I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that, in accordance with the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Senators Brandis and Johnston have been appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
by leave—The government is committed to providing regular reports and updates on Afghanistan, including to the parliament. I last reported to the parliament on 12 May, which followed my visit to Afghanistan with the then Chief of the Defence Force to commemorate Anzac Day with our troops deployed in Oruzgan Province and to speak to Afghan and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) partners in Kabul. My report on this occasion follows my attendance at the meeting of NATO and ISAF Defence Ministers in Brussels on 8 and 9 June, the beginning of the northern summer fighting season and United States President Obama’s statement on Afghanistan on 23 June.
This report comes at a difficult time for Australia with the tragic deaths of five Australian soldiers in recent weeks and a further three wounded. This week’s death of Sergeant Todd Langley reminds us again that this has been a tough period for our Army, a tough period for the Australian Defence Force and a tough period for our nation. We pay tribute to his sacrifice, and the other 27 Australian soldiers we have lost and to the 182 wounded in Afghanistan. We offer our condolences to the families, friends, colleagues and loved ones of our fallen soldiers. Our thoughts are with them. Our thoughts are also with our wounded and injured soldiers and their families. We wish them a speedy recovery.
The terrible loss of our soldiers always sees a focus on Australia’s mission in Afghanistan. It is essential that Australians understand why we are there and why it is important for us to continue to play our part.
Why we are there
The government’s strong view is that it is in our national interest to be in Afghanistan, not just with our alliance partner the United States, but also with 46 other members of an international community assistance force acting under a United Nations mandate. Australia’s fundamental goal is to prevent Afghanistan, especially the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, from again being used by terrorists to plan and train for attacks on innocent civilians, including Australians in our own region and beyond. To achieve that goal we must help prepare the Afghan government to take lead responsibility for providing security for the Afghan people. To do so we must stabilise the security situation and mentor and train the Afghan security forces. To leave now would be to put at risk the recent gains so hard fought for. To leave now would be to risk opening a vacuum which international terrorism could move into and again flourish.
Progress
The international community now has both the military and political strategy in place, the resources to match it and the people on the ground to deliver it. It has taken the international community too many years to get to this point, but the surge, and our special forces operations, are working. There is no doubt that additional ISAF and Afghan resources have enabled combat and enforcement operations to occur with more confidence and to greater effect. Partnered Special Forces operations have killed or captured insurgent leaders, taking them off the battlefield and disrupting insurgent activity across Afghanistan.
Partnering, training and mentoring—replicated as it is across the country—is building Afghan security forces. The US/NATO/ISAF surge has been more than matched over the same period by a surge of 100,000 in the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), which now number some 300,000. There are more Afghan soldiers and police officers and they are more capable. Australia remains confident that between now and the end of 2014, we will effect a transition to Afghan-led responsibility for security in Oruzgan. As Afghan forces take on more frontline roles, this allows us to perform other tasks, including institutional or niche higher level training.
But while the nature of Australia’s commitment will evolve, it will not diminish. The recent gains, so hard fought for, cannot be put at risk. Our objectives in Afghanistan will not be achieved by a military solution alone, but these military gains are essential in building the pressure on the Taliban to open up possibilities for reintegration, reconciliation and political settlement. Only by keeping the military pressure on will Taliban insurgents concede they cannot win militarily, that time is not on their side and they cannot wait out the international community.
United States drawdown
In 2010, some 33,000 additional United States troops were put into the fight in Afghanistan, along with an additional 7,500 troops from other NATO/ISAF partners. On 23 June, President Obama announced that the United States would commence a drawdown of this surge force. The President announced that 10,000 United States troops will leave Afghanistan by the end of this year. The remaining 23,000 surge troops will be drawn down by the end of the northern summer next year. When the drawdown of the United States surge troops is complete, the United States will still have 68,000 troops in Afghanistan.
The surge has already achieved its intended goals. It has degraded the al-Qaeda network, which President Obama described as now being 'under more pressure than at any time since 9/11'. This has, of course, been reinforced by the death of Osama Bin Laden. It has reversed Taliban momentum. It has also assisted in building Afghan capacity, which will allow responsibility for security to fully transition to Afghan-led security.
