beneficiaries of these measures are small business. I am pleased to see that this is another step in all of the changes made by the Rudd government since coming to office which have assisted small business.
We saw last year, as part of the government’s economic stimulus measures, the 50 per cent tax rebate for capital purchases that applied to small business. I know of many small businesses that took advantage of that. It helped them during a difficult time. We know that the majority of funds in the government’s stimulus packages firstly went to small business in one form or another and then clearly flowed through to the rest of the economy. Again, whether it was the Building the Education Revolution funding, the infrastructure funding or even the direct payments we made to families, who in turn spent those moneys, most of the money went into small businesses in one form or another and enabled them, through those very difficult times, to maintain the staff they had, maintain employment in this country and maintain the viability of their operations. In earlier times, we also put an incredible amount of funding into establishing business enterprise centres around the country, again clearly with an intent of supporting small businesses and providing advice to them. I certainly welcome the money that was put into my own region, both at the Tea Tree Gully Business Enterprise Centre and the Salisbury Business and Export Centre, to assist those two centres with the business advice that they provide to the local community. As I said at the outset, these measures are about simplifying the tax system for Australians, and I have absolutely no doubt that they will be welcomed by individuals and by businesses alike. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.
I thank those members who participated in the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 GST Administration Measures No. 3) Bill 2010. The amendments in schedule 1, dealing with the GST and cross-border transport provisions, will ensure that the transport of goods by transport subcontractors within Australia that forms part of the international transport of those goods by another entity to or from Australia is GST free in specific circumstances. The amendments will also provide GST-free treatment for loading, handling and other services in certain circumstances that facilitate the international transport of goods. This measure will improve certainty and clarify the application of the GST law for businesses involved in the domestic transport of exported and imported goods.
The amendments contained in schedule 2 of the bill will ensure that global roaming by visitors to Australia remains GST free, consistent with Australia’s treaty obligations under the International Telecommunications Regulations—the so-called Melbourne agreement. The amendments exempt from GST supplies of global-roaming services provided to subscribers of non-resident telecommunications suppliers while the subscribers are visiting Australia. This includes both the use of an Australian telecommunications supplier’s network by a non-resident telecommunications supplier and the supply of global-roaming facilities by the non-resident telecommunications supplier to its subscribers.
The amendments contained in schedule 3 of the bill will ensure that the underlying policy objective of the recently enacted measure provided for GST adjustments for third-party payments is met in situations in which the relevant parties in the supply chain are members of the same GST group, GST religious group or GST joint venture. The underlying policy objective is that the appropriate amount of GST is collected and that the appropriate amount of input tax credits are claimed in situations where there are payments between parties in a supply chain which indirectly alter the price received or paid by the parties for the things supplied. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mrs Gash:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Prudential Refinements and Other Measures) Bill 2010. This legislation is supported by the opposition. The exposure draft consultation process allowed Treasury to address small technical concerns, and the legislation is now broadly supported by stakeholders in the financial services sector. The bill amends a number of acts to improve Australia’s prudential framework by introducing a number of small measures that will improve the ability of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to manage Australia’s financial institutions during a crisis.
As the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law mentioned in his second reading speech, the bill contains five main areas of amendments. Firstly, the legislation will strengthen APRA’s powers to prevent prudential concerns from arising. This will be undertaken by an expansion of APRA’s preventative and correctional powers. For instance, APRA will be able to set criteria for granting authorisation to carry on business as an authorised deposit-taking institution, insurer or authorised non-operating holding company of an ADI or insurer. APRA will revoke an authorisation if the institution fails to meet these criteria. APRA may also set prudential standards in respect of corporate groups or parts of corporate groups under the Insurance Act and may set standards excluding assets from being ‘assets in Australia’ for the purposes of the Insurance Act. Importantly, APRA’s ability to give directions are expanded, clarifying that APRA is able to issue directions relating to foreign ADIs and making it an offence for an insurance company to fail to comply with a direction. These measures will allow APRA to react quicker to changes in the market by setting criteria under which prudentially regulated institutions operate and enhancing the ability of APRA to give directions to those institutions.
Secondly, the bill will amend the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 to allow more flexibility of the financial data collection and publishing regime of APRA. The data collection powers of APRA are important to the financial services sector because they allow standardised comparisons of prudentially regulated institutions, and published data encourages competition by furthering information availability in the market. APRA will be able to collect data to assist the minister formulate financial policy or to assist another financial sector agency perform its functions or exercise its powers. The bill clarifies that APRA will be able to collect data relating to the Financial Claims Scheme and will ensure that confidential information in reporting standards is prevented from being published where publication is likely to detrimentally affect the stability of the financial system or financial institutions.
Thirdly, the legislation amends the financial sector levies framework, which will improve the methodologies governing the determination of levies. The levy paid by a new entity will be based on that entity’s asset value on the day it became a superannuation entity and not on historic values. The bill also allows APRA the flexibility to impose a levy using an alternative valuation basis where the asset value is an inappropriate determination. Fourthly, the bill repeals five redundant acts, which relate to the validation of past financial sector levy determinations, which are made redundant by this bill.
Finally, the bill amends the Financial Claims Scheme to improve the scheme’s operation and to expand APRA’s administration of the scheme. APRA will be able to determine the rate of interest that applies to protected accounts for the purposes of determining entitlements under the Financial Claims Scheme, which is when APRA considers that the rate of interest is not certain. The bill also clarifies the operation of the Financial Claims Scheme in relation to pooled trust accounts and states that APRA is able to require a liquidator to assist in paying account holders their entitlements under the Financial Claims Scheme. The measures improve the operation of the Financial Claim Scheme, which was established by the government in October 2008, for the purposes of protecting depositors in ADIs from loss on their deposit and to give them prompt access to their deposits if their ADI becomes insolvent.
These measures have taken some time to be legislated. As I have already mentioned, Treasury went through a consultation process with its exposure draft. The amendments to financial sector levies also followed a review by Treasury in 2009, which the government cherry-picked to implement the amendments contained in this bill with regard to reforms in the financial sector levies. It is a shame that the Labor government did not take this level of consultation into its implementation of the Financial Services Scheme in the first place. The scheme implemented the government’s bank deposit guarantee in October 2008 when the financial crisis was starting to hit. A guarantee on deposits had bipartisan support but the government chose not to consult with the coalition on the details and implemented an initially bungled scheme, which hurt Australia’s financial services market.
The bill being considered today allows APRA to deliver a more direct response to turmoil in global and Australian financial markets. It is appropriate that intervention powers be taken out of the hands of the Rudd Labor government and given to market experts at APRA because the government caused chaos in the market through its bungled bank guarantee scheme. We even see the government continue to destroy financial markets through its great big tax on mining, which is reducing the value of resources stock as we speak. The Treasurer even admitted that the great big new tax would hit financial markets as a means of justifying Labor’s $38 million misinformation campaign about the tax.
The Financial Services Scheme as originally designed by the government did not have a cap on balances that could be guaranteed under that deposit scheme. Labor ignored the advice of the RBA and of the coalition to limit that amount. The unlimited guarantee caused a rush on mortgage trust funds because investors started moving their money away from what they perceived to be risky trust based investments and placed them into guaranteed risk-free deposit accounts. Trust funds were forced to freeze redemptions on account balances as the rush rapidly depreciated the value of funds, much of which was tied up in property investment. At the recent round of estimates hearings, ASIC detailed that 63 schemes were frozen and were holding around $70 billion of investments.
In February, $25 billion of these investments were still frozen. This is part of the Rudd Labor government’s impact on the markets—$25 billion still remaining frozen in mortgage trusts and a great big new tax on mining that is hurting financial markets by the government’s own admission. Scott Murdoch commented in the Australian in December 2008 that:
… instead of being a stabilising force for the domestic financial system, the Government’s banking guarantee is proving more damaging than beneficial. The consequences of the policy’s haphazard formation are now emerging, fracturing financial markets more than most experts and economists thought possible.
This minister knows all about misjudging the market through the government’s bungled Fuelwatch and GROCERYchoice debacles, which displayed no understanding of the market and were simply a waste of money. In contrast the Financial Claims Scheme was a good measure in theory. It was broadly supported by the coalition. But the government should have listened to the coalition and to the Reserve Bank on the actual design of its scheme, just like the government should be listening to industry with regard to the resources super profits tax. Instead we are seeing the government attack the mining sector, which is raising legitimate concerns about this tax. When this government thinks it is right, it simply refuses to listen to anyone.
The government’s other regulator, ASIC, highlighted last week the double standard in this debate with regard to its impact upon financial markets. Last Wednesday, ASIC’s acting chairman Belinda Gibson warned that mining companies:
… have to work out whether they have enough information to form a view on the impact of this tax, which is not yet written, to say to the market categorically that that is the impact.
What a rather interesting statement to have to form a view on the impact of the tax, which is not yet written! Absolutely astounding, Mr Deputy Speaker Washer!
So, on this debate we have the situation where the government regulators can hold mining companies to account over statements made regarding the tax but the Rudd government escapes similar responsibilities. We have the Rudd government out in the market claiming that mining companies only pay between 13 and 17 per cent tax when the actual tax rate is 41.1 per cent for coal companies. They were arguing time and time again that the headline figure was going to be a 40 per cent tax on profits under this great big new tax on mining yet the Treasurer now admits that the tax could be up to 57 per cent. The Prime Minister even said that any suggestion that the tax was hurting Australian financial markets was, ‘wrong, wrong, wrong’. Well, two days later we had the Treasurer justify the government’s great big waste of money on advertising on the basis that the tax was having an impact on financial markets. You cannot have it both ways.
If the manager of a company had made such reckless remarks to the market as this government has done recently, it would be guilty of breaching continuous disclosure obligations. Leading investment managers are starting to express their concerns about the tax. John Teale of the Australian Foundation Investment Company, the oldest investment company in Australia, commented recently that he has been in the market for over 50 years and has never seen people from overseas turn off Australia so quickly. ‘It’s very sad,’ he said.
The government simply does not know what it is doing in the market. It introduces legislation such as this, which provides market integrity and regulation through APRA, and then ignores these principals in its reform agenda—if you could call it ‘reform’; perhaps we should call it a ‘change’ agenda rather than a ‘reform’ agenda.
This is one of the reasons why the coalition supports this bill. It allows APRA more flexibility to address market concerns in the financial services market and prevents the likelihood that a Labor government will step in and distort market functions. The explanatory memorandum to the bill says:
In performing and exercising its functions and powers, APRA is required to balance the objectives of financial safety and efficiency, competition, contestability and competitive neutrality and, in balancing those objectives, is to promote financial system stability in Australia.
This is a reasonable principle to take forwards in financial services policy. Unfortunately, this government does not hold this principle in its own actions, and we are all paying the price.
The coalition supports this bill. We support light-touch amendments to Australia’s financial regulation. This bill improves Australia’s prudential framework by providing some light-touch measures allowing APRA to be more responsive to market fluctuations in financial services. I commend the bill to the House.
It is a pleasure to speak on the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Prudential Refinements and Other Measures) Bill 2010, and it is always a pleasure to follow the member for Cowper and to listen to his contributions and to hear what he has to say, in representing the opposition in this place, about the very good reform agenda program that we have—hearing him admit that we do have a reform agenda and that we are getting on with the business and the job of reforming many parts of the financial services sector which the former government failed to do for 12 very long years. These are matters and issues which the opposition could have dealt with. These are pressing matters and they are being supported by the opposition—and they should be supported by the opposition—but they should be supported in the light of the fact that they could not bring themselves in those 12 very long years to make these changes and reforms themselves.
Some of these issues are more complex than others; they involve some extensive consultation with the sector and an extensive review of a number of bills. This bill in particular is quite involved and deals specifically with prudential regulation and making certain that there are some refinements and some other measures in the legislation which assist industry. This particular bill continues the legislative amendments that were made by the government to improve the efficiency and operation of a range of financial sector legislation. The bill itself contains amendments to 17 different acts and repeals five redundant acts. In a previous contribution a member of the opposition was talking about more regulation and more burden when in fact this government is removing or repealing, wherever it can, redundant acts and getting rid of regulation where it is not necessary. More important than having a debate over ‘more’ or ‘less’, the debate in this place ought to be about ‘appropriate’. That is what this place ought to be about—appropriate regulation, not more or less regulation. That is what this particular amendment bill is about.
The bill covers five particular key areas of reform. The first is the amendment of the prudential regime by strengthening APRA’s powers to prevent potential concerns arising and to address them as they do arise. Secondly, it amends the financial claims scheme to facilitate APRA’s administration of the scheme and improve the scheme’s operation. It also amends the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 to promote the harmonisation and flexibility of the data collection and publishing regime and APRA’s role as a central repository for the collection of financial data. It also amends the financial sector levies framework to improve the methodologies governing the determination of levies. Finally, the amendment bill repeals—very importantly—five redundant acts as part of the government’s commitment to continuously cleaning up red tape. We spoke in this place a little earlier today and had an amendment about cutting red tape for companies limited by guarantee. That is more good work in the financial services sector in terms of reform and ensuring any unnecessary compliance, red tape and other cost barriers to business are removed.
These amendments are largely the result of a review of the prudential regulatory framework by APRA and also by the Treasury. Both of these organisations have been working very closely to bring about an extensive consistent reform agenda in line with the government’s policies, and they ought to be applauded for their work. These amendments are consistent with developments happening overseas in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States. We have sought to review and strengthen our financial regulatory frameworks and make reference to those in other countries with economies similar to our own economy. At this point it is important to note that both the UK and the US and others are turning to Australia to look at our regulatory framework, particularly looking at our twin peaks model between ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, as a regulator and APRA as the prudential regulator. That speaks volumes about the sound regulatory framework that we have in this country. The amendments and the changes and the strengthening that we are putting in place are consistent with what is happening in other jurisdictions around the world.
Schedule 1 of the amendment is in relation to the Banking Act 1959 and deals specifically with a range of changes. Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill are aimed at ensuring the quality of the financial institution system for identifying, measuring and managing the various risks to reduce the risk of failure, and that where failure does occur the public still has confidence in the financial system that we have in this country—making sure that confidence is maintained while any failure is properly and appropriately managed. This bill amends the Banking Act 1959 and a number of other acts to ensure there is consistency in the prudential laws and the approach that we take across the board.
There are also significant changes to the Insurance Act 1973. Again these amendments are largely a result of an extensive review of the prudential regulatory framework by APRA and Treasury. The review identified that amendments were necessary to strengthen APRA’s ability to effectively fulfil its mandate. This is consistent with what is happening in other similar jurisdictions, notably in the United Kingdom and the United States. These amendments are in schedules 1 to 3 of the bill.
The bill also amends the Life Insurance Act 1995. These amendments are also a result of the review of the prudential regulatory framework by APRA and Treasury. That review identified that amendments were necessary to strengthen APRA’s ability to effectively fulfil its mandate. As a result of that, we have these amendments before us today. This is consistent with the developments in the other jurisdictions that I mentioned before.
We are also amending a range of other acts so that there is consistency. We are ensuring that the prudential laws are appropriate and consistent across a range of areas. The amendments in schedule 4 of the bill are aimed at promoting the harmonisation and flexibility of the data collection and publishing regime and APRA’s role as the central repository for the collection of financial data, including enabling APRA to collect data to assist the minister in formulating financial policy. The amendments in schedule 4 also ensure that APRA has powers to address prudential concerns at a general or a life insurer via compulsory transfer of business. Lastly, the amendments in schedule 4 enhance the regime for the provision and protection of information under the prudential laws.
There are a range of other amendments. This is quite a significant amendment bill in that it does alter quite a number of acts. As I said at the outset, it amends 17 separate acts and repeals five redundant acts. Further to that, on 1 July 2008 the then Assistant Treasurer announced an examination of the methodologies governing the determination of financial sector levies. This was in response to industry views on the methodologies and the fact that the methodologies had not been considered for quite some time. That was part of the consultation process that took place between industry, parts of the sector, Treasury and APRA as the review was being carried out.
The review of the levies methodologies was undertaken by Treasury and APRA together. As a result of that work the team recommended legislative changes to the Assistant Treasurer. Out of that review the drafting error in the Financial Institutions Supervisory Levies Collection Act will be corrected. Also the levy date for new starters under the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Act 1998 will be amended so as to bring it into line with the other imposition acts. The bill will also amend the imposition acts to provide more flexibility by enabling a valuation basis other than assets to be used on a case-by-case basis in the annual determinations.
It is necessary that these amendments be passed by 1 July 2010 so that the collection of levies based on the recommendations can commence properly in the 2010-11 financial year. These are sound amendments. They are supported by both sides of the House. While I have other comments to make on this, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On indulgence: it is with profound sadness that I inform the House that a helicopter carrying coalition forces went down in Kandahar province in Afghanistan today. There were 10 Australian servicemen on board. It is my sad responsibility to inform the House that three Australian commandos from the Special Operations Task Group have been killed and seven other Australian servicemen are wounded, two of them very seriously.
This is a tragic day for Australia and for the Australian Defence Force. It is a day of the deepest sorrow for the friends and families of those who have lost their loved ones in this tragedy. I express to all of them the deepest condolences of the Australian government and the Australian people. Our thoughts are also with those who have been wounded. I want them and their families to know that they will receive the best possible medical care.
This tragedy brings to 16 those Australians who have lost their lives serving our country in Afghanistan. This is a very heavy price to pay, particularly for the families of those brave Australians who have lost their lives.
We know our mission in Afghanistan is hard, but this mission is critical for our common security. We work alongside our allies from the United States and from other NATO countries to avoid Afghanistan once again becoming a breeding ground for terrorists, who can then strike at innocent Australians both at home and abroad.
It is our nation’s highest calling to wear the uniform of Australia. Those who wear it do outstanding work for Australia, and they do that outstanding work in the most difficult, demanding and dangerous of environments. Today, we recall their service as we mourn the loss of some of Australia’s finest. The commitment, the dedication and the sacrifice of those soldiers will not be forgotten. It will never be forgotten. All Australians owe them a debt of gratitude for their service and for their sacrifice. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the families and friends of those who have fallen. We mourn them, and we pay tribute to them for having paid the ultimate sacrifice for our nation.
On indulgence, I rise at this very solemn time to support the words of the Prime Minister. A fortnight ago, two sappers were killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan and there has now been another incident, this time even more serious, with three dead and others with very serious injuries. These are exceedingly grim reminders of the dangers our armed forces face and of the high price that members of our armed forces can be called upon to pay in the service of our country.
Our soldiers are men of great character. There is no evidence that any of them are flinching from their duty, despite the terrible losses that have been experienced in Afghanistan. Knowing that their lives are on the line is a test of character that our troops regularly face and having troops in harm’s way in the field is a test of character for our country too. It is a test of character that our troops invariably pass. It is a test of character that I hope the rest of us will pass too.
Obviously, the families, the fellow soldiers and the friends of those killed, and injured and wounded, in action will be devastated. All Australians will share their grief and the hearts of all Australians will go out to them. There is no greater sacrifice that a soldier can make than to give his or her life in the service of our country. I commend the work that the Australian Defence Force is doing in Afghanistan. It is vital to ensuring that that country does not again become a safe haven for terrorists. It is a task vital for the security of all Australians. I hope that the knowledge that these soldiers have died serving their country and upholding its values will be of some comfort and consolation to their families and loved ones in this very sad time.
To signify the House’s support for the comments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, I invite members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the House.
Debate resumed.
I will not hold up the House too much longer. Suffice to say that the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Prudential Refinements and Other Measures) Bill 2010 is a good bill. It is an amendment bill that deals with a whole range of other bills and amendments. It is part of the government’s broader reform agenda in financial services and part of a whole series of reforms that we have made to ensure the long-term sustainability of our financial system in this country, that it is world-class, that it is best practice and that it is the envy of the rest of the world. In the same way that the financial services system in this country guided us—and certainly supported us—through the global financial crisis, the improvements that needed to be made to ensure good fiscal policy and monetary policy in the future are made by these amendments. On that basis, I congratulate the minister for his good work in this area and also the Treasury and the prudential regulator, APRA, for their work and the process they undertook. I also commend the bills to the House.
I would like to thank all members who participated in this debate. The Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Prudential Refinements and Other Measures) Bill 2010 continues the legislative amendments made by the government to improve the efficiency and operation of a range of financial sector legislation. The bill is largely the result of a review of the prudential regulatory framework by APRA and Treasury. This review identified amendments necessary to strengthen APRA’s ability to effectively fulfil its mandate. This is consistent with developments overseas, where countries such as the UK and the US have sought to review and strengthen their financial regulatory arrangements.
The bill enhances the prudential regime by strengthening APRA’s powers to prevent prudential concerns arising and to deal with such concerns should they arise. Such powers are essential to maintaining confidence and stability in the financial sector. The powers are enhanced by addressing potential gaps and uncertainty in the present legislation which may affect APRA’s ability to fulfil its mandate. The bill also clarifies the operation of the Financial Claims Scheme provided for in the banking and insurance acts. It is important that the scheme’s operation is clear and consistent and that it is able to be effectively administered by APRA.
In addition, the bill amends the financial sector data collection regime. The amendments promote the flexibility of the regime and APRA’s role as a national statistical agency for the financial sector. In particular, the amendments ensure that the government and financial sector agencies can access the data they require to perform their functions.
Finally, the bill improves the financial sector levies regime in two respects: first, it improves the methodologies governing the determination of financial sector levies in response to the recommendations of the 2009 report of the review of financial sector levies and, second, it repeals five redundant levies’ related acts as part of the government’s ongoing commitment to reducing red tape.
An exposure draft of the bill was released for public consultation on 19 January this year. In response, a number of submissions relating to the bill were received. The majority of these submissions either supported or had no major concerns with the bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who made a submission in relation to the bill. Submissions were made by a variety of industry bodies and other interested parties, and the government values all of these contributions. As required by the Corporations Agreement 2002, the Ministerial Council for Corporations was also consulted and has approved the amendments in the bill to the national corporate regulation regime.
The bill implements important reforms to Australia’s financial sector legislative framework. In particular it ensures that APRA has the powers it needs to fulfil its mandate. This mandate includes being the prudential regulator administrator of the Financial Claims Scheme and the national statistical agency for the financial sector. It is an important mandate which promotes the financial wellbeing of all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 17 March, on motion by Mr Brendan O’Connor:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that there was an election on Norfolk Island a few months ago, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the newly elected members of the 13th Legislative Assembly, particularly the newly elected Chief Minister, Mr David Buffett, whom I met with recently in Canberra.
It is no exaggeration to say that Norfolk Island is a unique and integral part of Australia. In addition to being one of Australia’s most geographically isolated communities, it is also one of Australia’s oldest territories, having been settled in conjunction with Australia’s founding settlement at Sydney in New South Wales. At various times in its history the island formed part of the colonies of Van Diemen’s Land, which is now Tasmania, and New South Wales. Norfolk Island’s convict history and heritage and the traditions of its residents remain an important part of Australia’s national heritage and culture. Mr Christian-Bailey, a former member of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, described the island culture in an article published in 2006, when he said:
The Norfolk Island Community has an incredibly proud history. We were arguably the first people in the Commonwealth to have a free and compulsory vote for everyone over 18, including women. This was enshrined in our own laws as early as 1838. We have always been proud of ourself-reliance, our resourcefulness and of our strong community spirit. We have our own language, which we still love to use with one another, and our cultural traditions are strong and distinct from those of Australia.
Going back further, in 1839 Joseph Campbell wrote an account entitled Norfolk Island and its inhabitants. Campbell describes the small and exceptionally beautiful place, inhabited by 400 people—‘about 250 who reside in the town, the rest in the small farms in various parts of the island’. There were excellent roads built by convicts, first-rate soils, thousands of lemon and guava trees, native flowers and, of course, the Norfolk Island pines. In those days there were a chief magistrate and jury running the island. Islanders had no taxes to pay but gave one week’s labour out of every seven months to any public work that needed to be done. Before a person could settle on Norfolk, they needed to obtain the votes of two-thirds of everyone over 20 who could read and write, and the inhabitants were described as ‘very jealous of admitting people as members of their community’. Times have changed, and I now understand that six months residency is required before you can move to Norfolk Island permanently, although the island comes more broadly under the Australian Citizenship Act.
Visitors to Norfolk, and indeed the islanders themselves, often describe the island as one of the most beautiful and unspoilt places on earth. Sadly, I have not had the opportunity to visit the island, although I would like to do so in the near future. And when I am there I will certainly be keen to undertake discussions and consultations with the Norfolk Island legislators, its leadership and also as many of the community groups as possible. It is fair to say that the members of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, the committee secretariat and, most importantly, the people on the island who have given their time to the consultation process deserve a timely response, and we will endeavour to see an appropriate outcome from this legislation for the people of Norfolk Island.
Successive Australian governments have acknowledged the importance of Norfolk Island to Australia’s national heritage, and the value of the traditions and culture of the Pitcairn descendants is a part of multicultural Australia. However, while the Norfolk Island community is unique in many ways, regardless of where you live in Australia many of the issues that confront Norfolk Island are similar to what occurs in regional towns of a similar size. You have a community that is physically removed from Australia and from the centre of power in Australia.
As a Western Australian, I certainly understand and have some empathy for how people might feel about being governed from distant Canberra and I am sympathetic to some of the concerns that the people of Norfolk Island have had in relation to this bill. As a former Western Australian senator, Ian Campbell, said when he was the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads:
… it is very important that people in a place like Norfolk Island who do not necessarily agree with that sort of received wisdom feel that they have got the right to pursue a different way of doing things.
In considering the need for electoral reform, it is important to bear in mind that the Australian parliament has the overarching responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, wherever they may live in the federation. Indeed, we have an obligation to ensure that the laws in all Australian jurisdictions are consistent with national obligations and also our obligations under international law.
As noted about Norfolk Island in a previous Bills Digest, the constitutional status and history of the island is complex and unusual. After the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, Norfolk Island was placed under the authority of the new Commonwealth government to be administered as an external territory. During the Second World War, the island became a key airbase and refuelling depot between Australia and New Zealand, and New Zealand and the Solomon Islands. Since Norfolk Island fell within New Zealand’s area of responsibility, it was garrisoned by a New Zealand Army unit, known as N Force, at a large army camp which had the capacity to house up to 1,500 men. N Force relieved a company of the Second Australian Imperial Force. The island proved too remote to come under attack during the war and N Force left the island in February 1944. In the late 1960s a mini-invasion by British expats followed after the island was featured on a BBC television documentary presented by Alan Whicker. Fifty families decided to emigrate from the United Kingdom to Norfolk Island as a result of that program. In 1979 Norfolk was granted limited self-government by Australia, under which the island elects a government that runs most of the island’s affairs. As such, residents of Norfolk Island are not represented in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, making them the only group of residents of an Australian state or territory not directly represented here.
The main purpose of the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 is to amend the Norfolk Island Act 1979 to implement major changes to the governance, electoral and financial mechanisms for Norfolk Island. The bill, in schedules 2 and 3, also revises a vesting section of the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955. The bill makes very significant changes to the governance, electoral and financial mechanisms for Norfolk Island. Specifically these changes would:
Schedules 2 and 3 amend the Christmas Island Act and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act. These amendments provide a vesting mechanism for powers and functions under Western Australian laws as they apply to those territories—powers and functions under Western Australian officers and authorities where an agreement with the Australian government exists for those officers and authorities to act in the territories.
Although the coalition support this bill in principle, as, I might say, does the administration of Norfolk Island in the main, we have some reservations regarding some aspects of it. In particular, we are concerned about the FOI and privacy provisions within the bill. We are concerned about the increased bureaucratic processes that might place an unreasonable burden on Norfolk Island’s public service. We therefore reserve the right to move amendments in the Senate as they may be necessary to maintain flexibility in determining what is an appropriate level of added bureaucracy for the island.
I would like to acknowledge some of the concerns of the Norfolk Island government that have been put to me directly and that were also expressed to the joint standing committee when it inquired into this bill. The administration has six main concerns which I will detail briefly. These concerns are legitimate and it is important that this parliament acknowledges them with due respect and takes them into account within its decision-making process.
The first of these concerns is what it has expressed to me as an ‘erosion of the ability to self-govern’. Anyone familiar with Norfolk Island will understand that island self-government is jealously—and rightly—guarded by its residents and of course by the Norfolk Island government. That government argues that the ability to manage schedule 2 matters is fundamental to self-government. According to the Norfolk Island government, schedule 2 matters affect the internal machinery of its government. Matters under schedule 2 include, but are not limited to, roads, street lighting, electricity supply, quarrying, tourism, firearms, housing, community and cultural affairs as well as matters incidental to or consequential on the examination of executive authority. A letter from the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island, Mr Buffett, noted that the ‘addition of a veto power for matters pertaining to schedule 2 undermines the very principle that underlines the democratic rights of Norfolk Islander voters to govern themselves in relation to matters that are specific to Norfolk Island’.
The second concern that the Norfolk Island government has raised is the ‘ability to remove the Legislative Assembly’. The Norfolk Island government argues that to provide fair and equitable government the ability to dissolve the Legislative Assembly should only be available to the Governor-General, who would be able, on advice from the Administrator, to appoint a caretaker government, as is the convention in Australia.
The third concern raised was the issue of elections. The Norfolk Island government agrees with the recommendation of the joint standing committee that this part of the bill be removed and further discussion and consultation be entered into.
Their fourth concern pertains to financial arrangements. The Norfolk Island government largely does not agree with the financial proposals in the bill. It has expressed the view that the proposals will result in direct interference with the operation of the Norfolk government, and it is particularly concerned with the obligations on employees of the Norfolk Island government to provide directly information not necessarily agreed to or vetted by the Norfolk government. It has indicated that this provides for the Commonwealth government to bypass the elected representatives and treat employees of the Norfolk government as if they were employees of the Commonwealth government.
The fifth issue is the accountability process. The Norfolk Island government has reservations about the method of implementation proposed by the bill for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and for privacy and freedom of information provisions. The Norfolk government has expressed its desire to implement what it has termed the ombudsman model for these provisions, which would allow it to enshrine matters in their own legislation in consultation with the Commonwealth.
The sixth and final concern relates to deputies. The Norfolk Island government has some concerns with the ability under the proposed bill for the responsible minister to appoint numerous deputies to the Administrator. The Chief Minister has said:
It has been identified that these deputies would only be utilised in times of emergency, i.e. when the Administrator and the Official Secretary (who normally holds a dormant Deputy commission) were not available. If this is in fact the case the Norfolk Island Government would like this reflected in the Bill to provide clarification of the deputies’ role.
The opposition acknowledge Norfolk Island’s traditions and culture as well as the concern felt by some islanders that these reforms may threaten the current governance situation on Norfolk Island, but we also acknowledge that both the Norfolk government and the Islanders recognise, at least in principle, that there is a need for reform. I have no doubt that the people of the island and the people in their Legislative Assembly are raising these concerns in good faith.
In summary, the opposition would like to see a pragmatic approach taken to this bill—however, this approach must always be in the best interests of the Norfolk Islanders themselves. We support the bill in principle, but we do reserve the right in the Senate to move amendments that address some of the unique and special culture and history of Norfolk Island. We cannot necessarily subject what is an island of 1,500 people to the full gamut of Australian democracy if they can find mechanisms that might be more suitable for a government of their size and for a government that administers what is a relatively small population. With those reservations, the opposition supports the bill and will look at it in a more detailed way during the Senate process.
The first recommendation of the landmark 2003 inquiry report by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories on the governance of Norfolk Island—entitled Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?is:
The continuation of the self government of Norfolk Island, as provided for under the Norfolk Island Act 1979 (Cth) … be conditional on the timely implementation of the specific external mechanisms of accountability and reforms to the political system recommended in this Report.
I make the point that the joint standing committee included just about the widest spectrum of political party allegiances possible in the Australian parliament at that time. It is precisely and carefully written, consistent itself with a variety of earlier and later reports. Moreover, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government at the time, the Hon. Wilson Tuckey, contributed a lengthy statement about the nature of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the Norfolk Island government, which is included in the report itself.
The report was prepared under the chairmanship of Senator Ross Lightfoot, supported in essence by the then minister, Wilson Tuckey, and it asked for urgent action to improve the governance of Norfolk Island. If my friend the present Minister for Home Affairs and I as the minister immediately preceding him have been concerned during the course of the Rudd government to bring forward amendments to the Norfolk Island Act, which were seen to be well overdue in 2003, it will be passing difficult to plausibly accuse us of either radical or precipitate behaviour. I should mention that the contemporary joint standing committee—some of its longstanding and most committed members were there in 2003, including the Chair, Senator Kate Lundy; the honourable member for Canberra; and the honourable member for Hinkler, who is here in the chamber—has recommended support for the present bill, the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010, in another report brought down a month or so ago.
The history of Norfolk Island is singular. Polynesians lived there for a few years in the 14th and 15th centuries. Captain James Cook discovered the island uninhabited on his second voyage. It was seen by the British government as an auxiliary colony. Indeed, it was established as a convict settlement within six weeks of the settlement of Sydney Cove in January 1788. Abandoned between 1814 and 1825, it then entered another period as a notorious penal settlement, until that was in turn run down after 1847. At the time, it lay within the jurisdiction of the colony of Van Diemen’s Land, but in 1856 the British government relocated the descendants of the mutineers from HMS Bounty and their Tahitian companions from Pitcairn Island to Norfolk and placed it under the administration of the Governor of New South Wales. Thus it remained until it was accepted as a territory of the Commonwealth by an order in council in March 1914 pursuant to section 122 of the Constitution of Australia.
It needs to be borne in mind that Norfolk Island has a population of fewer than 2,000—less than a single ward in most local government councils in Australia. Nevertheless, the status of Norfolk Island is still sometimes contested by those who see it as a separate, culturally distinct dependency with a right to independence. That independence proposition has been argued in courts and asserted to the United Nations, but I cannot find any suggestion that that view has ever been entertained by the Australian government or the Australian legal system.
Indeed, I have found instead a consistent and general level of consensus in the many reports of the joint standing committee on territories over the last 30 years and in the comments of a long succession of territories ministers, both Labor and coalition. All agree that Norfolk Island is part of the Australian federation. All agree that its unique history and culture, together with its geographical position, require that it should be given a special status. Therefore, all agree that it is desirable to have some form of self-government and that it is better to modify the existing system than to withdraw self-government. However, all agree as well that the way of actually doing government has to be improved a lot.
It was my direct experience during discussions in 2008 and 2009 that the idea of Norfolk Island as a separate dependency is still alive, so I repeat the decisive commentary of the joint standing committee in 2003:
The status of the Island was considered in Newbery v The Queen. In that case, Justice Eggleston found the Norfolk Island Act 1957 (Cth) to be constitutionally valid, and that the history of, and historical documents relating to, Norfolk Island, showed that it became, in 1914, a Territory placed by the Crown under the authority of the Commonwealth within the meaning of the Section 122 of the Constitution.
Any remaining doubts about the status of the Island were removed by the High Court of Australia in 1976 in Berwick’s Case in which Justice Mason—with whom the other judges agreed—stated that the history of the Island made it “abundantly clear that Norfolk Island forms part of the Commonwealth of Australia”. The Hon Robert Ellicott, QC, widely respected on-Island as the architect of self government for Norfolk Island, concurred with this position in evidence before the Committee on 25 July 2003.
The Hon. Robert Ellicott is also respected by me personally. During my childhood and youth we lived in the same district, and he moved my admission as a solicitor to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. He is a man of enormous gift and integrity, and I know that he still maintains an interest in the welfare of Norfolk. He introduced the Norfolk Island Act 1979 following the detailed work conducted by the Royal Commission into Matters Relating to Norfolk Island by Justice Sir John Nimmo. Some of Nimmo’s recommendations were not followed, including those concerned with taxation, grant assistance arrangements and social security. Those matters are difficult. They have been discussed by ministers and the joint standing committee over the subsequent years. They are, I believe, of fundamental importance. They need to be addressed, and I think that some issues on the island will never be resolved until they are. However, there is no intention to address taxation or grant arrangements in this bill.
The 1979 act was introduced under the plenary power of section 122 of the Australian Constitution. The act replaced an advisory council with a nine-member local legislature with the power to make laws over a very wide range of responsibilities exercised in other parts of Australia by local, state and Commonwealth governments. The nominal head of government is an administrator who relies on the advice of Norfolk Island ministers when exercising powers and functions set out at length under schedule 2 of the act. On the other hand, powers set out in schedule 3 of the act are subject to Commonwealth veto. Schedule 3 includes matters of obvious national concern such as immigration, customs, fishing and social security.
The bill before the House today proposes detailed changes and additions to machinery-of-government provisions. Some seek to bring the government of Norfolk Island more into line with the idea of ministerial responsibility under the Westminster system—for instance, by prescribing a process for selecting and dismissing the chief minister and ministers, who are limited in number to three, and providing for a no-confidence motion process for a chief minister. The Administrator will be able to dismiss members of the Norfolk Legislative Assembly for serious or unlawful conduct, and the Governor-General will be able to dissolve the legislative assembly under a measure identical to that which exists in the Australian Capital Territory.
The Norfolk Island Act was drafted to enable the Commonwealth minister responsible to carry out the checks and balances necessary to ensure that Norfolk Island legislative proposals comply with Australian government policy objectives and Australia’s national obligations under international law. The right of the Australian government to intervene is therefore an existing part of the island’s system of governance. The assent processes established under the act are designed to protect the Australian government’s national interest in Norfolk Island. This is particularly important precisely because the Norfolk Island government has executive responsibility for a range of Commonwealth type powers such as immigration, customs, quarantine and so on.
The act clearly intends that schedule 3 and non-schedule bills be subject to Commonwealth scrutiny. However, as presently drafted, the act does not allow for Commonwealth scrutiny of schedule 2 matters. The present strict designation of matters in schedules 2 and 3 does not recognise the difficulty of making an absolute determination about which particular matters may affect the national interest or of attempting to foresee what issues will be of interest to the Commonwealth in the future. The inability of the Commonwealth to intervene on schedule 2 matters limits its ability to respond to a new and emerging national policy interest or objective. For example, a number of matters presently listed in schedule 2 could easily intersect with national policy objectives, including item 25, firearms control; item 87, national censorship objectives; item 48, telecommunications; item 93, bankruptcy and insolvency; and item 88, child, family and social welfare.
Since 1979, additional powers have been transferred to the Norfolk Island government’s authority under schedule 2 with the expectation that Norfolk Island would enact and administer appropriate legislation and that the legislation would be consistent with the national interest and Australia’s international legal obligations. Many of the powers transferred in 1989 and 1992 are either not supported by legislation or subject to inadequate legislation. For example, the Legal Profession Act 1993 is yet to be fully implemented, the Companies Act 1985 has not maintained parallel provisions with Australian corporate law, there is neither navigation legislation nor censorship legislation and so on. As presently drafted, the Commonwealth is also not able to introduce bills directly into the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly for consideration. Therefore, the Commonwealth’s ability to intervene on matters within schedule 2 of the act is at present limited to the passage of Commonwealth legislation under the overarching constitutional territories power.
This bill proposes to amend the Norfolk Island Act to extend the Commonwealth’s legislative oversight of Norfolk Island legislation by providing the responsible Commonwealth minister with the power to issue instructions on schedule 2 matters; expanding the options available to the Norfolk Island Administrator when he or she is presented with a proposed law by allowing him or her to refer bills on schedule 2 matters to the Governor-General where previously this option only existed for schedule 3 matters; extending the Governor-General’s existing legislative power to allow him or her to introduce a proposed law on any topic into the Norfolk Island legislative assembly; and providing the responsible Commonwealth minister with authority to introduce laws into the legislative assembly for the peace, order and good governance of the territory.
It is especially important to point out that the increased Commonwealth legislative oversight of Norfolk Island is advanced through provisions that are, in this case, permissive and not mandatory. These provisions will assist the Australian government to fulfil its obligations to the community of Norfolk from a national perspective. But these provisions do not restrict the Norfolk Island legislative assembly’s almost unlimited power to ‘make laws for the peace, order and good government of the territory’.
Schedule 1, part 2 of the bill proposes amendments to the Norfolk Island Act to provide for a minimum three-year term for the legislative assembly, with a maximum of four years. That will provide certainty about the legislative assembly’s term. The bill also proposes amendments to allow the Australian government to make regulations on the voting system to be used in elections.
There are other matters. It is an obvious fact that, since 1979, there have been quite massive changes in the way that government is held to account for its performance in every Australian jurisdiction and at every level, with the singular exception of Norfolk Island. A series of measures is therefore proposed in the bill before the House to increase public accountability and transparency. Not a few of them have been recommended by various inquiries for up to 20 years. You would have to say that the Commonwealth really bears far more responsibility than the Norfolk Island government for the failure to implement them. One understands that a government as small as the Norfolk Island government cannot have the resources to easily meet the rigorous requirements of modern administration in all respects; after all, much larger local governments on the mainland routinely rely on state governments to legislate much of the provision for the machinery of accountability. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable for any Australian jurisdiction to fail to meet even the most basic standards in this respect. Credibility depends on it.
Therefore, this bill proposes amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act which will confer a merits review jurisdiction on the AAT for decisions made under Norfolk Island legislation. These changes will be introduced in stages, in consultation with the Norfolk Island government. The bill proposes amendments to the Freedom of Information Act to apply the act to Norfolk Island in the same way that it applies to Commonwealth agencies. It provides for the assumption by the Commonwealth Ombudsman of the function of Norfolk Island Ombudsman under Norfolk Island legislation and it establishes the requirement that Norfolk Island public sector agencies adhere to information privacy principles in the same manner as Australian government agencies.
Reform of Norfolk Island financial management and reporting was specifically recommended in the 2008 report by the Senate Select Committee on State Government Financial Management. The Norfolk Island government and administration commenced financial reporting according to international financial reporting standards for the first time only in 2008-09. Prior to that, it had used only local accounting principles.
The bill before the House establishes a legislative financial framework in the Norfolk Island Act 1979 and provides for the details of this framework to be included in subordinate legislation. The details of the financial framework are being developed in consultation with a joint working group comprised of officers from the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Norfolk Island administration and government. The proposed financial framework will bring territory authorities into Norfolk Island’s consolidated financial statements, budgets and annual reports, providing a more complete picture of Norfolk Island’s financial position. The framework will also introduce a statutory requirement for all financial statements, annual reports, audit reports and budgets to be tabled in the Norfolk Island legislative assembly. The framework will set minimum budget requirements, including the production of qualitative and quantitative statements. It may include comprehensive budget financial statements based on external reporting standards, including forward projections. Subject to consultation with Norfolk Island through the working group, requirements are also likely to include compliance with Australian accounting standards, which would mean that Norfolk Island was preparing financial reports on a basis consistent with Australian local governments, state governments and the Commonwealth government. In other words, these are extremely important provisions.
Finally, there are some important acknowledgements. The staff at the Territories Division of the Attorney-General’s Department of Australia have worked persistently and sometimes under considerable difficulty over a long while to bring resolution to the issues that we are dealing with today. I personally wish to acknowledge the Norfolk Island government but especially former Chief Minister Andre Nobbs, with whom I was in very frequent contact as Minister for Home Affairs before June last year. Andre always sought constructive solutions. I wish to express my particular admiration for the steadfast work of the Administrator of Norfolk Island, Mr Owen Walsh, who is so well supported by his wife, Bianca, a Pitcairner. I believe the island has been most fortunate to have a person of his competence and dedication to help it through the difficult negotiations of recent years. There is no doubt that those negotiations have sometimes been difficult. On the other hand, there is no doubt that there has remained a great deal of goodwill within the Australian parliament, on both sides of this House, to bring about a resolution of long-outstanding matters so far as the governance of Norfolk is concerned. I have great pleasure in commending the bill to the House.
It is no secret that I am a great admirer of, and have a great deal of respect for, the people of Norfolk Island. By playing to some extent the role of devil’s advocate, I also take the view that a lot of the problems that have occurred on Norfolk Island with regard to governance have not all been the fault of the Norfolk Islanders and I think that we in Australia take a heavy share of that responsibility. I think that consultation could have been closer and perhaps we could have been more amenable to their views at earlier stages than now to have to come on with a bill of this magnitude and purpose.
It certainly is an area with a great and rich culture, a culture that by its association, I suppose in the first instance, with Captain Bligh and the mutiny on the Bounty is interwoven with Australian history—though the development of Pitcairn Island, where the mutineers went to live, had nothing to do with Australia at that time. The island was granted to the Pitcairners by Queen Victoria in the 1850s when Pitcairn Island became overcrowded, and a new and vibrant culture based on their earlier culture and their Tahitian culture developed on Norfolk Island.
As the shadow minister pointed out, they are people with their own language which they like to use at times. They have a way of doing things. They have cultural objectives and expectations and they guard those jealously. Some of those come to the edge of decision making and at times they will not always mesh exactly with Commonwealth expectations. You really have to ask yourself in those instances whether you want to approach this with a stick in one hand and a carrot in the other, or whether you will put both away and talk to these people as equals. My personal view is that Australia has over the years been too harsh in some matters, and I will outline that a little bit further in my address.
The Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 before us has many good features about it. No-one is denying that. No-one should ever deny, as the member for Macquarie just pointed out, that throughout all the Australian jurisdictions over the last 20 or 30 years there have needed to be shake-ups. This is not unique to Norfolk Island; this is something that has occurred in all the states where various levels of maladministration, or indeed corruption, have taken place—though I am not suggesting corruption on Norfolk Island. I think that we have all recognised the need for more accountability.
Also, there has been greater social development throughout the Commonwealth and, might I say, the Commonwealth of Nations, the OECD and the UN have adopted matters of respect. For example, we have looked to things like freedom of information, rights for women and all those sorts of things, and they have become enshrined in legislation throughout those groups of countries, and no less so in Australia.
I am not comfortable with schedule 2 concerning matters being subject to veto. If an island has self-government, I think you need to recognise that and give some genuine control over matters, for example, gun laws. If the Commonwealth feels so strongly about gun laws, well, why wouldn’t it ask the Norfolk Island people to remove that issue into a separate bill that parallels the Commonwealth law rather than using the blunt instrument of a veto?
It is said that we want to get uniform laws on pornography. I do not think that you would have any trouble on Norfolk Island getting uniform laws on pornography. I think that probably if you were to ask for this to be implemented in legislation, the Norfolk Islanders would be perhaps less accommodating than some Australians are to some of the filth we see in the newsagencies and sex shops of Australia. To suggest in schedule 2 that by omission the Norfolk Islanders are potentially more prone to that, I think, is a bit insulting. So my first criticism would be that schedule 2 should not be subject to veto and there should be a willingness on both sides to consult and where things are necessary to meld with Commonwealth initiatives, let us have complementary legislation rather than the blunt instrument of veto.