Australia sees no inconsistency between a drawdown of forces starting this year and the strategy agreed to at the Lisbon NATO/ISAF Summit last year to transition security responsibility to an Afghan lead by the end of 2014. As the Prime Minister has said, Australians will want to know what the drawdown means for Australia’s mission in Oruzgan. Australia has around 1,550 troops in Afghanistan. The advice from the new Chief of the Defence Force is that our current troop presence remains appropriate for our mission of training and mentoring the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army to take the security lead in Oruzgan by the end of 2014.
As a result of discussions with US counterparts and officials, I do not expect there will be any serious or adverse implications for Australian troops in Oruzgan Province. The detail of the drawdown of US surge forces has yet to be determined and will be decided on by ISAF commander, currently General David Petraeus and soon to be General John Allen, with whom I met recently in Brussels. Australian military and civilian officials have already been in close consultation with their US counterparts and will remain in close consultation with them as the detail of the drawdown is worked through.
High p rofile a ttacks
There will of course be setbacks on the way to transition. As recently as last week the Haqqani network launched an attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul. This was a terrible attack. Such attacks are to be expected and we have already seen a number, for example the 21 February suicide attack in Kunduz province, the 15 April killing of the Kandahar police chief, the 18 April attack on the Defence Ministry in Kabul and the 28 May killing of the police chief for northern Afghanistan. These attacks are aimed at achieving a propaganda effect and are aimed at undermining Afghan and international confidence in the progress that is being made on security, governance and development and on transition.
ISAF c ampaign progress
Afghan and ISAF security forces are making progress in Afghanistan. It was clear to me at the recent NATO and ISAF Defence Ministers’ Meeting that my counterparts share this assessment. Together with ISAF, the Afghan security forces are expanding security across the country and forcing the insurgency onto the back foot.
Campaign progress—Oruzgan
Security footprint
Security within Oruzgan itself has improved markedly. This, in part, is due to the successful partnering of the Mentoring Task Force with the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army (ANA). It has been instrumental in supporting the expansion of the ANA in Oruzgan. Australian Mentoring Task Force-Two (MTF-2) recently handed over to Mentoring Task Force-Three (MTF-3). During its eight-month deployment, MTF-2 was able to patrol further and supported more ANA elements than any previous Australian task force. It established a strong platform for subsequent Australian forces to concentrate on mentoring and development of the ANA.
Since commencing operations in Oruzgan, ISAF forces have assisted the Afghan forces in expanding the security footprint across Oruzgan with the establishment of over 30 patrol bases and checkpoints across the province. Since 2007, successive Australian Task Forces have continued to support this expansion through the construction of 18 new patrol bases and checkpoints. Of these bases, Australian forces have handed over the control of six patrol bases and checkpoints to the Afghan National Police. Australian forces have also provided 12 bases to the Afghan National Army, of which they are now fully responsible for seven. Australian and Afghan forces jointly man the remaining five bases.
Special Forces o perations
Australia is the third largest contributor of Special Forces in Afghanistan with personnel deployed to the Special Operations Task Group based in Tarin Kowt. Working with their dedicated Afghan partners, the Provincial Response Company Oruzgan from the Afghan National Police, the mission of our Special Forces is to target and disrupt insurgent networks in and around Oruzgan Province. The Special Forces mission is also to build the capacity of the Provincial Response Company ahead of the transition to Afghan-led security.
As I have previously advised the House, from time to time our Special Forces are authorised to operate in adjoining provinces on operations that have security benefits in Oruzgan Province. This involves operations to maintain pressure on insurgent leadership in Oruzgan, and its surrounding provinces including Kandahar, Helmand, Zabul and Daykundi. The operations of our Special Forces and their Afghan partners are currently focused on targeting insurgent networks known to be operating in Oruzgan Province and along key access routes into the province and region, to disrupt insurgent fighting preparations in Oruzgan.
National Interdiction Unit
Following a request from the Afghan government, Australian Special Forces have commenced the provision of enabling support—such as cordon security, logistical and medical support—to the Afghan National Interdiction Unit (NIU) as it conducts counter-narcotics operations to disrupt the Taliban’s revenue stream from narcotics trafficking. Australia’s support to the NIU has reduced the insurgency’s ability to fund itself by targeting the sale of narcotics. This support, commenced at Afghan government request, has subsequently led to a series of successful operations in and around Oruzgan.