The removal from the Assembly is another matter that seems to occupy the minds of the current administration—and I might add at this point that with the election of the new government of Norfolk Island, I congratulate David Buffett. He is a longstanding member. I think he was the first Chief Minister, as I recall, in the early days when limited self-government was granted. I think he has an intention to have a closer relationship with Australia, but one based on respect, not on just being told all the time.
I think the Governor-General should have the right, as she does in the ACT, to dismiss the government. I agree that elections should be beyond reproach. I think the three years with a limit of four years is a sensible measure and that a vote of no confidence in the Chief Minister should be subject of an automatic action should it occur.
However, when it gets down to financial arrangements, one in particular—the Commonwealth financial officer—is referred to in the bill but the exact functions of that officer are not clearly outlined. If the purpose of that is to give the administration of Norfolk Island a greater gravitas in the compiling of its accounts and budgets, and you have to recognise that when you only have 2,000 or so people on the island there is not going to be a lot of scope for getting various forensic accountants and the like—that is, for plucking them out of the community—that is perhaps not a bad measure. That should be subject, however, to a definition of the role of this person and this person being a consultative and integral part of the administration rather than, if you like, a watchdog for the Commonwealth government. Were it the latter role, that would not be in the best spirit of cooperation.
Certainly Norfolk Island should provide budgets and reports. But what I do not agree with is that, without reference to the Norfolk Island minister, the head of a department can be required to report to the Commonwealth minister. Surely that is not in the best spirit of federal government or of the Westminster system. The channel should always be the appropriate Norfolk Island minister. I can understand the pain this might cause the Norfolk Islanders and the administration in particular. It could be seen in doing this that the assembly is being circumvented in making its officers report first and foremost to Commonwealth instrumentalities rather than to their own elected and appointed ministers and then through them to the Commonwealth ministers. I think that needs to be clarified.
As you are aware, the Norfolk Islanders have accepted the concept of the ombudsman. I think that is wise and commendable. That also goes for the role of the Auditor-General on the island. When it comes to things like the Freedom of Information Act and privacy principles, I think you should allow the Norfolk Islanders to adapt what they need for a community of 2,000. Would you go out to a place like Gunnedah in western New South Wales or Roma in western Queensland and say, ‘We’re going to apply all the principles of the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act as they are applied by the Commonwealth’? I think you have to give the Norfolk Island assembly the ability to texture those particular laws to the requirements of 2,000 people. Sure, on the mainland we have 22 million people. That is a totally different thing and you can understand why there should be some rigidity in the Commonwealth law. But, when you are applying it to 2,000 people, you do not want to make it so onerous and so heavy with paperwork that the people of the island lose faith or interest in the system.
Another matter I have some concern with is the appointment of deputies. We have an Administrator who virtually exercises under the Governor-General the powers of the state governor. Those powers are perhaps somewhat less, but essentially they are the powers of the governor. We have an official secretary on the island. I can understand why that official secretary should be the Deputy Administrator. But this bill allows for many more deputy administrators, and I think again that will start to water down the control of the island by the islanders. If you have Commonwealth appointed deputies it becomes a little bit like Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Gondoliers. You know: when everybody is somebody, nobody is anybody. You might have a system of succession where you could have the Administrator, the secretary as the first Deputy Administrator and perhaps another person. But to go beyond that I think could be quite ridiculous. Again, we are talking about 2,000 people. We need to treat them with respect, not with a lot of bureaucracy, paperwork and patronising control by the Commonwealth.
The Norfolk Island act of 1979 allowed the Governor-General through the Administrator to introduce into the assembly laws for peace, order and good government. I have no worry about that; that is for times of emergency. But this bill goes further, to allow nominated Commonwealth ministers to do that. Why would you want Commonwealth ministers introducing legislation into the Norfolk Island assembly? Sure, in an emergency situation the Governor-General’s authority through the Administrator can be exercised for peace, order and good government. But I would have thought that would have been sufficient. It should not be necessary that every Commonwealth minister that has a responsibility to Norfolk Island has the right to introduce bills into the assembly. Once you do that, again you are starting to water down the concept of self-government.
I said I would speak briefly on another matter. Yes, we are the Commonwealth; yes, this is the parliament and we are responsible to a large extent for all Commonwealth matters that have come under the 1901 act and constitutional amendments to that act by way of referendum and international treaties that this country enters into through the United Nations. That sovereignty is not questioned in any way. It is exercised differently in the states because the 1901 Constitution defines certain powers for those states. Subsequent bills for the Northern Territory and the ACT, perhaps not allowing for the same degree of flexibility, have allowed many of those laws. I think we should treat Norfolk Island, to the extent that we can, as the third territory of the Commonwealth. In doing that, there are not just rules and regulations but the Commonwealth authority, which we have seen exercised in bucketloads over recent months, of pouring Commonwealth moneys into all sorts of enterprises that were once the prerogative and responsibility of the states, not least of which is health. We have seen it also in roads. But when it comes to being applied to Norfolk Island we get this self-righteous standing on our digs and saying, ‘Oh no, it can’t be done on Norfolk, they don’t pay tax.’ Sure, they do not pay income tax. That is probably why they survive as well as they do. They do have a form of goods and services tax and one might argue that perhaps a levy could be imposed on that for entry into Medicare. I certainly would support that, although I am not sure all the islanders would.
Having said all that, the Norfolk Island Hospital, for example, while it is well run in the sense of the personnel who are involved in it and the loyalty it receives from its community, by construction standards would not be tolerated in a town in western Queensland or western New South Wales. The outer structure is not much removed from the fibro and chamferboard huts of the Second World War. As long as I have been on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories—and that must be getting on for 15 years now—we have never seriously attempted to do something about the Norfolk Island Hospital on the spurious ground that somehow because they do not pay tax they are not entitled to good health. We do not apply that principle anywhere else in the Commonwealth and we should not apply it on Norfolk Island.
Every once in a while the airstrip has to be upgraded—hot mixers being brought from Sydney or Auckland. Contractors bring barges and all the material over. I remember on one occasion one of the contractors offered for $1 million to do a lot of the roads on the island while he was still there, which made eminent sense. It is the sort of thing we would do if there was a major wash-out in floodtime somewhere on one of the highways in western Queensland, the Northern Territory or western New South Wales. We would go in and fix it. I think on occasions like this, when you have those sorts of facilities that are not normally available on the island, such as road construction abilities, we should be in there giving a hand. It is not just all thought on the part of the Norfolk Islanders and this great need for a lot of bureaucracy and paperwork. It is a matter of respect, and that respect should be reflected in the time we give to the detail, the schedules and the subordinate legislation. (Time expired)
I rise to speak in favour of the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010
Norfolk Island has had self-government since the introduction of the Norfolk Island Act by the Fraser government in 1979. It is the only self-governing Australian external territory. The island does not rely on Commonwealth funding; however, funding from the Commonwealth government does provide crucial assistance and support. It has to be said that in the recent past the island has been suffering financially. The global financial crisis has been particularly unkind to those places where tourism is the main source of economic activity. The Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 will make much needed changes to the Norfolk Island system of self-government. The amendments will provide major changes to the governance, electoral and financial systems of Norfolk Island.
The Norfolk Island reforms were first announced by the Australian government a year ago in May 2009. The House would be aware that the future of Norfolk Island has been the subject of many Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories reports, discussions and the topic of widespread media reports. It is now time to act on those reports and recommendations. A joint standing committee suggests that the Norfolk Island system of governance be changed.
The Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 will action some of the recommendations from the report of the 2003 inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories into governance on Norfolk Island. That report recommended Norfolk Island enacts the following democratic principles: greater public accountability through access to the Commonwealth Ombudsman; better regulatory framework of privacy arrangements; and a common-law approach to rights and entitlements. As it stands today, the Norfolk Island government has an informal means for good governance and, quite frankly, it is not enough when it comes to the fundamental rights and responsibilities of the Norfolk Island community. The report stated:
… the absence of formal and effective mechanisms of accountability and transparency, seriously undermine the quality of governance on the Island.
The report goes on to recommend reforms to the Norfolk Island electoral system; a better financial management framework, including audits; the introduction of administrative law such as in Australia; and the incorporation of designations of Chief Minister and ministers. I have been informed that the Norfolk Island government agrees that local residents should enjoy the same rights to personal privacy, access to the Ombudsman, appeal rights and freedom of information as mainland Australians. However the Norfolk Island government would argue that some of the processes that are connected to these basic rights are resource intensive and can be time consuming. It has been raised with me that the government of Norfolk Island is concerned that it does not have the resources to implement these Australian models in their entirety. However, these reforms are essential and I am confident that any issues can be worked through appropriately by the Norfolk Island government and the Commonwealth government.
I will now outline the reforms in more detail. Schedule 1 of the Territories Law Reform Bill will make significant changes to the Norfolk Island Act. Through changes to the general governance and electoral amendments, the bill will establish a no-confidence motion process for the Chief Minister; put in place a proper process for selecting and dismissing ministers and chief ministers; permit the Administrator of Norfolk Island to access advice when presented with bills for assent under schedule 2; and, allow the Governor-General and the minister responsible for the territories to take a more active role in the Norfolk Island legislation.
The bill will also reform the voting system. By simplifying and modernising the electoral process, the bill will allow more Norfolk Island residents to participate in the democratic process. This will mean fewer people will drop out of the system. The Norfolk Island Chief Minister will enter into arrangements with the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct general elections. This will mean Norfolk Island residents will have an independent third party conduct their elections to ensure greater certainty and transparency. The integrity of the electoral process is at the heart of our political system and it is only right that Norfolk Island residents have access to the same safeguards as mainland Australians. That is democracy. It makes sense. Electors trust us to create a process which is as easy as possible. Complexity creates confusion.
I am informed that the Norfolk Island government has some concerns over schedule 2 of the Territories Reform Bill 2010. I will outline some of their concerns. Today, the Norfolk Island system of governance means the Commonwealth appointed Administrator is bound to take the advice of the Executive Council to ensure local laws are passed quickly. The reforms will see the responsible Commonwealth minister seek and provide advice, and if any conflict arises the minister’s advice will prevail. The Norfolk Island government is concerned the Commonwealth will be able to veto local solutions to local problems. It should be acknowledged that the Norfolk Island government are concerned about the implications of the bill on their ability to self-govern. The Commonwealth government’s rationale is to put in place proper processes for responsible government. I encourage the Minister for Home Affairs to continue the conversation with the Norfolk Island government to allay their concerns.
I will now move to the implementation of a financial management framework. Schedule 1 of the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 will establish a financial framework which is responsible and accountable. By ensuring there is proper process for financial management, the bill will help Norfolk Island to be financially sustainable into the future. The reform will include a process for annual reports, budgets and framework in line with the unique requirements of Norfolk Island. In line with my earlier comments, we will support Norfolk Island to achieve a responsible fiscal framework in line with Australian regulations. The reforms will provide the Norfolk Island government with the mechanisms to conduct their general business with transparency. The bill will provide the Auditor-General with the power to conduct audits on the island’s financial statements to maintain integrity within the island’s financial system.
Finally, the Territories Law Reform Bill will bring Norfolk Island in line with Australia’s administrative law procedure. Essentially, Australian residents living on Norfolk Island will have the same rights and services available to them as if they were living in Australia. Part 4 of the bill will mean decisions made by the Norfolk Island government can be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Part 5 of the bill will amend the Freedom of Information Act. It will provide residents with the fundamental right to access documents held by the public sector and to ask for personal information if the information is incorrect or misleading.
In addition, part 6 of the bill will mean the Commonwealth Ombudsman can act as the Norfolk Island Ombudsman and provide independent dispute resolution. As already mentioned, I understand that there has been a great deal of consultation with the Norfolk Island government to make sure the Ombudsman procedures will suit the island. It is absolutely essential that we get this right, and consultation with the Norfolk Island government will ensure this.
Part 7 of the bill will amend the Privacy Act so that it applies to Norfolk Island in the same way that it applies to Australian government agencies in Australia. We will ensure that Australian government agencies play an ongoing role to educate and support the Norfolk Island community and public sector.
The Territories Law Reform Bill will reform the way Norfolk Island is governed. I understand concern has been raised about the reforms hindering the island’s ability to self-govern. It is the opinion of the government that this bill will strengthen Norfolk Island’s legislative ability to act as a sovereign island, by formalising its self-government practices. The bill will focus on transparency and accountability in Norfolk Island governance, establish financial frameworks and an administrative decision-making process. It is absolutely essential that the same rights to information and appeal apply to Australian residents living on Norfolk Island. The reforms will provide Norfolk Island with the tools to ensure ongoing stability and effective self-government under the Norfolk Island Act.
These reforms are, quite simply, the right thing to do. These reforms will provide a legislative framework for the future growth and sustainability of Australian territories. I commend the bill to the House.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise in the House this evening to speak about the issue of the relationship between the Commonwealth, the administration of the Territory of Norfolk Island and the Norfolk Island government. I have been in this place for just under 15 years and have been a constant member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories since election in 1996. Members in this place are probably aware that, through the unique electoral processes on that island, a number of Australian citizens on Norfolk Island are also constituents of mine as, through that mechanism, they are attached to the Canberra electorate. That has given me a longstanding and reasonable understanding of the issues on Norfolk Island, the people who live there, the history of the place, the uniqueness of the place and the need for us all to work together to ensure that self-government on Norfolk Island not only remains but is enhanced into the future.
The Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 makes amendments to a range of Commonwealth legislation to improve Norfolk Island’s governance arrangements, including through the reform of the electoral system. A new financial management framework is also proposed. The new governance arrangements are really quite important. We are applying on the island the electoral and administrative law practices that are generally applied in the mainland jurisdictions, albeit with some variations. The process for selecting a Chief Minister, providing for no-confidence motions and allowing a Commonwealth minister to provide advice to the Administrator are useful additions to the democratic processes on the island.
The bill also clarifies certain aspects of the relationship between the Commonwealth and this external territory, the island, including the power of a Commonwealth minister to introduce a new bill into the legislative assembly, dismiss assembly members for unlawful or improper conduct and allow the Governor-General to dissolve the assembly. A minimum three-year term is specified under the bill, with a maximum of four years. These are important safeguards to the process of democratic governance on Norfolk Island.
The new financial framework provisions will apply the broad approaches of the Commonwealth and territories in terms of financial reporting. The role of the Commonwealth Auditor-General to investigate financial matters relating to the actions of the government is essential for transparency in government. On the whole, the transparency and fiscal affairs for which this bill and associated regulations will provide bring the island into closer alignment with practice in other Australian jurisdictions and support democratic processes and accountability to the people of Norfolk Island and the Australian taxpayer, where federal funds are deployed.
The application of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and freedom of information and privacy provisions to the island and the new role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman as the ombudsman of the island are also major improvements to the practice of governance on Norfolk Island. In fact, they are essential changes, giving Norfolk Island people the same basic rights under administrative law that all other Australians generally enjoy. As other speakers have said already, there is a certain level of apprehension in not all but some sectors of the community on Norfolk Island about some of these changes. I understand that and I respect that cautiousness.
To talk about the question of privacy provisions for a moment, my understanding is that under current legislation the Commonwealth Ombudsman can and does use those powers within the ACT, for example. Under the same legislation, Norfolk Island could have already passed legislation itself to bring that provision into action on Norfolk itself but has not done so. That has been available but it has not been done. I regret that reluctance on the part of Norfolk Island governments in the past, but the point is that we do not need to look back; we need to look forward. There is now every opportunity for the beginning of reform of governance on the island. Many people on Norfolk Island share our view and look forward to the reform as outlined.
Over the years I have had many opportunities, both as a member of the committee and as a backbencher with responsibility for those on the island who are attached to my electoral roll, to visit Norfolk Island. I have said it in this place before, and it is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to say it again: it is the most remarkable place. It is so unique and special, and it carries so much history of its own, as well as history connected to the mainland. To anybody listening to this debate: if you have not had the opportunity to travel to Norfolk Island, I implore you to do so. You could not go to a more beautiful place.
In saying that and in saying that I have had the opportunity and privilege to make many friends within that community over those years, there is also no doubt in my mind—with all of the reports that the joint committee has done over the years—that now really is the time to begin governance reform on Norfolk Island. That is not in any way to be seen as a challenge to its self-governing role. As long as the conversation continues between those on Norfolk Island and people here within the government and within the parliament generally to work towards an outcome with which we can both be very content, nothing but improvement and better governance can occur.
This bill will also improve keys aspects of public finances on the island. It brings the island closer to Australia on governance and accountability issues. In my view, this is probably not the beginning and end of reform of governance arrangements on Norfolk Island. There are many other things that we could consider as well. By saying that, I do not want to scare people on Norfolk Island or make them more apprehensive. I fully understand the level of apprehension in the minds of some—but not in the minds of all.
I really want to see these reforms pass successfully. I really want to see the conversation between the Norfolk Island government and this government and parliament continue in an open and honest fashion. I would like to think that both sides of the federal parliament could agree to implement a properly formulated reform program for Norfolk Island, one that would effectively establish the island as a jurisdiction within which Australian citizens have the same access to law, to freedom of information and to a raft of governance arrangements that we here take for granted. Those things need to be brought into line on the island. A reform program could involve various considerations for the future, but here and now we are looking at the bill before us and the proposals within that bill to begin that reform process.
I thank the current Minister for Home Affairs for bringing this bill forward. I compliment him, his officers and his officials on the discussions that have been held to date. I very sincerely thank those on the island with whom I have had discussions in the past and who are, I know, very keen and anxious to support this proposal and see it through.
To those on the island with apprehensions: please remember this is not an assault on self-government. It is not intended to in any way erode self-government. It is, in fact, intended to enhance it, preserve it and guarantee it for the future. If that is the approach taken by everyone here and, I hope and trust, by everyone on Norfolk Island, then I know we are going to have a successful reform process. I commend the bill to the House.
in reply—I am very pleased to sum up the debate on the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010. I thank all the members for their contribution, in particular the member for Canberra, who has a special interest—as do many in her electorate—in many of the citizens who reside on Norfolk Island; the member for Brand; and the member for Macquarie. The member for Macquarie is also my predecessor as Minister for Home Affairs and did a lot of the work to bring this bill to this place for realisation. I thank him for his good work in assisting the government with these very important reforms. I also thank the members for Stirling and Hinkler for their contributions to this debate.
I will address some of the issues raised by members. I am aware that the Norfolk Island government has concerns with this bill. I know so because I spoke with the Chief Minister when he was last in Canberra. I am also aware that these concerns, or some of these concerns, have been shared with members, including the members for Stirling and Hinkler.
The member for Stirling and the member for Hinkler have voiced the concern of the Norfolk Island government that this bill will erode Norfolk Island’s ability to self-govern. This is not the case. The proposed amendments to the Norfolk Island Act 1979 do not restrict the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly’s almost unlimited power to ‘make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory’. The right of the Australian government to intervene in Norfolk Island legislation is an existing part of the island’s governance system. The amendments will extend this oversight to schedule 2 matters, as well as enabling the Commonwealth minister and the Governor-General to introduce legislation into the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. The need for this amendment can be linked to the number of additional matters transferred to the Norfolk Island government’s authority under schedule 2 since 1979. Many of the powers transferred are either not supported by legislation or are subject to inadequate legislation. The bill will enable the Australian government to carry out the checks and balances necessary to ensure that Norfolk Island legislation complies with Australian government policy objectives and Australia’s obligations under international law.
The member for Stirling and the member for Hinkler made remarks about the appointment of deputy administrators. On this matter, amendments allowing the minister to appoint the deputies of the Administrator of Norfolk Island are consistent with the power already provided to me as the responsible Commonwealth minister to appoint deputy administrators of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The amendments allow for flexible and timely appointments to be made in the event that the Administrator is unable to perform one or all of the functions of the office. This is particularly important due to the remoteness of Norfolk Island. The amendments will enable essential functions of government to be performed quickly and efficiently. I further note that the position of Deputy Administrator is not intended to be a position involving remuneration.
The member for Stirling also expressed the concern of the Norfolk Island government about amendments authorising the appointment of a Commonwealth financial officer. The Commonwealth Financial Officer does not have any specific powers under the amendments proposed in the bill. The Commonwealth Financial Officer’s functions are required to be flexible and adaptable, to enable the best possible assistance to be provided to the Norfolk Island government and administration in implementing the bill.
On the issue of the Auditor-General’s appointment, the Australian government has agreed to fund the Commonwealth Auditor-General to provide financial statement audits for three years. Any further funding after this period will be subject to budget considerations. I note that the ACT and the Northern Territory have established their own auditors-general and do not receive funding for these positions. The member for Stirling and the member for Hinkler also raised the issue of Norfolk Island public servants reporting directly to Commonwealth ministers. None of the amendments proposed in the bill will affect the relationship between the Norfolk Island government and employees of the administration.
In terms of the issue raised about the Administrator’s role following the dissolution of the legislative assembly, amendments in the bill that provide for the Administrator to exercise certain powers in the event of the dissolution of the legislative assembly provide a practical and effective arrangement to ensure the continuity of business of government, including the provision of services to the Norfolk Island community. I note that the Administrator would be required to exercise these powers in accordance with any direction given by the Governor-General. The member for Stirling and the member for Hinkler have argued that the approach taken in the administrative law reforms to extend Commonwealth administrative law to Norfolk Island is too complex and that Norfolk Island lacks the capacity to implement such reforms.
Much has been made of the different approach which has been taken in relation to the ombudsman reforms. I agree that these reforms are a positive example of what can be achieved through cooperation between the Commonwealth and Norfolk Island. However, the approach taken in the ombudsman reforms should be distinguished from the remaining administrative reforms for a number of key reasons: firstly, there was an existing precedent for this approach as the Commonwealth Ombudsman already undertakes the role of ACT Ombudsman under ACT legislation; and, secondly, the Norfolk Island government introduced ombudsman legislation into the legislative assembly in 2009. The need for administrative law reform on Norfolk Island has been the subject of numerous parliamentary reports and recommendations since 1991. However, to date, the Norfolk Island government has failed to initiate any Norfolk Island legislation in the area of freedom of information or privacy.
The approach taken in the bill is specifically designed to take into account the ongoing concerns raised by the Norfolk Island government about resourcing and capacity constraints on the island. The existing Commonwealth legislation is adaptable to Norfolk Island and is currently applied across Commonwealth agencies of varying sizes, including those equivalent to the size of the Norfolk Island administration. The extension of Commonwealth administrative law mechanisms will enable the Norfolk Island government and community to access the Commonwealth’s expert knowledge, experience and resources. Funding has already been allocated to Commonwealth agencies to assist with the implementation of these reforms on Norfolk Island. The bill will ensure that the standards of administrative law enjoyed by Australians on the mainland are extended to Norfolk Islanders.
I would like to reiterate that the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 implements important reforms to improve the governance of Norfolk Island and strengthen the accountability of the Norfolk Island government. The bill is not an attempt by the Commonwealth to remove the Norfolk Island government’s ability to govern the territory, nor is it an opportunistic attempt by the Commonwealth to take control of the territory. The bill is a first step towards ensuring high levels of transparency and accountability in Norfolk Island governance and financial management and administrative decision making. This is an important part of providing Norfolk Island with the tools necessary to ensure ongoing stability and to sustain strong and effective self-government pursuant to the Norfolk Island Act 1979.
The Australian government recognises Norfolk Island self-government as sought and granted to the Norfolk Island community in 1979. The Norfolk Island Act provides mechanisms to allow a degree of Commonwealth oversight of the Norfolk Island legislative process. This bill will further extend this oversight by introducing provisions that reaffirm the Commonwealth’s legislative authority. The Commonwealth authority is intended to be used as a last resort if the Norfolk Island government does not undertake action to ensure its legislation is consistent with the national interest and Australia’s international obligations.
Parts 1 and 2 of schedule 1 of the Territories Law Reform Bill make general governance and electoral amendments to the Norfolk Island Act. The bill proposes key governance reforms, including: prescribing a process for selecting and dismissing a Chief Minister and ministers, including a no-confidence motion process; allowing the Norfolk Island Administrator to access a greater range of advice when presented with bills for assent under schedule 2 of the Norfolk Island Act; and allowing the Governor-General and the minister responsible for territories to take a more active role in the introduction and passage of Norfolk Island legislation.
The bill also establishes the framework for the reform of the voting system for the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. The amendments will provide Norfolk Island residents with greater transparency in electoral processes and certainty about when elections are held. The bill establishes the foundations for such a process, which will be supplemented by regulations to be developed in consultation with Norfolk Island.
The bill will implement a new financial framework to ensure that the Norfolk Island administration and government are subject to a comparable level of scrutiny as the Commonwealth. The framework will assist the Norfolk Island government to meet the expectations of its community and to plan for the future. It will also enable the Commonwealth to track Norfolk Island’s financial progress to facilitate the provision of appropriate assistance and oversight.
The bill also amends administrative law legislation to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the Norfolk Island government and public sector. The amendments will extend the application of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1988 to Norfolk Island. In addition, amendments to the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Norfolk Island Act will make the Commonwealth Ombudsman the ombudsman for Norfolk Island. These administrative law changes will ensure that Norfolk Island residents have access to the same rights enjoyed by other Australians.
Finally, the bill will amend the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 to provide a vesting mechanism for powers and functions under Western Australian laws applied in the territories. This will ensure that powers under Western Australian laws applied in each territory are automatically vested in Western Australian officers where an agreement with the Commonwealth exists for them to act in the territories. The automatic vesting mechanism will lead to increased efficiency under service delivery agreements by enabling WA officials to have faster access to newly created powers. It will also reduce the administrative burden of maintaining the delegations for Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, allowing resources to be applied to other valuable tasks.
The Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories has completed an inquiry into this bill and tabled its report on 11 May. The committee supports the general provisions of the bill and recommends that it be passed by the Senate. The committee made four other recommendations. The first is the continuation of consultation with Norfolk Island in the development of regulations to support the bill. This process is already being undertaken through working groups established for that purpose. The second other recommendation is that the Commonwealth minimise delays in the scrutiny of Norfolk Island legislation as part of the assent process. The third other recommendation is that a review be undertaken of items in schedules 2 and 3 of the Norfolk Island Act. The government accepts these recommendations.
The final recommendation of the committee is that the amendments relating to elections be removed from the bill and reintroduced in 2011 following consultation with the Norfolk Island government and community. Changes to Norfolk Island’s electoral system have been recommended in a number of previous reports on Norfolk Island, including by the joint standing committee for the territories. While Norfolk Island has a degree of self-government, it is also part of Australia, and the Australian parliament retains ultimate responsibility for territory electoral matters. The proposed amendments recognise this Commonwealth responsibility. Under the commencement provisions of the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010, any electoral regulations will only take effect from the first meeting of the legislative assembly following the first general election after the bill receives royal assent, which is anticipated to be some time in 2013. Accordingly, the first election to be conducted under any new electoral voting system is expected to not occur until 2016.
The other legislative amendments relating to elections in part 2 of the bill provide for a minimum term of three years and a maximum of four years for the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and enable the Norfolk Island government to make arrangements with the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct general elections or fill casual vacancies. Consultations undertaken by the Attorney-General’s Department, in addition to submissions received by the committee inquiry, indicate a level of support from both the Norfolk Island government and community to these legislative changes.
The Australian government acknowledges the concerns raised by the committee in formulating the recommendations. I believe that these concerns can be addressed through retaining the provisions in the bill. To address the committee’s concerns, I will undertake not to introduce electoral regulations until after July 2011. The proposed timing will enable consultation with the Norfolk Island government and community and consideration of appropriate voting systems for Norfolk Island. I further propose to present to the committee the draft electoral regulations for their review and comment. This will introduce an additional measure of scrutiny to the regulations. Following my visit to Norfolk Island in December last year I stated:
The Australian Government wants to ensure Norfolk Island’s long-term sustainability and the effective delivery of government services to the Territory’s residents.
This bill allows the Australian government to assist the Norfolk Island government and community to create an equitable and sustainable future. These reforms represent the government’s ongoing commitment to fulfilling its obligations to provide the legislative frameworks for the future growth and sustainability of Australia’s territories. I thank the House for its support. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill 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 18 March, on motion by Mr Combet:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is pleasing that we are in a position to discuss the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Bill 2010, and I am sure government members will talk to the bill and the more recent amendments to it that the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water, Senator Wong, and the government have agreed to in response to constructive engagement by the opposition. On the strength of those amendments, we will be supporting this bill. Our reservations have largely been addressed, and I will touch on those in my remarks.
The Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Bill 2010 will require energy information to be provided to prospective purchasers, lessees and sublessees of commercial office space of 2,000 square metres or more. The bill will create a legal requirement for owners of large commercial buildings to obtain energy efficiency information for their building and provide this information to any prospective lessees and purchasers in the form of a building energy efficient certificate, BEEC. The BEEC will include energy efficiency star rating, information about lighting energy efficiency and generic guidance about how the building’s energy efficiency may be improved. The government asserts that this information will assist parties to make a more informed decision and take ‘full account’ of the economic costs and the environmental impacts associated with operating the buildings should they be purchased or leased.
Essentially, this is an idea that is shared across the chamber. The coalition when in government, in December 2004, announced its commitment to mandatory disclosure of commercial building energy efficiency. That was contained in stage 1 of the implementation plan of the National Framework for Energy Efficiency. This was a joint initiative involving the Commonwealth, state and territory governments under the Ministerial Council on Energy. Subsequent to that coalition commitment, the Labor Party, in the guise of its pre-election policy ‘Clean energy plan to help tackle climate change’, embraced the idea and also pledged funding towards the implementation of it. The commitment that the Labor Party made when in opposition, and now being carried forward by the Rudd Labor government, was to work with states and territories, the building industry and other stakeholders to:
… require disclosure of energy or environmental ratings for appropriate types of large commercial buildings at point of sale and point of lease. Mandatory disclosure will be phased in gradually, beginning with office buildings above a threshold of 5,000 square metres.
Since that time, the Rudd government has embraced the building energy efficiency disclosure idea and included it in its National Strategy on Energy Efficiency, which was agreed in July 2009, citing it as a ‘key plank’ in its strategy to combat climate change, to reduce the costs of emissions abatement and to improve the productivity of the economy.
There have been quite a number of announcements about the mandatory reporting scheme. Some stakeholder and industry groups noted a greater number of announcements than progress on the implementation of the scheme. But, thankfully, we are here today to discuss some meaningful progress on this idea that is shared across the chamber and which the opposition has been engaged with for some years. The consultation that has brought us to this point has been patchy—pleasingly, more engaging of late—and has taken advantage of the industry’s collaborative posture and the collaborative attitude and willingness to engage of the coalition.
Some things have changed in this bill—in fact, some things have changed since the original commitment. The idea that there would be a commencement with commercial office buildings over 5,000 square metres has been replaced by a commitment for mandatory reporting, starting with commercial office buildings over 2,000 square metres—quite a significant change but one that I am advised was inspired by the threat of some state and territory governments that, if the Commonwealth was not going to embrace a 2,000 square metre threshold, they might go off on their own. As a consequence, the government embraced that through the COAG process.
It is quite an important opportunity. The built environment in Australia accounts for 23 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions. In the area of commercial buildings there are quite a significant number of opportunities, many of them at very low cost or in some cases a positive economic cost over the life of the investment that need to be embraced if we are to have a cleaner growth economy in Australia. There has been a substantial growth in energy use over the last 15 or so years and about 87 per cent growth between 1990-91 and 2005-06 in the commercial building sector. With increasing working hours and the greater use of energy-consuming technology in the office place, you tend to think that this increase will continue. Cost efficient energy improvements and emission reductions are available.
It is pleasing that leading companies in the property industry have really taken to those opportunities wholeheartedly and have made them quite a cause for their investments, recognising that, whether it be for market positioning—being able to present their commercial buildings in an appealing way to potential tenants and investors—whether it be in operational cost savings, whether it be in corporate reporting and a need to find demonstrable sustainability and environmental outcomes or whether it be in a drive to have building quality recognised, all of these have combined to see quite an amount of voluntary effort, particularly by leading players in the property industry.
Mandatory reporting is recognised as a way of seeing that commitment that is already there amongst industry leaders cascade its way right throughout the commercial building sector, and that is why there is a sense of shared purpose across the chamber for that initiative. It is also important in ensuring that reliable, actionable information is available to the market about building performance. This would not only make better decisions in acquisition and leasing but also drive further improvements across existing stock in the commercial building sector.
It is important, though, that we do look at the commercial building sector. Many have talked about the opportunities for new buildings, but I am advised that only about two per cent of the commercial building stock is turned over in any year. That is likely to slow somewhat with access to finance being a challenge. All of those factors combine to say that just improving our game as a nation on new commercial buildings is not enough; there is a need to do significant work for the existing building stock if we are to secure the gains of emissions abatement and energy efficiency that are there for the taking—and mandatory reporting should inform and inspire that effort.
Industry groups, including the Property Council, the Green Building Council, the Energy Efficiency Council and others that are practitioners in the engineering, air and temperature management section of the economy, have been keen to highlight what they have already achieved and are of one voice in pursuing the objectives of the bill. There is a broad acceptance within the property industry of this bill’s objectives and of the benefits of mandatory reporting. That has not been the issue. That has certainly not been the focus of the coalition’s work, because we have agreement across the chamber and broadly in the Australian economy there.
What was requiring work in recent weeks was to make sure that those objectives and that goal were successfully pursued by the design of this bill and the operationalising of the idea through the tools that this bill provides for. That has been the focus, and that is where it is pleasing that the government has taken on board constructive comments and, in some cases, concerns about specific aspects of the bill. Those specific concerns had been the focus of not only the coalition’s consultations but also submissions to the Senate inquiry—and I again congratulate Minister Wong on constructively responding to those concerns.
I touched earlier on the expanded scope of the bill—the net lettable area being greater than 2,000 square metres, compared to the 5,000 square metres that was originally committed to in Labor’s election policy—and indicated that, in the spirit of moving forward across the Commonwealth, states and territories, as a single COAG inspired effort, that change was made. There is also a need to recognise that that will drive this reporting requirement down further into the property industry, imposing a mandatory reporting burden on second-tier and smaller property owners and that that should not be just brushed aside as not significant. This will represent some new challenges for those second-tier and smaller property owners, and that has also been a focus of the coalition’s constructive engagement with the government.
The Property Council estimates that, of the more than 21 million square metres of floor space in the 3,980 commercial office properties in the major Australian population centres, 19 million square metres is accounted for by the 2,170 buildings with the net lettable area over 2,000 square metres. This represents an 84 per cent increase in the number of buildings that will be captured by this mandatory reporting scheme via the reduction in the floor area that triggers responsibilities and obligations under the scheme. There are 1,074 buildings of a net lettable area greater than 5,000—and I touched on the fact that, by reducing the trigger point to 2,000 square metres, that 1,074 buildings captured balloons out to 3,980.
There is also an issue around where responsibility lies in relation to the reporting that is being required under this bill. A number of the issues, particularly internal energy use and even behaviour of tenants, may have an impact on the reporting obligations in a way that are outside the control of the property owner. This needs to be recognised as these tools are further developed to make sure that responsibilities, obligations and penalties for noncompliance actually land with the people best placed to accommodate those responsibilities, and not have building owners, for instance, responsible and fearing penalties for noncompliance on actions, behaviours and information not within their control. This has been another area that we have engaged with the government on—the risk being a lack of cooperation about access to tenant data may expose property owners to the risk of severe penalties for noncompliance. I would hate to think that property owners would need to muscle up against their tenants simply to avoid a risk of a penalty under this bill. I am hopeful that, as the detailed regulations develop, those kinds of concerns are addressed further.
There is also some issue around the technical and evaluation tools. Whilst the bill does not prescribe the tools that are to be used, the regulatory impact statement and the explanatory memorandum make it quite clear that the NABER system will be used as the build evaluation tool. The NABERS tool is a proprietary tool originally developed from the impetus of the Commonwealth and then licensed to the New South Wales government for development in conjunction with industry, principally designed for New South Wales conditions. Adaptations have enabled its national use but the industry and the coalition—and, I also believe, the government—are aware that those adaptations for national use are in some areas contentious or contested. There are known deficiencies that result from the way in which the tool has been adapted to have its reach expanded beyond New South Wales that actually see the same building rated differently depending on where it is in the continent and that can give rise to some concern about the reliability of the tool. The government has undertaken to address these flaws. There is still a little bit of work to be done there. I have been encouraged and satisfied by the minister’s advice to me active work is being done and that those technical deficiencies are well in hand and will be resolved before the October start date of the responsibilities under this tool.
Another area that the coalition was focused on was that, if this tool and this bill are about providing reliable, actionable information to the marketplace, there are a range of market recognised tools that achieve that goal. The bill does not necessarily provide for those other tools. It does not expressly prohibit them, either, but the explanatory memorandum and the regulatory impact statement make it clear that there is a strong commitment to the further development of NABERS and that these other tools, whilst they are recognised as being available, are not at the moment embraced by the proposition before the parliament.
I raise that for a number of reasons. The idea of our commercial buildings being energy efficient and making the contribution that they can to emissions abatement involves a number of stages and a number of different players. Our architects and the design professions can create and craft a building in its physical form that is efficient in the use of solar energy and in the way in which it retains heat and manages the air and the working environment. They might design a fantastic building. In almost all cases the building will be constructed magnificently, with the professionals and the tradesmen in Australia, but that is another stage. It then may well be equipped with the most energy efficient, emissions-conscious technology for heating and cooling, for the circulation of air, and for powering plant and equipment in the building—lifts and the like. The buildings might well be designed magnificently, and that would be a tick, but if they are not deployed in keeping with their technical capability then you lose that opportunity of improved energy efficiency and emissions abatement.
The way in which the buildings are commissioned is important. I am constantly reminded by professionals and companies in the air management—heating and cooling—space that some of the best technology not commissioned well and not operated well can see gains in energy efficiency and emissions abatement just disappear very quickly. So I am highlighting to the parliament all these various stages of the life of a building—its conception, its design, its construction, the way it is fitted out and then the way in which it is commissioned and managed. These all make a contribution, and we need to be looking to the future to make sure that the mandatory reporting tools and the instruments we bring to this task recognise that development. NABERS, I am told, will be more interested in that down the track. Other tools are already some way down the track, and there are international undertakings to try to make sure that these various tools, all committed to the same objective, can actually be compared with each other—a tool exchange rate, so that if you happen to know what ratings you have for a building with one set of instruments, you know what that is equivalent to for others. These are all challenges for the future, and we were keen not to see that continuous improvement frozen out through being religiously attached to a single set of metrics that might not be developing as fast as other tools that are available and used both here in Australia and overseas. On this issue of equivalent tools, I am satisfied by the discussions and briefings with the minister’s office that they are not frozen out. They are not expressly embraced either, at this stage, but that is something that more work will need to go into over time.
The other contentious area relates to the lighting tool. We have talked briefly about reporting on the building form itself and what might be involved there. One of the tenancy issues and the use issues around the building is the lighting systems that are in place. This is a new development for NABERS. The tool for assessing building lighting has not been finalised to this day and is likely to require some further road testing. It is being trialled at present. There is some work still to be done on understanding the way the assessment process will operate. Assessors will need to be recruited, trained, accredited and available. This is an area of concern to industry and to key stakeholders in terms of how we will be able to operationalise this tool that is still under development. Again, I have taken the assurances that have been given to the coalition by the minister and by those involved in testing this new tool that it is developing well. I am also pleased that the minister has deferred the introduction of that tool by 12 months to recognise that it is still a work in progress. I think that is sensible, and I think the minister is wise to go down that pathway—not to remove it entirely, but to make it clear to the building industry that while this is on its way it is not quite right yet. To have some of the obligations that would flow from this bill attached to a tool that is still in development was thought to be a little bit reckless and perhaps a sign that the government is red-hot keen to get something in place, no doubt so that it can refer to it in an electoral context as an achievement. Recognising that political motive of the government, if it is not quite right then it would be wrong to impose mandatory obligations and a risk of quite significant penalties for non-compliance.
Among the other issues that we touched on was that there was some anxiety about whether everything would be ready to go by October. People are still keen to see the flaws in the NABERS tool resolved. The minister’s advice gives me some reassurance, and I quote:
NABERS energy certificates currently contain both the star rating of the building and information about its greenhouse gas emissions. However, emissions are calculated using emissions factors which are now out of date.
So the minister and the department recognise that. I am pleased to report that at the last meeting of the NABERS National Steering Committee it was agreed that up-to-date emissions factors should be used prior to the commencement of the commercial building disclosure scheme. Emissions are to be calculated using the same scope 1 and scope 2 emissions factors used under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System—or NGERS, for people who are involved in this space—which will ensure consistency, noting that the scope of NGERS is broader than simply the base building emissions that will be reported on NABERS energy certificates. That is encouraging, and I am told by all the technical experts that bringing those factors up to date is not an enormous task. Here is a clear commitment to do so.
Another area around the NABERS energy benchmark is the unusual presence of a different average performance basis for Victoria compared with other states. NABERS energy benchmarks the performance of buildings on a scale of one to five stars, where 2½ stars represent the average performance of buildings within most states and territories. In Victoria, the average performance has been set at two stars, which means that generally buildings obtain lower NABERS energy ratings in that state. This particularly affects ratings at the lower end of the benchmarking scale. Setting the average at that level was a decision made by the Victorian government in 2000 after consultation with industry, although there is not necessarily a shared view within industry that it is appropriate; there is some mixture of opinion there. The discussions still continue. The simple point I make here is that whilst it might mean that like-for-like buildings in Victoria may be rated the same, if you have a portfolio of buildings—perhaps in different states and territories—the Victorian building will look less attractive under this arrangement than if that same building were in, say, Adelaide. This strikes me as an interesting message to send the market when this is all about reliable, dependable, actionable information. We have that anomaly, and that is something that I believe is still subject to discussions in which Victoria will need to take the lead after consultation with the local industry. That will not be resolved overnight, but it is an area that requires some attention.
The other issues we touched on included the fact that there are a number of related programs that the Commonwealth has committed to, many of which were started under the previous government, using different data collection and reporting requirements. We were mindful of the red tape and compliance obligations and were keen to see how we could streamline and harmonise that data collection effort so there were not multiple efforts going on, ostensibly to achieve the same goal but through different government programs. That did not seem a smart way to go and that is an issue before the government. There are some encouraging signs that, where there is compatibility of process, it is being picked up by the government and I think that is a smart way to go as well.
There were issues around the availability of credited assessors. This became very topical because, under the original transition arrangements that the government had foreshadowed in the initial bill it brought to the parliament, you actually needed to have a certain kind of NABERS rating to begin with to qualify for the transition period. There has been some recognition that that was going to put enormous pressure on the industry in a short period of time. The transition period has been altered to be more accommodating. I think that is a smart and practical response to a legitimate concern from the industry.
The Property Council of Australia raised concerns through the Senate, as did the Green Building Council of Australia, Lend Lease and the Energy Efficiency Council. The coalition has combined those concerns with those from industry practitioners like Napier and Blakeley and brought them to the government’s attention. Those organisations are clearly committed to this idea but recognised the government’s bill was underdone in a number of areas and that further consultation was justified. The government has done that and the changes the minister foreshadowed in her speech to the Built Environment Meets Parliament Conference last week are welcomed by the opposition.
We are pleased that the technical flaws in NABERS will be remedied and that the capacity building task in making sure appropriate assessors are accredited et cetera can be accommodated through an extended transition period. We think that is wise. The opportunities to link administrative effort reporting and data collection are, we think, good steps. Equivalents tools, as I said earlier, are not frozen out but are not mandated either. It is an area that still requires some work but the coalition is not going to stand in the way of this. The deferral of the lighting tool by 12 months is a smart move given that it is still work in progress. There is also the issue around making sure that the people administering the schemes are appropriately qualified to do so.
These amendments are welcome. The coalition supports the bill in its amended form. We note that a number of the issues we have raised have been dealt with by assurances from the government. I found my discussions with Minister Wong’s office to be completely honourable and we accept that those concerns will be dealt with.
Change to the penalty regime is a smart way to go. We still have to make sure that penalties do not arise from actions of third parties, that is, that a bureaucratic delay does place a respondent at risk of being penalised. As I illustrated earlier, where a tenant might not or choose not to facilitate the access that is required to achieve the reporting requirements, it would be a great shame and very disappointing to see building owners penalised not from their own inaction but from actions of others. The transition period is good. There is a need to make sure that the lighting tool works and there is time for that. I would urge the government to be engaging in their consultation.
Finally, I thank the Property Council, the Green Building Council, the Energy Efficiency Council and other energy efficiency organisations for their engagement with me and with the coalition. I am pleased that the government has recognised that we have aimed to be quite constructive throughout the process. The assurances are taken at face value. I have tried to read a number of them into the record tonight so that the industry and stakeholder concerns can at least see that they are also assurances that we have been given.
I support the bill and urge the industry to embrace it in the spirit within which it has been developed. We need to keep working together to make sure emissions reductions and energy efficiencies in the built environment are achieved. The government has signalled a desire to extend the reporting requirement to shopping centres. Let us move forward in a thoughtful way as stakeholders have some views about that. We need to make sure that that next step builds on the solid progress of these current commitments and is a wise way to go. I urge the bill’s early passage both in this chamber and also in the Senate.
I rise to support the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Bill 2010. It is great to hear that this bill has bipartisan support and will get a speedy passage through this chamber and, hopefully, through the other place. This bill addresses two main problems that affect the commercial market. Firstly there is a market failure in this area because at the moment energy efficiency is not valued in a coherent way by the market. You only have to look at the building you work in, including this magnificent building, to know that often energy efficiency has not been valued in the past. That is one of the reasons this bill has come before the House.
Secondly, because energy efficiency is not valued by the market, buildings are often designed to be grossly inefficient and this designing locks in high carbon emission for the operational life of a building, and forces tenants and the broader community to wear the long-term costs of those designs. It is all very well to tell people to switch off their lights and other things but unless a building is designed to be efficient, unless those things are built in at that very early stage, often the actions of individuals are made very small. If energy efficiency is implicit in the design then individual actions have a much greater effect.
The commercial building sector currently accounts for 10 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions. It is a very significant proportion of our emissions. The strategic importance of targeting commercial buildings is highlighted by the fact that energy efficiency represents one of the fastest and cheapest ways to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Just think about it: there is residential energy use and emissions from driving a car to work, but a big factor is the building you work in—turning on the lights, using the conveniences, heating and cooling the building all have a very big effect on an individual’s greenhouse gas emissions.
As part of the National Framework for Energy Efficiency, the bill before the House will require large-scale commercial buildings covering 2,000 square meters or more to display information regarding the buildings energy efficiency. A building energy efficiency certificate, BEEC, will be required when a commercial office space is advertised for sale, lease or sublease. The disclosure will include three main components: a national Australian built environment rating system, NABER, star rating—and these are used at present; an assessment of the energy efficiency of the lighting; and generic advice on how energy efficiency may be improved.
This disclosure is aimed at countering the current market inefficiencies that are preventing the implementation of economically feasible energy efficiency improvements by commercial building owners. Just the simple act of providing this knowledge will arm tenants and owners with some information about how they might improve things, and how they impact on Australia’s emissions overall. These inefficiencies include an asymmetry of information between building owners and potential buyers. Potential buyers currently do not have access to adequate energy efficiency performance information. This is due to the fact that the energy efficiency of a commercial building is not immediately observable.
Potential buyers or tenants generally use a comparison between design qualities to establish differences in the energy efficiency of particular buildings. However, there is often no substantial correlation between good design features and energy efficiency performance. This results in a building’s energy efficiency having little, if any influence, upon a buyer’s or a tenant’s decision to invest. Referred to as ‘adverse selection’, buyers and tenants are not able to differentiate between a building of high energy efficiency and low energy efficiency. It basically results in owners of commercial buildings having no financial incentive to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings. This process produces, at the moment, sub-optimal market outcomes and an under-utilisation of valuable resources. So this measure will provide information to incentivise improvements. This bill aims to put an end to this vicious cycle, which currently promotes energy inefficiencies, by rectifying these market failures and making sure that in the future there is a real incentive to make all buildings efficient.
The BEECs will result in potential buyers or tenants directly benefiting through an ability to choose a premise with a higher energy efficiency rating over one with a lower efficiency rating. These benefits will be in the form of considerable savings to individuals who choose to occupy energy efficient premises. There are many businesses out there that seek to market themselves in this way; they have a social conscience or corporate responsibility. It is a very big thing now. Not only do they aim to save money but they aim to communicate to the community their values. The other day I saw a truck which had ‘carbon free transport’ emblazoned right across the truck. Obviously that is designed to market their product to consumers who are concerned about our emissions. The indirect benefits of this bill will arise through voluntary energy efficiency improvements of commercial building owners and the subsequent greenhouse gas reduction that these improvements will produce. The brutal reality is that the more well informed the marketplace the better the performance of businesses.
This bill will reward current market leaders and encourage more attention to energy efficient opportunities. This can be the actions of individuals switching off lights and heating systems when the building is unoccupied. Some improvements have been made to this building: removing the permanent heating of hot water in members’ offices and encouraging us all to use kettles. Things like that do have an effect. It will also involve more complicated and sophisticated methods of building management. The benefits of this scheme will outweigh the costs if just 3.9 per cent of sale and lease transactions result in the disclosed information of commercial buildings being used to purchase or lease office space that is more energy efficient by one star.
There is a substantial amount of work to be done if Australia is to reduce its greenhouse emissions, and this bill demonstrates our commitment to action on climate change. It also represents our ability to deliver on election promises. Energy efficiency is a big part of the overall task and this bill is an important step towards preparing the commercial building market for a low carbon future and a stronger and more environmentally friendly posture. I congratulate the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water for the introduction of this bill and I commend it to the House.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Bill 2010. From time to time I have engaged with people in the property industry, the peak organisations and, indeed, local government to encourage them to move towards sustainable developments. It makes good sense as it will make a real contribution to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in this country and it also makes good commercial sense to conserve energy. I was Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for nine years. I think that committee made a very solid contribution by quizzing agencies with major projects on behalf of the government to ensure that they had engaged with the Greenhouse Office to develop energy efficient buildings. It is really important that the government always takes the lead in these matters.
Luigi Di Serio is an urban planner who maintains a highly visited webpage on skylines of the world. In the introduction on his site he very eloquently describes the central role of cities. He says:
The downtown core of big cities across the world, are the cultural pulse and economic engines of urban regions where millions of people live. The skyline is the fingerprint of that city. All urban life begins each day and ends each night under the watch of the city’s tallest skyscrapers and most grand architectural structures.
City skyscrapers are often only viewed though the prism of being marvellous feats of engineering and aesthetics. As beautiful as they are, each building’s primary purpose is functional—that is, to provide the space where commerce and industry can thrive.
The Property Council of Australia estimates that there are more than 21 million square metres of floor space in 3,980 commercial office properties in major population centres around Australia—that is, approximately one square metre of office space for each person in Australia. In Perth alone there are over 1.3 million square metres of commercial office space and more than 100,000 people travel Monday to Friday into the CBD to utilise that space.
As the focus of economic life, it should not come as a surprise that energy used by commercial buildings accounts for approximately 10 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and that emissions from the commercial building sector are growing by three to four per cent each year. From these figures, it is quite apparent that reducing the environmental footprint of commercial buildings is an important element in any strategy to lower Australia’s emissions. Moreover, promoting energy efficiency is commercially sensible, with large cost savings to be recognised through simple measures such as having more energy efficient air-conditioning and lighting, installing insulation, recycling water and making greater use of renewable energy sources.
The Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Bill will require information about the energy efficiency, including lighting, of office areas greater than 2,000 square metres to be disclosed at the point of sale, lease and sublease. At present, there are 2,170 buildings in Australian major centres with lettable areas over 2,000 square metres. Disclosure will take the form of building energy efficiency certificates, which will show star ratings. The star rating must be disclosed in any advertisement for sale, lease or sublease and shall be accessible in an online database. The intention is to promote greater consideration of energy efficiency and empower the market with information to encourage more energy efficient improvements.
The origins of the bill were initiatives by the former coalition government. In December 2004 the National Framework for Energy Efficiency was agreed to. A key element of stage 1 under the plan was a nationally consistent legislated regime for mandatory disclosure of energy performance of commercial buildings by the end of 2007. The change of government at the federal level appears to have delayed the bill coming before the House, but this very welcome measure is better late than never.
There are, however, issues that the government must address to ensure that building energy efficiency certificates accurately represent a building’s efficiency. Proposed section 21 of the legislation does not specifically prescribe the method of assessment; instead, it delegates that authority to the secretary of the department. The explanatory memorandum to the bill assumes the National Australian Built Environment Rating System—otherwise known as NABERS—will be utilised; however, NABERS does not currently provide a nationally consistent star rating.
To achieve the top five-star rating the building must well exceed the industry average for energy efficiency. A rating of one star is below that average, but to determine the industry average NABERS bases its algorithms on the now superseded Australian greenhouse rating system, which varied state to state. The methodology means that the industry average benchmark could be 2.5 stars in New South Wales but three stars in Victoria and two stars in Queensland. The result is confusion when you compare star ratings across the states. A three-star rated building in Queensland—signifying higher than average energy efficiency for that state—would equate to an average rating in Victoria.
In submissions to the Senate inquiry on this bill, Peter Verwer, the CEO of the Property Council of Australia, raised the star disparity as potentially confusing to investors. He made the point:
While this flaw might be overlooked if investors only compared homogenous markets, the reality is that multiple geographical markets are often considered before investment decisions are made.
Investors seek out energy-efficient buildings as they are cost-effective to run and maximise potential returns. As environmental and investment considerations are in synergy, it is beneficial to those selling interests in buildings to maximise their star rating against both their domestic and interstate peers. Achieving clarity across borders will ensure no undeserved geographic advantage and will further promote energy-efficient practices in the battle to win investor funds.
NABERS is currently under review because of the star disparity across state and territory borders and, as a consequence, concern has arisen that this House is being asked to endorse a bill that envisages using an as yet unrefined system. That being said, delaying this bill in search of the perfect system might in fact give us less impetus to quickly and correctly update the NABERS system. What is certain, however, is that the government yet again has not lived up to its promises. The government promised that the flaws would be addressed to prior to mandating the systems used, and clearly that has not occurred.
Industry supports the NABERS methodology, though, and has been the driving force in promoting meaningful change. Since its first iteration, the measure has fundamentally transformed, adopting many industry suggestions. Tenancy and base building efficiency have been separated into different rating components, and waste, water and indoor environment are all individually measurable. From fierce industry opposition of the originally unworkable management system, NABERS is now accepted as the industry standard. I can only say that this shows the value of working closely with industry in order to get the legislation we passed on this place right, to make the necessary changes to make it workable. As I said, the industry has strongly supported the NABERS methodology and has worked constructively to try and promote meaningful change.
Matthew Clark, the manager of NABERS in the New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, estimates that 50 per cent of all Australian CBDs have a NABERS rating. That equates to 10.5 million square meters of rated commercial space in more than 1,000 buildings. In fact, it is now possible for anyone, including office managers, to easily rate their tenancy efficiency free of charge using the example application on the NABERS website. The method of measurement could also easily apply to hotels, shopping centres, schools and hospitals, and I think many of us hope to see the focus on energy efficiency extend across all building types. That certainly would be my wish—including for residential buildings. As I said, this not only makes sense in terms of reducing our carbon footprint but makes good economic sense both for householders and for commercial, industrial and public building owners and builders.
The most important aspect of NABERS is that it sets an above-average stretch target, where building owners can aim to outperform their peers, playing on the competitive nature of the market. As commercial buildings across Australia spend approximately $4 billion on energy each year, the potential for economic and environmental benefits are vast. The stretch target is already proving successful, with most tenants who re-rate their buildings achieving an average of 13 per cent improvement. Across the industry, that has resulted in 200,000 tonnes of carbon savings a year, and a $520 million financial saving.
For tenants, the greatest carbon and financial savings can be achieved through efficient lights and tenant lighting management. The building energy efficiency certificate proposed under this bill specifically singles out lighting for scrutiny, which is a welcome focus. But, worryingly, little headway appears to have been made on developing a cost-efficient lighting assessment process. In testimony to the Senate inquiry on this bill, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency commented:
Finalisation of the tenancy lighting assessment, including on-site testing, is due to be completed in May [2010]—
which date has passed—
Training is scheduled to be provided from July [2010]. This allows sufficient time for tenancy lighting assessments to be carried out prior to the commencement date of disclosure obligations (anticipated to be around October 2010).
But now, in June, the lighting assessment tool still remains to be finalised. The window for industry to be ready is quickly closing and it is unfair for the government, which is dragging its heels working out the assessment tool, to expect industry to work by the rigid time frame. The government must act quickly, in consultation with business and to their satisfaction, to remedy this situation or delay the commencement of the lighting tool.
The NABERS assessment can currently assess tenancy energy consumption based on electricity bills, of which lighting is the predominant factor. Cumbersome floor-by-floor lighting audits can be undertaken as well, although such audits are costly exercises. This shows that the capacity to measure lighting efficiency does exist. It is now just a matter of the government transferring practice into an industry tailored software calculator.
The benefits from simple lighting changes are exemplified by the WA government owned Dumas House in Western Australia. A full lighting upgrade was undertaken across the 14 floors, replacing outdated florescent lamps and adding timers to control lights. The project cost $130,000 but has reduced electricity use by 510,000 kilowatts, equating to $63,000 per year, in energy savings on lighting alone. After only two years, the initial capital outlay was fully regained—again, very impressive figures.
Another example is Perth’s tallest building, Central Park. In 2001, the building received a base rating of 4.5 stars, but the whole of building was rated at 3.5. Commenting on the disparity, Shaun Arseven from property manager Jones Lang LaSalle noted:
This shows that the tenants’ light and energy consumption in this building has potential for savings so we will now concentrate on achieving significant reductions in these areas …
Central Park now boasts a five-star base rating, with 21 per cent of energy being drawn from renewable energy sources.
Direct action to maximise building energy efficiency has proven to be, and will continue as, an effective method of reducing carbon emissions and costs to business. As previous chair, as I said, of the Public Works Committee, this policy was put into practice. For every government building and major infrastructure work scrutinised, the committee asked proposing agencies to develop the buildings in the most efficient way, including conserving and utilising water more wisely. One 14-storey building constructed as a departmental headquarters utilised the surface area of the roof as a water catchment facility and built in an underground storage tank, on top of incorporating the most up-to-date energy saving measures at the time. Such forward thinking should drive our approach to building design.
Analysis conducted in 2004 as part of the National Framework for Energy Efficiency and reported in the previous coalition government’s forward-thinking white paper Securing Australia’s energy future identified substantial areas where commercial energy efficiency opportunities were not being taken up. It found that significant proposals with payback opportunities of four years or less existed across the commercial, residential and industrial sectors—not including the transport sector—but were not taken up. The analysis estimated that, if only half of the gains were implemented, it would increase GDP by approximately $975 million a year once fully implemented. With this analysis in mind, I reiterate to the House words I spoke last year. Promoting energy efficiency to the maximum makes good sense all around: it reduces costs, boosts the economy, conserves finite resources and reduces emissions.
In closing, I shall refer again to the words of Luigi Di Serio, the creator of the ‘Skylines of the World’ website. In ranking Perth at No. 39, he comments:
Perth has been leading Australia in population growth for several decades now. Just a few decades ago this city was nothing more than a large town. With numerous nightlife spots, Perth is now a major business and tourism centre having more 5 star hotel rooms per capita than any other large city in the Oceanic continent. Perth is a tourism hot spot with a great nightlife. As the city grows, so does its skyline.
To indulge Luigi’s thoughts, I would say that as the skyline grows so will the necessity of energy efficiency. This bill is a welcome move to support that aim, and I am very pleased that Minister Wong, the minister responsible in that other chamber, has addressed some of the concerns raised by the coalition and by the member for Dunkley, as the shadow minister, to ensure that this bill is made much more workable than it otherwise would have been. As I said before, it is important to stress in this place that we need to have close consultation with industry in order to get the settings right in our legislation and our regulation. We have seen the terrible mess that occurs when this does not take place. In the operation of any new laws, we have to make sure that they are workable and practicable and that they can be put into place in order to achieve the aims that are set out. Together the coalition and the government, and indeed the industry input, have made this legislation more workable than it otherwise would have been. I commend the bill to the House.
The Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Bill 2010 will create a legal requirement for owners of large commercial office buildings to obtain energy efficiency information for their building and to disclose it to prospective purchasers and lessees. It will also require head tenants who are subletting office space to disclose this information. The bill follows on from a landmark agreement to expand and accelerate energy efficiency efforts through a National Strategy on Energy Efficiency released by Australian, state and territory governments in July 2009 which outlined the following four key themes. The first was assisting households and businesses to transition to a low-carbon future, the second was to reduce impediments to the uptake of energy efficiency, the third was making buildings more energy efficient and the fourth was government working in partnership and leading the way.
The $88 million National Strategy on Energy Efficiency builds on the existing resources and financial support available to improve our homes and workplaces. Energy used by our buildings accounts for approximately 20 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, split fairly evenly between homes and commercial buildings. The business sector is by far the largest energy user in the Australian economy. The industrial sector alone accounts for almost half of Australia’s energy end use, and around two-thirds of stationary energy use. Australia has one of the more energy intensive industrial sectors among developed countries. In terms of carbon pollution reduction measures, energy efficiency has been something of a Cinderella and has been somewhat overlooked. The fact is that this is an area which would benefit from a lot more attention.
Energy consumed by residential appliances and industrial and commercial equipment is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. By addressing a large number of areas where low-cost energy efficiency opportunities exist and are yet to be fully exploited, this strategy enables Australians to access highly energy efficient appliances and equipment for residential, commercial and industrial applications, aligned with leading international standards. As the minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts has outlined:
Greener offices are not only more comfortable to work in, they can also boost productivity, bring down sick leave, support green building industry jobs and have the potential to deliver savings of 20-40 percent on energy bills.
Energy efficiency is a fast, cheap way of making inroads into Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. This scheme will provide a strong incentive in the market for building owners to improve their properties by investing in cost-effective energy efficient upgrades. The disclosure scheme will also apply to office buildings owned by the Australian government, in line with the government’s commitments under the National Strategy on Energy Efficiency.
Building owners will need to disclose a valid Building Energy Efficiency Certificate, which will include an energy base building star rating under the National Australian Built Environment Rating System, which is known in the trade as NABERS. It will also include an assessment of the lighting energy efficiency of tenancies and some suggestions on how to improve the building’s energy efficiency. This scheme is part of an ambitious plan to make Australia’s homes and businesses more energy efficient by improving base standards and star ratings—for appliances, equipment and buildings—and by phasing out inefficient technologies. This strategy sets the foundation for a transformation of Australia’s building stock through cost-effective voluntary action in response to better information about building energy use. Armed with this information, consumers and businesses will be able to make informed choices about the energy efficiency of the buildings they buy and lease—and builders and building owners will respond to those market signals by investing in energy efficiency. New buildings will be designed and constructed according to improved energy efficiency standards that will lead to a reduction in energy consumption. These standards will account for climatic variation. Major renovations will be subject to the same standards.
Another result of the agreed National Strategy on Energy Efficiency is a national buildings framework that aims to deliver consistency on how buildings are assessed and rated for energy efficiency and to set out a pathway for increasing minimum performance standards over time. As the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has observed, the framework will:
for example, every three years—
I think these are all very worthwhile steps forward. In talking about the issue of energy efficiency, I want to suggest some measures which would enhance building energy efficiency and help lower our greenhouse emissions. At the moment consumers can find what is the most efficient refrigerator or car from a government website. I think that kind of information about building performance should also be publicly accessible. In addition, building rating certificates should be displayed in building foyers, again for public accountability and transparency. I think the tenant’s rating should also be disclosed. Given that tenants consume about half the energy in a standard building, they should be required to disclose details in a foyer and on a government website. Disclosure of ratings should be extended to other building types such as hotels, hospitals and retail and shopping centres. While there is a focus on energy efficiency, I think water conservation is equally important and disclosure of a water rating should also be considered.
I mention to the House the submission by the Australian Conservation Foundation to the Prime Minister’s Task Group on Energy Efficiency, which said:
Forward-looking and energy efficiency focused building code revisions would require new buildings to meet a minimum of 5-star NABERS requirements now. Such measures are simple and generally well-understood and as such provide a robust means of directing greater investment into energy efficient measures and practices. This would significantly improve the energy efficiency of new building stock and eliminate the need to retrofit them in the short- to medium-term upon revisions of the building code to more environmentally stringent standards …
A greater focus needs to be placed on the 98 per cent of commercial floor space that is existing building stock. A strategic approach to greening existing commercial buildings must involve retrofitting. However, barriers and impediments to the investment in ‘green’ retrofitting persist. Getting policy leverage will require providing unambiguous market signals as well as providing incentives for investing in modern technology. Accelerated depreciation would help to shorten the payback period by enabling owners/investors to defer tax payments (in exchange for implementing energy efficiency measures earlier).
I have also mentioned recently in parliament the benefits of smart grid technology and the consumer interface with this grid, the smart meter. These could communicate with smart thermostats, appliances and other devices, giving people a much clearer view of how much electricity they are consuming. As the Economist points out:
Studies have found that when people are made aware of how much power they are using, they reduce their use by about 7%. With added incentives, people curtail their electricity use during peaks in demand by 15% or more.
I have mentioned to the House previously that I have been to visit the CSIRO zero-emissions house in Doreen, which has this kind of smart metering whereby you can see exactly what kind of emissions are being generated in any one room at any one time. I believe that is an excellent incentive for house owners. Groundbreaking research by the Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering has demonstrated that better management practices deliver high-performance buildings and that large advances in energy efficiency can be achieved without major capital expenditure on technologies. Its Low energy high rise building research report, which involved a survey of 127 buildings in Australia’s capital cities and extensive analysis covering the attitudes and energy management practices of tenants and building asset and portfolio managers, showed that most buildings could achieve a four-star NABERS energy base building rating solely through improved management practices. According to the centre:
Project Director, Sue Salmon said that the findings were good news in the current financial climate.
“This report is internationally ground-breaking.
“It proves that despite the global financial crisis, major improvements in energy efficiency are possible without huge capital expenditure.
“What it is telling us is that the greatest environmental gains can be achieved with little or no cost. Even better, the energy savings can put money back into the pockets of owners and tenants,” …
Ms Salmon said key features of buildings that perform well related to human attitudes and practices.
“For example buildings where management is at least partially in-sourced perform better by as much as 1.3 stars NABERS energy rating and buildings where the building, asset and portfolio manager all feel able to affect efficiency perform better by 0.9 stars.
“Buildings that disclose their NABERS performance to tenants perform better by 0.5 stars NABERS Energy.
“This corresponds to a performance improvement of approximately 30 per cent for an average building.
“Extrapolated across the CBD office building sector—
this amounts to—
a 1.2 per cent reduction in Australia’s total emissions.”
This report:
…was based on three years of development and research by the Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering, involving extensive and detailed investigation of attitudes and practices among tenants, building managers, asset managers and portfolio managers.
Participants involved the leading tenants and landlords in Australia.
“With the NABERS Energy benchmark and now these new research results the Australian commercial property sector has the tools to be global stars in cutting greenhouse gas emissions,” …
There is a global push towards the concept of carbon neutral buildings and precincts. I refer again to the submission from the ACF, which stated:
The 2008 G8 Plan of Action on IEA Energy Efficiency Policy Recommendations, which was endorsed earlier last year by the Australian Government, recommends that governments should adopt a package of priority measures for promoting energy efficiency …
Order! It being 8.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Wills will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Dear Ms Irwin
Television reception in Turkey Beach and Rodds Bay, Queensland
Thank you for your letter dated 18 March 2010 in your capacity as Chair of the Standing Committee on Petitions. In your letter you referred a petition to me from the citizens of, and visitors to, Turkey Beach and Rodds Bay, Queensland, about the inadequate quality of television reception in those areas, and you sought my response to the petition by way of a written response to the Committee.
The petition asked the House to ‘make an urgent request to the appropriate authority for erection of a black spot tower to allow residents of Turkey Beach and Rodds Bay to receive good quality television reception.’
The Television Black Spots Program, which provided funding for analog retransmission solutions, closed on 30 June 2005. However, the Australian Government understands the importance of free-to-air television to regional and rural Australians and has introduced policy and legislative measures to maximise the access of viewers in these areas to digital television services.
On 5 January 2010, I announced that the Government will implement a new digital television satellite service which will be available to people who are unable to receive adequate terrestrial television reception from the transmitters that serve the area in which they live.
The new satellite service will, for the first time, allow people living in regional areas to receive the same number of television services as people living in metropolitan areas. Legislation to support the implementation of the new satellite service was introduced into Parliament on 18 March 2010.
The new satellite service will feature channels carrying programs from the Seven, Nine and Ten networks and the national broadcasters’ main channels, ABC1 and SBS ONE, along with digital channels ABC2, ABC3, ABCHD, SBS TWO, 7TWO, GO! and ONE HD. A new Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) 24 hour news channel is expected to replace the current ABCHD service later this year.
The satellite service will also provide viewers in regional Australia with access to the local news services currently broadcast by the commercial broadcasters in their relevant terrestrial licence areas. These services will be provided through a dedicated news channel. In addition, the news services of the national broadcasters, the ABC and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), will also be provided. ABC news will be provided on a state basis.
On 14 April 2010 I announced that the Government had finalised a funding agreement with broadcasters to provide the service in Eastern Australia. Further information about the operation of the satellite service, including the availability and cost of the new satellite set-top boxes is available at the broadcasters’ website at www.mysattv.com.au.
Turkey Beach and Rodds Bay are in the Capricornia switchover area which will switch to digital-only broadcasting in the second half of 2011. The actual date at which switchover will occur within the six-month switchover period will depend on factors such as local conditions and community feedback.
To access the new satellite service, households will need to install satellite reception equipment, including a dish and a digital set-top box. The costs of installation will vary depending on the location, the size of the satellite receiving dish required and characteristics of the viewer’s home.
The new satellite service provides a viable alternative solution to community funded `self-help’ retransmission facility for people in areas like Turkey Beach and Rodds Bay. Following a household’s initial expenditure for satellite reception equipment, there will be no ongoing financial and resource commitments required, unlike the ongoing maintenance and operational costs of the self-help facility. Furthermore, the satellite service will be better able to serve people within the area as the population distribution changes over time.
Thank you for bringing the concerns of the residents of Turkey Beach and Rodds Bay to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance.
from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy
Dear Ms Irwin
Petition regarding mobile phone coverage at Turkey Beach and Rodds Bay
Thank you for your letter dated 18 March 2010 in relation to a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions, concerning mobile phone coverage at Turkey Beach and Rodds Bay.
The Australian Government understands the importance of mobile telephony to Australians. The last few years have seen the three major mobile phone carriers extend the national coverage of their networks on a commercial basis. The Vodafone Hutchinson Australia networks cover more than 94 per cent of the Australian population. Optus provides 3G services to 96 per cent of the Australian population and Telstra claims its Next G network now provides mobile coverage to 99 per cent of Australians.
The provision of mobile phone coverage in a particular area is primarily a commercial decision made by mobile phone carriers. In making the decision to extend coverage to a particular area, a mobile phone carrier will consider a range of factors, including site availability, cost structures, likely levels of demand from users and overall economic viability of the service.
Residents of Turkey Beach and Rodds Bay may wish to contact Telstra, Optus and Vodafone Hutchison Australia to make their needs known. I have attached the contact details of the carriers for reference. It can be useful to involve local government in identifying potential demand for mobile services in an area. Information such as projections of population growth and records of traffic volumes can be helpful in assisting carriers to make informed decisions about whether to extend coverage to certain areas.
Telstra, Optus and Vodafone Hutchison Australia coverage maps indicate there is patchy coverage in the Turkey Beach and Rodds Bay area. The Optus maps show that the area is to be provided with better coverage in the future. The coverage maps are available online at:
www.telstra.com.au/mobile/networks/coverage/maps.cfm,
www.optus.corn.au, www.vodafone.com.au and www.three.com.au.
There are a number of factors that can interfere with mobile reception and, therefore, affect a user’s ability to obtain or maintain a mobile phone signal at any given time or in any particular place. These factors include mountainous or hilly terrain, road cuttings, buildings and tunnels. While not all potential sources of interference can be overcome, local service providers should be able to advise of ways to minimise interference.
One effective way to increase coverage is to use an in-car kit with an external antenna. The most appropriate antenna may vary between networks, and prices vary according to the quality. These accessories can be readily obtained from mobile phone shops and dealers.
The particular handset used can also affect mobile reception. It is important for consumers to understand that different mobile phones have different capabilities and how each phone performs on the network is dependent on both the network coverage and the particular device. Telstra puts a ‘blue tick’ label on the phones it recommends for use in poor coverage areas. These phones make the most of available reception. Other service providers can also provide advice on the best handsets for local conditions.
In areas that are sparsely populated or have little passing traffic, the only commercially viable option for mobile phone services is via satellite. Satellite mobile phone services cover the entire Australian landmass and population and are available from a number of providers.
Satellite Phone Subsidy Scheme
The Satellite Phone Subsidy Scheme (the Scheme) improves the affordability of mobile communications for people living and working in areas without terrestrial mobile coverage, by providing subsidies for the purchase of satellite phone handsets.
The Scheme provides up to $1000 for eligible applicants who live in areas without terrestrial mobile coverage, and up to $700 for eligible applicants who live in areas that have coverage, but spend significant periods in non-coverage areas.
In 2009, I announced enhancements to the Scheme and its extension until June 2013. These improvements include:
Information about the Scheme, including the application form, is available on the website of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy at
www.dbcde.gov.au/satphone. An information kit can be obtained by contacting the Scheme administrator by phoning freecall 1800 674 058 or via email salphone@dbcde.gov.au.
Thank you for bringing the petition from the citizens and visitors of Turkey Beach and Rodds Bay to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance.
Carrier contact details
Ms Barbara Wells
Area General Manager
Telstra Country Wide
Country Coast and Capricornia
Station Chambers, 116 Lennox Street
MARYBOROUGH QLD 4650
Email: tcw@online.telstra.com
Telstra
Tel: 125 111 (Mobile phone enquires or faults) www.telstra.com.au/mobile
Mr Martin Wallace
General Manager, Government Affairs
Optus
101 Miller Street
NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060
Tel: 02 8082 9001
Email: martin.wallace@optus.com.au
www.optus.net.au
Mr Brian Currie
Manager, Regulation and Policy
Vodafone Hutchison Australia
PO Box 388
ST LEONARDS NSW 2065
Tel: 02 9964 4660
Mob: 0425 224 566
Email: bcurrie@hutchison.com.au
www.three.com.au
from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy
Dear Ms Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2010 on behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions about the petition presented by the Member for Gippsland regarding funding for Landcare facilitators and coordinators.
The Australian Government remains committed to supporting Landcare and recognises that Landcare is at the frontline in dealing with many of our future challenges, including food security, climate change and the protection of Australia’s environment.
The 2010-11 Budget allocates $36 million in funding to support Landcare community groups and volunteers across Australia. This is a $1 million increase on last year’s funding. We have also increased overall funding for Caring for our Country in the 2010-11 Budget by $15 million, to $423 million.
I recently attended the National Landcare Forum in Adelaide, where I had the opportunity to speak with many people from across the country who are involved with Landcare. Like the people of Gippsland, I understand the importance of having networks of facilitators, coordinators and project managers to support Landcare groups, particularly if they are to help meet our future agricultural and environmental challenges. This is why the government is providing $33.6 million for a national network of 56 Landcare facilitators. These facilitators support local Landcare groups in many ways, including helping them to apply for funding, and will effectively link community groups and natural resource management bodies.
An open call for suitable organisations to host the Landcare facilitators was recently concluded, and I expect this network to be in place for the longer term by 1 July 2010. Further information about the Landcare facilitator initiative is available at www.nrm.gov.au. In the meantime, the government has offered each natural resource management region up to $150 000 in funding to maintain facilitator employment in their regions while these arrangements are being implemented. Contrary to Mr Chester’s allegation in his speech presenting this petition, this offer has been taken up by the vast majority of regional bodies.
Also contrary to Mr Chester’s allegations, the Caring for our Country Business Plan explicitly recognises the importance of facilitators and provides funding opportunities for the purpose of employing a facilitator to help achieve project outcomes.
Mr Chester is further incorrect regarding funding for the capacity, skills, knowledge and engagement target under Caring for our Country—most projects funded under Caring for our Country meet this target and the latest Business Plan has merely clarified that projects need to address other targets, such as sustainable farming practices, when addressing the capacity building target.
The Caring for our Country Community Action Grants program is also helping many grassroots Landcare groups undertake their important projects. In January 2010, the Hon. Peter Garrett AM MP, Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, and I announced almost
$5 million for 299 Community Action Grants projects. I am pleased to say that on 31 March 2010 I announced a further $876 000 in funding for another 49 Landcare projects, to be undertaken by community Landcare groups. It is important to note that Landcare groups can apply for funding for facilitators through Community Action Grants.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention. I trust this information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Burke
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 13 May 2010 forwarding a petition from the electorate of Wannon, regarding a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) ‘licence’ for Warrnambool Hospital.
The Australian Government is responsible for the provision of Medicare benefits for a wide range of medical services, including MRI scans. As MRI is a sophisticated and expensive technology, there are particular requirements which need to be met in order for an MRI scan to attract a Medicare benefit. In particular, the MRI scan needs to be provided on ‘eligible equipment’ as defined in the Health Insurance (Diagnostic Imaging Services Table) Regulations.
There are 125 eligible equipment MRI units operating across Australia, including 28 in Victoria. There is no ongoing application process for obtaining eligible equipment status for an MRI unit.
Hospitals and diagnostic imaging providers may choose to install and operate MRI units which do not have eligible equipment status. Scans provided on these Medicare-ineligible MRI units do not attract Medicare benefits. Under the National Healthcare Agreement, scans provided to public inpatients of public hospitals do not attract Medicare benefits anyway.
In referring to an MRI licence, the petition seeks eligible equipment status for an MRI unit at Warrnambool Hospital, which would then be treated as a Medicare-eligible MRI unit.
The Government is aware of the calls for an MRI unit, preferably Medicare-eligible, in Warrnambool. The Government has received a number of representations on this matter from the Warrnambool community and from the Member for Wannon, the Hon David Hawker MP. My adviser has also met with Mr Hawker and others from Warrnambool. I appreciate that communities such as Warrnambool value access to convenient and affordable MRI services.
In May 2009, the Government announced that it would be undertaking a detailed review of possible long-term funding arrangements in diagnostic imaging. As part of
this detailed review, the arrangements for funding MRI under Medicare are being examined, particularly the restrictions around Medicare-eligible/ineligible units. The outcomes of
the detailed review are expected to be considered by the Government in the context of the 2011-12 Budget.
The petition calls on the Government to reverse its decision to not grant Warrnambool Hospital an MRI licence. I note, however, that as there is no ongoing process for applying for Medicare eligibility for an MRI unit, and no capacity at this time to increase the number of Medicare-eligible MRI units, the Government has not actually made a specific decision in relation to any request concerning Warrnambool.
I trust that the above information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 13 May 2010 regarding a petition submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions about the removal of Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items 50124 and 50125, which provide for joint aspirations or injections.
As part of the 2009-10 Budget, it was announced that the MBS fees for minor procedural items 50124 and 50125 would be removed from the MBS. However, there was no change to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listings of medicines associated with joint injections.
The joint injection items have been removed from the MBS as they can be delivered as part of a standard consultation. There are many services carried out during a standard consultation with a doctor, such as performing a Pap smear, which do not attract a separately identified benefit. Following the change, any practitioner who was previously administering the service can continue to perform the service under the relevant attendance item for the relevant medical specialty.
The new MBS Quality Framework, a measure announced in the 2009-10 Budget, has seen the Australian Government allocate $9.3 million over two years to develop and implement a new evidence-based framework for managing the MBS into the future. The
Quality Framework introduced a new MBS listing process on 1 January 2010 that applies to all applications that do not undergo an assessment through the Medical Services Advisory Committee.
Items that are deemed eligible for MBS listing will be listed for a time-limited period and will require a formal evaluation at the end of the period.
My Department has met on a number of occasions with both Arthritis Australia and the Australian Rheumatology Association to discuss this issue.
On 31 January 2010, my Department received a submission from the rheumatologists regarding complex joint injections and aspirations. My Department has indicated that it is willing to examine further the issues raised. These services are now being reviewed under the new
MBS Quality Framework.
I trust that the above information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon
This evening I am pleased to present the report by the Petitions Committee entitled The work of the first Petitions Committee: 2008-2010, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
In the report the committee reviews its role, as framed by the standing orders, and how it has operated since it first met in March 2008. The role of the committee is to process petitions and to inquire into matters relating to petitions and the petitioning system. Given that clear framework, the committee’s primary activity has been to meet each sitting week to consider proposed petitions for compliance with the standing orders, and the written responses that ministers have made when we have referred petitions to them.
Since it began its work, the committee has been concerned to follow up on the matters raised in petitions and we have done that, first, by referring them to relevant ministers. We have also held many roundtable meetings at Parliament House and interstate where we have spoken to public servants and to a number of petitioners about petitions. The committee’s webpage provides petitioners, and the public generally, with easy access to advice about preparing a petition, the terms of petitions that have been presented to this House, ministerial responses, and transcripts of public meetings we have held where we asked about petitions and responses.
Beginning in September 2008, at this time on sitting Mondays I have announced petitions and ministerial responses that the committee has considered at its latest meeting. This regular timeslot has given the committee an opportunity to account to the House and to Australians about the work it has undertaken, and to outline the matters addressed in petitions. The committee hopes that this timeslot will become a permanent one. The committee has been under no illusion about its ability to resolve the concerns that are raised in petitions, but it has been concerned to air them—and the government’s views on them—on behalf of those who sign them.
In discussing the committee’s role, it is worth repeating one of the principles that underpins our decisions. Petitions are inherently about issues that engage peoples’ interest and sometimes their emotions. There will always be occasions when some or all members do not agree with the text of a petition, but, if it complies with the standing orders in its form and content and language, then the committee believes it is required to approve it for presentation in the House—whether that presentation is by me or by a member who has been asked to present it.
The report outlines our approach to our work and the activities we have undertaken as our role evolved. It also examines the relevant standing and sessional orders. We believe that, generally, the standing orders are effective in enabling us to strengthen the petitions process and the links between the House and the Australian people. One recommendation we have made is for the committee to be able to refer petitions to House committees for inquiry and report—should those committees wish.
This is the second report of the committee. We reported in November 2009 on the issue of e-petitions and recommended that the House accept electronic petitions as well as paper. We hope that will happen in the near future.
In what may be my last statement to the House on petitions, I would like to acknowledge my committee colleagues. In particular I thank the deputy chair, my colleague and friend the member for McMillan, for his contribution to this report and for his generous and enthusiastic support for the committee from the beginning. I believe there would be few committees that are as enjoyable to work with as the Petitions Committee. That is due in no small part to the role played by our deputy chair.
The harmony and productivity is also due to the sustained interest shown by other members of the committee, who have many obligations, including leadership roles in other committees. They have taken the time to participate in committee activities here and interstate. Like me, they have been reflecting on the committee’s role as a bridge for communications between the House and Australians and government. I believe it is their commitment that has made the committee so successful so quickly, and it is their commitment that will ensure the committee continues to evolve to meet the needs of the House and petitioners.
I also thank the staff of the committee secretariat for their work on this inquiry. Over the course of the parliament we have had a few changes in our staff, but, fortunately, they have been seamless. I thank all secretariat staff, past and present, for that. It is with pleasure that I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security I present the committee’s report entitled Review of Administration and Expenditure: No. 8—Australian Intelligence Agencies.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
As always at the outset, I thank the secretariat for its support of both the committee’s work on this report and all our other endeavours throughout the term of this parliament. I also thank the other members of the committee, who have contributed in a very constructive and beneficial way to the good governance of this nation in what is a very critical area of parliamentary oversight.
This report is a little different to some of the others this committee has presented in that it addresses a number of recommended changes to the legislation, something the committee does not do lightly or often. In the very short time available to me, I will concentrate on three of the recommendations that go to some of those matters. Recommendation 1 of this report says:
The Committee recommends that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to include AFP—
that is, the Australian Federal Police—
counterterrorism elements in the list of organisations that the Committee reviews.
The report goes into some detail about the importance of that change, but I just refer to two of the concluding remarks contained in the report. At paragraph 1.40, the committee report says:
It is untenable that the Committee cannot seek information from the AFP on its counterterrorism role and intelligence functions in the same way that it does with ASIO,ASIS, DIO, DIGO, DSD and ONA.
My apologies for the acronyms! The committee has enjoyed very productive and positive cooperation from the Attorney-General, who has facilitated the opportunity for senior officers of the AFP to meet with the committee, but the committee strongly takes the view that there is a need for legislative change to place the AFP counterterrorism elements on the same footing as those members of the Australian intelligence community. Elsewhere in the report, at paragraph 1.43, the committee notes:
Of all the AIC—
that is, the Australian intelligence community—
agencies, and agencies that work closely with the AIC, the AFP is the most public and visible. The Committee sees no reason why the AFP alone, of all the agencies encompassing the AIC, should be immune from Committee review other than with the specific consent of the Attorney-General. These matters are too important to be left to the variations in views that the Attorney-General of the time may hold.
These are important matters. The committee has a key role in ensuring a balance between the security requirements of laws that all of us in this place—as well, I think, as people throughout the country—understand and appreciate might otherwise be seen to transgress the civil liberties and basic human rights which we in a democracy hold dear. This parliamentary committee is a key aspect of the counterbalancing of those concerns and should not be subject to the differing views that various attorneys-general of the Commonwealth may hold from time to time.
I turn now to recommendation 2. It says:
The Committee recommends that the Government agree to amending the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to enable specific material which does not affect current operational activity to be provided to the Committee. A small working group drawn from the relevant Departments, Agencies and the Committee should be set up to prepare this amendment for consideration by the Government.
The committee has enjoyed very productive relationships with all of the agencies over a long period of time, not just in this parliament but also well before. That has been an essential aspect of the committee’s being able to do its work. As the report makes clear, many of those things which the committee deals with and have become custom and practice might be read by some not to be covered by the existing wording of the legislation. Again, to ensure the parliament’s proper oversight of these sensitive and important laws, we think it is now time for the government to review the legislation and to put in place measures which more accurately reflect the status quo.
Recommendation 7 proposes to amend the act to put in place a provision requiring that the ANAO report to the committee on its reviews of the Australian intelligence community. In fact, the ANAO quite willingly does that, and the committee relies significantly on those contributions, but it should not be open to either the vagaries of individuals or arrangements that exist from time to time. It needs to be in the legislation.
This committee performs an enormously important role not just for the parliament but also for the public confidence in these most important laws. The enhancements proposed in the recommendations of this committee report will go a long way towards ensuring that that remains so, that it is seen to be so and that it is above party politics. (Time expired)
First, I thank the member for Brisbane for his leadership of this committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I do so in the context of the report’s recommendations I will shortly discuss. I commend his observations on the work of our secretariat. I primarily intend to discuss recommendation 1 of the report but I do note recommendations 6 and 8. Recommendation 6 deals with the effects of the efficiency dividend and a concern that I have that growing security engagement, particularly in relation to visa scrutiny, has put a number of organisations, ASIO in particular, under very considerable pressure. Efficiency dividends fit uncomfortably with the view that the role of an organisation should be expanded, because resources are ripped out. Recommendation 8 is about the increased activities of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. I draw those recommendations to the attention of the House.
As I said, I want to speak specifically about recommendation 1, which is:
The Committee recommends that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to include AFP counter-terrorism elements in the list of organisations that the Committee reviews.
I draw members’ attention to the discussion in the report. It contains some matters that perhaps my colleague the member for Brisbane would not want to draw attention to but I think I safely can—that is, an obvious reconsideration of this matter by the government. As noted in the report:
It is obvious that there was some reconsideration of that matter. I do not know what that reconsideration was, but, if it was to ensure that an element of our security and intelligence functions should not be reviewed by the relevant committee of this parliament, I would see that as very serious indeed.
There have been a number of inquiries over time that pointed to the need for security agencies to be under government scrutiny. It seems to me, as one who has seen both the executive function and the parliamentary function, that the idea is that there are a number of agencies that are subject to review. The committee report points out the extensive nature of that review, in that it applies to bodies like our internal security organisation, our external security organisation, our defence organisations and the Office of National Assessments. But the AFP is excluded, even though the National Counter-Terrorism Plan states:
ASIO, other Australian Government intelligence agencies and the AFP maintain overseas liaison channels to gather intelligence and to pursue investigations.
It is clear the AFP has an intelligence function; the committee report points out the nature of that intelligence function; and yet, despite being part of those arrangements, that one agency seems to be excluded.
I do not think there is any evidence that any other committee will be reviewing the intelligence role of the AFP. If that function is not given to the intelligence and security committee—the committee that deals with the review of intelligence functions—it seems to me that that role of the AFP will be exempt from scrutiny while other agencies will be subjected to it. There is no logic, it is totally inappropriate, and I would urge the government to look very carefully at this report and to reconsider its approach. If it does not, I believe it is being derelict in its responsibilities.
Does the member for Brisbane wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I do. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services I present the committee’s report entitled Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, together with evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I am pleased to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services June 2010 report on the statutory oversight of ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The committee have been busy. We have been increasing our understanding of ASIC’s role and operations and of the issues facing Australia’s market regulator.
On 22 March, the committee visited ASIC’s Information Processing Centre at Traralgon, in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley. This gave us an opportunity to better understand ASIC’s business and to experience firsthand its call centre operations—really, the nerve centre of the complaints that are received by ASIC. It is my understanding—and I stand to be corrected if it is not the case—that this is the first time the committee has undertaken to do a full committee visit of this very important operations centre. The committee thanks the many staff at Traralgon for their assistance and also for their hard work and dedication. We really got a firsthand impression of just how dedicated the people who work there are to doing a great job.
The committee also sought briefings from experts in the field of corporate regulation, and we thank Professor Michael Adams and Associate Professor Joanna Bird for providing the benefits of their expertise. It is something that the committee will endeavour to continue to do—to seek outside as well as internal expertise. The committee are also very interested in improving our oversight of ASIC and, as such, we have increased the number of oversight hearings from two per year to four per year, with a view to also playing a more active role and having a more hands-on approach in oversight of the regulator.
I now turn to issues that were covered in the report and our most recent oversight hearing, particularly the transfer of market supervisory powers. Responsibility for securities market supervision is being transferred from the Australian Securities Exchange to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The committee visited the exchange’s Sydney offices to hear from them about the transition to the new regulatory regime. It then discussed the transition with ASIC at the public hearing later that day. ASIC was confident that it was on schedule to take responsibility for market supervision between 1 July and 30 September this year. The committee is very confident in that process.
The committee is also confident in the systems that are being put in place—the redundancies, the computing systems and the legacy left behind between what ASIC does now and will do under new regulation and what the Australian Stock Exchange has done in the past. ASIC indicated that it would start consultation on new market rules for competition between share markets only once the transfer of powers from the Australian Stock Exchange to the Australian Securities Investments Commission have been implemented. The implication appears to be that trading on competitor platforms, such as Chi-X, would not take place earlier than the first half of next year, in 2011.
Issues of concern that have been raised by this committee, such as contracts for difference, are real issues and the committee is taking these on. The markets for derivatives such as contracts for difference have remained a focus also of the commission’s surveillance. The number of participants in markets for contracts for difference grew 23 per cent in 2009, which is an enormous growth figure. These are very risky products suited to market players with considerable knowledge and experience and people who actually do very much understand the risks and limitations that are involved when dealing with these types of market derivatives.
The committee’s examination of the collapse of Storm Financial and Opes Prime highlighted potential problems when retail investors start trading such high-risk products, as just one example. The committee encourages ASIC to remain extremely vigilant in this area and will itself also continue to keep the derivatives market under active consideration. The committee continues to closely monitor progress being made in the wake of the collapse of Storm Financial. The committee is aware that ASIC has attracted some criticism for the time it is taking to make progress on this important case. But the committee also appreciates that a balance needs to be maintained between public disclosure and achieving the best possible outcome for investors who have lost their lifesavings—and, for some, much more as well. The committee accepts that ASIC is attempting to strike that balance; however the committee also believes that delays beyond July may lead to further questions about the effectiveness of that particular strategy.