Training and mentoring
The ADF remains on track to complete its mission and hand over complete operational responsibility for Oruzgan to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014, as part of the Inteqal, or transition, process. The ADF is making progress in training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army in Oruzgan. There are now almost 5,000 Afghan security forces in Oruzgan, of which over 2,000 are serving in the ANA 4th Brigade. Australia has provided a wide range of training for our ANA partners in core military skills, as well as headquarters planning and combat enabling support. The arrival of 6th and final kandak in February has also improved the 4th Brigade’s operational capability. Australia commenced mentoring this kandak in late June, with a full mentoring team also partnering on lower level tactical operations.
Even more encouraging, the ANA has increasingly assumed the lead for the planning, preparation and execution of tactical operations, allowing Australian forces to concentrate on partnering Afghan command and control and combat support functions. One of the Afghan kandaks that Australian forces partner in Oruzgan is now close to being able to conduct fully independent operations, with the others making steady progress. Australian forces will be in a position to move from their partnering of ANA tactical operations to broader assistance, such as logistics and service support, in the first quarter of next year. This is as Afghan security forces assume further responsibility for the provision of security across Oruzgan.
Transition outlook
The process of transition is a reality and Australia is confident that we are on track for the transition of security responsibility to Afghan security forces in Oruzgan by the end of 2014. We very much welcome President Karzai’s March announcement of the first tranche of seven provinces and districts that would transition to Afghan-led security. The transition in those seven provinces and districts is scheduled to commence this month, and will see Afghan forces lead and conduct security operations in all provinces by the end of 2014. It is anticipated that later this year, a second tranche of provinces and districts will be announced as ready to commence the transition process.
Transition will progress across Afghanistan as conditions allow. Transition will not be an even process, it will be district by district, province by province. Australia does not expect that Oruzgan will be among the first districts and provinces to transition. Australia stands ready to assist Oruzgan in this process. We will remain closely engaged with our partners involved in the first tranche of transitioning provinces and districts—to learn from them and inform our own transition of lead security responsibility for Oruzgan to Afghan forces by the end of 2014. Patience will be necessary. As the Prime Minister has said, there is no point in transitioning out early, just to transition back in again.
Post- t ransition
Transition does not mean the end of the international community’s support to Afghanistan. At the NATO/ISAF summit in Lisbon in November last year, ISAF partners welcomed the signing of an enduring partnership agreement between Afghanistan and NATO. This provides a framework for NATO-led assistance to Afghanistan beyond the conclusion of the transition process. The recent NATO/ISAF Defence Ministers’ meeting in Brussels reaffirmed this international community commitment to Afghanistan in the longer term. Australia expects to remain in Afghanistan following the transition to Afghan-led security. This could be with Special Forces, security overwatch, capacity building, institution building or training roles.
The recent NATO/ISAF Defence Ministers’ meeting in Brussels also agreed that it was now timely to start a conversation about our post-transition objectives, mandate and structure. In this context, preliminary work has commenced, studying possible configurations of our continuing civilian and military presence in Afghanistan following transition in Oruzgan and beyond 2014.
Reconciliation and reintegration
At the London Conference on Afghanistan in January 2010, the international community committed itself to the principles of reconciliation and reintegration. At that conference, I said that the conflict in Afghanistan would not be ended by military force alone and that a long-term solution in Afghanistan also required political dialogue and, ultimately, reconciliation between the people of Afghanistan. The Taliban will only come to the negotiating table when they are under military pressure to do so and when they realise that they cannot simply wait out the international community. It is clear that the Taliban is under military pressure. Keeping military pressure on the Taliban will reinforce the need to reconcile and reintegrate.
Australia supports an Afghan-led reconciliation and reintegration process. Reconciliation and reintegration are a matter for the Afghan people, and must be led by the Afghan government. The Afghan government has laid down the conditions for reintegration and reconciliation—individuals must renounce violence, sever links with terrorist organisations, and respect the Afghan Constitution. There has been very early movement towards political discussions as recently made public by then US Secretary of Defense Bob Gates.
Detainee management update
Australia takes its responsibility for detainee management very seriously. In December last year, I announced the details of Australia’s detainee management framework in Afghanistan following the Dutch withdrawal from Oruzgan Province on 1 August 2010. In developing our detainee management framework, Australia has had two priorities in mind: first, the critical need to remove insurgents from the battlefield, where they endanger Australian, ISAF and Afghan lives; and, second, the need to ensure humane treatment of detainees, consistent with Australian values and our domestic and international legal obligations.