There is a range of other areas that the committee continues to keep on its agenda—in particular the issues of rumourtrage. Effective financial markets rely on the communication of accurate information about the products that are being traded, and rumourtrage is something that is not acceptable on the Australian market. It is the spreading of rumours or false information in order to deliberately affect the price of a market product such as a company’s shares. ASIC established Project Mint in March 2008 to investigate such misconduct. The committee is aware that there has been some debate about how best to deter behaviour designed to mislead markets. It has noted that the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, or CAMAC, in a June 2009 report recommended reforms to the Corporations Act to make it easier to undertake prosecutions in this area. CAMAC’s proposal has been endorsed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The committee now believes that proposal should receive active consideration by the minister. I know that the minister will take this on board. While I am on that, I again congratulate the minister for the great work that he has done in this area. He has been actually been ahead of the game and, I dare say, even ahead of the market in terms of some of the reforms in these areas. So I congratulate him for his work and I know that he will do a great job in this area in the future as well.
I particularly want to talk about recent litigation and some of the areas where ASIC has lost some high-profile court cases in recent years. One in particular was the case against One.Tel, and there was also AWB and Fortescue Metals. These are a small number of the hundreds of prosecutions ASIC has conducted, most of them being successful. The committee is firmly of the view that it should always remain within the capacity of ASIC to take on cases whether it wins, loses or draws, to send a strong signal to the market about its position and to set the precedent or to make certain the laws and regulations in terms of particular cases, and that is what ASIC continues to do.
The committee accepts that it is of course inevitable that some litigation will be lost. Lost litigation is not the same thing as failed litigation particularly when court decisions provide greater legal certainty for all parties without undermining the objectives of the regulatory regime. The committee strongly endorses the need for rigorous review of cases particularly those that are likely to be expensive to litigate, and it understands that ASIC is committed to strengthening internal processes to ensure that this occurs. The committee holds its next hearing with ASIC later this week and we will continue to pursue a number of these issues discussed in the report.
I thank the secretariat and the committee members for the hard work that they do and their assistance in preparing these reports. I also want to thank the ASIC officials for their continuing cooperation, and I commend the full report to the House.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Communications I present the committee’s report entitled Hackers, fraudsters and botnets: tackling the problem of cyber crime, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Today I table the report of the House of Representative’s Standing Committee on Communication’s inquiry into cybercrime. Over the past 12 months the committee has heard evidence from a wide cross-section of government, industry and the community on the impact of cybercrime on the Australian public. The report is a substantial contribution to the cybercrime policy debate in Australia. The message was clear and consistent: Australia needs to take a more comprehensive approach, a ‘whole-of-cyberspace’ approach that takes account of ordinary Australians and shifts away from the fragmented approach to tackling cybercrime which presently dominates the issue, and move to a coordinated approach between government, the private business sector, service providers and law enforcement authorities.
In 2009 alone the number of Australian internet subscribers grew by one million to a total of nine million. The global estimate is approaching two billion. The digital economy is here and here to stay. While the benefits of a connected world are undeniable, increased connectivity brings increased risks. Cybercrime has grown from the nuisance hacker into organised transnational crime committed for vast profit. Malicious code, malware, identity theft and botnets—cybercrime continues to evolve and grow. An underground digital economy has emerged by which cybercrime tools and stolen information can be easily traded. These crimes take a significant toll on everyday Australians. Cybercriminals have identified home users and small business as the weak links in the chain and are conscientiously targeting these groups. The emotional and financial consequences for Australian victims of cybercrime are real, lasting and significant.
Despite the prevalence of cybercrime, the committee does not accept that the internet is an unpoliced Wild West. The internet is subject to the same laws as the offline environment. I commend the ongoing efforts of the government to combat cybercrime. However, under current arrangements, end users have largely been left to fend for themselves. This is no longer a tenable position. We must achieve a model of shared responsibility that brings industry, government and the community together. To achieve this goal the committee has made a number of significant recommendations. These are based on the unanimous view that e-security education alone is not sufficient to protect end users.
The committee has recommended that an office of online security be established within the Department of Prime Minster and Cabinet, headed by a cybersecurity coordinator—a cyber-tsar—to work with all levels of federal, state and territory governments, industry and consumers, and with international partners. The office must be centrally located and not be biased towards one particular policy area such as national security. The coordinator will need to have both government and industry experience—someone who can cut through red tape and work with all parties. The committee has also recommended a 24/7 national cybercrime complaint centre—a one-stop shop—and hotline to assist everyday Australians. This approach will also help enforcement agencies to see the bigger picture of organised cybercrime. If we can follow the footprints of cybercriminals, we can ultimately identify them and prosecute them. The report also recommends the development of a centrally managed national e-security education strategy.
The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General recently announced national cybercrime measures. I commend greater national collaboration but would caution against seeing this as a role purely for the Attorneys General. The committee has emphasised the importance of a national, multisectoral, strategic and coordinated response to cybercrime through, for example, strong consumer protection and privacy laws. Significantly, the committee has recommended a mandatory e-security code of practice to put to the internet industry. The recent voluntary code for ISPs is a step in the right direction, but the committee wants a clear obligation for ISPs to notify subscribers when their computers are infected. Nine-two per cent of internet consumers support this notification, and it is very clear that, in the present circumstances, unless the ISPs notify consumers, many consumers are oblivious to the fact that their computer has been hijacked. It is essential to remediate infected computers, dismantle botnets and identify the sources of cybercrime. End users should also be expected to install antivirus software before connecting to the internet.
I rise to support the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications in the tabling of the report of the inquiry into cybercrime, titled Hackers, fraudsters and botnets: tackling the problem of cyber crime. I congratulate the chair of the committee for the fantastic work that she did in her leadership of this committee. As the deputy chair, I certainly appreciated the effort that she and the rest of the committee members put in. I would also like to take the time to thank the committee secretariat for their diligent and dedicated hard work to ensure that this report actually is a report that, I am sure, will not gather dust in the future. I am sure that this report will have many of the recommendations within it put into practice. I am hoping that that will be the case because a significant amount of hard work went into it.
Fishing, virus, worms, trojan horses, botnets—one might be forgiven for thinking that this could be just science fiction; however, this is language that we as consumers of the internet must become familiar with. We need to accept that the internet is a valuable form of communication but, as technology advances rapidly, we must implement protection mechanisms that can play a role in protecting consumers against criminal activity that causes devastation and wreaks havoc on the victims.
Over the past few years, criminal activity has increased dramatically as a result of utilisation of the internet. During evidence given, we were told that when a home user fell victim to a scam the cybercriminal put the respondents of these scams onto what they called a ‘sucker list’. This list is then used to distribute further scams. So, rather than people thinking, ‘Well, I’ve been caught once and now I will be left alone,’ they actually are targeted even more intensely with alternative scams. It is quite a shame to see that people can get caught time and time again. It might be thought that the people who get caught are not savvy people. Well, that is certainly not true.
During the evidence we heard that there is huge concern for the future. As our internet speeds increase, the ability to track criminals becomes increasingly difficult. However, we are very fortunate that the same technology used to commit crime against users is also used to catch these criminals. The committee heard evidence from agencies that gave us significant comfort in their expertise, but we also heard tragic and heart-wrenching evidence from people who had been scammed. The one constant comment that we heard from people who gave evidence, advice on evidence and agency advice was that there is a need for intense education. I personally feel that the very nature of the advancement in technology means that consumers must become more savvy and have a responsibility to be educated. In addition, I feel that retailers have an obligation to ensure that consumers are aware of the need to install the protection that they require, such as anti-virus software, firewalls and anti-spy software.
As a result of how many complaints I have had over the years, I held forums in my electorate to educate my community on the very real issues of cybercrime, identity theft, fraud, the use of people’s computers to host and distribute of child pornography and other issues. I put out a booklet to explain, in very simple terms, just what people need to look for, the types of protection they need to have on their computers and how they can check their computers to see whether botnets are active on their home systems. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be surprised at how many people are hosting botnets in their own homes without having any idea that they are being used to transfer information—sometimes information that is highly illegal—throughout the system. I commend this report to the House. The committee did an excellent job, and I think that, on the whole and in the main, this is a successful report.
The time allocated for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Robertson wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Procedure Committee I present the committee’s report entitled Building a modern committee system: an inquiry into the effectiveness of the House committee system, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
The House committee system has been operating in its current form since 1987. Some significant reforms were undertaken as a result of a 1998 Procedure Committee report, and other minor changes have taken place over time. Last year, over 20 years after the current system of committees was established, the Procedure Committee considered it timely to undertake another in-depth review, looking at issues such as the work and powers of committees and factors that influence their effectiveness.
I thank the people who provided written submissions and those who met with the committee. As part of its inquiry, the committee held two roundtable discussions with chairs and deputy chairs of House and joint committees. On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I take this opportunity to thank these colleagues for their time and contribution to the important discussions that took place at these well-attended and constructive forums. In fact, this sort of cooperative, bipartisan approach that was demonstrated at the roundtables is one of the real strengths of House committees in particular. Unlike some other committee systems, House committees tend not to be adversarial but facilitate members working together across party lines to find solutions to problems faced by the Australian public, delivering a great deal of value to the community on the way.
The committee found that, overall, the House committee system has been operating relatively effectively within the framework that has been available to it. However, some changes are necessary to strengthen the role of committees within the Australian parliament. To this end, the committee has made recommendations for structural changes to make the committee system work more efficiently and make the best use of members’ time. These include reducing the number of general-purpose standing committees and reviewing the number of joint committees, reducing the number of permanent members on House committees, making better use of more supplementary members in committee inquiries and recognising and extending the significant roles performed by chairs and deputy chairs. Some other reforms proposed by the committee include increasing the number of bills inquiries carried out by House committees and giving House committees the power to initiate their own references, noting that they already have the capacity to influence their work programs by negotiating inquiry terms of reference with ministers and by conducting inquiries into annual and audit reports.
Changes in technology and in the community’s expectations of members and of parliament have meant that the committee system’s role has been evolving over the years. Committees act as a bridge between the parliament and the public. The Procedure Committee’s recommendations therefore seek to make it easier for the community to follow and engage with committees, including ensuring that the technological tools available to committees are adequate and appropriate, including teleconferencing, videoconferencing, web based solutions and audiovisual recording and broadcasting; providing a more practical and appropriate time in the chamber and Main Committee for the presentation and debate of committee reports; and creating space in the House’s schedule for a deeper narrative around committee work, starting with giving chairs the opportunity to make statements in the chamber about their committee’s inquiries.
No consideration of the effectiveness of House committees would be complete without giving some consideration to the resources available to committees to carry out their work, including funding, staffing and time. While the committee appreciates the constraints of the current fiscal environment, it notes that the House has traditionally had little input into the level of funding required for it to effectively carry out its work. For this reason, one of the committee’s recommendations is for the establishment of a House staffing and appropriations committee, whose role would be similar to that of its counterpart in the other place. Giving the House this sort of input is long overdue. It has been both recommended by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and proposed by the former Speaker, the Honourable Member for Wannon, earlier this parliament.
The report I present this evening is the culmination of a lengthy and thoughtful inquiry process. The inquiry was carried out cooperatively and across party lines, and I thank my Procedure Committee colleagues for their sustained efforts. Their experience with committees, as well as their interest in the inquiry, was invaluable. I also thank our secretariat, Catherine Cornish and Peggy Danae, for the extraordinary amount of work they did on this report. I inform honourable members that I will seek to have this report debated in the Main Committee. The report has aimed to strengthen an integral aspect of the House of Representatives, ensuring that the House committee system continues to meet the needs of the community and the parliament for many years to come. As such, I encourage my colleagues to consider the Procedure Committee’s report and to contribute to the debate as they wish. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)
Does the member for Parramatta wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee’s report entitled Enabling Australia: inquiry into the migration treatment of disability, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
This report follows on from a trilogy of migration detention reports released last year. This report is the fourth to be tabled by the Joint Committee on Migration in this parliament—a substantial achievement for all members of the committee involved and for a very able secretariat.
There have been a number of well-publicised cases in which Australia’s policies towards people with disabilities in the context of migration have been at issue. Two of the most well-known cases are the Moeller and Kiane cases. Dr Moeller was a German GP practising in rural Victoria on a temporary long-stay 457 visa. The Moeller family was refused permanent residency because of 13-year-old Lukas Moeller’s Down syndrome.
No waiver was available under the permanent skilled visa, PIC 4005, so the Migration Review Tribunal duly rejected the Moeller’s application for review of their case. However, following representation by members of federal and state parliaments and media attention, the case was quickly resolved. Luckily for Dr Moeller and his family, the minister exercised his discretionary power and was able to intervene and waive the health requirement in recognition of the compelling and compassionate circumstances, including Dr Moeller’s considerable contribution as a rural based medical practitioner to offset any undue costs.
Much more tragic was the case of Mr Kiane, an asylum seeker, who received protection in Australia in 1997. Upon receiving a protection visa he sought to sponsor his wife and children to join him. Mr Kiane’s split family protection visa application was rejected on the basis that the health requirement was not met by one of his children, an eight-year-old girl with cerebral palsy and epilepsy. The visa has a waiver consideration, PIC 4007, during which family members in Australia offered to guarantee financial and other support.
After four and half years in appeal, Mr Kiane subsequently set fire to himself in protest in front of Parliament House in Canberra in 2001. Tragically, he died of his injuries. In its report on the case the Commonwealth Ombudsman expressed, ‘Serious concerns about the fairness and professionalism of the decision-making process.’ It is with these sorts of seemingly unfair and tragic outcomes in mind that the committee wrote its report and made its recommendations.
The committee’s inquiry into the migration treatment of disability has important international origins. In 2008, Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the disability convention. This UN treaty proclaimed the rights and values of people with a disability as full and equal participants in society. This parliament is moving to address this issue, not solely because of the UN treaty, but because it is important for the national interests of Australia and for the fair treatment of people seeking to come here under its immigration program.
The migration health requirement set out in the Commonwealth Migration Act 1958 and its regulations is the means by which Australia assesses threats to public health brought from overseas and to contain public health expenditure. Every prospective migrant who wishes to visit or migrate to Australia on a temporary or permanent basis must pass this requirement.
The committee’s inquiry found that the migration health requirement places an undue emphasis on theoretical costs associated with a particular degree of disability, which disadvantages these applicants relative to others. Currently, if someone is identified as having a health condition, a first consideration is whether the identified level, or degree of the illness or condition will cost the community in excess of the ‘significant cost threshold’ beyond which the visa will be rejected. The second consideration is whether granting a visa will prejudice access to services in short supply for other Australians with the same condition.
Under this assessment the vast majority of visa applicants in this area—tens of thousands—are successful in passing the health requirement and in gaining a visa. However, the inquiry found that an inordinate number of applicants with a disability or with family members with a disability fail to meet the health requirement. While overall numbers were small—about 1,500—the impact on these families was great.
The committee heard from skilled nurses, doctors, scientists and academics who were unable to fill jobs in Australia while waiting for the applicants or that the applicants were being forced to leave after years in such jobs because they had a child with a disability. This is, as I said, not just simply a matter of compassion towards visa applicants. ( Extension of time granted ) Another group who were affected was Australian citizens who could not return home with a stepchild with a disability or reunite with family members left without carers overseas. Others were refugees whose family members were rejected because they had lost a limb under torture or through civil war.
The committee found that our present migration regulations explicitly assume disability or conditions associated with a disability will be a cost burden to the wider community. This is based on projected or theoretical costs of health care and community services and payments, such as the disability support pension, irrespective of whether these services would ever be used. In the vast majority of cases, no account is taken of the capacity of the applicant or applicant’s family unit to defray costs by care or economic contribution. Neither is there consideration of the economic or social contributions of a migrant or their family. This is an approach that the committee considers needs urgent rectification.
The 18 recommendations made by the committee in this report will support changes that will see the significant cost threshold and mode of assessment of disability updated to reflect the actual costs associated with conditions, and the costing methodology made public. Where a person does not meet the health requirement, a waiver discretion is more widely available to assess the social and economic contributions made by a visa applicant, and families have the opportunity to offset costs. Families are not unfairly disadvantaged under the health requirement as a result of a family member having a disability—the ‘one fails, all fail’ rule. In Brisbane we had two renal nurses from England who were unable to stay in Australia, despite the great shortage of nurses in the Queensland health system, because one of their children had a disability. These skilled migrants, desperately needed in Australia, had to leave. Finally, for offshore refugee visa applicants who have a disability or other health condition, visa waivers are considered for compelling and compassionate circumstances, especially for family reunion applicants. In particular, by providing greater discretion to migration decision makers at the beginning of the visa process, the committee’s recommendations should reduce reliance on the Migration Review Tribunal and ministerial discretion to resolve more difficult migration cases. Overall, this will make for a more efficient, more transparent and more compassionate visa consideration process, especially for people with disability.
A lot of the submissions we received argued that the current migration regulations only treat people with disabilities as a burden, not a benefit to Australia, costing Australia rather than enriching it. Many examples were cited of people with disabilities who have come to Australia and achieved great things. One of the cases we heard involved the principle researcher for a University of Western Australia/CSIRO project and his family. The family’s visas were rejected at first instance because the applicants’ four year old daughter had Down syndrome. A medical officer of the Commonwealth had judged at that time that the girl ‘would be likely to require additional educational resources beyond mainstream education’ and ‘supported employment in the future at significant cost to the Australian community’. In this particular instance, a couple of years later, the original decision was overturned by the Migration Review Tribunal. (Time expired)
The time allocated for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Melbourne Ports wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Katter.
Having presented the Constitution Alteration (Just Terms) Bill 2010, we give notice to the House that we will present a second bill. Whilst the first bill requires Constitutional amendment; the second one is a property rights. Property rights can be removed or diminished by an action of the government only if a budget allocation has been made to compensate under just terms the entity that enjoys or has reasonable expectation of enjoying that right and all affected entities are given reasonable access to that compensation.
In presenting the bill to the House, I say that there will be fire and brimstone upon every member of this House, and, please God, the sooner the better. The government has treated with absolute contempt the principle—and the state government is probably worse, if humanly possible, than the federal government—that an Englishman’s home is his castle. For those who saw the wonderful Australian movie—maybe the best of all Australian movies—The Castle, it is implicit in that movie the principle that we all believe in. For those who like Russell Crowe, he looks into King John’s eyes and King John says, ‘What, you expect me to give every Englishman a castle?’ Russell Crowe says, ‘Every Englishman’s home is his castle.’
We people in North Queensland—and I read an article recently by a fisherman in Adelaide—have had our water rights taken away from us and our timber rights taken away from us. It is very difficult for us to think of a single right that we still enjoy—whilst, in theory, the property that is owned by you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, or me or anyone else in this House, has these rights enshrined. Since the days of the Magna Carta it has been true that regardless of your racial background you are a member of the English speaking peoples and those peoples have enjoyed a principle that the Crown is not supreme; the individual has his rights that the Crown cannot assail. In the case of property, if he wants to take that property then let him pay just and rightful compensation for it.
Let me be very specific and quote Noel Pearson at the ‘Our land, our sea’ conference in North Queensland. He said, ‘For the last 30,000 or 40,000 years, maybe for time immemorial, my people have had access to the water, access to the timber, access to the rocks, access to all of these rights, and a thief in night’—the Premier of Queensland—‘took all of those rights off us without paying a single cent in compensation.’ As Noel said: ‘We’ll see you in the Hight Court. We have been there before and we beat you last time.’ And I will be backing him this time.
Peter Spencer had a big rally here at this place. The honourable Leader of the Opposition was there and it was rather ironic—not in any way criticising him for being at the rally—in the sense that almost everything they were complaining about was in fact implemented by the last government, not the current Labor government. Let me simply quote that case. The figures are not correct; not even remotely correct, but the relativities are right. Mr Spencer had a big property, and he had timber on that property. Let us say the value of that property was $2.7 million and the value the banks put on the timber was $1 million. The New South Wales government, under the direction of the last federal government, removed his timber rights. The banks then said, ‘You have just lost $1 million in value, so we are foreclosing on you.’ They sold him up for $½ million or whatever it was, leaving him with a debt. That is what we are assailing in this bill. (Time expired)
Bill read a first time.
In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Chief Electrical Artificer and acting Chief Petty Officer Allen Leslie Smith was somebody I would have called uncle if he had lived. He was onboard HMAS Sydney when it was attacked by the Kormoran, which had been masquerading as a Dutch merchant ship. The battle that ensued meant that every single solitary Australian member of the ship’s company—all 645—was lost. Of the Kormoran, the ship that had acted with deception and lured the Sydney so that it lost its firepower advantage, had 317 survivors and lost 80.
The stories that have surrounded the Sydney and its wonderful and luminous history prior to it being lost are of the legend variety. The Sydney in 1941 had taken part in battles in the Mediterranean as part of the 7th Cruiser Mediterranean fleet. The Sydney had in battle torpedoed and fired upon Italian ships and had been responsible for sinking the Bartolomeo Colleoni. As Captain Collins—after whom we named our Collins class submarines—ordered the finishing of that ship, cruiser Havock, which was acting in this battle with the Sydney, was standing by to take survivors from the ship.
When the Finding Sydney Foundation was formed everyone was delighted that finally a proper search would be made for the Sydney and some of the mystery could be solved. When the ship and the Kormoran were found and we heard again the story of the last half-hour of the Sydneythe only version being the German version—we commemorated the ship and all of her company with a very fine service at St Andrew’s Cathedral. The stories of the ship, her courage and her company were celebrated as well as commemorated.
In recent times I have had discussions with Allen Leslie Smith’s son, my cousin. As I said, Allen died before I was born, but obviously my cousin lost his dad. He and I together are very incensed, as are others in my electorate, about the plaque that is being sent to Germany. It has been negotiated by the Finding Sydney Foundation, after completing arrangements with the German Naval Association and accepting words for the plaque to be sent to Germany to a war museum. The plaque says:
In the sea battle off Shark Bay Western Australia between Kormoran and HMAS Sydney on 19 November 1941, 80 Kormoran men and 645 Sydney men were killed. Both ships sank due to the damage they had suffered in battle. In March 2008 the wrecks of Kormoran and Sydney were located by the Finding Sydney Foundation. Today we reach out our hands in friendship, to commemorate those who died at sea together.
In memory of those who died in battle, and to remind the living.
May the men from both ships rest in peace.
It was not an honourable battle. The German ship behaved dishonourably. To whitewash the fact that all Australians were lost and 317 Germans were rescued is to whitewash the greatest loss of naval personnel in the history of Australia. As someone who does have a personal connection and acknowledges it, it is wrong that this plaque be sent. (Time expired)
Only a few weeks ago the community cabinet visited my electorate of Braddon and I was able to reflect on some of the $450 million worth of investment by this government in my region. In many instances, the government is copartnering with the local government in my region and with the state government. I am very proud that one aspect of that investment is the National Broadband Network. Indeed, Smithton in the far north-west of my electorate, which you have visited on a number of occasions, Mr Speaker, was one of the three starting points in Australia for the National Broadband Network. I was very pleased in April 2009 to be with the Prime Minister and the Premier of Tasmania when it was announced that the NBN was coming to Tasmania and again in July when the details of the rollout were announced and Smithton was to be one of the starting points.
Again, in August, we heard of the establishment of the NBN Co. in Tasmania, namely NBN Tasmania. In October 2009, the shovels began work. They began work certainly in Smithton. Only as recently as June, only a few days ago, the network operation centre was opened in Hobart. I am very pleased to be able to say that there has been a pleasing 48 per cent take-up by eligible premises in the three locations from round 1. Nearly 50 per cent of eligible people have registered to have the fibre-optic high-speed network set up to go to their homes. That is an excellent result indeed.
That is the wholesale connection. What we are waiting for now is the retail connections. They will come when we have myriad retailers offering a variety of prices, and thus the competition will begin. Indeed, three providers have already announced that they are interested in the NBN up my way. I notice that one of those is Internode, and they are offering plans of 25 megabits per second, costing just $29.95 and, for 100 megabits per second, offering start-up plans of $59.95. That is a fantastic start. As one of the proponents argues, ‘of course we believe price is the catalyst for rapid adoption.’
I know we are on a good thing because those opposite tried a few questions today in question time on the NBN but their back bench were very quiet behind it I can tell you. I knew I had hit paydirt when up in the Main Committee the member for Maranoa was moaning his head off that this ‘won’t be a goer’ and ‘it won’t go here and it won’t go there’. Of course, what he was really angry about is that Telstra has now come on board with NBN, as would be the case anyway, sensibly, and now we truly have a new telecommunications structure for the 21st century and onwards. I notice a number of commentators on this matter claim that it is not only important that this new structure works here; I notice the ITU and UNESCO are looking at this set-up very carefully from overseas. It is the view of people like Paul Budde that:
Declining telecoms revenues worldwide are an indication that we are reaching the end of the telecoms model which—
Telstra has been using telecoms for around 50 years. So, he argues:
… with or without the NBN, the traditional telecoms will have to come up with new revenue streams anyway.
So the NBN is a goer. Telstra is on board and this system will begin to roll out not just in Tasmania but throughout the nation, and its capacity and its potential is absolutely enormous. (Time expired)
With so many examples of Labor wasting taxpayer funds, mishandling programs and backflipping on policies, you can forgive the public and the press for somewhat forgetting about the Home Insulation Program. While the problem might be out of mind for the Prime Minister, regional businesses and regional communities are all too aware that there are still problems with the scheme. Currently there are businesses still owed money by the government—thousands of dollars are on hold whilst the government’s inspections are carried out. The Prime Minister and Minister Garrett, who were responsible for this tragic mess, have not had their payments put on hold, so why should legitimate small business? Why are the small business owners and the insulation contractors paying for the government’s poor planning?
I wish to inform the House this evening about a scenario being faced by a small business in Parkes, in my electorate of Calare. Hay’s Mitre10 was a part of the governments Home Insulation Program. They provided the materials to contractors, who carried out insulation work until the program was dumped by the government. The store is currently owed $26,000 by contractors. The account has been outstanding for six months and the waiting game continues. These contractors are owed by the government and cannot make the payments until they are themselves paid.
It is a cycle that is affecting individuals and businesses. It has and will continue to cause businesses to close. It has and will continue to cause workers to lose their jobs. This is their livelihood. It is how they look after their families, send their kids to school and provide for their future. How long can Hay’s Mitre10 expect to wait for payments? How many other businesses and contractors are being forced into a similar situation and how many jobs are being threatened by the government’s incompetent disaster?
Let me say at this moment that at no time should safety be compromised. This scheme has already had tragic consequences, as we all know, with the loss of four lives and over 170 reported house fires. The checking of roofs is a necessity and a must. Australian taxpayers have been forced to provide an extra $1 billion for the peace of mind they deserve. But you have to wonder about the Rudd government’s priorities when $38 million is going towards advertising their disastrous supertax and not towards making sure more roofs are checked faster—or never. If they wanted a reason to put out advertising it should have been to warn the public at some stage in the last six or 12 months of the dangers to their own homes care of the Rudd government.
Houses remain at risk. Lives remain at risk. The faster these checks can be made the better. The current situation is certainly hurting regional communities, I can assure you. On the central west of New South Wales it is hurting them and their families every day. These contractors and these businesses still have bills to pay. The individuals still have mortgages, their employees still have wages and the electricity and gas companies still send their bills. They have been forced to cover the government debt and the government incompetence. The government should do more to help these businesses and more to help these regional communities. I can only ponder why the minister for small businesses has not been championing this cause in caucus and here in parliament.
The Home Insulation Program, like so many of the government’s schemes, was poorly planned and even more poorly executed. It has cost taxpayers billions and continues to slug regional communities—certainly in my part of the world. Whilst the Prime Minister may have put it out of his mind, we in the coalition and we in regional Australia have not. I urge the Prime Minister and Minister Combet to fix this situation and let businesses like Hay’s Mitre10 in Parkes get on with looking after families in regional communities.
I rise tonight to present a petition to the House regarding the inclusion of the Modern Greek language in the national curriculum that is currently being developed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. This petition is significant not only because it is the second bilingual petition to ever be presented to the federal parliament but also because its 19,067 signatures are part of an ongoing nationwide campaign to draw the House’s attention to the importance of Modern Greek as a language of cultural, historical and economic importance to the broader Australian community.
The Petitions Committee, of which I am a member, recently approved the petition which I present to the House this evening. This petition also reflects a longstanding passion of mine involving the development and teaching of languages other than English in the Australian teaching curriculum, an issue I first addressed in this parliament in 2005.
The truth is that over the years, despite successive government policies on language learning and teaching, we have not really succeeded in reaping the maximum benefits of Australia’s existing multilingual resource capabilities. The languages spoken in this country come from the hundreds of immigrant communities that have settled here and, of course, the many languages and dialects of Indigenous Australians. In my electorate of Calwell alone there are 140 nationalities and 125 languages other than English spoken at home and I am often witness to the benefits and day-to-day functionality of speaking a second language. In fact, the language dynamics of my electorate mirror a wider community feeling that we should see bilingualism and multilingualism as one of our greatest tools for enhancing democracy, cultural awareness, intellectual development, trade and diplomacy.
As a result of this, when developing a languages curriculum I feel we should be mindful not to restrict ourselves by sticking too rigidly to concepts such as community languages and economic languages. We can advance our capacity better if we take a universal approach to the teaching of languages other than English and their relevance to the Australian community must be paramount.
Successful language capability can only be achieved if the languages taught have infrastructure which makes them viable in the long term. They must have a dynamic application and a direct relevance to Australia’s domestic and international agenda. As such we need to strike a working balance between the so-called economic languages and the existing community languages. To exclude one group at the expense of the other is to set a path for failure in our long-term development.
The number of signatures gathered for the petition I present this evening are the first of more to come and are a strong indicator that in this case the Modern Greek language has become not only a relevant working language and resource for the 365,000 people who identify with Greek ancestry but also a linguistic means for future generations of Australians to connect with the global community.
I would like to thank the many thousands of people who have played an integral role in putting this petition and campaign together. Among the many I would like to thank are the Modern Greek Teachers Association of Victoria, La Trobe University’s department of Modern Greek language, and the other Greek departments in schools and universities across Australia. I would also like to thank my colleague the member for Hindmarsh for the incredible amount of work that he has done in relation to this petition. I would like to also acknowledge the assistance of the Greek Orthodox community of Melbourne and Victoria, the World Council of Hellenes Abroad, the Australian Hellenic Council, SBS, 3ZZZ community radio, Neos Kosmos, other media outlets, and community representatives.
In conclusion I want to make special mention of the petition’s principal signatory; the deputy editor-in-chief of Australia’s largest circulating Greek newspaper Neos Kosmos, Kon Nikopoulos. For more than 30 years Kon Nikopoulos has been a passionate advocate of multicultural issues through the media and the community. Kon believes, like the many who have signed the petition, that community languages are the hallmark of cultural identity and that they serve as a central point of bringing people together.
The petition to include the Modern Greek language in the national curriculum is also about giving the wider community the choice to get involved and benefit from a culture that forms a large sector of the Australian population. The sheer volume of signatures in this petition is testament to how genuine the community is in giving the Australian nation the opportunity to embark on a journey to experience and learn more about the Greek language and culture. Community languages are, after all, about the journey of sharing with others what is uniquely important and relevant to the multicultural fabric that makes up our nation of Australia.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of Certain citizens of Australia including representatives of community, educational, political organisations, institutions and establishments across the country
draws to the attention of the House: The matter of the importance of including the Modern Greek language in the National Schools Curriculum as a language of cultural, community, historical and economic importance to Australia and the Australian people.
We therefore ask the House to: Ensure that the Modern Greek language is included in the National Schools Curriculum currently being developed by the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority.
from 19,067 citizens
Petition received.
Be it as I am unexpectedly here to speak on this occasion, I think we have some very important points as a coalition to put forward. I note that it was only a couple of days ago that we announced our regional education fund. As a member of a very rural electorate—Barker has often been referred to as the most rural electorate in Australia; it is a wonderful electorate—we have had some extraordinary feats in the area of agriculture. We only need to look at, for example, how good we are at producing wine in the electorate of Barker. With areas such as the Barossa and the Coonawarra and Padthaway and Mount Benson and Wrattonbully and the River Murray regions, we are very proud of what we do. But it is also very important that we educate our young.
We have a very important task in rural areas to ensure that we can educate our young and give them the same sorts of abilities and capacities that their city cousins have. That is why we announced on the weekend the regional education fund. If elected a coalition government will invest $1 billion in a new regional education fund that will provide capital investment and additional support for schools, vocational and education training providers and universities in rural and regional areas. Rural people find it much harder to go to university. The fact is that most of the students in my electorate have to leave home to attend university unless they have the opportunity to attend one of the few regional universities, given the limited subjects that they have.
I think this really goes to the fact that we originally set up the Higher Education Endowment Fund, or the HEEF, with an initial capital of $5 billion and a subsequent contribution of $1 billion to provide universities with a regular long-term source of infrastructure funding. Upon coming into government, Labor took our idea and renamed the Higher Education Endowment Fund as the Education Investment Fund. Unfortunately, they have drawn down its funds, built up by the previous coalition government, raiding what was meant to be a perpetual, secure, long-term source of financing for university infrastructure. As there is only $2 billion remaining in that fund from the original fund—it has not taken Labor very long to draw that down—the coalition would redirect the interest earned from $1 billion of it to finance new projects in regional areas as part of the regional education fund while the capital would stay secure and untouched. That is one of the large differences between the Labor government and the coalition: they have drawn on it without actually returning those funds to the original amount that was set aside by us. This fund will be a long-term investment. It will be flexible, allowing schools, vocational and education training providers and universities to have the freedom to nominate important projects which might include new buildings, equipment or even programs designed to support and encourage teachers to move into or stay in regional and remote areas.
The REF aims to improve educational services by providing funding to regional, rural and remote organisations and universities, to establish new facilities or to enhance facilities where a lack of infrastructure, capital works and/or equipment can be demonstrated as a barrier to the delivery of essential education services. It will increase the range of, or enhance, existing educational pathways available to students from regional, rural and remote Australia. It will improve the current resources and facilities available to assist with attracting to regional areas—and retaining in those areas—the best teachers and academic staff and it will improve the viability of smaller university campuses and smaller education providers in order to support local, rural and remote communities to develop flexible, long-term solutions for the provision of services to meet community needs. (Time expired)
I rise again to speak with deep sadness on the anniversary of the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. This is the third occasion on which I have spoken on this anniversary in this place and I hope it will be the last. On 25 June 2006, Corporal Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in a cross-border raid into Israel by the armed wing of Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation proscribed in Australia. Two of his fellow soldiers were killed in the raid. He was 19 at the time; he is now 23. For four years he has been held by Hamas. In contravention of the Geneva convention, he is being held as a hostage by a terrorist organisation. The International Committee of the Red Cross and all other representatives have been denied access to him. For his family these have been agonising years.
Hamas continues to hold Gilad Shalit as a bargaining chip, seeking to secure the release of hundreds of terrorists being held in Israeli prisons. It is important that leaders around the world continue to demand the release of Gilad Shalit. A former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in welcoming the easing of restrictions on Gaza by the Israeli government, yesterday repeated his call for Gilad Shalit to be released immediately. Let us be very clear about what Hamas is. This is a terrorist organisation that seized power in Gaza through a violent coup. It is a regime that tortures and murders independent activists, including trade unionists. The 1998 Hamas Charter commits Hamas to establishing an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East. It is committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and includes genocidal references aimed at Jews. Hamas is not an organisation that accepts anything that is known and understood about human rights in Australia. It has a totalitarian approach to all media and education in Gaza, which feature incitements to genocide and glorification of suicide bombing and terrorism.
Internally, Hamas has carried out attacks on mosques, including in Rafah in August 2009, when the Hamas Brigade surrounded a mosque, firing rocket grenades and killing more than 20 Palestinians, including an 11-year-old girl, because of what it perceived as a threat to its authority. Contrast the coverage of this event with the coverage of the recent tragic flotilla incident. Reports on the true nature of Hamas, and the reasons for the ongoing blockade, have been absent in recent news coverage. Criticism of Israel, ostensibly based on concern for the welfare and rights of residents of Gaza, would be more credible if criticism were also directed towards the current rulers of Gaza, Hamas, and its behaviour, which is exemplified in the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit.
The Australian government has responded to the flotilla incident by attending to the welfare of Australians citizens involved by expressing concern about the loss of life and by calling for the establishment of an independent Israeli inquiry into the incident. It is very clear that this is necessary to ensure that there is no repeat of the Goldstone report approach. We have reiterated our support for Israel and recognise the unique security challenges that Israel faces—from Iran and the terrorist organisations that Iran supports, including Hamas. And we have called for the allowing of additional aid into Gaza. At no time has the Australian government called for a lifting of the blockade. In particular, the Prime Minister has confirmed that Australia recognises the need for Israel to prevent arms shipments into Gaza.
There has been a welcome announcement overnight of an easing of the blockade. Considerable humanitarian aid has been going into Gaza from Israel for several years but more can be done. Israel has announced that it will publish a list of items not permitted into Gaza and will let all other items through. Construction material will be permitted for infrastructure projects under international supervision. Capacity at crossings will be increased to enable a significantly greater volume of goods into Gaza.
To end this blockade is simple: Hamas must end the rocket attacks on Israel, of which there have been more than 5,000 in the last four years. It must cease importing arms from Iran. We should not forget Israel’s particular security situation. Israel continues to face existential threats in its region, in particular from Iran and its terrorist clients. Iran remains the great threat to the Middle East. Iran has funded and armed its terrorist clients, including Hamas, so that these terrorist organisations can continue their attacks on Israel. Israel has the right and the responsibility to ensure that Hamas does not build up an arsenal with which to terrorise Israeli citizens. Israel is entitled to maintain a legal blockade that intercepts arms which will be targeted at its citizens. Hamas must renounce violence, must renounce attacks on civilians and must renounce its commitment to the destruction of the state of Israel. It must cease violating international law and immediately release Gilad Shalit.
Order! It being 10 pm, the debate is interrupted.
The following notices were given:
to move:
That standing order 4 be amended as follows:
to move:
That this House:
to move:
That this House:
(2) Commends the vital work carried out by UN peacekeepers and other humanitarian workers and calls upon all United Nations member states to ensure the safety and security of UN peacekeepers and other humanitarian workers in the line of duty, and to appropriately punish perpetrators of violence against humanitarian workers.
To present a Bill for an Act to provide that the removal or diminution on the exercise of property rights can only be done if a budget allocation has been made to ensure that compensation is given on just terms.
I rise today to remember both the life and career of Mrs Andrea West, who preceded me as a coalition member of parliament in this place from 1996 to 1998. Andrea West will be remembered by many people here as an incredibly diligent, focused and committed woman. She was also a person who brought her teaching experience, which is often a very rare thing in this place, to the federal parliament. Andrea and I worked together in 2001 and I have remarkable memories of working together in the Redlands area. I only wish that I had been able to see more of Andrea’s time in the parliament in those two years and her successful campaign directed by her father, Bill.
Many on my side will remember that Andrea worked as part of the class of ‘96, with the incoming Howard government, to fight one of the toughest battles of all—to sell a new tax to a local community. Many would say that the battle to convince people of the merits of the GST was something that Andrea really took to heart and that it may have had something to do with the election results of 1998 in the seat of Bowman, which saw the Hon. Con Sciacca retake the seat. One thing is sure: Andrea always had a fantastic relationship with people on both sides of the chamber, in every corner of Bowman, groups like Zonta and Toastmasters as well as Con Sciacca and me. One thing that runs as a common thread through the seat of Bowman, even though its boundaries may have been reconfigured slightly, is that very close relationship between the people who have represented the area and between local members.
Redlands is a really special part of South-East Queensland. It sits with its own local jurisdiction. It takes its local representatives very much to heart and considers them as locals and part of a very tight community. The boundaries of the seat have moved very little and it gave Andrea the wonderful opportunity to represent this part of South-East Queensland. I remember she used to jump onto the ferries and make her way out to the populated North Stradbroke Island, which is the particular privilege of members of Bowman to do. When one is having a hard day one can always go there, sit at the Stradbroke Island Beach Hotel and gaze over to Moreton Island. Living at Wellington Point Andrea was really committed to work on the ground in that suburb, in Birkdale and Capalaba. Andrea was patron of a number of local groups and her family, her husband, Jeremy, and all of her children, lived, as I always say, in the nerve centre of Redlands and the seat of Bowman.
Andrea played a really consistent role even after she had lost that seat, and that is the mark of a good local member as well. Even having lost the seat she remained really active in and committed to the Liberal Party and made an enormous contribution to helping me run for that seat in 2001. I remember during that campaign that Con Sciacca said to me, ‘I wish you luck, son; I just hope it takes you more than once.’ I enjoyed sharing that with Andrea and all of my time working with her, as I know people on both sides of the chamber did. We offer our best wishes to her husband, Jeremy, and her children, Felicity, Anthony and Nicholas.
Indeed.
Last Friday, I was privileged to attend the BER opening at the Fernvale State Primary School. Fernvale is a part of the Somerset regional area which has been redistributed into the federal electorate of Blair. In representing the Deputy Prime Minister I opened the new resource centre, the new multipurpose hall and the new level sports field. David Raine, the principal, has been there for many years, from when the school numbered just over 200 students, and there are currently 530 students. I want to congratulate Mr Raine, the P&C, particularly Mr Jeff Kalinowski, the Fernvale P&C president, and Mr Graham Peel, the immediate past president of the P&C, and his wife for their foresight. Mr Raine said that his dreams came true with this BER funding. At $3.2 million it is the biggest school funding initiative in the Somerset region. Also present were the state member for Ipswich West, Mr Wayne Wendt, and Mr Graeme Lehman, the mayor of the Somerset Regional Council. Robin Maycock, the program manager for TBH told me that 200 jobs were created by this particular project. It is a wonderful initiative.
The multipurpose hall caters for about 800 students, because the growth in this area is simply enormous. One thousand new lots have been approved for the Somerset Regional Council. This is, of course, part of the BER funding and commitment to our local education. In the Somerset region there are about 18 schools. Somerset, now added to the Blair electorate, was part of the electorates of Dickson and Fisher. This has been warmly welcomed by the electorate of Blair, which has a strong connection with Ipswich. But the member for Dickson was not there; he sent an apology. He did not vote for this funding, and I made it pretty plain to the people there that he did not support this. I was very pleased to have voted for this funding. The Deputy Mayor of the Somerset Regional Council was not there either. If he had been in parliament he would not have voted for it either, for that matter.
The truth is that this initiative, which created jobs in this area, brought forward great funding initiatives. The school community loved this project. It gave a great opportunity to the people of Lower Somerset and to the young children there. It is simply a shame and a tragedy that the member for Dickson did not vote for the project. He did not have the foresight and the fortitude to stand up for his local community when he represented it. That is the truth. Those opposite are big, strong, courageous people back home in their electorates, but here they do not stand up for the school communities and we know that for a fact.
Today I wish to highlight the ongoing farce and tragedy surrounding the Labor government’s bungled roof insulation scheme. The fallout from the scheme, which is just one of Mr Rudd’s long list of broken promises, has left legitimate small businesses with great uncertainty and little hope of surviving into the future. We all remember when Mr Rudd got out his notepad and pen and told installers that he had ‘got it’ and would assist them by fixing the scheme. That promise stands in stark contrast to Labor’s treatment of Mr Covill, a Dickson installer who now faces great uncertainty after investing in the industry. After Mr Rudd stopped the scheme dead in its tracks, Mr Covill contacted the minister for assistance. To this day, the only reply he ever received was an acknowledgement via email that the minister had received his letter. The minister has not even had the decency to respond adequately to my own inquiries on Mr Covill’s behalf. On 9 April, I wrote to the minister seeking assistance for Mr Covill. Despite chasing up the matter several times and highlighting the urgency of the case, I received a response on 19 May merely noting that the department had responded directly to Mr Covill. Instructively, there was no copy of that piece of correspondence. However, after double-checking with Mr Covill, I can inform the House that he only ever received an email of acknowledgement. He has never received anything by way of guidance or assistance.
Mrs McCallum of Green Rebate Insulation at Brendale is another Dickson constituent who has been trying, without success, to get assistance from the minister. Green Rebate Insulation is owed $180,000 by the Rudd government for the work they did under Mr Rudd’s scheme. Month after month, they have contacted the government without any response or result. This inaction filters through to the whole business community and ultimately it is affecting local families and workers. For example, Mrs Pascoe of PR Print in Lawnton waits patiently for $30,000 for work she did for an installer, which in turn is waiting for the government to pay for its past work. While the government does nothing to pay the installers or to settle the accounts it encouraged setting up, other companies bear the debts installers owe to them and so on.
The list of examples is endless. Baigrie Electricians of Petrie helped the government inspect homes following the insulation debacle. Despite the fact that they fixed several dangerous faults—and potentially saved lives—the government cannot even manage to pay the $6,732 they are owed for their services. This government just keeps getting worse. While the insulation scheme may no longer be front-page news, the reality is that this fiasco continues on in the background. It continues to impact the lives of local businesses and local families in Dickson. If the government cannot manage to put free insulation into roofs, there is no way the Australian people can trust it to manage anything more serious, like hospitals or the economy. Imagine a second term Labor government—think Anna Bligh.
I rise today to speak about National Refugee Week, which we are celebrating this week. Last Friday the launch of National Refugee Week in my electorate attracted a huge gathering at the Broadmeadows Town Hall. As the member for Calwell, I represent a constituency which has welcomed many refugees from across the world. I am proud to represent my constituents because they serve as a real living example of the contributions made by refugees who now call Australia home. Those attending included members of the Bhutanese community, numbering around 300 people, which is a small but emerging community in my electorate. In attendance also were members of the Chaldean and Assyrian Iraqi community, the Somali community, Sri Lankan community and many more.
Refugees have long been welcomed in Calwell. It is a community which upholds the Australian ethos of a fair go by working alongside our newest Australians and helping them to create a better life not only for themselves but also for the rest of the community. This year’s theme for National Refugee Week ‘Freedom from fear’ is one which by the end of 2011 will have been used for three consecutive years. It is an apt theme because it highlights the need for the community to engage with our newest migrants to make them feel welcome—to see them as fellow human beings rather than through the lenses of hysteria or xenophobia. It is also a theme which highlights the refugee experience the world over which ultimately can be shaped by fear or a welcoming attitude. I am very glad that we not only here in Australia but also in my electorate have chosen the latter—a welcoming attitude.
Australia has long been a welcoming country for people from across the world, and this welcoming culture has long been extended to our refugees. I say this in spite of the negativity of public debate that sometimes clouds our ability to celebrate the valuable contributions made by refugees to the overall social character of Australia. It does not serve our humanity as parliamentarians or as a community if we buy into this idea that refugees are queuejumpers invading our shores in droves and that somehow because of this they are less deserving of seeking asylum. The fact is asylum seekers account for less than seven per cent of our overall immigration intake, and 90 per cent of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees.
National Refugee Week, therefore, is an important event because it allows us to truly reflect on the successful integration of all Australians—both our newest Australians and those more established Australians. We need to better understand why people come to Australia and this allows us to understand the importance of the contribution that refugees have long made and continue to make to Australia. I am glad that all of us, regardless of our individual stories, our own experiences and journeys can call Australia home and we need to continue to extend this welcome to people seeking refuge in our home.
I rise today to recognise five special residents in the Paterson Electorate: Ronald Franks, Howard Grigor , Diane Bennett, Doris Brooker and Charles Munnery. Each has made an outstanding contribution to the local community. They have now been honoured with the medal of the Order of Australia in the General Division. I would like to add my sincere congratulations and say you thank you on behalf of an entire electorate of Paterson which, through their contribution, has been made a better place.
Firstly, I would like to say a few words about Medowie resident Howard Grigor. This is not the first time I have had the pleasure of recognising Howard who was Paterson’s citizen of the year in 2005. He is a decorated hardworking Rotary member who has travelled across the world to help others in need. He was also a driving force behind the restoration of Williamtown Hall and has worked extensively to better the lives of disabled people through programs such as Sailability and Riding for the Disabled.
I also had the honour of awarding Paterson’s citizen of the year to Vacy resident Doris Brooker in 2009. She too has been recognised with an OAM. The 96-year-old Doris has worked with the Country Women’s Association for more than 30 years and has been an active member of the Australian Red Cross for double that time. Doris has opened her home to many local people and she has been an inspiration for many more.
Next I would like to say a few words about Diane Bennett who has dedicated her time to others through the Clarence Town Rural Fire Brigade for more than 20 years. Diane was named Dungog citizen of the year in 2009 for doing what she loves and, testament to her dedication, told a journalist from the Maitland Mercury newspaper that she was embarrassed to be recognised at all. She said, ‘I just do what I do.’
Ronald Franks, from Hawks Nest, has been honoured for service as a volunteer. While being president of a community group is a big responsibility for any one person, Ron has been president of three groups and an active member of many more. These include positions with the Lions Club of Tea Gardens, Salvation Army and Tea Gardens Motor Club. Ron was also the Tea Gardens RSL sub-branch president for nine years and was instrumental in establishing the war memorial in Anzac Park.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge Charles Munnery, of Raymond Terrace, who has worked with veterans, their families and the wider region for over half a century through Legacy and the RSL. He has helped raise vital funds for veterans, youth clubs and the disabled.
Those five people have dedicated thousands of hours to people and places in the Paterson community and are a wonderful example of what we can all achieve. Today I would like to honour them and, again, say thank you. They set a brilliant example for others, and we can all take inspiration from their dedication.
Last week I attended a breakfast meeting in this place. It was organised by the LHMU to kick off their Clean Start campaign in Australia’s shopping centres. The Deputy Prime Minister attended, along with my electorate office manager, herself a previous LHMU organiser but also, importantly, prior to becoming an organiser a cleaner in our schools. The key guests at this breakfast were the cleaners who keep clean our shopping centres all over Australia. We MPs all met small groups and listened to their work related stories. That is why they were there.
All are proud of what they do. They just simply want time to do it, to do it with dignity, to do it properly and to not be expected to be in two or more places at once. Some said they could be cleaning up one crisis and get called to another. They found it difficult to manage that with the demands of being in big shopping centres, in particular, being in different places and all needed at the same time.
They all want to be treated with dignity and, to be fair, many are. But dignity has a number of defining characteristics. It is about giving workers enough time to do their work well, and cleaning is important because it also has a big public health function. The campaign goes back to 2006, when the LHMU launched the Clean Start campaign. It was to highlight the crisis in the cleaning industry and to improve jobs for cleaners. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they stood together, in front of CBD office towers, and they talked to tenants and they told their stories. Cleaners in every capital city were out and about, helping to build consensus for the reform that was needed in the industry.
LHMU cleaners, alongside government and commercial property owners, responsible contractors, made great strides to improve both the quality and reliability of CBD office-cleaning services. This is the message from the LHMU’s Clean Start campaign in Australia’s shopping centres: ‘Now it’s time to deliver the same improvements to the cleaners, owners, managers, tenants and customers of Australian shopping centres.’ When the LHMU had the Clean Start campaign the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the federal government, wrote to all state governments asking them to support Clean Start. That is what we have been asked to do. They will follow up with members of parliament and ask us to do particular things. I pledge my support to cleaners campaigning for a clean start in shopping centres and I commit to helping them have their voices heard over the coming months.
The development in Townsville of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority administrative offices, tourist information and the aquarium, along with boat based ecotourism throughout the reef, has created many jobs, offsetting job losses in the commercial fishing industry. This regional management and promotion of marine conservation is also playing a vital role in Australia’s tourism industry, generating overseas visitors and valuable export income for the nation.
Port Welshpool in my electorate has the potential to do the same. It was once a fishing, shipping and air travel gateway to the Bass Strait islands, with over 100 fishing boats. Now there are less than a dozen and the airport has been closed, without the business of ferrying crews and catch. Recently, a number of state and Commonwealth marine protected areas have also been declared over the fishing grounds of the former fleet of this port but, as yet, there is no infrastructure from which to develop ecotourism of Townsville and other coastal areas near the Barrier Reef or south-west Western Australia.
Another great asset, the Port Welshpool Long Jetty, was closed in 2003 but is about to become the centre of an exciting community driven ecotourism development. A local non-profit group in my community, Welshpool and District Advisory Group, has raised $5 million worth of investment from Marine and Civil Pty Ltd, which has also recognised the potential of this project in the region, to install an underwater observatory in the Long Jetty. This will be one of the most exciting tourist developments on the east coast for more than 20 years.
In Busselton, Western Australia, an observatory built by the same company is now generating between 60,000 and 90,000 visitors annually, with a calculated net economic benefit of over $10 million. The Long Jetty project has the potential to provide the seed for the growth of ecotourism in Bass Strait. With over 100 islands, massive numbers of dolphins, whales and seals and an extraordinary variety of marine life, much of it unique to the region, the ecotourism of Bass Strait is yet to be developed. For taxpayers there is huge potential in these coastal communities for return on investment in maintaining and restoring basic infrastructure, like the jetty at Port Welshpool, for ecotourism. The underwater observatory will provide the customer base for many other businesses and will generate overseas tourism from Bass Strait ecotourism ventures. A third of the Busselton observatory visitors are from overseas, and so it will be at Port Welshpool—or better, being so close to the Phillip Island penguins.
The other personal interest that I have in the Port Welshpool Long Jetty is that those who are disabled have always had access to the jetty for fishing. Disability services are very close to my heart. It is very important that a jetty like the Long Jetty should be reopened so that there is access, including access for wheelchairs, for fishing and other day activities for people with disabilities. It is a great opportunity for the electorate as a whole.
I have spoken before in this place about Geelong’s strength as a heritage city and, I believe, our tendency to undersell that heritage. Today I would like to talk about one particular street that is especially important because its architectural story is the story of our city. From the earliest days Ryrie Street or, as it was once known, Great Ryrie Street, formed the central core of Geelong, a city which dates back as far as 1838. Ryrie Street was the traditional commercial strip that evolved as the town grew and it can still lay claim to being a great and grand thoroughfare. There is a wonderful photo of Ryrie Street, dating back to 1917, which shows a wide boulevard of merchants and country businesses. This was the age before Ford, and the street is dotted with horsedrawn carriages, cyclists and the odd pedestrian. Down the middle of the street were tramlines, indicating the arrival of electricity. In 1917 Geelong was an important provincial transport and trading centre and had been the wool capital of Australia for well over half a century.
The buildings in Ryrie Street chart that history. The old telegraph station, built in 1857, is one of Geelong’s earliest and most historic buildings. It represents Geelong’s Georgian past and reminds us that, unlike Ballarat and Bendigo, Geelong was a pre gold rush town and a major centre of trading and shipping. The building is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register, as is the old post office next door, which dates back to 1889. This is a classic boom-time building, when the restraint of colonial architecture gave way to optimism and extravagance.
From the 1860s furniture warehouse at 34 Ryrie Street to the 1870s YMCA building through to the 1915 market building, Ryrie Street plots the evolution of Geelong in stone and brick. These days not all the buildings are at their best. In the 1960s building owners were forced to remove verandahs because the posts were considered a hazard to cars. It seems hard to believe now that such a thing could happen, and unfortunately many buildings still bear the scars of that decision. In 2006 the Geelong Verandah Study was completed, and this is a valuable reference point in the city’s planning scheme. It provides advice on appropriate signage design, colour schemes and the reinstallation of verandahs, taking current safety and building regulations into account. To their credit, some owners have rebuilt verandahs. The Geelong art supplies building is a recent example.
Much of Ryrie Street is in the Geelong Commercial Heritage Area, which provides a level of heritage protection. But more can be done. Already the Victorian government, through the Transit Cities unit, is promoting shop-top apartments. There is great potential for these and other developments to enhance the city’s heritage values. We do not want to recreate the past and we cannot do that, but by acknowledging the past we can breathe new life into Ryrie Street. It can become one of the region’s and the state’s best tourist attractions. On 22 July I will meet with representatives of the City of Greater Geelong, among them the city’s consultant heritage adviser, Dr David Rowe, and Councillor Cameron Grainger. We will walk down the street. Everyone is invited to attend.
I rise to speak on the National Broadband Network announcement yesterday by the federal government and the lauding of this policy. The government went to the last election with a $4 billion policy, which has now become a $43 billion policy, with a very scant economic model. Any of the modelling that I have seen would ask: why have businesses in the private sector not already done it if the project is so good?
What they have apparently offered—that is, what they have come to a heads of agreement with Telstra for—is $9 billion compensation to Telstra. In other words, that will go to Telstra shareholders, with another $2 billion to follow. Where is the economic modelling to say that the access to infrastructure that they are going to give to the National Broadband Network, to the NBN, is worth $11 billion? The Telstra board have a responsibility to call an extraordinary shareholders meeting before the next federal election and explain their decision to their shareholders. In the announcement yesterday the Prime Minister said that this would not be wrapped up until after the federal election. I would say Telstra’s board of management and executives were perhaps a part of the Rudd government’s re-election team, unless they were prepared to go to their shareholders and give an open account of why the access to infrastructure they were giving to the NBN was worth $11 billion. It could be worth more. Let us get a commercial assessment of what it is worth. Then we might have some open accountability in this government, which we see very little of.
The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Prime Minister said, on the one hand, ‘The whole of Australia will have access to high-speed internet through the optic fibre cable network,’ and yet they said, ‘Ten per cent of it will remain on copper.’ The minister for communications on the ABC this morning said that 10 per cent would remain on copper. That will be those communities with fewer than 1,000 people. It will probably end up being communities with fewer than 2,000 or 3,000 people. The solution from the minister was, ‘Possibly they will get wireless or satellite internet.’ That is not what they said, prior to the last federal election, they believed they could deliver. I say to the people of rural and regional Australia: do not buy this model, because if they are re-elected you will have to carry the commercial risk for the $43 billion, $33 billion or $32 billion of borrowings but you will not get the benefit of optic fibre cable delivered to your community.
It was quite clear from the minister for communications that 10 per cent of Australia would not be participating in this rollout of optic fibre cable. There is a long way to go in this debate, and I for one will want to keep this minister, this government and Telstra’s board of management held to account. (Time expired)
Thanks for that commitment.
I would like to inform the House today of my recent visit to the Swinburne TAFE campus in Croydon in my electorate to talk about the Foundation Skills Package, a $120 million Rudd government investment. The package itself was designed to help over 140,000 Australians over the next four years. Part of that package, the Language, Literacy and Numeracy program, was designed to help 70,000 workers through to 2014. The training measures funded under this package build on existing Australian government foundation skills programs, namely the Workplace English, Language and Literacy program and, as I said, the Language, Literacy and Numeracy program. The LLNP provides up to 800 hours of free accredited language, literacy and numeracy training for eligible job seekers whose skills are below the level considered necessary to secure sustainable employment or pursue further education and training. This program expands the number of places available.
When I went to Swinburne in late May, I met with students who were taking training and actually upskilling themselves. I met people like Melville Pereira, who was studying English at Swinburne. He said the adult literacy classes allowed people to retrain for a different occupation. They have made him proficient to operate a computer and helped him to brush up on his English and maths. They have also given him an interest in pursuing further education. I also met Jason Pearce, an English and maths student, who said prior to taking on the course he lacked self-confidence and motivation. That was two years ago, and he has moved ahead in leaps and bounds. He did not believe in his spelling and maths before he started the course and had no idea of what he wanted to do in terms of a working life. Leaving school at year 10 meant that he found the work that he did both hard and stressful. The teachers and assistants, as Jason said, had done such a good job spending a lot of their time helping him and pushing him to believe in himself. As I said, they had given him a goal in life.
16:29:49
I also met Kevin Swift, who has been studying at Swinburne for 18 months. He left school in 1983 and had only done a few short courses, but he has now come back and is studying English, computer and maths programs to help him decide if he is capable of further education or of taking on an apprenticeship to become, for example, an electrician. I told him that was a great career choice which would see him well for many years to come were he to choose it. He is also looking at other career options to see where he can go. This is a great program. It is helping people locally in my electorate of Deakin and in other electorates right across Australia.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Sitting suspended from 4.31 pm to 4.33 pm
Consideration resumed from 17 June 2010.
Finance and Deregulation Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $668,590,000
I am very grateful to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation for agreeing to turn up and answer a few questions. I have no doubt that he will be assiduous in giving answers to the very legitimate questions that I would like to put here today. One of the prime responsibilities of a finance minister is to ensure value for money in the spending of taxpayers’ funds and to ensure that there is no waste and no mismanagement. I refer to the minister’s speech to the Press Club on 8 August 2007 where he seemed to confirm this responsibility. He said:
Every tax dollar the government takes from a family’s bank account is a dollar that can’t be spent on clothes, schoolbooks, groceries or holidays. It’s a dollar that won’t be directly creating jobs in the private sector. When the government takes that dollar, it’s got a responsibility to ensure that it provides value for money in return
I have a series of questions that I would like to ask which relate to that statement, one I agree very strongly with.
Minister, it has been reported in a new book by Lenore Taylor and David Uren, which quotes a Labor insider in relation to stimulus spending—the government taking taxpayers’ dollars and spending them:
Tanner argued vigorously against a spending package.
… … …
The problem for Tanner was that, while he still needed to be convinced, Rudd and Swan had already decided.
Does the minister still remain opposed to stimulus spending? Is he troubled by the fact that the government is continuing its reckless stimulus spending through until 2011-12 after one quarter of negative growth back in 2008? Furthermore, in overseeing the potential for waste and mismanagement, why is it that under the minister’s watch Labor’s promised program of computers in schools for every student in years 9 to 12 has so far delivered only 220,000 of the one million computers and a blow-out of $1 billion? Why is it that Labor promised to cut spending in consultancies but have instead awarded $1.2 billion in consultancy contracts since coming to office? Why is it that Labor promised broadband for $4.7 billion but broke that promise, replacing it with a plan for $43 billion, in the process wasting $20 million on a cancelled tender process and spending over $25 million on yet another report by consultants, all for a white elephant that will put up to $43 billion of taxpayers’ money at risk?
Mr Tanner interjecting
It is a question.
Mr Tanner interjecting
I will very happily do that. Why is it that under the school halls stimulus program that is to cost $16.7 billion—some of these numbers should be fairly fixed in your mind, I would have thought—independent assessment has found in at least two or three instances that these school halls cost four times the amount of similar commercial buildings? Why are we seeing billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money potentially wasted? If that were repeated throughout the building phase you would probably be talking about somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion of the $16.7 billion literally wasted when it could have been done for much less.
Also, Minister, why is it that border protection, having seen at least a $1 billion blow-out this year, has an estimate for next year based on an assumption that only 2,000 asylum seekers will arrive over the next 12 months of 2010-11 when 5,500 have arrived to date in this financial year? It is a billion-dollar blow-out in this financial year with 5,500 arrivals, so you can understand the blow-out, but why is it that an assumption of 2,000 arriving next year is then made? (Time expired)
I first give a generic answer to the shadow minister’s question. I will endeavour to go through them item by item. Apologies if I miss any; feel free to remind me of them. First, it is correct to say that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation has responsibility that encompasses government waste and use of taxpayers’ money, but that is a responsibility that is shared with other government ministers. As I am sure the shadow minister, as a former minister, would understand, there are things called the Financial Management and Accountability Act and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act which govern the arrangements that apply here with regard to the responsibilities for managing the spending of government money with respect to both the finance minister and individual ministers. So there is, in effect, a shared responsibility with a specific role for the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, but other ministers also inevitably have responsibilities that are crucial to this overall approach.
First with respect to the question arising from the book that he refers to, obviously I do not make public comments about things I am alleged to have said or not said in cabinet or cabinet committee deliberations, and that remains my position. I can only refer him to a quote that I did provide the authors of the book, which was along the lines that I brought to these discussions, as you would expect, a traditional finance minister’s responsibility of seeking to test propositions that were put to me. I would say of any spending proposals that I see that as a central part of my responsibility, to undertake that testing or challenging of any proposals, whether inside committee decision-making processes or indeed matters that are put to me bilaterally by ministers. That is essentially my job. But otherwise I do not comment on the deliberations of cabinet or cabinet committees.
With respect to the specific matters that the shadow minister did raise, there are some matters that are more specifically within the purview of individual ministers rather than me as minister for finance. I will endeavour to go through them one by one with that caveat. First on the computers in schools program, as you would be aware, there has been a set of negotiations with state governments about the process. That did lead to some modification compared with the original election commitment. We are fulfilling the election commitment but nonetheless in order to reach agreement with the states there was an additional financial commitment involved there.
Second, with respect to consultancies, the statement in the question from the shadow minister is incorrect. In fact, spending on consultancies across the government in calendar year 2008 and again in calendar year 2009 is substantially lower than it was in calendar year 2007 under the Howard government. The fall in expenditure in calendar year 2008 was about $65 million. All these are on-the-record figures and I would suggest that the shadow minister not be misled by highly distorted material that has been published in the Australian. All these things are a matter of public record, that there has been very clear and substantial reduction in spending on consultancies under the Rudd government.
Third, on the question of the broadband proposals, the shadow minister will probably recall that the then opposition went to the election with a commitment to a fibre-to-the-node proposal for a broadband network which involved optical fibre going to nodes in individual streets rather than all the way to individual households and businesses. You will be aware that the tender process for that did not produce a successful outcome, partly because it ended up occurring very much at the peak of the global financial crisis and a number of potential bidders were undoubtedly disadvantaged by the fact that the availability of capital for things of this nature was inevitably constrained given the circumstances. The government, confronted with this situation, chose to move in effect to what was always seen as the logical next step, although no previous commitment had been made to do this. The government chose the logical next step of building a fibre-to-the-premises network. (Extension of time granted)
On the question of the Building the Education Revolution primary school buildings, I am not aware of the two or three specific instances that the shadow minister alleges that buildings that cost four times the equivalent being built in the private sector were constructed. The shadow minister would be aware that there is currently a taskforce headed by former UBS CEO Brad Orgill examining all of these questions. I am happy to rely on the report that emerges from that taskforce in terms of the issues that have been raised here. We do accept that in a situation where you have got thousands upon thousands of individual projects all around the country the nature of the construction sector is such that every now and then there will be disputes and there will be problems. We regard the prospect that there will be individual issues of this kind as something that is an unavoidable aspect of having so many individual construction projects.
We do not necessarily accept some of the assertions that have been published. In my experience, the descriptions that have been published that I have looked at in some detail, almost invariably, have been somewhat at odds with the facts or have been selective in the use of facts. There have been aspects of the picture that have been not been referred to that would clearly modify any reasonable balanced assessment of the claims being made.
Finally, I would suggest that the border protection questions are probably better directed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship because the basis for forward estimates and the numbers of prospective claims is something that is very much a matter for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
I would also draw the shadow minister’s attention to instances in the past where there have been much smaller estimates put in place that have been, shall we say, out distanced by the actual number of arrivals, instances from the time that the Howard government was in office. I refer him to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on the question of estimating, for forward estimates purposes, the number of arrivals.
I will follow a couple of those issues and then move on to some more specific questions. I have sought to follow up with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. He has said publicly that he has got no idea how many will come next year. I would like to know the rationale behind it. I presume you and your department take some responsibility for ensuring that the numbers make sense and that you can have reasonable confidence in the assumptions. Given that this year there were 5,500 arrivals and a billion dollar blow out, I would be interested to know what process you went through to arrive at a figure of 2,000 for next year. Given that you have had a blow out this year, I would have thought that, conservatively, you would use a higher number or as high a number as this year. If you succeed in reducing the numbers well and good, but the experience to date is there seems to be no evidence of numbers coming back so I would be interested in that process.
Secondly, the Building the Education Revolution, as you say, has thousands of different projects but, whether there is one or thousands, it still remains the responsibility of the government to act in a conscientious and prudent way to avoid waste. It seems to me you are really putting the proposition that government, with thousands of projects, cannot be expected to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’. Would that be the case?
I understand the point you were making that there are joint responsibilities between individual ministers and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. The point of my question was what specifically have you sought to do to rein in what is clearly some of the biggest wastage perhaps in our country’s history of federal government programs including the massive wastage which will end up, no doubt, in billions of dollars with the Home Insulation Program?
There have been billions of dollars wasted, on the evidence to date, which seems to me to be a lot more than the occasional problem here and there. What specifically have you done over the last six months when it became patently obvious that there were generic problems in the management of these programs and when those ministers responsible, for whatever reason, were failing to rein in these programs? I would have thought you have a significant responsibility. How did you exercise that responsibility? I would be very interested to know.
You made a statement about the $4.7 billion that the program was in prospect and that because of the global financial crisis funds were not available for commercial interests, but you went on to say that, as a result, you went to the next logical step of fibre to the house. Was it always intended that the next logical step would be fibre to the house and that it would involve massive government involvement in the creation of that network, the funding of that network, the operation of that network and, hopefully, the financial return on that network? Was it envisaged that you would in fact renationalise a very big part of telecommunications? Was that the logical next step for the government? As you thought through this program, was that in your head when you went to the last election and promised a broadband network around the country? Is what we are not getting the thing you have always had in mind as the logical next step?
On other specific items: on page 84 in Budget Paper No. 2, nearly $1.3 billion was listed as decisions taken but not yet announced over the forward estimates with $50 million listed between 2009-10 and 2010-11. Can you rule out these funds being announced ahead of the federal election? (Time expired)
With respect to the supplementary question asked by the member for Goldstein on matters regarding asylum seekers, I will take that question on notice in order to give him a proper response. Secondly, I do not accept the premise on which his further question about the Building the Education Revolution program was unfolded. So I do not accept his claims with respect to waste. I am afraid that for me to answer the question he asks me about what specifically did I do, that would involve me revealing cabinet discussions and cabinet deliberations, which I am not in a position to do.
Penultimately, on the question of the move from a fibre-to-the-node proposal, as put to the election, with the fibre-to-the-home National Broadband Network proposal, when I said that that was seen as a logical next step I did not say that this was seen as a logical next step by a specific party—that is, the federal opposition. This was generally widely in public debates seen as, in effect, a stepping stone. That does not therefore mean that the opposition at the time had any specific subsequent commitment in mind. We were aware of that possibility but we had made no decision about it and had no preconceptions about it. Once the tender process for the fibre-to-the-node proposal failed, we had to give consideration to that possibility along with various other possibilities, but there was no preconceived proposal flowing in the wake of the original election proposal.
Finally, on the decisions taken but not yet announced, I am not in a position to rule anything in or out about how those matters are dealt with. Apart from anything else, it is not my responsibility. My responsibility in this regard is simply that these things are accurately recorded in the budget, but I am certainly not in a position to make any statements about when any particular thing will be announced.
Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the minister: on the last issue that the minister responded to—decisions taken but not yet announced—I ask a supplementary question. Could you confirm, Minister, that the $400 million announced by the Prime Minister on 9 June as part of the renamed Regional Infrastructure Fund was taken from this line item in the budget? I was going to ask you more about the disbursement, but I understand from your earlier answer that you claim not to be in a position to do that. More specifically on some of the other issues: why is it that you and your department are being sidelined regarding the $16.2 billion school halls program after the Deputy Prime Minister established a $14 million task force, which will be led by Mr Brad Orgill, to assess the level of waste under this program?
Again, through the chair to the minister rather than ‘you’ all the time, if you do not mind. That way we can do this formally.
Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, why is it that you and your department have been sidelined in relation to the investigation into the level of waste and mismanagement under the Building the Education Revolution program? Shouldn’t this have been the job of the minister and the minister’s department? Given also that the department of finance is responsible for sustainable government finances, does the minister think that the Building the Education Revolution was value for money and good policy?
Given that Australia recorded one quarter of negative growth in 2008, why is it that $500 million of the stimulus funding under the Building the Education Revolution program will be spent in 2011-12 at a time when real GDP growth is forecast to be four per cent and CPI at 2.5 per cent, and this following six consecutive interest rate rises which have added between $4,000 to $5,000 to the average home mortgage?
Furthermore, what role did the minister perform in relation to developing the Home Insulation Program? When did the minister first become aware of the problems with this program? What is the total figure that this program will cost the budget? Has the minister costed inspecting every one of the million or so homes that have received insulation as part of this program, given the ongoing problem with fires that often occur in homes that have been ruled as not needing any particular attention? Has the minister assessed the total financial liability of the Commonwealth under this program? Minister, given that the department of finance is responsible for sustainable government finances, do you think the Home Insulation Program was value for money and good policy? Furthermore, Minister, in the 2010-11 budget papers, you claim $17 billion of new taxes as savings. Can you please clarify these statements and the metrics that the government uses in classifying new taxes as savings? Finally, do you envisage spending the remaining $700 million left in the Building Australia Fund over the coming months?
Firstly, I stand by all of the government’s stimulus measures. While the government have acknowledged that there have been specific problems in the Home Insulation Program, we have acted to deal with those problems. I will take on notice the question about the cost to the budget of the Home Insulation Program. As to the question of Commonwealth liability, it is my responsibility with respect to any prospective legal proceedings that may be issued against the Commonwealth—be they about this or any other matter—to effectively present reporting in the budget about risks, in the statement of risk, and also to oversight those potential liabilities. I am continuing to do that in this and other areas.
The questions relating to my role in developing the program and the points at which I became aware of the problems I referred to are matters that relate to cabinet deliberations, which I am not at liberty to reveal. As to the question suggesting that my department was sidelined from the process of the examination of problems or alleged problems in the Building the Education Revolution, my answer to that is that my department was not sidelined. It is a perfectly normal and legitimate thing, where an issue emerges in a particular portfolio, for the minister of that portfolio to initiate some kind of arms-length or independent examination of that—and that is not conducted by the Department of Finance and Administration. For obvious reasons, the situation of having one arm of government investigating another arm of government would give rise to accusations that this was not a genuine independent or arms-length examination of the problems. It is a perfectly normal situation under governments of both persuasions that, if there is to be some examination of this kind, one option is to have an inquiry or a task force of the kind which has been established.
As to the question of why there would still be $500 million of stimulus budgeted for the 2011-12 financial year, I suspect the answer to that question is that, inevitably, projects occur over an extended period of time. You obviously do not pay the entire cost of a project upfront. Typically, particularly with more substantial projects, there will be milestone payments and there will be payments at the completion of the project, as well as the payments at various stages along the line. I suspect you will find that that $500 million essentially reflects that pattern. Of course, it will reflect, retrospectively, private sector activity that has occurred in the preceding period.
The question of the decision regarding $400 million of infrastructure assistance for Western Australia was an item in the category of decisions taken but not yet announced. I can confirm that. I am not in a position to make any statements about when the remaining funds in either the Building Australia Fund or any of the other funds will be disbursed. That is not a decision I take unilaterally, obviously. I am not in a position to respond to that. Apologies, I am just looking through my scribbled notes to make sure that I have covered—
The Home Insulation Program?
Yes, I have responded to those questions.
The savings question?
Sorry, yes. All of this is disclosed. The generic term ‘savings’ is used to describe improvements in the net bottom line to the budget. You will see this broken down into ‘revenue’ and ‘spending’ items in all of the three budgets. There is a table that aggregates all of this where it is broken down into spending and revenue items in all of the three budgets. (Time expired)
Just last month in his Razor’s Edge blog the minister wrote:
But I am a bit of a romantic on this, I think elections are largely determined by how well they think the Government is governing, not on how many fistfuls of cash they pump on election eve.
Minister, given your responsibility for stopping waste and mismanagement, it has been reported that a staggering $220 million of non-road, non-rail stimulus funding has been pumped into your own electorate of Melbourne, with a further $15 million in non-stimulus grants earmarked for the seat.
You’re even dumber than I thought you were!
Do we need gratuitous insults across the chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the minister to withdraw that remark.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to withdraw.
The remark has been withdrawn. Member for Goldstein, please proceed.
This is a serious issue. It is not an issue to be laughed at and to abuse other people about. It is a very legitimate question. If nearly a quarter of a billion dollars is being spent in the electorate of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, a minister who has made his reputation on the back of anti-rorting statements—
Yes, yes, I’m going to answer your question.
Do I need prompting as well, Madam Deputy Speaker?
We are not so sensitive in here that we cannot take a bit of banter across the table. Please continue.
Okay—‘a bit of banter’. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a very good ruling! Minister, are you cynically giving the nod to the funnelling of taxpayers’ millions into your own electorate with an eye to your own electoral skin? Furthermore, following the budget the finance minister said ‘the coalition’s debt and deficit campaign is dead’. Minister, can you please justify this statement considering that the budget deficit—not that we heard much about it on the night of the budget—is $57 billion for 2009-10 and, if all of the rosy assumptions come to be, is forecast to be $40.8 billion in 2010-11? The point of my question is that $57 billion is the largest deficit in our history by a country mile and $40 billion, if it comes to pass, will be the second-biggest deficit in our country’s history. I would like the minister to explain how he can say that the debate about debt and deficit is dead when the government, with a budget approved by the minister, will have to borrow $700 million a week for the next two years to pay for the continued spending. As well, can the minister confirm that the interest on net government debt in 2010-11 will be $4.6 billion and that net government debt is forecast to peak at $93.7 billion in 2011-12? Can the minister confirm that the forecasted interest repayment on this amount is $6.5 billion? I also refer to the $10 billion super hit for small business. I refer to the proposal to lift the compulsory employer superannuation contribution from nine per cent to 12, which will cost small business $10 billion a year. Three months ago, when asked by Ross Greenwood whether future compulsory superannuation increases would come at the expense of wage increases, the minister clearly said:
… the fact that your employer is forced to put in an extra three per cent in your super means that money that otherwise could have gone into your wages, is going into your super basically.
When, subsequent to that announcement, the minister’s own words were read back to him in a radio interview on 4BC, the minister said he had been seriously misrepresented, but he finally conceded:
Yes, it will have an impact on the dollar increase for some workers.
On multiple occasions the minister has conceded that the compulsory increases in employer superannuation will come at the expense of wage increases. Why then, when pressed in different forums, has the minister claimed not to have said this? (Time expired)
First, with respect to matters regarding my own electorate, the amount of stimulus spending in my electorate relative to other nearby electorates varies in one respect only, and that is with respect to social housing. If you look at all of the items listed in stimulus measures in my electorate, you will see that, whether it is Building the Education Revolution or other areas of stimulus, broadly it is pretty much the same as in the equivalent electorates. There is only one difference; it is social housing. I wonder why that would be. Guess what—the answer is because that is where the social housing is. I have in my electorate the largest number of public tenants in Victoria. The number is, I understand, something like 2½ times the number in the next highest electorate.
It is unavoidable that, where you have a stimulus strategy that includes major measures to upgrade social housing, it is not going to be distributed evenly across all electorates, as, for example, the Building the Education Revolution funding is distributed evenly because the number of primary schools or primary schoolkids is going to be fairly similar across individual electorates.
The key answer to the shadow minister’s question is: were the stimulus to have been about upgrading yacht clubs then there probably would have been a disproportionate investment in his electorate, but, because the government made a decision to upgrade social housing, that meant that a disproportionate amount of that money was inevitably spent in my electorate.
Finally on this point I might indicate that the actual decisions with respect to the location of spending, the decisions about individual projects, were decisions in which I played no role. These were matters worked out with the Victorian government by the Minister for Housing, and these were decisions in which I had no role.
As someone representing an electorate that is not quite inner city but is not far therefrom, I would suggest to the shadow minister that the notion that the construction of additional housing of any kind, particularly higher density housing, in the inner city is the pathway to electoral popularity is a proposition that you will not find many serious political analysts able to support. Amongst other things, I find it amusing that people think that I regard this as a pathway to winning support in my electorate. In fact, I support it because it is the right thing to do for a large group of people who traditionally have been neglected and ignored by successive Liberal governments who have dramatically cut funding for social housing over the years and who have refused to invest in them. These are people who are on very low incomes, who are very disadvantaged and who we believe are entitled, along with everybody else, to reasonable living circumstances.
Secondly, I am asked why I made the statement that the opposition’s debt and deficit scare campaign is dead. Notwithstanding the campaign that we have had regarding tax reform from the opposition, there have been numerous questions in the last few weeks in question time about a variety of other subjects and I do not recall any questions about this particular subject. The evidence that your scare campaign is dead is actually out of your own mouths. The other evidence is that Australia’s debt level is projected to peak at around six per cent of GDP, in a world where other major countries have debt levels that are heading towards 80 per cent or 100 per cent of GDP. Any serious economist does not regard your campaign seriously and regards it as the complete joke that it is. That is why you have dropped off it completely. I have answered your question. I have answered why you have dropped your debt and deficit campaign—because even you realise it is totally idiotic. That is the answer to your question.
The highest ever is ‘idiotic’!
Your campaign is idiotic. (Extension of time granted) On the questions with respect to debt interest, I refer the member for Goldstein to the budget papers.
Finally, on the question of statements I have made with respect to the impact of increases in the superannuation guarantee on wages, I will repeat the statements I made on 4BC to try to explain the difference. It is the difference between nominal wages—
That was very embarrassing.
You whinged before; how about shutting up now? I will repeat my statements, and I will make them slowly and in words of limited syllables so that, hopefully, this time the member for Goldstein might understand them. Perhaps when you get an opportunity you might stand up and see whether you can explain your version of what the difference between nominal and real wages means. That would be enlightening for all of us. On the difference between nominal and real wages, the point that I was making in the initial interview, conducted by Ross Greenwood, was about nominal wages and the perception by individual workers that an increase would involve loss of nominal wages. The question I was asked on Q&A, not on radio, referred to real wages. There will not be—
What?
That is correct. If you look at the transcript, you will see the term ‘real wages’. If you look at the government’s proposals, what you will see is that, in any given year, the increase in the superannuation guarantee is no higher than 0.5 per cent. In other words, it is expected that real wages will continue to increase, because typically the real wage increases are significantly above that and the historic trend is that and we anticipate that real wages will increase at a higher level than those rates. So real wages will not be cut; real wages will not be reduced. That is precisely why I did not accept the interpretation being put to me on Q&A about that statement, and I stand by all of that.
Yet again, the people who opposed occupational superannuation in the 1980s are going to be opposing it now and they are going to continue opposing it. Why? I say it is because it benefits ordinary working people. Why do they oppose occupational superannuation? It is because when we took office in 1983 superannuation was the privilege of the rich, the well-heeled, whom the Liberal Party are interested in supporting. What Labor did in office was extend access to superannuation to ordinary working people. What we are now proposing to do is to strengthen that access to superannuation for ordinary working people. That is why you do not like it and that is why you are opposing it, along with cutting company tax and along with improving the tax provisions for small business. You are opposing it because, ultimately, you are on about the well-off. You are on about the well-heeled in this society, not ordinary working people. Yet again you will oppose the extension of greater superannuation to the ordinary working people of this country. That is the issue here.
The government is resolutely committed to delivering this improvement in superannuation and retirement incomes for ordinary working people and strengthening the investment pool which, amongst other things, helped save Australia from the global financial crisis and helped protect Australia’s economy during that time. Any serious player in financial markets will tell you that, because there was a guaranteed automatic pool of billions of dollars coming into the markets, no matter what occurred internationally, from that occupational superannuation arrangement. That is why the government remains resolutely committed to improving occupational superannuation in this country: because it improves the retirement incomes of working people, for whom the Liberal Party has never done a jot, and because it improves the investment savings pool that will be invested in the long-term economic growth for the future of Australia. That is why we remain committed to this proposition, and that is why you oppose it—and no amount of sophistry and misrepresentation and verballing about things that I have said will change any of those things. (Time expired)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The time for this debate has well and truly expired and I would like to draw your attention to that.
As the time for debate on this matter has concluded, I put the question that the proposed expenditure for the Finance and Deregulation portfolio be agreed to.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Treasury Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $4,330,987,000
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.
I am wondering if the minister would want me to ask questions and sit down. These are normally a fact process. I refer the minister to Budget Paper No. 1, chapter 5, page 37. It says in resource rent taxes 2013-14 the projected revenue in gross terms is $15.93 billion. I refer to note A, which says resource rent taxes include PRRT and gross receipts from the resource rent tax. Can the minister give us a breakdown of that $15.93 billion?
I thank the honourable member for his question. It is good that he is here. I note that in the Human Services appropriations the shadow minister did not come and it broke down after five minutes. I am sure that as a former minister for human services he shares my disappointment at that. I will take that question on notice. I refer the honourable member, as he said, to the budget papers. If he is trying to break down further orders of what is in the budget papers, that is something I will get back to him on. I may get back to him on it during the course of this session or I may get back to him on it in due course.
I appreciate that. I note that the net impact is $9 billion and would assume that, given the royalties identified by the Australian Taxation Office in 2007-08 were nearly $4 billion and obviously would rise significantly over the next five years to fit in with that, I would also be interested in the minister providing me with the details of what the government expects to pay back to the mining industry for the 40 per cent guarantee, and also how much of the $15.930 billion is in fact going to be specifically royalties in that year. I ask the minister to explain the Treasurer’s speech of 4 May, where he said:
The fact is, the Government’s reforms will tax the mining industry better. In fact, the most significant ‘spend’ in the entire tax package is over $8 billion every year in state government royalties that will be refunded or credited to mining companies.
Given that there is a net 9 billion, and the total is 15.9 billion, the question is how did the Treasurer get the 8 billion.
Again, I am happy to take that question on notice. The Treasurer has clearly indicated that royalties being, as regarded by the independent tax review, the most inefficient tax in Australia, it is appropriate that the federal government refund that. If he is asking for further breakdowns to the extensive information which is in the budget papers, I am happy to provide him with that information, if it is appropriate to do so, when I have that information at hand.
Does the minister agree with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation that an increase in the superannuation guarantee will come out of take-home pay?
This is a very interesting point for the shadow Treasurer to make. Again, the opposition have been at sixes and sevens on this. Of course, they have always opposed superannuation, as my colleague the Minister for Finance and Deregulation pointed out. They opposed the introduction of compulsory superannuation; they said it would have an impact on small business, they said it would drive small business out of operation and they said it would increase the cost of employing people. They said all that through the 1980s and 1990s—and, again, when the government announced the decision to increase the superannuation guarantee, they came out and said, ‘This will be a tax on small business and it will reduce take-home pay for Australians.’ I note that a couple of weeks ago Senator Abetz issued a press release asserting that it would come out of take-home pay. I fail to see how that could be at one with their constant claims over recent weeks, and indeed over recent decades, that superannuation was an impost on small business.
I make the point that the increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent is being phased in by this government at a more gradual rate and over a longer period than even the original nine per cent—moving from the three per cent in awards to nine per cent. We are moving from nine to 12 over a more gradual period, and we are doing so in conjunction with reductions in the corporate tax rate. There are times when the superannuation guarantee going from three to nine per cent coincided with increases in the corporate tax rate. We are doing so with reductions in the corporate tax rate and we are doing so over that long period, starting at increments of 0.25 per cent—which is half the average increment under the previous increase from three to nine per cent—to enable plenty of time for employers, employees and unions to build these into their negotiations. I have no doubt that employers will argue in those negotiations and before tribunals that these should be taken into account. I am sure that will be the case, and a number of unions have recognised it.
I refer to the famous pie charts in the Treasurer’s Economic Note of 9 May. In response to a question on notice in Senate estimates, Treasury provided aggregate data underlying the pie charts, and there are some unusual aspects to the data. Comparisons with ABS data show the Treasury estimates of resource rents were lower than the ABS measure of EBITDA—earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization—for the years 2001-05 through to 2007-08. Now, that is what you would expect: resource rents would be only a portion of earnings. But interestingly, in the information released by Treasury in 2008-09, Treasury’s estimate of resource rents—$91.2 billion—actually exceeds the ABS measure of earnings, which was $74.1 billion.
So Treasury’s estimate of resource rents more than doubles in 2008-09 to $91 billion from $40 billion—a massive jump. And yet the company tax only increases by 46 per cent, to $11.9 billion from $8.1 billion. My question is: why did company tax not keep pace with the increase in resource rents?
The honourable gentlemen said that his question referred to the pie charts. I think he is referring to those in the Treasurer’s Economic Note of a few weeks ago. The Treasurer has made it clear that that information—and I think the shadow Treasurer has confirmed this—was based on Treasury modelling. If the shadow Treasurer is asking for more information around that Treasury modelling I am more than prepared to take that on notice and advise him of the further information he requires if I am able to do so.
Thank you. The Parliamentary Library has provided a disaggregation of the Treasury estimates of resource rents, and I seek leave to table it.
Leave granted.
I refer to the row of numbers which shows a calculated series for allowance of corporate capital. In 2008-09, the library calculates there must be a negative allowance for corporate capital—a negative $6½ billion. I wonder if the minister could explain how an allowance for corporate capital can, in fact, be negative under this assumption.
Given that the honourable gentleman’s question goes to Parliamentary Library analysis which I have not had the opportunity to read—he has just tabled it—I will read it and I will respond once I have had the opportunity to read it and seek Treasury advice.
The 2010-11 budget shows that the resource super profits tax will reach $9 billion in net proceeds in 2013-14. There has been some discussion, particularly from Dr Henry, that that may be a conservative figure and it may well be a much larger figure. Will the minister advise the House of what Dr Henry was alluding to when he referred to a higher figure?
It is well known that, when the Treasury does its modelling and its forecasts, it takes a conservative approach. It makes assumptions which could be accused of being conservative. I know that it has made assumptions, in arriving at the $9 billion figure, based on certain profit projections and certain terms of trade projections. I think the Secretary of the Treasury was making the point that those projections are, in his mind, conservative—as is prudent and appropriate.
I know the shadow Treasurer has some interest in this. He last year accused the Treasury of not being conservative enough—of being overly optimistic. Of course those projections turned out to be too pessimistic. This year he has accused the Treasury of being too pessimistic whereas last year he accused it of being too optimistic. He now accuses it of being too pessimistic. I think he and I would agree that forecasting is, by its very nature, not always an exact science, but this is the Treasury’s best estimate based on the best information it had at hand, with conservative assumptions built into that. I would much prefer the Treasury to be conservative in its forecasts than to be overly optimistic.
Given that the Treasury has said—and the minister has now just confirmed—that the estimate of $9 billion in annual proceeds from the resource rent tax is conservative, will he undertake to advise the House of Treasury’s best available information on the net proceeds from the tax?
The best information that Treasury has available is the information in the budget papers. The published budget papers represent the Treasury’s best estimate, but Treasury do not necessarily take an optimistic view on the terms of trade or on profit levels. They use their best estimate of what those parameters will be. They do that in a fashion which is not overly optimistic or, to use a different term, which is conservative. But the figures that have been published in the budget papers are the Treasury’s best estimate of what the revenue will be, as projections published in the budget papers are the Treasury’s best estimate of all economic parameters and all revenue parameters for every tax, for all sorts of revenue, for all expenditure and for the broader economic figures which apply throughout the budget.
I think the minister did not quite understand what I was saying. It is one thing to have the best Treasury forecasts and projections, but revenue is another thing. On this occasion, the Treasurer and the minister have confirmed that the revenue estimates of $9 billion are conservative. Given that Dr Henry said that as well—so now both the minister and Dr Henry have said the estimated revenue of $9 billion is conservative—I again ask the minister if he could tell us whether it is $12 billion, $14 billion, $7 billion, $15 billion or whatever. Obviously, if it is a conservative figure, it is more than $9 billion, but the question is just how conservative it is.
It is not more than $9 billion. It is $9 billion. That is what is in the budget papers. The honourable gentleman would be the first to criticise Dr Henry, the Treasury and the modellers if Dr Henry said: ‘It might be $9 billion, but actually we think that’s a bit optimistic. We think that’s on the high side. We think it could be a bit less than that.’ I think the shadow Treasurer would then be right to say: ‘The Treasury are fiddling the books. They are not putting the right numbers in.’ The Treasury’s best estimate is $9 billion. It is based on conservative, but nevertheless appropriate, assumptions about different parameters which may affect that revenue base going forward. So I have to disabuse the honourable gentleman of his notion—
Honourable member.
Honourable member. I also regard him as a gentleman, Madam Deputy Speaker—on most days. But I must disabuse him of this notion that somehow the forecast and the projection in the budget paper is not the Treasury’s best estimate of the amount of revenue to be raised, because it is.
Thank you for referring to me as a gentleman, Minister. Given we have both shared children time at the Powerhouse Museum, we both understand those pressures. Minister, I refer you to table 6, statement 3 on page 13 of Budget Paper No. 1. It shows that policy decisions since the 2009-10 budget have increased net spending by $5.9 billion. That is the sum of policy decisions for the year 2009-10 through to 2012-13. That figure includes new spending measures, new taxes and savings initiatives. It shows that all of the new taxes have been spent, all of the savings initiatives have been spent and, on top of that, $5.9 billion has been spent for good measure. New policy decisions have not contributed in net terms a single cent to reduce the budget deficit, so the question is: how are they going to reduce the budget deficit?