The detainee management framework draws on applicable international standards and advice from international humanitarian organisations. Under the framework, detainees apprehended by the ADF are transferred either to Afghan custody in Tarin Kowt, or US custody at the detention facility in Parwan, or released if there is insufficient evidence to seek prosecution through the Afghan judicial system. Arrangements are in place with both the Afghan and US governments that include assurances on the humane treatment of detainees and access to those detainees by Australian officials and humanitarian organisations to monitor their ongoing welfare.
During my visit to Afghanistan in April, I again visited the ADF Initial Screening Area and was briefed by the team who run the facility. They remain committed to supporting the removal of insurgents from the battlefield while ensuring the humane treatment of detainees. In the period 1 August 2010 to 3 July 2011, Australia apprehended 788 detainees. Of these, 93 have been transferred to Afghan authorities and 46 to US authorities. The remainder have been released following initial screening.
Since 1 August 2010 to 3 July 2011, 23 allegations of mistreatment from 21 detainees have been made against the ADF. Of these allegations, 18 have been thoroughly investigated. They have been found to have had no substance and were dismissed. Five more recent allegations remain under review. Any allegation of detainee mistreatment is promptly investigated and the outcome is reported in full to ISAF. Over the same period, from 1 August 2010 to 3 July 2011, the ADF have captured six people who were subsequently released, then recaptured. Four of the individuals in question were released as there was insufficient evidence to warrant their continued detention. In the case of the fifth and sixth individuals, the second time each was apprehended there was sufficient evidence to provide a link to the insurgency. In accordance with Australia’s detainee management framework, the fifth detainee was transferred to the detention facility in Parwan and the sixth to the National Directorate of Security in Oruzgan.
In my March and May reports I updated the House on a number of detainee matters. In the case of the investigation into allegations that the ADF Initial Screening Area team in Afghanistan did not adhere to administrative procedures, I am advised that I will soon be provided with the investigative team’s report. The outcomes of the investigation will be made public in due course. I am also advised that there have been no further issues with the closed circuit television system at the Initial Screening Area and that the system is functioning and continuous footage is being recorded and archived.
The government has considered and reaffirmed the appropriateness of the requirement for an initial detainee monitoring visit to occur within 72 hours after a detainee is transferred from the Australian Initial Screening Area to US or Afghan custody. The government continues to consider arrangements on the length of detention in the Australian Initial Screening Area to enable the collection of further information by Australia. The government is also considering the implementation of contingency arrangements for the management of detainees captured on operations outside of Oruzgan.
I will continue to provide regular public updates, including to the parliament, on Afghanistan.
I table a paper in conjunction with my ministerial statement. I thank the House and I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Fadden to speak for 20 minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Fadden speaking for a period not exceeding 20 minutes.
Question agreed to.
I rise to respond to the statement on Afghanistan by the Minister for Defence. Once again I thank the minister for keeping his word on providing regular updates to this parliament on the war in Afghanistan. To his credit, this is the minister's third update to the House this year, building on his previous reports from 23 March and 12 May. It is important to restate that the opposition continues to strongly offer bipartisan support to the government for the prosecution of combat and reconstruction operations in Afghanistan and for wider security operations in the Middle East Area of Operations. This bipartisan support, while strong and vocal, is not a blank cheque, however. We continue to reserve our right as an opposition to constructively keep the government accountable in any and all areas of the prosecution of these operations. It is also noted that we respect the role of the Chief of the Defence Force as the principal military adviser and commander of Australian forces and have the utmost faith in General David Hurley's abilities and capacity to provide the best advice to the government on the prosecution of these operations.
I thank the minister for this constructive approach to the bipartisan support the coalition offers, especially through the provision of information and advice when required and facilitating regular visits into the Middle East Area of Operations for the coalition to ascertain events firsthand on the ground. Consequently, this report to parliament from the coalition is provided with the backdrop of my recent return from Afghanistan after an extensive week's visit in mid-May which included Al Minhad Air Base, Tarin Kowt and going out into the badlands to the patrol base at Musaza'i, to Kandahar and to Kabul, including the green zone, and meeting with representatives of the Afghan parliament. This was my third visit into theatre in the past 24 months as part of our commitment to a fully informed bipartisan support to the government for combat operations. It is our expectation that the coalition will continue to have semiregular access into the Middle East Area of Operations as part of our constructive approach to bipartisan support, and I thank the minister for his work in making this happen.