This government has made its fiscal rules very clear—that is, we will limit real spending growth to two per cent. I know the honourable member says that that is easy, but I would disagree because I have had a look at the spending decisions made under the Howard government, and real spending growth exceeded two per cent for, I think, almost every year of the last 10 years of the Howard government. So I do not think it is necessarily easy to limit real spending growth to two per cent, but that is what we have committed to do and that is what we are doing in this budget. We have also committed to, if you like, banking increases in tax revenue to draw down the deficit. That is why we are able to budget for a surplus three years ahead of time and before any other major advanced economy. It is because we have those very clear fiscal rules in place, and the savings delivered under this budget are greater than the increased expenditure contained therein. For that reason, we are making a contribution to reducing the budget deficit and moving into surplus. We have made those fiscal rules very clear, and I think the honourable member is aware of that. He is also aware that we have met those fiscal rules.
So now that we know that God—or good fortune, terms of trade or whatever the case might be—is doing the hard work to get the budget back into surplus one day—
Mr Bowen interjecting
That is not what he thinks! I refer the minister to statement 10, page 6, which is the authoritative table of Budget Paper No. 1. The morning after the budget was presented David Koch sought to challenge me on this table, but I had read it before he saw it. I refer to the fact that, as a percentage of GDP, in the last two years of the coalition government expenditure was 23.2 per cent and then in 2007-08 it was just 23 per cent. Yet, at the most optimistic end of the chart, in the last projected year of the Rudd government’s budget to 2013-14, it is still 23.6 per cent, which is above the levels of the last coalition government. I ask the minister: when will you ever get to the same low levels of spending as that of the last year of the coalition government?
The honourable member is correct to point out that this government needed to make some spending decisions which resulted in the figures to which he refers. We needed to make those spending decisions based on the impact of the global financial crisis on this nation, and that meant that we needed to stimulate the economy. I know the honourable member and his party opposed that stimulus but we feel that it was necessary. We feel it was necessary not just because it would have increased the unemployment rate if we had not done do so—and put a lot of people on the unemployment scrapheap, with all the intergenerational impacts that that would have had—and not just because it would have driven many businesses, including predominantly many small businesses, out of operation if we had not done so. It was necessary and desirable to do it for the long-term fiscal strategy of the government, because, if as a nation you go into recession, you have a long-term debilitating impact on government revenue and government expenditure. It has an impact on government revenue because personal income tax and corporate income tax takes are down because economic activity is less, and it has an impact on government expenditure because welfare payments, predominantly through the Newstart allowance, are greater because the unemployment rate is greater.
So it is disingenuous to say, ‘Let’s not stimulate the economy now so we can keep the budget in surplus.’ I think the shadow Treasurer himself has recognised that that was impossible. There is no way the budget could have been kept in surplus during the global financial crisis, even without any stimulus. A stimulus was necessary and desirable to reduce the deficit going forward and to maximise the chances of returning to surplus, as I think the indication is that we have done by returning to surplus three years ahead of time.
I take the minister back to table 5-37, about the resource rent tax. Would the minister ask the Treasury to advise why it was good enough to provide refunds with a gross figure for income tax but not good enough to provide refunds with a gross figure for the resource rent tax.
I am more than happy to oblige the honourable member. I will ask Treasury for that advice and will answer the question when I am able.
Budget Paper No. 1, at 10-8, shows that net debt will peak in 2012-13 at $93.7 billion. I refer the minister to legislation that passed through this parliament providing a guarantee for state government borrowings provided by the Commonwealth. An amendment moved by the coalition and accepted by the government was that there should be full disclosure through a register of those people who are purchasing government bonds. Given that it has been nearly a year, as I recall, since that legislation was passed and gazetted, at what point will the government comply with the law and disclose who is actually lending Australia all this money?
In relation to that, I am happy to take advice on the timetable and report back.
It is one thing for us to engage in policy banter and debate, but it is actually the case that the AOFM has a requirement to comply with the law. The government itself is in breach of the law if it does not publish the register of who is actually lending us, at this stage, $100 million a day.
My former answer still holds. I advise the House that the Australian Office of Financial Management has published a register of the beneficial owners of Commonwealth and Commonwealth government guaranteed securities by country. The honourable gentleman is alleging that more is required under the legislation. I will take that on advice and will check the timetable for doing so, if that is in fact the case.
Is that on your website? Where would that be registered in published form?
I would imagine it is on the website but I could not inform the House that that is definitely the case.
Could you let us know?
I will certainly do so.
The shadow minister has the call.
I want to identify that the link between government spending and interest rates has been confirmed in the past few weeks in Senate estimates—and that is natural enough. Dr Gruen of Treasury said:
… if you were to engage in discretionary fiscal stimulus at a time of full employment then the implications of that would be that monetary policy would likely offset it with higher interest rates.
Given that in May the unemployment rate declined to 5.2 per cent and Treasury claims that full employment, as I understand it, is five per cent, at what point does the government believe it has a responsibility to heed the words of Dr Gruen and massively pull back on its stimulus spending?
With all due respect to the honourable member, I am not sure that Dr Gruen would agree with that characterisation of his comments that he was calling for a massive winding back of the stimulus. In fact, I know that Dr Gruen would not agree with that characterisation of his comments and that, if he were able to be here, he would make that point very strongly. The fact of the matter is that the shadow Treasurer has made this case repeatedly, and he has repeatedly got it wrong. He repeatedly argues that for some reason Australian government debt, Australian government expenditure, is putting upward pressure on interest rates. Of course, there are circumstances where government spending can put upward pressure on interest rates. Indeed, the honourable member as a member of the previous government would be fully aware of that, because that is what they did. They were determined to spend their way out of the boom. They were determined, despite the terms of trade and the economic conditions at the time, to increase government expenditure very substantially.
We faced a very different set of circumstances. We faced the circumstances of a global financial crisis and a reduction in economic activity. Accordingly, we stimulated the economy but we did so in such a way that the stimulus was designed to wind down as economic growth picked up. This was a very deliberate design feature of the economic stimulus package. For example: the first home owner boost wound down at the end of last year; the improvements to depreciation, the upfront capital allowance, wound down and have now washed through the system. Indeed, if you look at the proportion of our stimulus spending, which was being spent upfront and early compared to that in many other nations, we have a very good story to tell. The honourable gentleman argues, and the opposition argued at the time, that, for example, the stimulus payments direct to households were inappropriate. We disagree. They were appropriate because they stimulated the economy quickly and early in the cycle, and that was when it was necessary to do that. It washed through the system very quickly. It stimulated the economy and it has now washed through. The stimulus is being wound down.
So I strongly disagree with the honourable gentleman’s characterisation of Dr Gruen’s statements. I strongly disagree with the central tenet of his economic argument that this government is somehow putting upward pressure on interest rates. I also strongly disagree that in any event, with Australian government bonds on issue being 0.001 per cent of bonds on issue throughout the world, the Australian government is putting upward pressure on interest rates. If I could take this opportunity to say to the member for North Sydney in further response to his previous question: I am advised that that information from the AOFM is on the website.
Thank you. Given that the minister is such an enthusiastic supporter of his own stimulus packages, a chart on page 2-23 and 2-24 of the 2010-11 Budget Paper No. 1 purported to show a relationship between the size of fiscal stimulus and the extent to which economic growth exceeded expectations. It concluded:
Those countries that enacted large and timely fiscal stimulus packages, including … Australia, performed much better than expected. … The relationship … is highly statistically significant ….
The chart used data from just 11 of the G20 countries. However, in Senate estimates the Treasury admitted in a statement on 2 June 2010 that ‘an error was made’—‘We screwed up’ is perhaps a better way of describing it—in the original chart. There is no statistically significant relationship between fiscal stimulus and the extent to which economic growth exceeds expectations.
It also turns out there is no significant relationship when all OECD countries are included. Given this, will the minister now agree that new Treasury information shows there is no basis to the claim that the Rudd government’s fiscal stimulus played a significant role in the economic performance of Australia? Will the minister undertake to consult with the Treasurer and ask the Treasurer to refrain from making any further unjustified claims?
If the shadow Treasurer is realistically arguing that fiscal stimulus had no impact on economic growth in Australia over the last two years, then my answer to him is: no, we will beg to differ. We will beg to differ because I think anybody who is an objective and considered analyst of these events would acknowledge that fiscal stimulus had a clear impact on economic growth. I know that the shadow Treasurer and his opposition colleagues, who were sitting by and hoping that Australia would go into recession, because it was a good way to ride back into government, would be disappointed with the fact that Australia avoided a recession and that the stimulus actually worked.
The stimulus worked in two ways. It had an impact on economic growth directly through stimulating expenditure. It also had a very important impact on confidence. I remember that the honourable member’s colleague the former Leader of the Opposition used to rise in the chamber and lecture us about how important consumer and business confidence was and how it had collapsed, and he said that that collapse was all down to the efforts of the Rudd Labor government. Then of course we had the stimulus and consumer and business confidence rose in Australia by a greater level than in any other comparable economy. Then the former Leader of the Opposition went very quiet.
Economic stimulus has impacts in two ways: it has the direct impact and it has the indirect impact through the impact on confidence. As the Treasurer has often put it, very eloquently, it is worth more than the sum of its parts, because of that impact on confidence. So I do not share the premise of the shadow Treasurer and I am sure he will understand that I will want to check his characterisation of the Treasury’s evidence before estimates, because many of his colleagues sometimes choose to verbal bureaucrats. I want to check that he has accurately characterised their comments, because I think that would be the appropriate thing to do in fairness to those Treasury officers.
My question is addressed to the financial services minister. There appears to have been a surge in the Telstra share price prior to the announcement of the heads of agreement on Sunday. Whilst it may be linked to movement in the ASX 200, would the minister be good enough to ask ASIC to investigate whether the movement in the share price of Telstra has been appropriate or whether there may have been reason for concern?
I thank the honourable member for the question, because it is a serious one. It is a very serious issue and I take all issues such as this very seriously. ASIC, as an independent statutory government authority, does not need a minister to refer issues to it for investigation, as the honourable member, a former minister for financial services, would know. I make this point: this government takes these matters very seriously. That is one of the reasons that the government made this announcement on a Sunday. Sometimes honourable members criticise us for making significant announcements on Sundays, and often the reason for that is that when the market is closed is the appropriate time to make market-sensitive announcements. A Sunday or Saturday before 10 am, or after the close of markets, is the appropriate time to do that, and often Sunday is the best day to do it.
I have not looked at the Telstra share price movements over recent days. There have of course been share price movements across the board. I will pass on the honourable member’s concern to ASIC. What they do with it is then completely a matter for them. But I am very concerned about any suggestion of—let us call a spade a spade—insider trading and, as a result, tomorrow in the House of Representatives I will be introducing a bill to significantly increase the penalties for insider trading and boost ASIC’s powers to investigate, including the power to intercept telephone calls and electronic communication to help their investigations. I would hope for opposition support for that because it is very significant.
ASIC have pointed out to me—and this was one of the reasons why I embarked on that legislative change—that it is not uncommon before major announcements for share prices to move. This leads ASIC to have very considerable concerns, and I share those concerns. If there was anything in particular to note about the Telstra share price movements over the days before this announcement, that is something that I am sure ASIC would be investigating, but I will pass on the member’s comments and ensure that ASIC are aware of them so that they can take appropriate action.
I thank the minister for referring that to ASIC—and the ASX if necessary, I am sure. I also make the point that there was a significant surge in the Telstra share price today on the basis of a one-page statement from Telstra that it has signed a non-binding financial heads of agreement on the NBN. I express the concern that, from a common perspective, it could reflect poorly on our reputation as a well-managed market, which we are. Our equities market is well managed, but I do express a concern that, on the basis of a non-binding agreement that Telstra itself says is subject to the passage of legislation and ACCC approval, there is a significant surge in the share price of Telstra.
I ask the minister whether it would be deemed appropriate for Telstra to provide more information to the market and, obviously, their shareholders about the terms of the financial heads of agreement so that there is actually something substantive that is the basis for the increase in the share price. I note that there was a reported statement, I think in the Australian Financial Review today, that suggested that this deal would add 90c to the value of Telstra shares, which is almost a third of the value. If this were a penny dreadful stock you would say, ‘That’s speculative.’ But, given that it is one of the largest companies in Australia, with, I am sure, the largest number of mum and dad shareholders, surely there should be more information provided by the company to the market than simply a one-page statement saying that there is a non-binding heads of agreement—and the share price surges?
Before I give the call to the minister, I draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary and honourable members the fact that when we cross the chamber we do so by traversing the perimeter of the room and not by going directly across. I draw your attention to it tonight because it has happened a few times lately on both sides. The honourable minister has the call, and we have a few minutes left for this debate.
The honourable member would know that share markets and financial markets respond to all sorts of things. Often, that can be regarded by clear-eyed and rational commentators as being overly exuberant. Nevertheless, the markets do respond, and I would suggest that there have been plenty of occasions where markets have responded to a lot less than a press statement from an organisation like Telstra. As I said before, the government fully expected this information to be market sensitive. That is why we made the announcement when the market was closed—because that was the appropriate thing to do.
Again, I will refer the member for North Sydney’s comments to ASIC. There are continuous disclosure obligations, as the member knows, on all companies. I have no reason to doubt that Telstra have complied with those continuous disclosure obligations, but the appropriate organisation to consider the honourable member’s point is ASIC and I will draw his comments to their attention.
Just to add to this, as an example—and this is a statement from Telstra to the ASX—the transaction, if completed, would deliver a post-tax net present value of approximately $11 billion. It does not say when. This includes payment for the decommissioning of Telstra’s copper network and cable broadband services—it does not say when—the use of Telstra’s infrastructure and the value to Telstra of avoiding costs including USO costs. Payments would be made progressively to Telstra. It does not say when and on what basis. So I think there is a common interest in having more information provided in due course.
Finally, will the minister undertake on behalf of the government that, if there are any changes to the resource super profits tax, at the time of the announcement of those changes there will be full disclosure about the impact on the budget?
In relation to the first question—
I remind the minister that it is six o’clock, so I am about to close the debate.
I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to do the honourable member the courtesy of giving him an answer but I will be brief. I would be surprised if Telstra had not sought advice on their continuous disclosure obligations and would feel that they have filled those but, again, I will draw ASIC’s attention to his concerns and make sure ASIC looks at those concerns.
On the second matter, the government will of course act appropriately. We have said that we are in detailed discussions with mining companies. We are. They have been very serious discussions and I am sure when the government are in a position to fully update on those discussions we will do so in an appropriate manner.
The time for this debate has concluded.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $413,931,000.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence—and my apologies to the member for North Sydney for walking across his path—I inform this chamber, as the Prime Minister has just informed the House, that there has been an accident today in Afghanistan where we have lost three of our soldiers and we have an indeterminate number who are injured. Obviously that has caused great concern to the House, and a statement has been made by the Prime Minister and also by the Leader of the Opposition. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those we have lost and those who are injured.
Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I am sure I can say on behalf all members here that our thoughts and prayers are with their families and friends and their comrades. The honourable member for Solomon now has call.
Before I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister a question on the portfolio expenditure now before the committee, I would like to support his comments and add my thoughts on the loss of the three servicemen in Afghanistan. As I have a large contingent of ADF personnel living in my electorate, it certainly hits home whenever these incidents occur where there is loss of life. My thoughts are with their families at this very sad time.
Parliamentary Secretary, I know the community cabinet meetings are a great opportunity for members of the local community to engage with cabinet. The meetings provide members of the public with an opportunity to ask questions of cabinet ministers on issues that are important to them. Have there been many meetings to date and where have they been? How many people have had that opportunity to attend the meetings? In my electorate of Solomon, people regularly approach me on issues that are important to them, such as the government’s investment in our health care through the National Health and Hospitals Network, infrastructure funding and the government’s investment in infrastructure in the Territory specifically. If the PM decided to hold a community cabinet meeting in the Territory, are these the sorts of issues we would have the opportunity to discuss with the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers?
I thank the member for Solomon for his question. I know that he is a very active local member and has rightly identified the numerous benefits that community cabinets offer to local electorates. I certainly agree with the member for Solomon that there would be a great many benefits to Territorians if a community cabinet was held in his seat. He can rest assured that I will certainly take that on board.
The Prime Minister made a commitment whilst in opposition to undertake community cabinet meetings, and it is a commitment that has been fulfilled. The meetings allow the highest level of consultation with the Australian people on issues that concern them, regardless of whether they are national or local matters. As a government we have held 24 community cabinets in every corner of the country. The cabinet has been to Western Australia on several occasions, to Tasmania, to metropolitan and regional New South Wales and, of course, to South Australia, Queensland and Yirrkala, in eastern Arnhem Land. Community cabinets are such an important initiative because, spending so much time in Canberra, the government risks losing sight of what truly matters to all Australians.
As the Prime Minister said at the community cabinet at Epping in April, the reason we take the cabinet on the road is to spend time with the men and women, boys and girls and young people who make up the great Australian family right across the place to hear directly about what the government is doing right, what the government is doing wrong and what the government can do better. So these are initiatives that, as a government, we intend to continue to pursue because they are part of the government’s commitment to keep in touch with what the community expects of us and to provide opportunities for people to bring their concerns directly to government.
There have been 11 community cabinet meetings in the year 2009-10, and there has been a very positive response from those who have attended. Since the inception of community cabinet meetings, over 10,000 people have attended public forums and over 1,300 one-on-one meetings with ministers have been held. Indeed, the reaction to these meetings normally sees more people than can be accommodated registering for each event. I notice various criticisms from the opposition, but this is done at a low cost, with the only advertising being through local papers and community cabinet sections of PM&C’s website, inviting all members of the local public to attend the meeting.
I have attended most of these meetings and have seen firsthand the wide-ranging benefits they provide to the community. There have been a number of issues that members of the public have raised that we as a government may never have known about if we had not gone and visited those various communities. So I will certainly take on board the comments of the member for Solomon and reiterate my agreement that a community cabinet in his electorate, I am sure, would be a very good thing. As far as I can recall, a community cabinet has not been held in Darwin—I am not sure if that is—
Ms Jackson interjecting
Mr Irons interjecting
So it would be a great opportunity for members of the community to engage with cabinet ministers and provide feedback on issues that are important to them.
Parliamentary Secretary, you talked about community cabinets. You recently held one in my electorate of Swan. The next day, there was a lot of speculation by people on talkback radio wanting to know exactly how the process for selection of people attending that community cabinet was done, particularly because there were constituents of mine who said, ‘We couldn’t get in, but people from Joondalup and Fremantle were able to attend, when the community cabinet was being held in Swan.’ They wanted to know why they particularly were not included when other people outside the electorate were. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister answer that for me?
In answer to the good question from the member for Swan, as part of the planning process for a community cabinet meeting, shortly after the locality of a meeting is advised, PM&C’s Community Cabinet Secretariat meets with the office of the government’s local representative, local member or duty senator for the electorate to advise of the forthcoming meeting. I am sorry to ask you: I presume that you had been contacted with respect to this particular—
Yes.
I am sorry; I just wanted to confirm that. That is okay. Where the local member is not a government member, the Deputy Secretary, Governance, of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet writes to the local member with advice about the meeting and offers a point of contact to facilitate their attendance. The letter is both faxed and posted on the day that advertising for the meeting first appears. If there is no response after a couple of days, a secretariat member will contact the member’s office to confirm that the letter has been received. The Cabinet Secretary writes to all non-government senators in the state in which a community cabinet is being held advising of the meeting and offering a point of contact to facilitate their attendance. These procedures have been in place since the Bathurst meeting in November 2009.
With respect to people trying to get through who might not have been able to, unfortunately it is like a first-come, first-served basis. The difficulty is, you have a number of people who cannot make it—I stand to be corrected by the departmental officials behind me. If it helps the member for Swan, I think there was a delegation of women looking at rural child care who were not able to make the cabinet meeting because the community cabinet meetings had been booked out. When I found out about that, I agreed to meet with them to allay their concerns. I can understand their frustration, but frequently these events are over-booked. Unfortunately, it is first come, first serve, as I understand it, but I am happy to be corrected by any of the departmental officials behind me. If there is any other issue you want to raise with respect to that, I would be happy to pursue it further for you.
My question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is: as a member of the caucus National Security Committee, I am interested in knowing what the Rudd government is doing to build on its strong track record in national security. I understand the Prime Minister and cabinet has a strong policy focus on national security matters in areas such as defence policy and border security. Over the past month, there has been a lot of debate concerning a freeze on public service recruitment. So I wonder what the effect of such a freeze might have on the department’s capacity to deliver advice in this very important area.
In terms of new initiatives, I wonder what this budget includes and what the government’s focus is. Another aspect of the government’s policy on which I have been focusing closely is the National Security Legislation Monitor. I would ask whether the government is fulfilling this commitment and why the commitment has been made.
I will address the issue of the National Security Legislation Monitor, if I may. It is a fundamentally important question. I served on the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—it is a great honour to be selected. The selection is made by the Prime Minister of the day or the Leader of the Opposition. In a general sense, the representatives work on a very bipartisan basis. I do not know whether the member for Swan is aware of this but all the reports released by the joint intelligence committee—formerly the Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD—have been unanimous. On one occasion, I think, there was a dissenting comment but not a dissent to the report, which says a lot about the bipartisanship of this place with respect to national security. In my term, the chair of the committee was Senator Alan Ferguson, who performed his duties with great honour and dignity and certainly was a great representative of the committee.
As I have said, national security is one of the most important aspects of public policy and I am proud of the leadership the Rudd government has shown in this area. Appointing the National Security Adviser, who is Duncan Lewis, is just one way in which the Rudd government has shown leadership in the area. Within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, there are a number of branches which do fundamentally important work in the field of national security. The National Security and International Policy Group provides advice, coordination and leadership in the development of a secure, coordinated and effective national security information and management environment.
I note in this year’s portfolio budget statements additional funding has been provided for an independent review of the intelligence community. The work of the National Security and International Policy Group is first rate and the government strongly supports their ongoing work. I would hate to think what effect the opposition’s proposed freeze on public service recruitment would have on this important work, and I do not say that lightly. I know at estimates recently the Secretary to the Department of Finance and Deregulation expressed concern that this freeze would almost rule out the capacity to take on graduates each year. Graduates are a vital asset in training our future public service leaders and this would be a huge loss. I met DFAT graduates only last week and was incredibly impressed by the standard of these particular graduates. Naturally the loss of their contribution would have a significant effect on the department’s ability to deliver services and policy. In line with the Rudd government’s commitment to national security and to government accountability, we have made a commitment to implement the National Security Legislation Monitor.
This commitment arose out of the recommendations of the Security Legislation Review Committee, in 2006, and the committee that I was on, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the report of the inquiry into the case of Dr Mohammed Haneef, which was compiled by the Hon. John Clarke. The purpose of the monitor is to ensure that Australia’s counterterrorism and national security legislation operates in an effective and accountable manner, is consistent with international human rights law and helps maintain public confidence in the applicable laws. The monitor will review the operation, effectiveness and implications of counterterrorism and national security legislation and report findings, comments and recommendations to the Prime Minister and, in turn, the parliament on an annual basis. The monitor will also consider whether Australia’s counterterrorism and national security legislation remains necessary and contains appropriate safeguards for protecting individual’s rights.
I understand that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is presently working with the Attorney-General’s Department to develop a strategy, drawing stakeholder agencies together to identify legislation that falls within the monitor’s purview and to suggest potential review activities that the monitor may wish to undertake in the first 12 months of operation.
I wish to reiterate what I said earlier about national security because it is so vitally important. As I have said, I was on the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Intelligence and Security in 2006, which made the recommendation regarding the national security legislation monitor. The fact that we are implementing this is testament to our commitment to national security. We are also implementing it and funding national security agencies in a manner that is responsible and that has our nation’s best interests at its core.
Incidents, both internationally and domestically—and, tragically, that includes today’s incident—have reaffirmed the need for a trustworthy government that acts in the nation’s interests. The Rudd government has a proven track record on this.
I rise today to put on the public record my concern about the opposition’s plans to cut the Public Service and the particular impact that may have not only on my community but also across many parts of rural and regional Australia. I am talking about the opposition’s budget reply. Today I particularly want to focus on the Australian Taxation Office because I think it is a good example of an agency that provides a service nationally but which can often be delivered in many parts of regional Australia, including in my electorate of Corangamite. I am told we have some 20,000 people working for the tax office, of which about 160 of these are based in Geelong. People working in the ATO do a raft of work that focuses on the collection of around $264 billion. That is a very significant amount of income that, down the track, then goes to the provision of services, whether it be health, education or a wide range of other services, particularly in supporting some communities that may be in crisis or stress. I again think of the Victorian bushfires.
With respect to the coalition’s budget cuts, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary some questions. What will these cuts actually mean for the provision of a strong taxation service? What will they mean in terms of having a sustainable revenue base? What impacts may occur with these proposed Public Service cuts that the coalition are proposing in the delivery of a quality service in areas such as Geelong, Darwin and in many other parts of the nation?
I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. It is obviously a good question. I certainly share the member’s concerns about what the coalition’s two-year Public Service freeze would do to the government’s ability to deliver essential services and implement crucial policy such as maritime safety campaigns and other campaigns of similar importance. The member for Corangamite is correct to point out that we have displayed strict fiscal discipline and we are returning the budget to surplus three years earlier than predicted.
The Liberal Party talks tough about cutting government spending but the party’s blocking and opposition serve to make the deficit worse. Conversely, we have displayed the courage of our convictions and delivered a budget that the nation needs. All agencies within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio were able to comply with savings measures with the exception of the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General. I am sure all members will agree with the importance of the work of the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and respect this decision.
Across the APS, staff numbers increase and decrease in particular APS agencies depending on priorities and changes to programs. For example, this year’s budget papers show a reduction in the number of Centrelink staff on account of the number of welfare recipients also declining. All APS agencies are expected to be managed in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Since 2007, the growth and the headcount figures for the APS show that the growth in public service numbers under the Rudd government has slowed substantially. In June 2007 there were 155,416 APS employees compared with 162,000 in June 2009. This represents a modest growth in the Australian Public Service of 4.2 per cent over two years. By way of contrast, between June 2004 and June 2007 under the Howard government, the number of APS employees grew from 131,473 to 155,416—a growth of over 18 per cent.
We now have a scenario that will take us from one absurdity to another. As the member for Corangamite correctly identifies, the coalition’s proposed public service freeze will significantly undermine the Public Service capacity to deliver essential services. Graham Peachy, the head of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, said that the plan:
… would severely curtail our ability to deliver national safety programs and to deliver an effective search and rescue effort.
This is something that concerns me. But he is not alone in his concerns. I also note that Alan Thompson, the head of the Department of Parliamentary Services, stated:
Services could be affected across parliament including in security, research, building maintenance as well as affecting the Parliamentary Library and parliamentary guides.
As the member for Corangamite has said, it will also result in a reduction of 50 staff from the Auditor-General’s office, affecting vital services.
My colleague Nick Sherry, the Assistant Treasurer, has also pointed out that the reduction in staff in the Australian Taxation Office would mean a loss of $2.1 billion in tax receipts that it would otherwise collect. I believe that the policy being put forward by the opposition is short-sighted and it is irresponsible. On the other hand, we have delivered the budget the nation needs and a budget that will return the nation to a surplus a full three years earlier than expected. We have applied strict fiscal discipline in all of the decisions we have made and the budget statements support this fully.
Parliamentary Secretary, during your earlier answer to the member for Solomon you spoke about the benefits to the community which would result from community cabinets being held in those electorates and the feedback that the Prime Minister and cabinet could get from holding those community cabinets within those electorates. I would have been happy to give you feedback from my electorate if you needed it. It probably would have saved the taxpayer a lot of money and airfares. If you cannot answer this question could you take it on notice: were there any direct benefits to the seat of Swan from that community cabinet? Were there any promises made for funding put forward by the local councils? If there were, could I get a copy or a list of the benefits to the seat of Swan during that community cabinet?
The other thing while I am up is on the RSPT. I know there was no consultation with the mining industry prior to the announcement of it but I would appreciate knowing between the Prime Minister and the government how much consultation there was prior to those figures being allotted into the budgets and whether the cabinet were fully aware of the impact it was going to have on the mining sector, particularly in Western Australia. In my electorate I know there are people who have had downturns in business already because of the announcement. Was the cabinet fully aware of what effect that was going to have on the people and businesses in Western Australia?
Member for Swan, I do the one on ones with the Prime Minister, so there is a discussion between the people that meet. I would be very happy to take your question on notice, and to the ability that we have we will answer those particular questions. With respect to the second question that you asked in terms of the RSPT, given that they are obviously in many cases cabinet-in-confidence conversations, I will also take that question on notice, as you have given me the capacity to do so, and we will respond to both of those questions within 30 days.
I know there has been some widespread criticism of the former government, the Howard government, particularly on their track record when it comes to government accountability, something they were not known for during their long 12 years in government. My interest specifically relates to access to government information and the changes to the Electoral Act. There have been quite a number of inquiries in those areas for some time. One of the things I would like to know more about and ask the parliamentary secretary about is that the sheer number of FOI requests seems to have declined while the Howard government were in government. I know there is vital information there that really does need to be part of the public arena, so I ask the parliamentary secretary if he has a comment in terms of what government is doing about sharing government information.
I thank the member for Oxley. I know he is a very enthusiastic advocate of electoral reform. I always welcome the opportunity to speak on the government’s reform record on freedom of information policy and electoral reform. When the Rudd government won office, the privacy and FOI policy branch was moved from the Attorney-General’s portfolio into the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. I know this is a little bit indulgent, but I would like to pay tribute to Senator John Faulkner, who was then Cabinet Secretary and Minister of State and a key driver of many of the reforms that have since been initiated by the Rudd government. Since then the Rudd government has introduced a number of reforms to the FOI Act as we recognised that it is in need of reform. As a government we are committed to giving better access through easier and less formal means. Anyone outside the government was subjected to a decade of secrecy under the Howard government. John Hartigan is not often referred to as a friend of mine and I notice that he and I have apparently become buddies by association by a tabloid called vexnews, a very fine, interesting blog. He referred to the previous government earlier this year as the most secretive government we have ever had, even in war time. I think that reinforces why the reforms were needed and brought about by the Rudd government. As part of our reforms we are reducing the access period to several forms of information, such as amending the Archives Act to reduce access to various records from 30 to 20 years. For cabinet notebooks the period will be reduced from 50 years to 30.
Another significant FOI related reform relates to the introduction of the Office of the Information Commissioner. The Office of the Information Commissioner will bring together the independent oversight functions for privacy protection and access to government information. We are creating two new statutory positions in the form of an Information Commissioner and Freedom of Information Commissioner. These are important reforms in promoting a culture of disclosure and meeting important election commitments.
As a government we have also introduced a number of measures that will make the Commonwealth Electoral Act fairer and more inclusive as well as implement efficiencies and make the day-to-day operations of the Australian Electoral Commission easier. The reforms we have introduced restore integrity and transparency to the electoral act after its integrity was undermined by the Howard government. One of the important reforms we have introduced comes out of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto. It goes to proof of identity requirements for enrolling, reduces the age at which people can provisionally enrol as well as a range of other amendments. The recommendations of the JSCEM report will bring the Commonwealth Electoral Act into the 21st century.
We are committed to implementing policies we committed to in opposition and restoring the integrity of Australia’s electoral system and FOI acts. We are committed to making information easy to access and to making government operations more transparent. I know my colleague Senator Faulkner in particular and now Senator Ludwig have been working assiduously in this regard. I am reminded again of John Hartigan’s comment—and it is very unusual these days to be on the same page as John Hartigan—that the Howard government was the most secretive government we have had, even in wartime. Having seen these reforms being put forward and executed, it is an honour to be part of a government that is so truly committed to reform and to delivering on the commitments it has made, particularly in this area.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Tanner:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Tanner:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Sitting suspended from 6.34 pm to 6.40 pm
On 17 June 2010, I visited Goollelal Primary School, a very good local school in the suburb of Kingsley in the Cowan electorate. While I was there I had a brief conversation with the principal, Greg Clarke, and the deputy principal, Kerry Hartmann. As I was leaving, I was approached by some of the students and I had a very good and quite significant conversation with three of the young ladies from the school. I would like to congratulate Lauren King, who is in year 7. She is a bit of a soccer player and, hopefully, a future Matilda. Lauren is off to Greenwood Senior High School next year. I spoke to Sariah Richard, a year 6 student and again, hopefully, a future Matilda soccer player. Sariah is off to St Mark’s next year. I also spoke to Shan Williams, who is in year 6. Shan has already distinguished herself at school as a pianist and a singer of note. Shan is off to St Stephen’s next year. This was a good opportunity to meet with some very nice and impressive young people at Goollelal Primary School. They are certainly a credit to their school and to their parents. I have also had previous contact with Christopher Greed, a prefect at the school. Together, I think they are great examples of the excellent young people at Goollelal Primary School.
I rise today to talk about the loss of a great community member of ours. Sadly, Darryl McLindin, a community member in my electorate, passed away on Sunday, 13 June. I, along with many members of our community, attended his funeral service last Thursday. I am fortunate enough to have the privilege of being the patron of the Tuggeranong Hawks Football Club and also the Sydney Swans Canberra support group. I mention that because Darryl McLindin and his wife of 47 years, Pat, have both been very strong and wonderful supporters of the Tuggeranong Hawks footy club, in the first instance, and they have both been convenors and organisers of the Canberra support group for the Sydney Swans. That is despite the fact that Darryl actually supported Collingwood. I mention this in the chamber this evening to say how much I my colleagues are able to see and value the leadership role that people in our communities take. The support that Darryl gave his community, through both the Tuggeranong Hawks and the Sydney Swans support group, is immeasurable. Many people are indebted to him for his support, for the work he did and for the gentlemanly fashion in which he carried it out. He did sorts of tasks, particularly for the Tuggeranong Hawks footy club, and made sure that everybody connected with the Sydney Swans club was well looked after. He will be sadly missed. (Time expired)
I would like to recognise the willingness of the people of Hay, in my electorate of Farrer, to donate blood. This is emphasised in federal parliament today as I table a petition with 1,095 signatures calling for an Australian Red Cross mobile blood service in Hay. At the moment, the Red Cross is not able to come to Hay to collect blood. The Red Cross itself is the real loser here because the people whose 1,095 signatures are on this petition want to donate blood in Hay. This is a very unfortunate situation. The Red Cross needs blood supplies and the people of Hay want to provide them. Right now, they will get on a bus and go to the nearest blood collection point, perhaps in Griffith or Hillston, in order to do their civic duty. The Red Cross cannot possibly have any doubts about whether the extra journey to Hay would be cost effective as far as donations are concerned. I call on the Red Cross to come to Hay to collect donations of blood.
The words I am about to read were prepared by Tamara Gibbs, of St Saviour’s College Toowoomba, Queensland, who is 16 years old and in year 12, and Corey Colbung, from Katanning Senior High, Katanning, Western Australia, who is 15 years old. They are both part of ‘Learn Earn Legend’ They wrote:
The learn earn legend is a program for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people to come to parliment house and experience life in political office, Minister for employment participation and to join in other activities.
The program includes activities which will improve young people’s civics education, providing a valuable first hand opportunity for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander students and help set out life goals from their experience here at parliment house.
Also a goal of the program is to help Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander students to expand their horizons about what job opportunities exist, as they consider their future careers.
We have 100 students from all across Australia to be a part of the program, which is the first time this program has been run.
We hope the success of this years students will be such that when other students come will be an even greater experience for them.
Remember: stay at school, get that job and be a legend.
They are the words that they wrote for me. I asked them to do this. I thought it was a great way to pay tribute to these two fine young people who have come to this place and who really want to make something of themselves and their lives.
Hear, hear!
They are both really active and confident young people who have so much to offer. I am really proud to have had them spend the day with me in my office and with my staff and they will be back again tomorrow. While we do not, in this place, get as much time as we would like to spend with them individually, the little bit of time that we did have together today was absolutely fabulous. They have written an absolutely wonderful speech. (Time expired)
Yesterday, I attended the Demons District Football Club Junior Carnival, which was held at Higgins Park in the suburb of Victoria Park in my electorate. The teams that were involved in the carnival where the under 9s, under 10s and under 11s. The day was run between 10 in the morning and 3.30 in the afternoon. There were marquees up all around the ground and each club proudly displayed their colours and their banners from their marquees. The junior football clubs in attendance were: Belmont, Gosnells, Huntingdale, Kenwick, Lynwood Ferndale, Maddington, Manning Rippers, Queens Park, Redcliffe, South Perth, Thornlie and the host club, Victoria Park. This is an annual event that is held in the district and being the Director for Junior Development on the Perth Football Club board it is a great pleasure to be involved in seeing these clubs participate. It was a great day. The weather was fantastic—as it usually is in Western Australia—and the participants were fantastic.
Mr Briggs interjecting
We are thinking of seceding—thanks to the member for Mayo for suggesting that. The day was sensational. There were no problems. Everyone got along really well and I think Victoria Park did a fantastic job in hosting it. Hopefully, they made plenty of money for their club through the canteen. There must have been at least 1,500 to 2,000 people there on the day. (Time expired)
I welcome the good news today of the announcement by the Prime Minister of Australia and the Vice President of China of the signing of a cooperation agreement for the China First coal development between Resourcehouse Ltd, Export-Import Bank of China, Metallurgical Corporation of China and China Power Holdings. This will establish an US$8 billion China First coal project involving the construction of a mine, a 476 kilometre railway to the port of Abbot Point near Bowen in my constituency of Dawson and the construction of a coal loading terminal. The project is expected to result in approximately A$4 billion in exports every single year for 25 years.
This is an example of growth in the coal industry. I fully support the growth of the coal industry in Queensland. I always have. I always will—unlike the LNP who run a negative fear campaign. This is a good news day for the people of Dawson and for the Australian mining services industry. This is all about jobs, jobs, jobs for the Australian people and the Australian services industry and I wholeheartedly welcome this Chinese investment. I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, in helping get this deal through. This is a fantastic achievement and is highly commendable. I would also like to say that the Australian Conservation Foundation and the ACTU have estimated that 770,000 extra jobs will be created by 2030—(Time expired)
Amidst the long catalogue of outrages perpetrated on the Upper North Shore by the New South Wales state Labor government we have had, recently, one that really ranks as amongst the very worst. The fig trees at Wahroonga station have stood there for approximately 100 years. They are well loved and they are a well-known feature of Wahroonga station and yet, extraordinarily enough, RailCorp, the state government’s body responsible for administering the infrastructure of the railway system in Sydney, decreed that the fig trees needed to be chopped down. Their stated rationale was pedestrian safety. Apparently, it was simply unsafe to have these fig trees there and they need to be chainsawed out of existence. No explanation was given as to how they had managed to stand for the previous 100 years without compromising the safety of pedestrians.
It is a shameful demonstration of the complete, arrogant disregard of this state government bureaucracy for the desires of the local community. Constituents of mine protested. They stood in front of the trees trying to prevent this outrage being perpetrated, ultimately to no avail. Tragically, the 100-year-old fig trees at Wahroonga railway station are no more, a disgraceful act by the New South Wales state Labor government and RailCorp. (Time expired)
Tonight I want to briefly raise a few matters of international concern. Firstly, I want to express sorrow at the ethnic clashes in Kyrgyzstan that have caused some 300,000 Uzbeks to be internally displaced while another 100,000 have fled to Uzbekistan as refugees. It is estimated that 2,000 people have died so far and there have been reports of sexual violence and widespread destruction of property. I hope the international community, including Australia, will generously support humanitarian assistance as well as an independent investigation into the events.
Secondly, I note the Israeli government’s announcement that it will ease the blockade it has imposed on Gaza since June 2007. This decision is welcome in light of the enormous suffering that the blockade has caused the civilian population in Gaza, 80 per cent of whom are reliant on food aid. I note further the establishment of an Israeli investigation commission into the raid on the Gaza flotilla that left nine people dead. Concerns have been expressed that the commission’s work may suffer from a lack of transparency, access to information and enforceability. Nevertheless it is to be hoped the investigation will lead to a credible and a satisfactory explanation of the shocking events of 31 May. The world is watching with interest.
Thirdly, I refer to the welcome visit to Australia this week of Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping. I hope the Australian government will take the opportunity of Mr Xi’s visit to raise, among other things, the issue of Tibet and humans rights issues within China.
Finally, it is extremely concerning that the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico continues largely unabated. It is imperative that we learn the lessons from this environmental and economic disaster and ensure it cannot be repeated here in Australia.
I rise tonight to pay tribute to the Chief Executive Officer of the Alexandrina Council, Mr John Coombe, who on 7 June this year announced that, as of 22 December, he will retire from being the CEO of the Alexandrina Council, a position he has held since its establishment in 1997, at which time he had been CEO of one of its precursor councils since 1988. This adds up to 22 years, which is a substantial effort, as I am sure you will realise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The area the Alexandrina Council is responsible for includes a large part of the Lower Lakes, Milang, Clayton and Goolwa in addition to Strathalbyn. In recent times the area has faced the very worst of the Lower Lakes crisis. John Coombe, as the CEO of the council, along with the mayor, Kym McHugh, has worked very hard along with me and Adrian Pederick, the state local member, to ensure that this issue remains at the forefront of people’s minds.
John has done an outstanding job for the Alexandrina Council. He will be sorely missed. I know that Mayor Kym McHugh, who has been mayor for a similar amount of time at the Alexandrina Council, is sad to see him go. It will be a new era for the Alexandrina Council. We wish John and his wife, Carol, all the best in their future.
I rise today to talk about my ongoing concerns about the Midland Health Campus in my electorate of Hasluck. In the 2009-10 budget, the Rudd government provided $180.1 million in funding for the new Midland Health Campus, following requests from the state Liberal government for the funding to ensure the project proceeded without delay. Construction was meant to be completed by November 2013, a year later than originally promised. Premier Colin Barnett, in his new role as Treasurer, confirmed in his recent state budget that construction on the new hospital is not due to start until 2012, with completion sometime in 2015. For a hospital that was originally due to be completed in 2012, I find this delay extremely disappointing.
In addition to that, we still have not seen the contribution from the state government, who agreed to match the federal funding. State budget papers only mention the Midland Health Campus by saying that ‘planning’ for the new hospital is ‘well advanced’. Last year’s state budget also mentioned that planning for the Midland Health Campus was ‘well advanced’. I am concerned that, after another year of delay, the state government are still yet to make a real start on delivering our new hospital.
Recently the state health minister, Kim Hames, admitted that the state cannot specify the cost benefit of pursuing their preferred option of a privatised model for the new hospital. The state government must be able to establish that there is a legitimate benefit to our community in pursuing a privatised model for the new hospital rather than proceeding to the public option—(Time expired)
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed.
Report No. 111 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties reviews the following significant treaty actions: amendments to appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, ratification of the statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency, entry into an agreement with France on cooperative enforcement of fisheries laws in sub-Antarctic maritime areas and entry into a healthcare agreement with Slovenia. The report also deals with one minor treaty action.
The committee supports all of the treaties examined in this report. However, the committee has made an additional recommendation in relation to amendments to appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. These amendments affect three species of shark that range in Australian waters: the porbeagle, shortfin mako and longfin mako. Due to risks to these species, each is now listed on appendix II of the convention, obliging Australia to work with other countries to conclude international agreements for their conservation. In this regard, Australia is participating in multilateral negotiations for a memorandum of understanding on the conservation of migratory sharks that will include these sharks. The inclusion of these sharks on appendix II has an additional ramification in terms of Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. All species on an appendix for which Australia is a range state must be listed as migratory species under the act, and such listing came into effect on 29 January this year.
This listing has caused considerable concern amongst recreational fishers, who are now prohibited to fish for these sharks. The committee received more than 40 submissions to its inquiry, largely from recreational fishing groups and individuals opposed to the EPBC Act listing who challenged the scientific basis for the listing and raised concerns about a lack of consultation about the legislative change. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts has acknowledged it did not consult with recreational fishers or conservation and environment groups about these amendments. Given the nature and number of submissions received, the committee has recommended that the department review its consultation processes for environmental treaties to ensure that more effective consultation is undertaken with all potentially interested parties.
The committee was unimpressed with the long delay in tabling these amendments in the parliament. The amendments were adopted in December 2008 and automatically entered into force for Australia on 5 March 2009 but were not tabled until 25 November 2009, nearly nine months after they had entered into force. The committee considers that the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts needs to more effectively manage its treaty-making process to ensure treaty actions are tabled in a timely manner and that this committee’s time frames are respected. The committee reiterates the point raised in its previous report—the value of the committee’s inquiries to the treaty-making process is undermined when there is insufficient time to properly consider a treaty or to allow public examination of a treaty.
I now turn to the statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency, IRENA. IRENA is a treaty-level intergovernmental organisation that has been established to promote the widespread and increased adoption and sustainable use of all forms of renewable energy technologies. The organisation is currently in an interim preparatory phase and will enter into force on 8 July this year. IRENA will be a centre of excellence for renewable energy technology and a significant mechanism to facilitate international engagement on this issue. Through prompt ratification of the statute, Australia will be able to engage with the international community on renewable energy technology development and deployment, and take an active role in development of IRENA and its work plan. IRENA will allow Australia to strengthen cooperative ties with countries both in and outside of our region and move beyond Australia’s traditional engagement with bodies such as the International Energy Agency. In particular, membership of developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region is likely to bring further international attention to the energy challenges faced by this region.
The Agreement on Cooperative Enforcement of Fisheries Laws between the Government of Australia and the Government of the French Republic in the Maritime Areas Adjacent to the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, Heard Island and the McDonald Island is intended to tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones surrounding these territories. Such fishing is a serious threat to the marine environment and the sustainability of valuable fish stocks. This agreement will formalise previous ad hoc enforcement activities undertaken with France to enforce fisheries laws and will greatly improve efforts by both countries to address illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the Southern Ocean. Activities that are authorised by this treaty include boarding, inspection, hot pursuit, apprehension, seizure and investigation of fishing vehicles believed to be acting illegally. I commend the report to the House.
Debate resumed.
Report No. 112 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties reviews eight significant treaty actions: taxation information exchange agreements with Gibraltar, the Cook Islands and the States of Guernsey; agreements on the allocation of taxing rights with the Cook Islands and the States of Guernsey entered in conjunction with the taxation information exchange agreements; an exchange of letters amending the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of New Zealand concerning a joint food standards system; and new agreements on social security with the Czech Republic and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Two minor treaty actions are also included.
The committee supports each of the actions considered in this report, and I will direct my remarks this evening to the content and purpose of the eight significant actions. I turn first to the five taxation agreements. These treaties have a common object: the elimination of harmful tax practices amongst low-taxed jurisdictions in accordance with OECD standards. We do not know the full level and type of economic activity between Australia and the Cook Islands, Gibraltar and the States of Guernsey. All three however are recognised offshore financial centres, and AUSTRAC data indicates that the flow of funds is significant.
The proposed new treaties will help Australia combat this threat to the integrity of our tax system. Three are tax information exchange agreements which essentially follow an established model format. Both parties are obliged to exchange information which is foreseeably relevant to the administration and enforcement of domestic tax laws. Where the party does not uphold the information necessary to comply with a request, it must use its relevant information-gathering powers to obtain it. The two additional taxation treaties with the Cook Islands and the States of Guernsey provide for the allocation of taxing rights in order to prevent double taxation of the same income. Australia offered these agreements to encourage entry into the information exchange arrangements. The committee understands that Gibraltar did not take up the offer.
I turn now to the exchange of letters amending the joint food standards system. This system is a cooperative bilateral arrangement involving the governments of Australia, New Zealand and the Australian states and territories. It provides the framework for the timely development and review of food standards appropriate to both countries. Draft standards and amendments become part of the legally enforceable Food Standards Code following consideration and endorsement by the ministerial council, a deliberative body comprising relevant ministers from all jurisdictions.
The exchange of letters will amend aspects of this process to give effect to the recommendations of a 2007 report. It will remove the ministerial council’s power to call for a second review of a draft standard or amendment. It will also remove the automatic requirement for the council to seek review at one jurisdiction’s request. Two further changes will affect the adoption of standards in exceptional or emergency situations. A single exceptional circumstances mechanism will apply to both parties, enabling separate standards to be created only in response to specific risks. The exchange of letters will also create additional obligations for jurisdictions adopting temporary standards, where there is not sufficient time for the normal drafting process to take place. The committee supports these measures to improve the efficiency of the system, notwithstanding the fact that another review into food-labelling law and policy is currently underway. The committee has been assured that the present measures will not undermine the outcome of that review.
I turn finally to the new bilateral agreements on social security with the Czech Republic and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. These treaties add to the 23 bilateral social security agreements Australia has already ratified. Agreements of this nature assist Australian residents to access certain social security payments which they are entitled to receive from another country. Specifically, the treaties covered in this report will cover the Australian age pension; and the Czech and Macedonian age, disability and survivor’s pensions.
Once the treaties enter into force, people living in one country will be able to lodge a claim for a pension with the other country. Restrictions on the portability of payments will be removed; and avenues for mutual assistance will be provided to help ensure people are paid their correct entitlements.
The committee is conscious that these agreements impose an administrative cost on Australia which will not be fully offset by the reduction in the cost of age pensions. This is due in part to the small number of persons eligible under the agreements.
In noting that these numbers are small, the committee has not lost sight of the fact that the improvement in the pension incomes of eligible Australians will be significant. The committee accepts that the social benefit to be realised in this instance outweighs the net cost to Australia.
In concluding my remarks this evening, I thank the numerous agencies, individuals and organisations who assisted in the committee’s inquiries, and I commend the report to the House.
I thank the member for his contribution. The time allotted for the debate has expired.
Debate resumed, on motion by Ms King:
That the House:
I am pleased to speak on this motion in recognition of the sinking of the Montevideo Maru on 1 July 1942. The story of how so many Australians died on board the Montevideo Maru, despite it being our nation’s most horrific maritime disaster, is little known. This Japanese transport freighter was carrying over 1,000 military prisoners of war and civilians. Over 800 Australian soldiers and 206 civilians were believed to be locked in the ship’s hold when she sank. No Australian survived—the biggest single loss of life in our nation’s wartime history.
Many of those who died were members of Lark Force. Lark Force comprised the 2nd/22nd Battalion AIF and supporting units, 1,400 soldiers in total. The 2nd/22nd Battalion, which formed the nucleus of Lark Force, was originally based at Mount Martha, on the Victorian peninsula. The majority of these men came from Victoria, from rural and metropolitan areas. The force arrived in the island on 26 April, tasked with protecting the airfields and seaplane base at Rabaul. The force was ill equipped and was vulnerable to Japanese attacks.
The Japanese began bombing in January 1942, and by the morning of 23 January Lark Force commander Colonel John Scanlan ordered a withdrawal from Rabaul, stating that it was ‘every man for himself’. Of these Australian troops, around 400 escaped and returned to Australia. Of the remaining troops, over 800 became prisoners of war and 160 were massacred at Tol Plantation. Those remaining members of Lark Force were taken prisoner by the advancing Japanese army and were placed in POW camps in Papua New Guinea. Australian and European civilians who were living and working in Rabaul at the time were also taken prisoner by the Japanese army and placed in the POW camps.
In late June 1942, the troops and civilians were taken to the port city of Rabaul, where they were boarded onto the Montevideo Maru, which was scheduled to carry them to Hainan Island, in China, which was occupied by the Japanese at the time. En route to Hainan Island, the Montevideo Maru was intercepted by the American submarine the USS Sturgeon. Unaware that there were Australian POWs on board, the USS Sturgeon torpedoed the ship at 2.29 am. Eleven minutes later, the ship sank. It is thought that most drowned where they were imprisoned in the hull of the ship as it took on water.
From my own district of Ballarat, they were Corporal Cheney, Private Gribble, Corporal Hicks, Lance Corporal Hodder, Lance Corporal Kirkpatrick, Private Ladner, Private Morgan, Private Reid, Private Tulloch, Private Wythe and Private Godfrey. Private Geoff Godfrey’s brother Alan is in Parliament House today with his two daughters. Of the Australian civilians to have died in the Montevideo Maru, one was Walter James Ryan. Walter had moved to the island in 1931 to work for a local trading company. Walter was due for long-service leave in December 1941 but decided to hold off while his wife, Frances, moved to Sydney to settle the children into schooling. Walter was looking forward to following later in 1942 but he did not return home. Walter’s daughter Julia Richardson lives in my own electorate. She has said, like so many of the men and women who are here today, that their life was put on hold for over three years while they waited for the hope of news of their father.
The impact of this tragedy was felt by people right across our country. Loved ones and relatives of those Australians killed have carried the unbearable and unimaginable burden of losing a loved one at war. Amongst these mourners are members and former members of this House. I respectfully acknowledge the loss of Reverend Syd Beazley, the Hon. Kim Beazley’s uncle, and of the grandfather of the Hon. Peter Garrett, both of whom were on board the Montevideo Maru on that fateful morning.
As part of my contribution, I would like to read some words that Kim Beazley has sent specifically for this evening:
Families of those who lost relatives and loved ones in this our greatest loss at sea would be deeply grateful for recognition of their sadness and pride. Most of us left now are too young to have known the fallen but they live richly in our family legend. Australians are good at somberly recognising the sacrifice of their fellows. Opening the nations arms through the Parliament to embrace the dear lost of the Montevideo Maru is part of a fine tradition. The relatives of Syd Beazley—
and, I am sure, many of those here today—
would be warmed by this embrace.
The story of the Montevideo Maru will live in our nation’s history. It is remembered on the national prisoners of war memorial in Ballarat and on other memorials across Australia and internationally. In this parliament, I formally acknowledge those who died on the Montevideo Maru and I pay my respects to their families and their friends who are present with us today.
It is indeed a privilege to rise this evening, on behalf of the coalition, to add the support of members on all sides of the chamber to the motion that has been put forward by the member for Ballarat and which has been spoken of today—principally, of course, to recognise the sacrifice of those Australian servicemen who lost their lives aboard the Montevideo Maru some 68 years ago.
As someone with involvement in the Montevideo Maru Foundation since my election in 2001, I want to pay particular tribute to Cynthia Schmidt and James Kennett who I know worked alongside so many others, all of whom have been tireless advocates of the Montevideo Maru and the need for recognition of Australia’s worst maritime disaster. Of what has been the worst maritime disaster there is still too little known. I know from the time that I have spent speaking face-to-face with people like Cynthia of the genuine grief and the need to have closure through a definitive answer to questions that have lingered for far too long.
The facts of the Montevideo Maruthe capture of the Australian Lark Force personnel and the civilian interns, as well as what we know about the circumstances of the ship’s sinking—have been, today, relatively well documented, both in the House and by the member. But it stands in contrast to the history—that for so long so many people had no real clarity about the circumstances that took place.
What I want to talk about today—and I am mindful of the presence in the public galleries of survivors, of relatives, of family and friends—is the need for closure and the need for certainty for so many Australians who lost family members either on the Montevideo Maru or in the days before the ship set sail. In the past I have sponsored petitions in this place calling for the government to conduct an inquiry, and for a search for the Montevideo Maru. It is important to acknowledge that not everyone is of the same view with respect to the relevance of that. But I have been persuaded over the years that an inquiry, and looking into the feasibility of a search, is the direction in which we should go to help to provide closure for those who still question who was on board and who was not.
In many respects, today is just a start. The formal recognition by this nation’s parliament is something that has been well overdue for too long. But it is just another step on the journey. I know, from having had the opportunity just this afternoon to speak with family members, that there is still a great desire for more to be done. That is why I was pleased that both the government and the opposition committed $100,000 today towards an ongoing search, as part of an ongoing commitment to bringing closure to the families involved.
On this important occasion, when the families of victims have travelled from around Australia to be in the House of Representatives today, I want to renew that call for closure. For Australia’s worst maritime disaster and following the joy of finding the HMAS Sydney and the Hospital Ship Centaur, I believe that we as a nation should expect nothing less. I also think we should give consideration to a national day of remembrance to be celebrated on 23 January—the anniversary of the fall of Rabaul, New Britain, New Ireland and the surrounding islands of New Guinea. The reality is that, despite this being Australia’s worst maritime disaster, there is not enough public awareness of the ultimate sacrifice made by more than 1,000 Australians in this incident. Though most Australians know of the HMAS Sydney and the search for the Centaur, fewer Australians would know anything about the tragedy of the Montevideo Maru. It is my sincere hope that today will represent a turning point in the ongoing story of the Montevideo Maru.
I would also like to place on the record my profound respect and admiration for the Australian men and women who gave their lives in this horrible disaster. Though not a lot, and certainly not enough, is known about their fate, we can be certain of their bravery and sacrifice in the defence of our nation. I have no doubt that all the people in the gallery today and all of those who read of this in subsequent days will stand proud of the fact that that sacrifice was not for naught but for our nation.
I seek leave to table the names of 133 military personnel, all single men, who died as a result of the sinking of the Montevideo Maru. I am indebted to one of my constituents, Mr David Harper of Hervey Bay, for this.
Leave granted.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Andrews:
That the House:
It is estimated that around 15 per cent of Egypt’s 80 million people are Christians. According to tradition, Christianity was introduced to Alexandria by Saint Mark, making it one of the oldest Christian communities in the world and indeed the oldest in Africa. Originally a reference to Egypt generally, the term ‘Copt’, deriving from the word ‘Aigyptos’, is now used to describe Egyptian Christians. After the Arab invasion of Egypt in the 7th century, the Copts became a minority but remained a significant and prosperous group. Indeed, they remained an important group working with Muslims towards the freedom and independence of Egypt in the early part of last century. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy has noted:
… Christians worked side by side with Muslims in the creation of modern Egypt. In the 1919 uprising against British occupation, Coptic priests were preaching in mosques —including Cairo’s prestigious al-Azhar Mosque —and imams were preaching in churches as a symbol of national unity. The trend continued until the 1950s …
However, during Nasser’s pan-Arab socialist regime the Copts were targeted because of their wealth and were reduced to second-class citizens. Many have emigrated, including a relatively small but significant number to Australia.
During the past three decades of the rule of Hosni Mubarak the discrimination against the Copts has increased. They are regularly targeted for discrimination and have been subjected to increasing violence from Islamist jihadi radicals. One such case occurred when six Christians and an off-duty police officer were massacred as they were leaving a Christmas service in January this year. This follows a series of other incidents in which hundreds of Copts, unfortunately and tragically, have been killed over the last 20 years.
Despite constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, Copts face discrimination and persecution. In practice it is virtually impossible to build or repair their churches. It can be very difficult to obtain travel documentation, and converts to Christianity are unable to alter their ID cards although no such obstacle stands in the way of converts to Islam.
This is not a motion against Islam; it is a motion calling for religious freedom. Egypt is not alone in restricting freedoms, including religious freedom. The persecution of religious minorities, including Christians, Jews, Baha’is and Sunni Muslims in Iran, is an egregious example of such persecution—and the restrictions on Christian churches in China is another.
Egypt has an opportunity to show leadership. It can be a force for toleration and moderation in the Middle East. It can embrace its obligations under international conventions and laws. This would be welcomed by Copts in Egypt, as it would by some 70,000 Copts who have made Australia home but are concerned about the plight of family, friends and associates who remain in Egypt. I join with members of the Coptic community in Melbourne, Sydney and elsewhere in calling on the government to voice its concerns about this matter and to restore the special immigration assistance to Copts that existed under the previous government.
I rise in support of this motion on behalf of the Coptic congregation and community in and around my electorate of Hindmarsh and, of course, those further afield who are concerned by the persecution taking place in Egypt. Father Philopos Boghdady, of Adelaide’s Saint Mary and Saint Bishoy Coptic Orthodox Church, and his congregation have welcomed me with open arms to many of their community events and services. I have learnt of the intimidation of Coptic Christians in Egypt and the dangers that threaten their lives. Of course, this is of most grave concern. I have been invited to share in the warmth and hospitality of the local Coptic Church congregation and I appreciate the good works of His Grace Bishop Suriel, the head of the Coptic Church in Australia and New Zealand, whom I have met on a number of occasions. But Coptic Christians have endured an unprecedented increase in blatant hostility in the country of their church’s origin. As we heard earlier, we are talking about a Christian Church whose origins are very old. The Coptic Christians have been in Egypt since the early days of the Byzantine Empire. Saint Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai dates back to the 6th century and has been in use as a centre of Christian teaching and learning since that time, not just for Egypt and Byzantium but for the entire Christian world.
Most regrettably, the threat that the church endured some 1,200 years ago is making itself very evident again today. The desire of some to destroy the Coptic religion is not a historic point of interest but a very real concern as we speak. On 21 June 2009, with the assistance of state security, a mob assaulted Coptic Christian households in Egypt destroying their homes, their crops, their livelihood and any meagre sense of security they may have had. This assault and destruction of people’s lives was perpetrated on the basis that the state security forces and the mob suspected that the Coptic Christians in question were celebrating mass and practising their Coptic Christian religion—they were doing no more than that. The response of the state authorities to this violent outburst was the forced reconciliation of aggressors and victims, which consists of a compromise: the aggressors promise not to further assault and destroy the victim’s person, family and belongings as long as the victim promises to give up the practice of their religion. This is modern Egypt, and this is considered fair and reasonable and currently passes for justice.
Following these attacks the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom said, ‘This latest incident is another example of the upsurge of violence against Coptic Christians we have seen in the past few years. The commission has long expressed concern that the Egyptian authorities do not do enough to protect Christians and their property in Egypt nor do the authorities adequately bring perpetrators of such violence to justice.’
The upsurge in violence against Coptic Christians continues and continued on 7 January this year. A congregation of Coptic Christians were celebrating Christmas in church. On leaving the church and entering the street they were sprayed with bullets and, as we heard, six were shot dead and 15 others injured. On 13 March a mob of some 1,000 besieged a Coptic church in Mersa Matrouh, hurling stones at the church and trapping 400 parishioners inside for some 14 hours. This is sectarian violence; it is rife. The free practice of religion, if it is Christianity, is blocked by the authorities. Church buildings are vandalised. It so happens that repairs, as we heard earlier, need a licence, a licence which too often takes a ridiculous amount of time to be issued and before works proceed buildings are demolished by state authorities.
Before new religious buildings works are approved, the building plans are declared contrary to law by virtue of the planned building having too close a proximity to newly established mosques. After their family is terrorised, possibly arrested and even tortured; after their home is destroyed with all private property; after their source of income is destroyed, their family uprooted and their home burnt to the ground, what can they do? Leave. The intended consequence of this sectarian violence and oppression is sectarian cleansing. I ask members to support the motion before us. (Time expired)
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the member for Menzies’ motion before the House. I have a great interest in the issue of religious freedom: the ability of people to choose their own religion and then be able to practise that religion without fear of persecution. Unfortunately, the attack on Christianity in certain places around the world seems to be increasing. I have spoken previously in the House about the issue of apostasy—those who convert from Islam to Christianity—about how often they are persecuted, sometimes threatened with murder and sometimes killed.
I would like to raise an issue before I move on to the specifics of the situation facing the Coptic church in Egypt and that is the matter of Mohammed Hegazy. In 2003 he converted from Islam to Christianity. He then sought to be recognised legally as a Christian—the first person in Egypt to do this. Under Egyptian law, sharia law, once someone is within the faith of Islam they have no choice. They are not allowed to convert. When Mohammed converted, I understand that a fatwa was issued against him. His father also threatened to kill him. This was all because of a personal decision to convert to Christianity. It was not just him; his wife also converted. I believe they now have a daughter three years old and it is said that, unless she elects to convert to Islam at the age of 10, she will also be killed or under threat of death. So I think there is a major problem in Egypt. There are major issues with regard to religious freedom and no more so than in the persecution that has occurred, as has previously been said by other speakers, since the fifties and particularly in the seventies. The number of incidents is increasing, even in the last year.
Certainly it is a major problem in that country. The people there are suffering. Although we might say that it has been somewhat good for Australia, because two-thirds of people with Egyptian ancestry who live in Australia are Coptics, we have been the beneficiary of the persecution. But it is not right that someone feels they have to leave their homeland for the safety of their families or that they should be forced to leave rather than face economic deprivation as a result of the archaic arrangements regarding the Coptic Christian faith as imposed by the state in Egypt. It has been said that the police and the security forces seem to be a bit reticent to act when required. When people and churches are being attacked, they do seem a little reticent to arrive on time to actually achieve something. Fundamentally, substantial change is needed within Egypt. It is hard to know exactly what to do, because it would appear that the government, bound by sharia law, is working according to the principles of that law. The country is being held back as a result; people are being held back. People are being persecuted—all for the sake of religious oppression. It is a shame and it is outrageous. We as a parliament should make a very clear point to Egypt, and the government should make a very clear point to Egypt, that this is not the way a modern country acts and it should change now.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to support the motion moved by the honourable member for Menzies on the rights and freedoms of religious and other minority groups in Egypt, a country of 77 million people who are heirs to a great civilization and a country with enormous potential in land, resources and energy. Sadly, some of this potential has been wasted by many decades of poor government. Ever since Colonel Nasser and his colleagues seized power in 1953, Egypt has been a dictatorship and the current ruler, Hosni Mubarak, has been in power for over 30 years, with no real opposition to his regime allowed. I note that his son Gamal looks like being the regime’s favoured dear leader of the future.
Although there are worse regimes in the Middle East than Egypt’s, people have suffered under oppression, corruption and the failed policies of the Mubarak regime. Egypt’s indigenous Christian minority, the Coptic Christians, have survived many changes of regime for nearly 2,000 years. The motion refers to eight million Egyptian Christians, although I have seen estimates of up to 12 million or 15 million. Visitors to Cairo, which is about 20 per cent Christian, can see magnificent Coptic churches and schools. Egypt’s constitution guarantees religious freedom and, for the most part, Copts and other Egyptians can worship and educate the children. But it is a disturbing fact that Egyptian Christians face increasing levels of harassment, discrimination and violence, particularly in small towns and rural areas.
Over the past five years there has been an increasing incidence of violence against Egyptian Christians. In January this year, six Christians were killed in an attack on a church in Naj Hammadi. There have been similar incidents this year. The police did little to stop them, and the courts rarely convict those responsible. Egypt’s state controlled media draw a veil of silence across these incidents. Christians also complain of systematic discrimination in government employment, such as the police and civil service. That is why an increasing number of Egyptian Christians are immigrating. Not many people realise that we have about 70,000 Egyptian Christians living in Australia. I know some of them well. Some of them are very high achievers, and some of them are good friends. They are, of course, very welcome and make a great contribution to our Australian society, but it is a tragedy that members of such an ancient religious community should feel no choice but to leave their homeland. The deteriorating position of Egyptian Christians reflects the rise of militant Islamist groups in Egypt in recent years.
Islam is a great monotheistic religion itself. I deliberately used the word ‘Islamist’ rather than ‘Islamic’ because ‘Islamist’ refers to people who use a great monotheistic religion for a political purpose, not the religion itself. These groups seek to further their aims by attacking the Christian community. The rise of these groups has been made easier by the lack of economic opportunity and political freedom under the current Egyptian regime. Instead of reform, the regime deals with these groups through repression, which only enables them to make more recruits.
Egypt could learn something from Indonesia about how to defeat militant Islamism through fostering democracy and economic opportunity. It is very interesting to see our great Muslim neighbour to the north in its progress under democratically elected President Yudhoyono compared to the years of stultifying lack of economic progress in Egypt. One of the crucial ways that Australia is involved is with the very large amounts of economic aid that the American congress gives to Egypt. The Egyptian regime buys Australian wheat, and bread in Egypt is very heavily subsidised in order to keep the fellahin, the peasants, from revolting.
This motion refers to other minorities. I would like to mention that there is increasing persecution of gay people in Egypt as well. This is seen as an attempt by the Egyptian government to appease the militant Islamists by scapegoating gay people as well.
The industrialised world has faced a big problem as far as Egypt is concerned. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice under President Bush sought democratic elections in Egypt after the successful Lebanese ones. There was such great hope for that region in a brief period back then. The persecution of the Egyptian Copts is a longstanding problem that the country faces. While the lack of democracy exists in Egypt that prevents them freely expressing themselves and participating in their religion, it is a great shame for an ancient civilisation and an ancient country which deserves better.
It is a great pleasure to rise tonight in support of a motion that supports freedom of religion as a universal human right. Of course, it is a universal human right, one that is supported by Australia and one that we ought to support in other countries and seek to ensure is implemented in those countries. The subject of this motion tonight is the Coptic Egyptian community. The Coptic Egyptian community in Australia has made a great contribution to Australia since its arrival in the 1960s. We are very fortunate to have wonderful communities in Sydney in particular. I want to make mention of many of the contributions of the Sydney Coptic community to life in Sydney, in particular the St Mark’s Coptic Orthodox College, at Wattle Grove; the St Bishoy Coptic Orthodox College, at Mount Druitt; and all of the churches and dioceses in Sydney and Australia.
The Coptic Orthodox community in Australia is served by two Coptic Orthodox dioceses with over 50 parishes, two monasteries, two theological colleges and five schools. It is a very successful community. It is a community that is flourishing. It is a community that is law abiding and peaceful and has sought to make the most of the great opportunity that Australia represents—freedom, tolerance and our democratic way. It is estimated there are about 70,000 Copts in Australia.
This motion is so important because we ought to stand by all those communities who are being persecuted all around the world, all those minorities who face oppression and intolerance from either governments or other groups within their societies but particularly governments, because a government can be our best friend or it can be our worst enemy. When the state seeks to interfere in those things that it ought not to interfere in, particularly freedom of religion or the choices we may seek to make, it oversteps the mark in a way that produces intolerance, hatred and other forms of persecution. It is well documented that there are many examples in Egypt. The Coptic religion is an ancient religion which broke away from the traditional Roman Catholic Church but is now regarded as an Eastern Orthodox Church. However, in Egypt there have been many, many examples of persecution which involve death, serious mistreatment of families and some graphic examples which I will not relate today.
However, I do want to mention that in recent times there has been a substantial increase in the violence against Coptic Egyptians in Egypt, and the Coptic community has suffered greatly. There have been several notable examples that the Coptic Egyptian community has raised with me in person when they have seen me in my office in Sydney. These were the subject of some great rallies in Sydney in recent times. We saw many thousands of people rally in support of a number of people who have been persecuted by the Egyptian government, including a notable court case where two young Islamic men were acquitted of the murder of a Coptic Egyptian person who was horribly dismembered. These rallies were very important to show our support. They received support from the media, including broadcasters in Sydney such as Alan Jones, who particularly sought to highlight the role of the Egyptian Coptic community in Australia and the treatment they had received. It is particularly important that the motion:
Egypt has been regarded in the Middle East as a moderate voice of peace and good influence in many ways. However, it does have work to do in relation to its treatment of its Christian community. Often governments have to think about how they can protect minorities within their society from elements which seek to encourage persecution and harm. The member for Melbourne Ports clearly outlined that there is discrimination in Egypt at all levels, particularly from a governmental perspective. Equal rights under the law oblige a society to allow people to choose their own religion freely and to practise it. This motion is so worthy of our support because we are a free and tolerant democratic society that allows freedom of religion to our citizens. It is a great blessing that we do so in our country today and it is something that we should seek to promote and foster in Egypt. We particularly need to stand up for the Coptic Egyptian Christians in Egypt.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed, on motion by Ms George:
That the House:
I am proud to be part of a federal Labor government that has introduced parental leave, increased the child care rebate and saved working families from the nightmare of Work Choices. These are among the policies of a government that shows understanding and respect for women—for their rights, needs and status. Achieving real equal pay in our workplace is the goal the Labor Party shares with many women around the country, in stark contrast to the Liberal Party, whose love affair with Work Choices left working women’s wages in tatters. Australian women will never forget the much-despised Work Choices, which stripped away conditions such as overtime and penalty rates, leaving working women severely short-changed. The greatest crime of that system was that if you did not cop it quietly on the chin, did not sign the individual contract, your job was at risk. Our government has put an end to all of this.
Of course, the Leader of the Opposition now wants to turn back the clock. He is determined that working women should have minimal job security, fewer penalty rates and inequitable pay rates. Thankfully, women around the nation are safe from Mr Abbott’s dangerous workforce policies, as long as he stays on the opposition benches. On our side of the House we have been working hard to undo the shackles put in place by Work Choices and to inject some much-needed fairness back into the workplace. In just 2½ years we have got rid of the Work Choices regime and rip-offs; we have introduced an annual minimum wage review; introduced the right to request flexible working arrangements; introduced new protections on the grounds of pregnancy, sex and caring responsibilities; introduced a new pay equity principle; and introduced Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme, welcomed by families around the nation for the financial security it will provide.
The Leader of the Opposition has been consistently ‘dead against’ the idea of paid maternity leave. Remember not so long ago he said:
Voluntary paid maternity leave: yes; compulsory paid maternity leave: over this Government’s dead body, frankly.
He has been as against maternity leave as he was against a ‘great big new tax’ until of course he decided to do a backflip on both—a spectacular backflip, to be precise, in what can only be interpreted as a desperate bid to win back the millions of Australians he had alienated with his out-of-touch views. The Leader of the Opposition now tells us he wants to introduce a great big new tax on business, which will:
… make it easier for more women to choose the most traditional role of all.
In short, his parental scheme is about keeping as many women as possible out of the workforce and tied back to the ironing-board and the kitchen sink.
Australian women can see through these political acrobatics on the part of the opposition leader. The truth—the actual truth, that is, rather than the opposition leader’s trademark half-truths—is that he has chopped and changed on so many occasions that it is impossible to know where he will end up. His views could be laughably dismissed if he were just an ordinary citizen; but this man is the alternative Prime Minister of our nation and his views need to be placed under public scrutiny. Australian women have not fought for 40 years to have their rights dismissed. We deserve the right to choose how and when we work, to make decisions about our reproductive health and how we balance our work and family life, and to have our concerns addressed fairly in the mainstream of public debate, not by a conservative and outmoded view of women totally at odds with 21st century Australia.
I have dedicated my working life to the cause of workers’ rights and women’s rights and I know a danger to those hard-fought rights when I see one. The Leader of the Opposition has never repudiated his core beliefs about women and he had the opportunity not long ago to do so. He said:
I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons.
I think that says it all. His current small-target strategy will be no comfort when women throughout the nation understand his real agenda and his core beliefs and conclude that he is not deserving of their support.
That was a not very veiled attack on the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Throsby has a great record in her activity on behalf of women. She talked about workers’ rights and women’s rights. In her former career she ended up as the head of the ACTU, which is the highest role that you can have within the union movement—therefore, she is a woman in that place in this country at this time. Whether or not there has been an attack on an individual, the opposition leader of today, I would say to the member for Throsby that any politician who takes on the role of leader of a party has to be flexible enough to be able to listen to people and to be able to change his mind. If he has said these things in the past it does not mean that he cannot think through the issues today and go to the Australian people with the reasonable expectation of being heard.
Embryonic stem cell research was a very difficult issue for me in a previous parliament, and I was the beneficiary of people around me who were prepared to look at the issue outside the box that I had put myself into at the time. Instead of taking one tack on that very delicate issue I listened to their view of the issue, and that became my view. After educating myself, looking at the issue and listening to the arguments that were put forward from both sides, I came to a position that I did not have at the start of my consideration of the issue and I gave an address in the parliament that nobody expected me to give—and I stand by every word I said in that address. The stance I took surprised both my side of the House and the other side of the House, but it was a very important stance for me to take at that time. I am just making the point that you can change your mind. I like to think that I give leaders of my party what I hope they will give me—that is, every opportunity—if they come up with ideas that they would like to put before the Australian people.
I say this to the member for Throsby: when it comes to paid parental leave or the minimum wage, which I would like to talk about in a minute, all of these ideas are eventually tested by the Australian people. In a few months time, every man and woman out there will get a chance to make a decision on the government and on the opposition leader and the team behind the opposition leader. That is the great beauty of this nation and its government. The people of Australia at the last election made a decision, without rancour. They made a decision to change their government. One of the great treasures we have in this country is our stable government. There are people around the world who cannot get up and have this argument. They cannot get up and put forward what Ms George put forward tonight to this parliament.
I would say that my role is to let my leader give it his very best shot. If he has to change his views on some things to accord with the community and adopt views that he did not hold before, all strength to his arm if he is brave enough to change those things. We are all responsible for the things we said in the past. There are a few things that have gone out of this mouth that I would love to draw back in and throw away, because I was a different person when I came here in 1990. I was not aware of the issues. We parliamentarians get faced with issues that we have to make decisions on. Outside this profession, in the lives we came from, we would never be faced with these issues in our daily lives—issues that, as you would know, Deputy Speaker, we never thought we would have to face.
I want to say something about the minimum wage in regard to anybody, male or female. I would love to have the time, also, to talk about Menzies and the Liberal Party and how he saw the role of women as so important to his party. He set up a structure where women had equal place right through the whole structure of the party. If you introduce a minimum wage and you keep raising that minimum wage, the first people to miss out on a job are those at the bottom level. I would love to see the best brains in this country—male or female—work out a way in which we can have those with the least ability in the workforce fully participating in life through work.
I rise to second this motion on initiatives supporting working women. I am delighted to support a motion that outlines the important steps the government has taken to support working women. Since coming into government, the Rudd Labor government has been working tirelessly to make Australia a stronger, smarter and fairer nation. We have done this because we believe that every Australian should have the same opportunities in life and we want to see all Australians realise their goals. This, of course, includes equal rights for women.
Over the past 2½ years, the Rudd Labor government has been busy making changes so that this can one day be realised for every woman around the nation. In this short space of time, we have improved the conditions of working women by scrapping Work Choices and giving parents the right to ask their bosses for flexible working arrangements. We have also taken steps to make sure that historically female-dominated sectors are properly valued and reformed, and we have reformed the early childhood education and care sector to help Australian families meet the costs of child care. Most recently, the Rudd government is extremely proud to have delivered Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme. Australia has waited too long for this reform, which will be available to parents from 1 January. Under our landmark scheme, parents will have access to 18 weeks pay at a federal minimum wage, which is currently $570 a week. The scheme will provide mothers with a choice when it comes to balancing work and family commitments. It will support Labor’s core mission: to make this nation stronger and fairer.
Given how far we have come for Australian women over the past 40 years, there is cause for optimism—particularly the Paid Parental Leave scheme, which has taken too long in coming. In addition, Fair Work Australia legislation is a major boost to working women. The principal benefit of the new legislation is that it takes away the unfair provisions of the previous Work Choices legislation that threatened the job security and work-family balance for so many working women. Under the new Fair Work system, modern awards and enterprise agreements will allow employers and working parents to make individual flexible arrangements. Individual flexibility agreements can vary the terms of a modern award or enterprise agreement, to help employees better balance their family responsibilities and help employers retain skilled staff. This is a very big plus for working women.
Looking quickly at child care, the Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, and the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth, Kate Ellis, earlier this month announced 190 childcare centres that will receive special grants to upgrade their facilities. Grants of $20,000 will be provided to long day care services in disadvantaged areas—and I repeat, in disadvantaged areas—from this month to help those providers improve the quality of their childcare centres.
I have absolutely no doubt and I am really very proud to stand here with the member for Throsby and support this motion. Women’s rights are not a joke. We are not an optional extra. We deserve the right to determine how we care for our own bodies. We deserve the right to choose how and when we work. We deserve the right to live in safe and respectful relationships. I do not want to see any of that come under threat. Should there be a change of government, heaven help us, at the election, a lot of that will come under threat, as indicated by the very discussions we sometimes hear in the parliament.
The previous speaker made a point about how we can possibly change some things that we might have said at times. I really have a bit of scepticism about that, particularly given that some of the things we hear of we hear consistently. We hear the same sorts of comments about a lot of these issues from the opposition in a consistent fashion. The women that I represent in this place do not want to hear that. They want to know that we are moving forward with programs that are going to support women, and in that way support working families, individuals, whoever out there is needing that support.
I am particularly pleased to note in passing—and I think it should be noted—that we have a very high number of women now in this place, though not acceptably high enough, who can argue these causes. We do not do it alone. Some of the male members of the House are very good at supporting us as well. But, as I say, I am pleased to support this motion. I thank the member for Throsby for bringing it forward, and anything we can do to ensure the future advancement of issues that affect women and their families we should stand right behind and support.
If further evidence were required that this government is more committed to spin than substance, more committed to talking than doing, then this is it. It is pretty incredible that this government would claim, as it has done, to be the friend of working women. By even the most generous analysis, this government has failed to deliver on its promises to Australian women and their families.
Let us start with child care. We were told that there was a crisis facing working families and that hundreds of new childcare facilities were required. The Rudd government promised to address what it called the ‘critical shortfall’ in the availability of childcare places. This was supposed to be the government solution to the double drop-off. After promising to build an additional 260 childcare centres, this government has done a triple backflip with pike and announced that it will build only 38. This has ended up as just another item on the long list of Rudd’s broken promises and failures in policy. Only three childcare centres have been constructed in three years. At this rate, on average of one a year, we have another 35 years to go.
The Howard-Costello government’s achievements in helping working women are closely tied to its strong record on promoting economic growth, reducing unemployment and keeping interest rates low. Under the coalition more than two million jobs were created. During the coalition’s term the female unemployment rate fell from its high of 8.2 per cent in December 1996 to 4.7 per cent in November 2007, almost half what it had been previously. In absolute terms this meant that the number of women employed in the economy increased by more than 630,000. This was a remarkable achievement.
Job creation is a highly effective way of improving economic conditions for both men and women. More women in work mean more opportunities to accumulate skills and experience, more wealth for families and a high level of social and economic inclusion. Central to employment participation is a flexible workplace relations system. This government has turned back the clock—not just BH, before Howard, but BH, before Hawke and Keating. This government has gone so far as to wind back reforms championed by Hawke and Keating, returning us to an antiquated system of union dominated bargaining arrangements.
This sort of motion is typical of Labor’s propensity to rewrite history to suit its own ideological requirements. Labor would have us believe that the millions of jobs created during the coalition’s term never happened and that Labor’s new workplace relations laws will be good for employment and good for women in the workforce. That is simply not the case, and continually moving motions like this one in support of the government’s own policies will not make it true, no matter how much they try and spin it.
So what has brought about this latest attack of hubris and arrogance, writ large in this motion? Why, it is the self-congratulation of the Labor Party, who have—with the support of the coalition—brought in a paid parental leave scheme. But is this the best policy? No. Tony Abbott announced a more comprehensive paid parental leave scheme that would better meet the financial needs of Australian families. The coalition’s policy will provide a payment of $14,138 per week for 26 weeks, with full superannuation, compared to Labor’s policy of $9,780 for 18 weeks and no superannuation. Our policy provides maximum social benefits, whereas Labor’s scheme falls short of delivering real outcomes. The coalition is the only party with the vision, history of achievement and experience required to look after the needs of women in Australia. Labor’s pattern of failure is a pattern that Australian women can do without.
In the time that remains to me I just note that the Rudd government is continuing to undermine the efforts of working women to support a family and to support their children in other ways. Under the Rudd government, the cost of living is growing. Inflation is beginning to sneak back into the economy and is now 2.9 per cent. For an economy that is emerging from a downturn, this is a remarkable figure. The government has tried to use quick political fixes such as GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch, both of which have been unmitigated policy failures. Meanwhile, the price of petrol, electricity, groceries, housing and medical services continues to rise. This government has failed the Australian people. It has failed Australian women.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Hawke:
That the House:
It gives me great pleasure to rise tonight to speak on this very important motion before the House. The North West Rail Link represents perhaps the greatest single failing of any government policy, state or federal, in the last 50 years. When you examine what the New South Wales government has done about the north-west rail line over time, you see that it is the greatest breach of trust between a government and Australian voters that you could possibly imagine.
On 29 November 1998, three months prior to a state election, the New South Wales government promised $29 million for a link from Epping Station to Castle Hill. Since then, the government has re-announced the north-west rail line five times. On 9 June 2005, Bob Carr announced an $8 billion, 15-year Metropolitan Rail Extension Program. This announcement included the North West Rail Link, a new passenger line from Cheltenham to Rouse Hill via Castle Hill, with long-term plans to extend to the Vineyard and Richmond lines. On 20 November 2006, the government re-announced the completion of the north-west rail line by 2017—just seven short years away. The first stage, Epping to Hills Centre, would be completed by 2015—it would already almost be complete—and Hills Centre by 2017. Then the government announced the line in June 2007 with an extension from Rouse Hill to Vineyard Station on the Richmond line. Then the New South Wales state government abandoned all plans to build a north-west rail line.
Why do we need a rail line in north-west Sydney? Why is it a vital component of the social, environmental and economic infrastructure that north-west Sydney desperately needs? It is because the electorate of Mitchell has the highest rate of cars per household of any federal electorate in this country, because there are no available public transport options. You drive, and every adult in your household needs to have a car.
It is not just my electorate. Across the road there are similar difficulties in approaching employment, getting to the city or travelling across Sydney because of a failure of government to plan. We understand that governments can only do their best given the circumstances at the time they are put in, but the New South Wales state government has been in place for 16 years. It has been promised over six or seven times. The rail line has been cancelled, re-announced, cancelled, re-announced, cancelled, re-announced. This is the greatest single breach between a government and an electorate in Australian history. This is holding back the economic development of north-west Sydney. It is placing excessive financial burdens on residents, rate payers and people who have to travel by expensive motorways to and from their place of employment.
I quote some examples of people in my electorate going to work every day. This is based on a 48-week working year. Our motorists travelling to the city are now paying $16.90 a day, $84.50 a week, $338 a month, $4,056 a year just to go to work. I am a fan of tollways and motorways, building infrastructure through public-private partnerships—private motorways that will increase our capacity to get things done in Sydney. However, when you look at the litany of failure of the New South Wales government in these ventures, you see that they are giving public-private infrastructure partnerships a bad name in Sydney. We are losing investment in Sydney because of the failures of the Cross City Tunnel, the Lane Cove ventures and all of the things that are happening with the RTA shutting roads and receiving a payment from a company to force people to use a motorway—something that I think all members here would regard as unethical.
In the shadow of the Penrith by-election, we can see that people in New South Wales have woken up to what is happening in north-west Sydney. It is emblematic of a city that is in disarray because of failures of government planning. I note that the member for Parramatta is here. I know that she would be extremely upset at the New South Wales government for breaching its promise to build a Parramatta-Epping rail link. Growing up in Carlingford, I can record my own absolute dismay at the residents in Carlingford not having a line that goes from Parramatta to Epping. But this is about the north-west rail link. It has been talked about throughout the last 15 years. There is a vital need in Sydney for heavy rail lines in the north-west and south-west of Sydney—particularly the north-west—to meet the growth that government has allowed. Government has allowed massive expansion in the north-west of Sydney. It has encouraged it. It has taxed people for the privilege of living there. Special infrastructure levies have been paid. The money has been collected by government, but the state government of New South Wales has abrogated its responsibility. This federal government needs to allocate any money that it gave to New South Wales for a north-west rail line.
I think I could be forgiven for thinking that the member for Mitchell is going to run for state parliament today, because we are of course talking once again about state issues. There is nobody who lives in north-west Sydney—or Parramatta, for that matter—who does not understand the need for the north-west rail line. I would be one of the first to say that it is essential, as in my area are the Parramatta-Chatswood line, the doubling of the Richmond line and the western metro.
We do have an extraordinary backlog of public transport rail infrastructure in the Sydney area and, as the member for Mitchell has said, it is a backlog that comes from 50 years of policy failure—many, many years. In fact, the Parramatta line was the first line built in New South Wales. It was built in September 1855. It was a long time ago. Many governments have come and gone since then, and since then we have had a single spur north and a single spur south. So many, many governments, extending long before the current one, have failed us in this area. I suspect that, given the nature of the backlog, which has built up over probably a hundred years, it will last long after the next state government. It is going to take a considerable amount of time for us to deal with that substantial public backlog. That is why I am really happy to see the Rudd government actually move decisively to engage in the policy area of cities and public transport. I remind the member for Mitchell that his claim that it is 50 years of policy failure on both state and federal levels applies very seriously to the Howard government, who spent nothing on public transport infrastructure during their 12 years in office.
And can I add to the list that I do not just want a north-west rail line and a Parramatta to Chatswood line and the doubling of the Richmond line and the building of the western Metro; I also want lifts at Wentworthville, Toogabbie and Pendle Hill, I want more trains to stop there and I want commuter parking. We have very, very real issues to deal with when it comes to public transport in Sydney and particularly Western Sydney. As for stunts where a member of federal parliament stands up and calls on the government to do something about it, can I suggest to the member for Mitchell that if he is really serious about this he can call on his own side to put their money where their mouth is. I am assuming he is telling us tonight that this is actually a policy of the opposition.
Mr Hawke interjecting
He is running for state parliament again! He has just said that Barry O’Farrell is going to commit to it. If Barry O’Farrell is committing to it, why are you wasting the federal parliament’s time standing up here and asking for the government to do it?
Mr Hawke interjecting
I think I am getting the picture now: Barry O’Farrell is committing to it but not putting any money into it. I think that is what the member just said. Otherwise there is no explanation for why he is standing up in here wasting valuable time calling on the federal government to do something. If you believe that this is such a priority area, put your money where your mouth is and let us see this in the federal opposition policy. Let us see it costed. Let us see it funded. Let us see it there. That is what you should be doing. It is just a stunt. In my 5½ years here I can honestly say that I have not got up and called for something to happen if I did not think I could make it happen. I do not engage in fooling my electorate in that way. I really think you need to have a serious think about this. I know the press release will go out tomorrow: ‘I’m a good guy, I’m standing up for my community.’ Well, stand up for your community with Mr Abbott and put it in your own policy. There is an election coming up. This is your chance. Stand up tonight and call for yourself to do it.
Yes, I will.
Good. I am glad to hear it, because it sounds like you will tick that one off and add it to the promises. At the moment it sounds like what we have is Barry O’Farrell promising something that he has no intention of delivering because there is no money. This is actually a really serious matter and it requires really serious action. In the last budget we allocated $4.5 billion to urban public transport. Again, that is $4.5 billion more in one year than the Howard government put up in 12. So a little bit of history would not hurt from the member for Mitchell. This is a serious matter. These stunts do not help at all. If you think it really is the most serious issue, put it up.
Sydney’s rail system has changed little since the designer of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, John Bradfield, first articulated his vision in the 1930s. Western Sydney’s population has increased fivefold since 1940 and its rail has extended only an extra 20 kilometres. Ron Christie was Coordinator-General of Rail when the New South Wales government asked him in 2001 to compose a long-term strategic plan, now called the Christie report. He warned that more than half of Sydney risked being without rail, creating and reinforcing significant inequalities. One of the proposals in the Christie report calls for an independent agency, Transport for Sydney, to be modelled on the successful Transport for London. Consecutive state Labor governments have neglected Greater Western Sydney and continue to promise and delay projects in line with the election cycle. It is not surprising therefore that many residents of Greater Western Sydney and the local government areas that encompass the Sydney region have completely lost faith in the ability of governments to deliver infrastructure in key parts of our state. It is for this reason that an independent agency such as the suggested Transport for Sydney is so important to delivering real transport and infrastructure results for people in our region.
Recently the state Labor government scrapped its bungled Sydney Metro plan, which has wasted $300 million already with zero result for the people of Greater Western Sydney who helped fund this bungled plan with their taxes. Under state Labor, work on a long-awaited express rail on the Richmond line would not even commence until 2015—20 years after Labor was first elected to government. Without even a commitment from Labor as to when work on the line would be finished, it could easily be up to 30 years before work is completed on the project and before Greater Western Sydney commuters have access to express train services.
People are already feeling the growing pains of increased population pressures. The Labor government’s consistent attitude of policy on the run means that there will be no time for adequate infrastructure planning as our population increases in order to ease congestion in our cities and to provide adequate and equitable transport options for those living on the outskirts. In areas such as the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains local people have no confidence that the Rudd Labor government will deliver the infrastructure required to support population growth. A Labor government who breaks their election promises, who cannot safely put insulation into roofs, who cannot build school halls and who flip-flop on major policy issues cannot be trusted to get this right.
The NRMA may have been outspoken in condemning the state Labor government’s failure to build infrastructure which can cope with Sydney’s growing population. They too acknowledge that, while commuters welcome the widening of the M2 freeway, people would still like to see more public transport so that they can leave their cars at home, helping the environment when they can. It needs to be noted that the M5 tunnel also opened at capacity and now the M2 requires expansion, an expansion that will increase costs for Greater Western Sydney commuters to an astronomical $22 per day once completed. Governments must plan for the future when implementing infrastructure and must keep in mind that the population of Sydney is growing. That is why the coalition’s plan for adequate and considered infrastructure in line with population growth is so important to the people living in Western Sydney.
The coalition is of the view that an efficient freight route from the west to the port is important to encourage economic growth outside the Sydney basin and that it is a piece of infrastructure which will be needed in the long term. Across Sydney, particularly in my area, protecting our way of life by reducing time stuck in traffic and enabling more time to be spent with family is critical. Spending two hours a day in a car to travel 50 kilometres is not a good use of time. We cannot undo the mistakes of years of poor planning overnight. We have to deal with current transport challenges now and learn lessons for the future. Planning for our roads and infrastructure does not simply mean bigger roads; it means improved road safety, integration with rail and other public transport and investing in new ways to move forward. (Time expired)
This has been a very interesting debate. I know the member for Parramatta and I were expecting a litany of projects in the 12 years of the coalition government and there was just one item listed—there was the M7! I regret to say the M7 was funded by $300 million only from the federal government and that resulted in the highest tolls in Sydney. Yet this was the project which had the best cost-benefit ratio of any infrastructure project in Australia. That was the only thing the coalition did—$7 dollars for the punters to use the tollway.
The member for Mitchell mentioned his passion for public-private partnerships, and I share that passion. He mentioned the Lane Cove Tunnel and also, I think, the Cross City Tunnel. I have been through those tunnels. I often travel from Western Sydney on the M7 and on the M2 into the city. They are fantastic infrastructure. I do not know what the whingers are all about. In Western Sydney we pay $7 to use the M7. Lane Cove Tunnel is a lot cheaper and so is the Cross City Tunnel. I congratulate the member for Mitchell on announcing that the coalition is now going to fully fund the rail infrastructure for north-western Sydney.
As a member from Western Sydney, I have to say that I have some sympathy. I support infrastructure projects for our region. But we are a federal government, and this federal government, in a short two years, has actually given $4.5 billion for rail projects. We are massively funding rail, road and port infrastructure, and we see the economic benefits of doing so. And how much was funded by the previous, Howard-Costello, government in rail and port infrastructure? I am sorry—zip!
I was a member of the Hawke-Keating government which actually had a Better Cities program, and it is a pity that the member for Greenway is not here because that funded the bus-rail interchange at Blacktown, a significant transport hub for north-western Sydney. The Richmond line comes into Blacktown then shoots off. We funded that bit of infrastructure. We also funded the new bus terminal at Mount Druitt. We funded a commuter car park and upgraded facilities at St Marys station. But what did the Howard government do—and I predict the coalition will do the same with our ambitious projects to improve infrastructure—the first time they got in? They got rid of the Better Cities program that was providing significant infrastructure improvements for public transport.
I do think that there is a case for more rail infrastructure in Western Sydney. By the way, the member for Parramatta reminded me that of course it was Gough Whitlam, not a coalition government, who actually, all those years ago, funded the quadrupling of the main Western Sydney line. Labor governments actually have a track record of investing in public infrastructure, and we will continue to do so. But I wonder—notwithstanding the promise by the member for Mitchell that the coalition will fully fund this bit of infrastructure—whether Labor’s massive infrastructure program of over $30 billion will see the light of day should Mr Abbott succeed at the next election. I would say they will be true to their form—they will axe the program. And, as far as the member for Mitchell is concerned, I think this rail system is still light years away if you have to depend on coalition governments.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed, on motion by Ms Neal:
That the House:
I rise in particular to congratulate the Australian women’s football squad, otherwise known as the Matildas, for their victory in the 2010 Asian Football Confederation Women’s Asian Cup. The Matildas beat the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea team 5-4 on penalties following a one-all draw after extra time at Chengdu Sports Centre in China on 30 May this year. This thrilling result was brought home by Kyah Simon, an Indigenous teenager from Sydney’s western suburbs, who scored to secure victory in her first ever penalty shootout.
The Matildas are the first Australian team to win the Women’s Asian Cup, beating the tournament favourites, Japan, in order to contest the final against Korea. Ben Buckley, Chief Executive Officer of Football Federation Australian said—and I am using his words, so I take no responsibility for the descriptive terms:
The girls have made history today, by winning the first major tournament by a senior team since Australia joined the Asian Football Confederation four years ago.
This is an enormous achievement by a team of dedicated, talented sportswomen who have trained for years to reach this level of elite competition. The Matildas are a credit to international football—to the sport of soccer, as we call it in Australia—and they are ambassadors for women’s sport in our community. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, that the Matildas deserve much greater recognition for this historic win than they have received to date.
They have done what no other Australian football team has done by winning the Asian Cup against highly competitive rivals, including Korea, China and Japan amongst many others. More can be done by the national press and media commentators to provide teams such as the Matildas with their fair share of coverage and public recognition. This, in itself, will help the sport to grow.
On 20 May this year, the Minister for Youth and Sport, Kate Ellis, released a new report: Towards a level playing field: sport and gender in Australian media, a report that provides a valuable insight into the gender inequality of sports media coverage in Australia. Towards a level playing field revealed that, in 2008, coverage of women in sport made up just 9 per cent of all sports coverage on Australian television news and current affairs. In contrast, male sport occupied 81 per cent of television news and current affairs. This is obviously completely inequitable and unjust. Horseracing by itself receives more airtime in the Australian media market than all women’s sport combined. This lack of coverage in Australia continues to cause serious problems for our women athletes in securing sponsorship. Liz Ellis, former captain of the Australian netball team, had this to say about women’s sport on a recent episode of Good News Week:
I don’t like the term ‘women’s sport’. It makes it sound like crocheting—you know, something that little old ladies get out and do occasionally.
No! It’s women playing sport.
For example, the Matildas are the only Australian football team who have ever won anything.
So it’s not ‘women’s sport’, it’s just sport played by chicks who are good at it.
Sports played by women deserve greater media coverage and public recognition and I rise in the House to give the Matildas just that—the recognition they deserve. They are great sportswomen and I am certainly very proud to be associated with them. I hope that, in future, the national press and media will give these women, and many other women who play sport well, the recognition that they deserve.
I rise to strongly support the comments made by the member for Robertson and to support the motion on behalf of the Matildas and all women sportspeople in Australia. I also strongly agree—and I see, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, that you are shaking your head—that women’s sport—
No, I am nodding.
You are nodding? I am so pleased to see that. Women’s sport certainly needs a serious increase in the amount of profile, recognition and respect it receives, because women in no way commit any less than anyone else competing in sport. The Matildas, as we know, were ranked fourth on the continent when they arrived in China for the 2010 AFC Women’s Asian Cup but, the Matildas being the Matildas, they had a lot of confidence about what they could achieve. That confidence was well placed. As we have heard, they beat Korea in that penalty shoot-out. Even more significantly, we have heard that they were the first Australian team, male or female, to win an Asian title at any level. It was, I have read, Australia’s very first piece of major silverware. They beat their more famous male equivalents to that honour. That is something that has not been appropriately recognised.
Melissa Barbieri, the captain, said that the Australian Women’s Asian Cup win over North Korea was achieved with plenty of skill and heart. I think that is what we see in our women athletes. The win qualified the team for the upcoming 2011 Women’s World Cup finals. The Matildas were mobbed by the media and supporters on their return to Australia and I want to see that continue. These were people who wanted to share and celebrate the success and achievements of the team. As we know, these women are very keen to be role models for other young women who want to achieve in sport. Nobody in this room should underestimate the value of sport to young people, particularly in rural and regional communities such as the one I represent, through its encouragement of participation and team-building.
The Matildas would be very strong role models for young people such as Tash Rigby and Domonique Fedele, who are part of our South West Academy of Sport soccer and athletes program. To Amy Fortescue, who participated in the under-17 state female soccer team of 2009, and to all those great young girls, who, at a very young age, go out on the soccer field—
Order! It now being 8.30 pm, the time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Forrest will of course have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
Debate resumed from 14 June.
The question is:
That grievances be noted.
Tonight I rise to talk about the resources super profits tax and how it is affecting constituents in my electorate and what it will mean to Western Australia. I recently spoke about this subject in a matter of public importance but, as the third speaker with only five minutes, I was unable to give this matter all the gravitas that it requires.
Before I enter into my grievance I would like to say a special hello to Ann Jones, the wife of John Jones, who was aboard the flight that is lost in the Congo. Ann is a member of my FEC and has worked tirelessly for the Liberal Party for many years and her charity work with animals is second to none. Ann may be listening. Ann, my thoughts and those of my staff and the members of the Swan division are with you and your family. We hope and pray for the safe return of John. It is men like John who have built and been a part of the WA and Australian mining industry that supports many lives and families across our great nation.
Back to the subject: the implementation of the RSP tax by the Rudd government. In the 28 years I have been in business I do not think I have seen a more foolish act besides the disgraceful insulation scheme and the BER. I have heard people say that this will be the killer of the golden goose, but obviously they mean the killer of the goose which laid the golden egg. To put it simply, that is true. Small businesses in my electorate have already been affected and many more across Western Australia will also be hit hard by this tax. There has been much discussion about the RSP tax and the way it was introduced. The government has said it will pay for increased superannuation of three per cent and that all the workers will benefit from that. The employees may be the beneficiaries of this superannuation, but what they must realise is that it is not the RSPT that is paying for it; it is the employers and it will be coming off their bottom line.
So the line that the Rudd government is running out that the RSPT is responsible for the super is just not true. In fact, it is just more Rudd spin. The Rudd gang of four just do not seem to understand the mining industry. They do not understand return on investment and they certainly do not understand financing of the industry or how investment bankers and capital investment groups assess the risks and returns on investments, particularly in the mining industry. To arbitrarily nominate that anything above six per cent is a super profit, again, is just another headline and a load of Rudd waffle. Anyone who has run a business or owned a business knows that if you are going to risk capital you need a decent return. If you can get six per cent from bonds, why would you even bother to take the risk of developing or building up an exploration mine which is so risky? If you knew anything about business—and working for a union does not qualify as a business—you would know that there has to be a reward for risk and effort. This Rudd government has just taken the reward for effort away from the mining industry and the Prime Minister should dump this tax.
I do not know why the Prime Minister so dislikes Western Australia but his actions do speak louder than words. Mr Rudd promised us a fairer share of the GST in the lead-up to the 2007 election but, as a state, we only receive 68c of every dollar we raise in GST. It is just another broken promise. In 2007 Mr Rudd also said he would give us a WA infrastructure fund of $100 million. What is that? It is another broken promise. Why should we now believe Prime Minister Rudd when he says WA should expect—and ‘expect’ was the word—to get $2 billion from an infrastructure fund, raised from the RSPT? Mr Rudd, why should anyone in WA believe that and, to tell you the truth, most people in WA just do not believe you anymore. They have stopped listening to you.
I say to all Western Australians and to anyone who lives in Western Australia: anyone who supports this tax just does not like and does not want to support Western Australia. All the WA members of parliament who support this tax do not have Western Australian interests at heart. All the WA Labor candidates who support this tax and are out there spruiking their support of the RSPT certainly do not have Western Australian interests at heart.
Go out and tell all the families, the workers and the businesses who are supported by the mining and resource sector that you are supporting a tax that is going to ruin their lives. Go out and tell the local printer, the local courier, the local owner of the Telstra shop, the transport companies and the contractors who invest heavily in equipment to earn income from the industry that you support the tax that will ruin their income, their revenues and their lifestyles. And what about all the tradies that those on the other side continually say they support? What will you say to them when exploration in Australia dries up and they have no more work and they hear other people saying that this will not happen? Let me make a prediction, because the Prime Minister just does not get it: this RSPT tax will ruin not only the WA economy but eventually the Australian economy. The only way to stop this tax is to change the government.
For all Western Australians who may be listening, I am pleased to note today that the Premier of Western Australia announced that after 12 months of discussions and negotiations the state government has reached a historic—and I will use the word ‘historic’ because it seems to be used around here all the time—new agreement with BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto to amend iron ore rates payments from 1 July 2010. I quote from the Premier’s press statement. He said:
From July 1, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto’s royalty rates will change from 3.75 per cent to 5.625 per cent to bring them into line with other iron ore producers and the companies will be able to integrate their Pilbara operations.
This will apply to all production by the companies and will generate an additional $340million in State royalties for the 2010-11 financial year—
which will benefit Western Australians. He goes on:
Under the Heads of Agreement signed today the companies will also make a joint one-off payment to the State of $350million—
another benefit to Western Australians. He said that there will be a one-off payment of $350 million to consolidated revenue when the bills reach royal assent, which will be placed in a special account for a new children’s hospital due to begin construction in 2012 and be completed by 2015. Overall, the new royalty rates are forecast to generate an additional $340 million in 2010-11 and $1.06 billion over the next four years. This is a good result for Western Australia, a win-win, as the Premier describes it. It was brought about by 12 months of consultative and open negotiations with the two mining organisations. The way the Premier has handled these negotiations could not be in greater contrast to the way the Rudd government has handled the resource rent tax announcement.
The Rudd government announced this policy without any real consultation and then proceeded to set up a sham consultation process whilst making the key element of the tax non-negotiable. This is a government that refuses to consult—not when taxing industries employing thousands and not even when changing flight paths over people’s homes, as we saw when the flight paths changed from and into Perth Airport in November 2008. Fortunately we were able to get up a Senate inquiry into that debacle as well, which the government senators voted against. This afternoon in this place I heard the member for Holt, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, talk about openness and transparency. Why did the Labor senators vote against a Senate inquiry into Airservices Australia that sought the truth? ASA declared at the Senate hearing in Perth that the noise issue was only a perception. The people of Swan, Pearce, Canning and Perth know that the aircraft noise caused by the flight path changes is not a perception. At a hearing two weeks ago in Perth, even staff from Stephen Smith’s office admitted that there was an issue with noise in Western Australia, particularly in Perth, from aircraft noise.
I go back to consulting. No consultation was done by the Rudd government with the mining industry, and that gives bad policy outcomes. The gang of four running this country at the moment are certainly no experts in business, yet they are making business decisions without seeking advice from or consulting with the people who know. This is no way to run a country, and their approach is doing enormous damage to Australia’s reputation overseas.
I will finish with some quotes from the industry, which I hate to admit is the usual form from the government to support their weak arguments on bad policies. Firstly, I will quote Anna Bligh, the Queensland Premier, who said:
You can’t expect international companies to make those investment decisions unless they’ve got absolute certainty about the costs of doing business.
Herb Elliott, another famous Australian, who is Chairman of Fortescue Metals, said:
We now have a huge new tax on the mining industry that will ultimately decimate future investments in new projects and have a negative impact on the value of your investment in our company …
He goes on:
It’s now clear that this means they have dropped on the Australian people a socialist-style funding and tax device where the government is now your silent partner … the keystone of this tax rests on a Government guarantee to refund 40 per cent of any losses not rebated through the tax system. It waits until a project has failed or reached the end of its life without having redeemed the tax credits. It is of course theoretical nonsense. Who believes that companies could fund 40 per cent of an investment on the strength of some future unbudgeted Government tax credit after it failed? No bank wants to fund a failed project on the premise that 40 per cent can subsequently, perhaps, be reclaimed through tax …. Jobs will be denied to tens of thousands of Australians who would have been employed on new projects.
Minara Resources have stated:
Under the new proposed tax, if the rules come in, it would be much more favourable to look at investments offshore.
With that, I will close and again congratulate the Premier of Western Australia for doing a consulted, negotiable, historic agreement with the mining industry.
There certainly are a lot of myths and untruths out there about the resource super profits tax. We have just heard a few more in here tonight. I happen to believe that the resource super profits tax and reform of the tax regime for mining is good for Australia. I want to take this opportunity in this grievance debate to clear up some of the more ridiculous myths on the resource super profits tax. The first and the loudest one from the opposition—and we have heard it again tonight—is that it will reduce investment. At first glance, if you do not think about it or you are not particularly financially literate, it seems reasonable. How can a new tax increase investment? It can if one tax replaces an inefficient one, and that is essentially what is happening here.
Currently, mining companies pay for the use of resources that belong to us through royalties, effectively a tax on volume, payable whether they make a profit or not. The resource super profits tax replaces that with a tax on profit. The fact is that replacing an inefficient tax like royalties with an efficient tax like a super profits tax will drive investment, growth and jobs. Independent modelling supports that position. Remember that the Minerals Council, representing the mining companies, asked for a royalty system to be replaced by a profits based tax. There is general agreement that existing arbitrary and changing state royalty regimes result in less mining investment—and of course they do because they tax production and ignore the costs involved in generating that output.
In fact, mining companies pay a tax whether they make a profit or not. Because of that, many of our mines cannot get off the ground and others shut down too early, leaving good resources in the ground. As a consequence we leave far too many commercially viable resources in the ground, valuable resources that belong to the Australian people, purely because the current royalties regime makes them unviable. For low-value minerals and some less profitable mines, the outcome for the company of a new resource super profits tax is likely to be positive, not negative. If the threat of the mining tax was so real, you would expect mining stocks to be getting a bit of a beating at the moment. Yet in recent weeks, when markets around the world responded to the uncertainty in Europe, mining stocks in the Australian stock market performed better than other sectors, not worse. They also performed better than mining stocks in several of our competitor countries.
The Australian people own 100 per cent of Australia’s natural resources and they are not getting their fair share. We do believe that some mining companies can pay more tax, but let us keep this in perspective. When you hear the opposition’s claims that the sky will fall, remember that the government only wants to take the Australian people’s share of mining profits closer to where it was under the Howard government in the early 2000s—about halfway through the last government’s term and immediately before the last mining boom. Was the Howard government overtaxing the resources sector then? No, it was not, and nor will this government be. And nor did tax at that level prevent the mining boom which began around 2002. In fact, mining boomed with that tax load. But the Howard government took its eye off the ball. We enjoyed the boom but, arguably, we did not manage it to safeguard us for the future. The profits of mining companies rose but the Australian people’s share of those profits fell. Before the last boom, they got $1 in every $3 of mining profits through royalties and charges but at the end of that boom it was down to just $1 in $7.
There is a myth that the resource super profits tax will harm existing projects. That is also not true. We are negotiating transitional arrangements and general recognition of past investments. We have also heard a lot of claims about projects closing down—claims that have turned out to be exaggerated or false. We know that the mining companies have cried wolf over and over again. When land rights were introduced, they claimed that would end mining as we know it. The resources rent tax would end development in the petroleum sector. Of course, when we abolished Work Choices, that was also going to bring an end to mining. In the last 15 years or so, we have seen the mining companies claim the end of the world at least three times, and we need to take their claims with a little grain of salt.
There is also a particularly mischievous claim by the opposition that the resource super profits tax will cause consumer prices to rise. Independent modelling by KPMG Econtech shows that that is not the case. After all, the vast majority of the minerals subject to the resource super profits tax like iron ore in the Pilbara are shipped overseas at prices set on world markets. For those resources that are sold on domestic markets, Treasury analysis confirms that the super profits tax should not affect the price of gas and coal and, therefore, electricity. The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism has also advised that it expects there will be no significant effect on electricity prices from the changed tax arrangements under current contracts between coalminers and electricity generators.
Then there is the most ridiculous myth that the RSPT is a triple tax on mining, coming on top of royalties and company tax. But let us make this really clear: resource companies will not pay the new resource super profits tax on top of royalties; they will pay the new tax instead of royalties. All companies in Australia are required to pay company tax but a few businesses receive as their primary input the non-renewable resources that belong to the Australian people, as mining companies do. Most companies pay for their inputs. The purpose of the resource super profits tax is to ensure Australians receive fair value for these non-renewable resources that miners extract from our country. No other business would try to argue that they should get their primary inputs for free, courtesy of the Australian people, just because they pay company tax and neither should Australia’s largest mining companies. The commonsense reality is reflected in the fact that the miners have always had to pay royalties to reflect the value they are receiving from our national resources.
The government will use about a third of the resource super profits tax revenue directly to assist the resources sector. The revenue from the resource super profits tax will well and truly be put to good use. A new infrastructure fund will make infrastructure spending a permanent feature of Commonwealth and state budgets for the first time. It will deliver $700 million in 2012-13 and more than $5.6 billion in the next decade. Without infrastructure funding, capacity constraints will hold back resource sector expansion and push up inflation and interest rates for us all. Roughly a third of the package will promote growth across the economy, addressing the risk of a two-speed economy by taking the brakes off the slower lane. The Howard government presided over the development of a two-speed economy where the non-mining related parts of the economy found it difficult to attract and retain workers and investment. Manufacturers in Parramatta tell me the same thing over and over again: the success of our resources sector drives up the exchange rate, making it hard for other Australian industries to compete on the global stage. In Parramatta, the two-speed imbalance affects the ability of smart new industries to start up and grow and for families it drives up inflation and interest rates.
A phased cut to the company tax rate to 28 per cent will assist the competitiveness of all Australian industries. The government will also seek to cut the company tax rate further as revenue allows. Small businesses will get a head start on the company tax cut with a 28 per cent rate applying from 2012-13. Small businesses will benefit from a new instant write-off for assets worth up to $5,000. Depreciation for other assets will be simplified, reducing complexity, cutting red tape and providing upfront tax relief. It is a good idea, a sensible idea, in a boom to put some of the returns aside for the future, and our plan does that. When you sell something that is non-renewable to pay for something that reoccurs every year, there is a strong case to save some of the revenues for the future. The final third of the revenue will do just that by going into national savings through superannuation.
Superannuation will gradually be increased from nine per cent to 12 per cent. Around 3.5 million lower paid Australians will receive a concession on their superannuation guarantee contributions for the first time. People aged over 50 with lower super balances will be given a more generous contribution cap to allow them to make catch-up contributions. Revenue from the resource super profits tax will cover revenue forgone from the lower tax rate of super contributions. This is a very good policy.
We know that a resources super profit tax will work in Australia because we have had one for over 20 years. The sky did not fall when we introduced it. Twenty years later the petroleum sector is still booming. The 40 per cent petroleum resource rent tax has operated on offshore petroleum projects since 1987 and, under it, petroleum production has remained strong. Indeed, Australia’s largest single investment, the Gorgon project, which was approved late last year, is to be developed under the 40 per cent petroleum resource rent tax. I am not going to deny the obvious—the most profitable mines in this country will pay more tax under the resources super profit tax. I am also not for a minute going to deny that owners of those mines will object. But this is good policy. It is in the national interest, and I am prosecuting for the interests of Parramatta families and singles who deserve a fairer share through higher retirement savings, more roads, more rail, more ports—(Time expired)
It is a pleasure to appear before you this evening. There is, I want to make it absolutely clear, a grievance which I bring to this chamber on behalf of my electorate of Flinders. The future of Point Nepean, on the eastern side of the Mornington Peninsula at the bottom end of Port Phillip, was settled three years ago. It was settled because there had been over $50 million in Commonwealth grants and it had been declared an area of National Heritage status; at the time, it was in the first 30 on the list.
Beyond that, and still more importantly, it was agreed through the work of the Point Nepean Community Trust—a long, arduous and consultative planning process—that this was to be the site of the National Centre for Coasts and Climate. It was to be the site of a great research facility on a boutique scale that would be one of the jewels not just of the Mornington Peninsula, Port Phillip or Melbourne but of Victoria and Australia with regard to research and the environment.
The things allocated were as follows: firstly, 110 student places; secondly, $7 million for the University of Melbourne to have a fit-out done on its behalf by the Point Nepean Community Trust; thirdly, $2 million of trailing rent over three years, including an escalator to be provided by the Commonwealth; fourthly, a much broader package of over $50 million allocated by the Commonwealth through different sources; and, fifthly, the agreement that, on handing over to the state of Victoria, the state would produce a payment of $10 million to be held in escrow purely for the purposes of the quarantine station area.
That is what was agreed upon by the peninsula, by the community and by all of those involved. It was a vision of the peninsula as a centre for environmental research. It was a vision of the magnificent quarantine station area at Point Nepean being open to the public but with an anchor tenant which would be there for the next 50, 70 or 100 years. It was a vision based around marine research and in the tradition of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the Bodega Bay marine institute. These are the global models upon which the Point Nepean vision was established. There was unity, commitment and conviction within the community, an operating trust under the chairmanship of Simon McKeon and a system which should not in any way have been subject to the threat of commercial exploitation in place of this vision.
Sadly—and this is where I come to the grievance—since the 2007 election this vision has been allowed to slide. I had not thought that was possible. We had established the trust with sufficient money, we had signed a heads of agreement with Melbourne University and we had made sure that the trust had a about 18 months to operate and during which to complete the works on the ground at Point Nepean to ensure that the state of Victoria was handed a functioning National Centre for Coasts and Climate.
This has been a personal passion of mine for many years. As I said, there was money, there was an operating body, there was a committed university, there were capital works and there was an unparalleled site. It should be for the benefit of students, the Mornington Peninsula community and marine research. It should not be turned into a hotel which will inevitably fail as we saw nearby with the Delgany Hotels complex.
The facts are these: on coming to government the Rudd government, through Minister Garrett, took instructions from the state of Victoria and put on hold almost all works relating to the completion of the National Centre for Coasts and Climate. Why? Because the state had a very different vision. As we saw recently in the Southern Peninsula News, that vision was to establish a large, commercial luxury hotel. This was in breach of every promise that the state had made during 2003, 2004 and 2005. This was in breach of the very campaign that the state waged during that time. The state said there must be no commercial exploitation of this place—that this sanctuary, this special point, should be a place for all Victorians for all time. So that sacred pledge was sacrificed with an instruction from the state of Victoria, through Parks Victoria and the office of the state environment minister Gavin Jennings, to Mr Garrett that the Commonwealth should wind back the works and hold the project in abeyance. The ground works were completed, but the building work which would have allowed the early transition to a National Centre for Coasts and Climate was stopped dead in its tracks. That was unacceptable, inappropriate and simply wrong.
After the transition from the Commonwealth to the state at the end of June last year, we saw something very different. We saw the state progressively wind back two visions. The first was the vision for a respite centre for kids with terminal conditions and their families. It is extraordinary that a private benefactor who had offered $10 million and had spent $1 million on putting forward a vision for a respite centre for kids with terminal conditions and gross disabilities has been systematically thwarted by the Victorian government. What higher purpose and use could there be for such a magnificent area? I find it inconceivable and simply unforgivable that this has been thwarted. The benefactor still wishes to make that money available but it is impossible. Other than housing some administrators and a small heritage area which had long been in place, the buildings of the quarantine station remain empty.
The second element is this: the state immediately pocketed the $7 million which had been allocated to the University of Melbourne. That money which had been set aside for marine education, for research into climate change, for research into the magnificent heritage of Point Nepean—the tidal influence, the marine environment, the ecology of Port Phillip—was gone. That money has gone into the general budget of Parks Victoria. Again, that is a breach of the terms and intention of the handover from the Commonwealth to the state. I have long supported the handover, so long as the buildings will be used for marine education. So I find it extraordinary that that $7 million was taken. Secondly, we saw Minister Garrett take out of this year’s budget the $2 million of trailing rents for seven years. These are two significant breaches of faith. Parks Victoria says that, under those conditions, Melbourne university is not engaging in discussions. Having spoken with the Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne university I can say to the House that Melbourne university remains committed and would love to proceed with the project. But, without the $7 million that was always set aside as the basis for the deal, they cannot afford it. Without the $2 million of trailing rents they cannot afford it.
What we see in its place is a vision, writ large on the front of the Southern Peninsula News, of a luxury hotel. Two things will occur. Firstly, if that luxury hotel does get up, it will be a monumental breach of faith with everything that the community campaigned for over the last seven years. Secondly, if the hotel is established then, as with nearby Delgany—another classic heritage building which was used for a hotel—because of the seasonal nature of Portsea it will inevitably fail. And when it fails these buildings at Point Nepean will be privatised. That is inevitable. The plan as it currently stands is a breach of faith. There is a resolution, a way forward, and that is to return the $7 million to the beneficial use of Melbourne university for the fit-out of the National Centre for Coasts and Climate, to keep faith with that vision and to ensure that in 50, 70, 100 years from now this is a centre of research not a commercial precinct.
This year marks the 35th anniversary of the settlement in Australia of Vietnamese, the so-called original boat people in this country. In fact, yesterday was the actual date 35 years ago that the first Vietnamese refugees who escaped Vietnam on the cargo ship Truong Xuan arrived in Australia. Yesterday I met Captain Pham Ngoc Luy, who made the heroic voyage from Indonesia to South Vietnam, after hearing about the imminent fall of Saigon on Radio Australia, and rescued almost 4,000 people in their quest for freedom. A wave of refugees then followed, coming to our shores after the fall of Saigon. I do not need to remind the parliament that the Vietnam War, despite much controversy at the time in the West, was one in which Australia along with its allies was totally committed. Therefore, it fell to the governments of Australia, the US and others to take responsibility for the consequences of such a war. Accordingly, Australia decided to play its part and look after people who were displaced from Vietnam. We opened our arms and our shores to the innocent families who fled the communist regime. Clearly, we now celebrate the immense contribution the Vietnamese refugees have made in Australia over the past 35 years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I invite you to recall that in 2003, notwithstanding the fact that the Labor Party did not support the war in Iraq, and nor was it sanctioned by the UN, Australia chose to be part of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’. We were assured that the invasion of Iraq was not about regime change but about weapons of mass destruction. No weapons were found. Instead, there was a restructure of the forces of influence in Iraq, regime change certainly occurred and a power vacuum ensued. As a result of this vacuum, tensions and conflicts between Shia and Sunni Iraqis escalated, resulting in thousands of Iraqis being displaced from their homes. Clearly, the unintended consequence of our involvement has been the systematic and consistent persecution of Christian minority groups in Iraq. Assyrians and Sabian Mandaeans in particular are now living with the constant threat of violence and persecution, which is all too real. I am not talking about organised militia groups who have chosen to engage in a fight. I am talking about innocent families, mums and dads, children, priests and other religious leaders who are being targeted, assaulted, and even killed because of their religious beliefs.
In May this year the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom released its annual report, which outlined the various threats and acts of violence experienced in countries the United States have designated as ‘countries of particular concern’ when it comes to religious freedom abuses. It would come as no surprise to many people that Iraq is one such country. The commission’s report states:
The religious freedom situation in Iraq remains grave, particularly for the country’s smallest, most vulnerable religious minorities. The violence, forced displacement, discrimination, marginalisation, and neglect suffered by members of these groups threatens these ancient communities’ very existence in Iraq. These minorities, which include Chaldo-Assyrians and other Christians, Sabian Mandaeans … continue to experience targeted violence, receive inadequate official protection or justice ….
If these words are not convincing enough that there is a real problem in Iraq, the statistics are chilling. According to the commission’s report, in 2003 there were approximately 1.4 million Catholics, Assyrians and Armenians living in Iraq. Today the number is down to about 500,000. Similarly, prior to the invasion there were 60,000 Mandaeans in Iraq; now there are somewhere between 3,500 and 5,000. The others have all left, fleeing for their lives.
If you doubt the atrocities being committed in Iraq against Christian minorities, I would also point to the Assyrian International News Agency’s July 2009 report Incipient genocide: the ethnic cleansing of the Assyrians of Iraq. It is truly an understatement to say this is totally disturbing. The details of this systematic and consistent persecution of Assyrians in Iraq include gruesome murders, extortion and violence. The report contains horrendous images of children who have been shot in cold blood because they chose to follow their faith. It shows the burnt out shells of churches which have been blown apart. It also puts a face to the many Assyrians who have been murdered. According to this report, 309 Assyrians have been murdered since the invasion in 2003. In addition to the murders, religious institutions and symbols are being targeted through specific bombings. Undoubtedly this inflicts terror and insecurity on the remaining Assyrian community. As a consequence of the violence, many Christian Iraqis have fled to refugee camps in Syria and Jordan. Issues affecting refugees in Iraq and the timely processing of their visas are of particular concern to me.
More recently, I have made representations to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship concerning the situation in Syria which has been brought to my attention by local community members. I understand a number of departmental officials have been denied entry into Syria, which has significantly delayed the assessment of humanitarian visa applications for people who have fled Iraq. I also understand that the Syrian government is refusing to grant visas for Australian officials unless they provide access to the files of refugees approved for resettlement in Australia. I find it alarming that these refugees are now being denied the opportunity to have their applications properly assessed by Australian officials because of these decisions by the Syrian government. We are certainly grateful to the Syrian government for looking after these people in the various refugee camps under their administration, but there is also a need for all governments to coordinate in the interests of these displaced people.
Clearly these people are displaced essentially because of the invasion of Iraq by the coalition of the willing and the consequences that have followed. Therefore, I believe that, along with the other members of the coalition of the willing, we have a moral responsibility, just as we did in 1975, to deal with the consequences of the war. When the infamous weapons of mass destruction were not found, the then President of the United States said—and this was adopted by the then Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard—that a world without Saddam Hussein would be a better world. That may be so. However, the aftermath of the 2003 invasion—the persecution of Christian minorities and the growing list of displaced people—is something that we need to recognise and address. The special needs of these people and the consequences of our involvement in Iraq will not simply fix themselves; they require a consistent effort on our part, over and above what we are duty-bound to do from our position and our commitments to the United Nations on refugee placement.
I reiterate that these people find themselves displaced because of our activities. They are suffering persecution, with extraordinary consequences for families. The vast majority have now moved. They reside elsewhere, in refugee camps, waiting for processing along with other refugees. These people cannot be returned or repatriated to that country that we not only invaded but also left. This is one of the consequences of that. This is something that should have been considered at the time, when the then Australian government decided to be part of the coalition of the willing. This is not going to fix itself. We must have a commitment because of the actions that we took back in 2003. This is a lasting legacy of that invasion. We need to make sure that we take the responsible, moral, correct position when it comes to the repatriation of these people, who have been displaced for reasons not of their making but as a consequence of an invasion of their country.
The crumbling of the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern bloc almost 20 years ago would deliver a peace dividend to the West, we were told—and, to an extent, it did. But we were also fooled, lulled into a false sense of security. Sure, it allowed us to initially slash defence expenditure, but that also reduced our military capabilities and, perhaps most importantly, led to a malaise in the West which continues today. Scientific research has stagnated, military and intelligence services have been found lacking, and now we are in the grip of a global financial crisis. We in the West almost appear to be wandering aimlessly, wondering what to do next.
What caused me to think about these issues was work that I have been doing on both anthropogenic global warming—or climate change, in the current politically correct parlance; I will just call it AGW—and the planned purchase of the new Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF, for Australia, two issues being driven by appeals to authority rather than critical examination of data and evidence. Proponents of both seem to have a form of institutionalised groupthink, an attempt to counter criticism by attacking the critics rather than addressing the substance of their concerns and criticisms.
The end of the Cold War caused a loss of focus on what we believe in and stand for. There was no longer any clearly defined threat and no clearly defined goal. The war on terror provided a different kind of challenge, and the global warming debacle has more to do with religion than science, but these have also failed to give the West a common focus. As a result, the West has effectively become rudderless—no pun intended—and priority for research and development and defence expenditure has been lost.
Why is this bad? Because much of the blue-sky research and development that in the past came about as a result of defence funding has been virtually eliminated. As a result, the hard sciences and mathematics withered on the vine, with decreasing funding bases and hence reduced interest from the most capable students. Why would our best and brightest want to struggle away with a hand-to-mouth existence when they could have security and a well-paid future elsewhere? So, in a time of often ill-directed policy and increased funding of universities, the numbers of students entering the hard sciences and mathematics have decreased in both real and relative terms. At the same time, the numbers enrolling in soft sciences and humanities have increased significantly. It is important to note that the skills used in the hard sciences, such as physics and chemistry, are somewhat different to those in the soft biological and life sciences but far more so to those in the humanities, and the net result has been a deskilling of our nations in science and technology.
When President Bush in 2004 proposed returning to the moon, he stated that it should be achieved by 2020, a period of 16 years. This is staggering. It is twice as long as was required for the Apollo moon landings from the first human being flying in space—and we had done it before. Worse, the effort has now been abandoned. The F15 Eagle fighter was in service about five years after McDonnell Douglas won the contract. By way of contrast, it will take Lockheed Martin more than 15 years for the JSF to become operational—and the F15, by the standards of the day, was the more technically difficult achievement.
Another disturbing feature we see in the West today is risk aversion. Mistakes and risks cannot be tolerated, so we end up with slow, incremental advance. This is another part of the protracted nature of so much development occurring now. The critical thinking skills required for so many technical and scientific decisions are no longer as widespread as they once were—a result of the diminishing numbers trained in the hard sciences and maths. More and more of these decisions are based upon non-science-based thinking, where justification of a point of view takes precedence over a decision based on hard evidence. The slide in the numbers and capability of those in the technical areas needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency; otherwise we will end up with a plethora of decisions based on an accepted paradigm rather than hard data and evidence. This will result in bad decisions which will affect people’s livelihood and welfare.
We see abundant evidence of this with the Rudd government’s so-called policymaking. It is interesting that the policies outlined for Australia’s long-term benefit are, from a realistic government legislation perspective, out in the never-never world of 2020 or 2050. Policies that are actually introduced to the parliamentary legislative agenda are very obviously focus group driven and they are not even focused on views that people may have a year or so in the future but on the here and now. As a result, we have decisions such as the CPRS and the mining supertax, which would have been easy to sell in the context of focus groups but are policies that are unable to withstand the scrutiny of the opposition and others.
With the ETS, people like the idea, in the abstract, of saving the planet, but when they realise it will cost them real money, they want real evidence. I have been saying this for years. It is plainly obvious to anyone with any ability for critical thinking, but it has clearly eluded many of the government members. The members opposite that know this whole AGW issue for the bunkum it is have, to their enormous discredit, simply gone along with their party line for fear of the punishment that would be meted out by their party. They had no hard fought policy debate within their party as we had in ours. That is why Labor decision making is so poor. The gang of four hands down the edicts from on high and the rest of the Labor Party must simply go along with it subserviently. It is a travesty for our democracy to think that the collective wisdom of a parliamentary party, which should be around 130 members and senators on the government side, is seen to reside in the minds of a mere four people. It is shameful.
With the mining supertax, you once again have short-term policymaking without adequate thought, evaluation or assessment. This is a simple case of politics of envy introduced by the gang of four. They dreamed up this scheme and were convinced that they would be able to sell it to the electorate by telling them that the big, rich, billionaire miners should pay more tax. After all, the government did create a simply enormous, massive deficit that it would have to repay. ‘No more tax burden for the average taxpayer’ was the focus-group-driven analysis—‘No, just those dirty rich miners’. So the tax was sneaked into the budget with absolutely no initial view to consult. Any reasonable approach would have included consultation from the outset and certainly prior to the budget. Suddenly reality struck, with the true situation becoming apparent and people becoming aware this would have a massive negative effect on the nation’s finances. The government is in damage control and has run out of its backflip budget.
This highlights the need for a greater emphasis on analytical skills and increased training of people in hard science and mathematics so that decisions in all areas, including government policymaking, are made analytically. We need people trained to appreciate the situation, not situate the appreciation! As such, it is necessary to return to the fundamentals in many of these areas and realise, as President Kennedy said in the 1960s when committing the US to a manned lunar landing that decade:
… we do these and other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
We need to make genuinely hard decisions, not make easy decisions and then simply spin them as hard as has been the case with the Rudd government.
There is no question that the Copenhagen climate change talks were a big disappointment to those of us who believe in the urgency of concerted action to reduce the world’s carbon emissions and hoped for international agreement on genuine and meaningful carbon reduction targets. There is also no question that the defeat of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the Senate was a big blow to those of us who believe in the need to put a price on carbon, who believe in putting the market to work in delivering least cost carbon abatement and who believe that we have got to start somewhere in turning our upwards carbon trajectory around.
These two events at the end of last year were big setbacks. There is no point trying to pretend otherwise. But this does not mean that the fight against global warming can be relegated to second or third order status. Reducing carbon emissions must remain a top priority. I have been contacted by many of my constituents urging strong, effective, urgent action to reduce carbon emissions. I agree with them. Strong, effective action to cut emissions is urgently needed.
The good news is that a mountain of work has been done on ways we can reduce our carbon emissions—so much work, in fact, that it is hard to know where to start. There is Al Gore’s book Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, with numerous good ideas. But I will start with the recently released report by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions titled Creating jobs—cutting pollution, the roadmap for a cleaner, stronger economy, with its distinctly Australian focus.
The ACF and the ACTU commissioned the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research to conduct economic modelling of carbon emission reduction scenarios. The ‘strong action’ scenario assumed a price on carbon through a carbon trading scheme, along with a targeted suite of policies to reduce carbon pollution without reliance on imported international permits. These policies include: energy efficiency strategies for households, industry and commercial buildings; a rapid expansion of clean energy infrastructure; a cleaner vehicle fleet and public transport infrastructure plan; and targeted regional investment and industry planning. These ‘strong action’ measures lead to a stronger economy, more jobs, better regional outcomes, less debt and higher living standards.
The ‘strong action’ measures lead to a stronger economy, with an average 3.2 per cent GDP in the next 20 years compared with 2.8 per cent GDP if the measures are not taken. ‘Strong action’ leads to 770,000 more jobs than ‘weak action’. There will be 3.7 million created across the Australian economy under ‘strong action’, compared with three million under ‘weak action’. Jobs grow across all sectors of the economy under the ‘strong action’ measures to reduce emissions. Jobs growth is not just about renewable energy; agriculture, mining, forestry, fisheries, manufacturing, construction and services all go up, a total of 770,000 jobs up.
Living standards also go up. Compared to ‘weak action’, Australians will be nearly 10 per cent better off in economic welfare terms in the period to 2030. Australia will have less debt. If we do not take the ‘strong action’ measures, Australia’s balance of payments will deteriorate over time due to the high reliance on importing international carbon permits and the continued high level of oil imports, which comes with failure to invest in a cleaner vehicle fleet and public transport infrastructure.
‘Strong action’ results in significant additional benefits through lower oil imports, lower imports of international permits and improved energy efficiency. The Creating jobs—cutting pollution report makes it very clear that tackling climate change will not be at the expense of jobs or economic prosperity. It is quite the opposite. Failure to reduce carbon emissions will lead to job losses and lower our living standards. I commend the ACF and the ACTU on this report, and I commend the report to the government and to the parliament.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has also released its 2010 national agenda for a sustainable Australia. It has many worthy proposals. Right upfront it proposes a national population policy to stabilise Australia’s population at an ecologically sustainable level by 2050 and assist other countries to do the same. I have been calling for this for some time, and I commend this proposal to the Minister for Population and to the parliament. I note that the Queensland Conservation and the Sunshine Coast Environment Council are also calling for population stabilisation. I hope other environment groups will follow this example. After all, it is pretty hard to reduce your carbon footprint if you keep adding more feet.
The Australian Conservation Foundation 2010 national agenda includes a national feed-in tariff, which I have also supported in the parliament. They propose a greenhouse pollution trigger in federal environmental law and a ban on new power stations with carbon emissions above 0.5 tonnes per megawatt hour.
Speaking of coal fired power, Environment Victoria commissioned a report by Green Energy Markets called Fast-tracking Victoria’s clean energy future to replace Hazelwood power station. Hazelwood power station is the most emissions intensive power station in Australia, with emissions of 1.53 tonnes of CO2 per megawatt hour. Hazelwood produces over 16 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and uses 27 billion litres of water each year.
Green Energy Markets looked at two ways of replacing the power which now comes from Hazelwood. It looked at a supply-side-only option, which involves bringing forward a combined cycle gas turbine plant and renewable generation, predominantly wind. It also looked at a supply-side and demand-side combination option. This involves bringing forward combined cycle gas fired generation, as well as 1,500 megawatts of renewables. It also incorporates additional residential, commercial and industrial energy efficiency options that replace around 25 per cent of Hazelwood’s annual generation, as well as 100 megawatts of demand-side management.
The supply-side-only option would replace Hazelwood’s output in a way that cuts greenhouse gases by 13.6 million tonnes annually, and the combined supply-side and energy efficiency option would save even more—14.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases annually. If it happened by 2013, it would cut Victoria’s emissions by 11 to 12 per cent. It would have a national impact, cutting Australia’s greenhouse gases by three per cent, a single measure which, in its year of introduction, would lift the weight we are going to have to lift each year in order to meet the government’s 60 per cent cut by 2050 undertaking and play our role in keeping global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.
The report expects that between 1,900 and 2,500 construction jobs will be created in building the clean energy replacements for Hazelwood. An additional 2,300 ongoing jobs would be created across all activities under the supply-side and demand-side combination option, mainly in energy efficiency activities. How would this be done and what would it cost? If we had an emissions trading scheme and a price on carbon it would be reasonably straightforward.
Hazelwood’s annual emission of 16 million tonnes of CO2 means that, putting a $20 per tonne price on carbon, Hazelwood has a carbon value of $320 million per year. Green Energy Markets considers, based on public statements made by International Power, that this should be sufficient to cover both the cost of any compensation to International Power to close Hazelwood and the cost of bringing forward clean energy investment to replace the power it now generates.
Of course, in the absence of an emissions trading scheme and a price on carbon, finding this sort of money would be a significant challenge for the federal and Victorian governments. They would need to sit down with International Power and negotiate these matters. But let me make the following observations. First, there is a fair case for Commonwealth involvement and assistance, given that the benefits from doing this are national. Second, the costs of inaction on climate change will exceed the cost of action. It is like getting your car serviced or insuring your house: in the short run it costs some money, but in the long run you are glad you did. Third, replacing Hazelwood will not only cut Victoria’s carbon emissions by over 10 per cent; it will free up 27 billion litres of water each year and in drought-stricken Victoria—for a decade now—we could make better use of that water.
I commend Environment Victoria for this report and I urge the federal and Victorian governments, and federal and Victorian parliamentarians, to give it the serious consideration that the global warming challenge requires of us all. I believe Australians are hungry for action to tackle carbon emissions. This is certainly true of my electorate, where thousands of citizens belong to GetUp! and support its climate action initiatives, and others join local bodies such as the Moreland Climate Group. What I am certain of is this: the climate change challenge is not going to go away. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and wish it away. We must press on with the work needed to turn our carbon emissions trajectory around. At present it is still going upwards. That has to change.