I also join the minister in his condolences for and reflection on the five soldiers killed in action and wounded in Afghanistan since the last ministerial statement on 12 May and the 28 soldiers killed in action and the 182 soldiers wounded in action since the start of combat operations at the end of 2001. Theirs is a terrible loss, borne especially by family and friends but certainly felt by our nation. Freedom has a price; it is not free. It is borne by so few for the benefit of so many of us. As I expressed yesterday with the Minister for Defence, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition as we lamented and eulogised the loss of Commando Sergeant Todd Langley, this parliament will ensure families left behind and those suffering will not be forgotten and will be cared for.
The minister rightly states that the loss of every soldier raises questions within the community as to the legitimacy of our ongoing combat operations in the theatre of Afghanistan. We went into Afghanistan with parliamentary bipartisan support at the end of 2001 to ensure that Afghanistan could never again be used as a training, financing, supporting, indoctrinating and operational ground for terrorism that would impact on Australia and its interests at home and abroad. To this end, we stay in Afghanistan to ensure that is achieved. The death of Osama bin Laden has prompted some to question the continued need for Australia's involvement in the Afghan war, many arguing that we went to Afghanistan only to destroy al-Qaeda and bin Laden and that that appears to be done. The reality of course is that the strategy in Afghanistan is much bigger than simply destroying one man or one terrorist organisation. The strategy is to ensure that the insurgency across Afghanistan, which is made up of at least 10 separate organisations, including the Afghan Taliban, does not once again control Afghanistan, thereby allowing that country to be used for training, resourcing, financing, equipping, indoctrinating and assisting terrorists.
Whilst it is true that some of the so-called Taliban moderates reconciled with the Afghan government long ago, the remaining Taliban, particular the southern Taliban, have splintered into several antagonistic groups, ironically each more extreme than the other. Other insurgency forces, like the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani network, at times are little more than opportunistic criminal families or factions, though they are organised, ruthless and brutal, as evidenced by the recent attack on the Hotel Inter-Continental in Kabul.
In war, perceptions tend to lag behind reality by a considerable distance. That was the case in the early years, up to 2005, when the West re-engaged in Afghanistan and, at the opposite end of the spectrum, I believe it is also the case now. This can go some way to explaining President Obama's announcement of the withdrawal of 33,000 troops by summer 2012, tempered by the fact that this is also the number of extra surge troops that were committed in 2009 and that were always going to be removed at some point in the future. As the minister said, at the end of the surge withdrawal by summer 2012 the US will still have some 68,000 combat troops in theatre.
The message is that the counterinsurgency strategy is working, and I agree with the minister that there is a degree of cautious optimism. The strategy is more than just hearts and minds and includes a range of commonsense precepts about applying well-calibrated kinetic activity with building up economic activity. The Pashto-speaking Major Jim Gant's treatise, entitled One Tribe at a Time, describes part of the approach that is working. Furthermore, while provincial reconstruction still has a long way to go, the level of economic activity, and thus some degree of legitimacy of the government over that of the Taliban, is slowly improving. The International Council on Security and Development, an organisation long critical of US policy in Afghanistan, is echoing the US sentiment that, as a result of the surge and refined strategy, many of the Taliban's long-time safe havens in Helmand and Kandahar have been destroyed. Mid-level Taliban commanders and their networks have been disrupted, dismantled or destroyed by special forces, with General Petraeus telling the US armed services committee in March 2011 that, in a typical three-month period, 360 insurgent leaders were killed or captured. According to observers, the average age of Taliban has dropped from 35 to 25 in the past year, with most senior commanders now choosing to live in Pakistan in relative safety and issuing orders to those beneath them to take up the fight.
We all recognise within the realm of strategic operations that we cannot kill our way to victory in Afghanistan. Whilst judicious and lawful use of kinetic activity is certainly required to disrupt, dismantle and destroy insurgent networks, there is a greater need to protect civilian populations for the provincial reconstruction to occur and the economic life of that community to continue unabated. This is certainly part of the key to the effective withdrawal of combat forces by 2014. The standing up of the Afghan National Army is taking time, but I agree with the minister that it is working. Whilst Tajiks are overrepresented in the officer corps and Pashtuns from the south are grossly underrepresented amongst the rank and file, the overall composition of the Afghan National Army remains reasonably ethnically well-balanced.
The ANA have also assumed security responsibility in Bamyan province, the first of the 48 provinces, and over half of our patrol bases within Oruzgan province are manned solely by ANA soldiers. As the minister has reported, by month's end the Afghan government is looking for transition in up to a further seven provinces. Retention rates within the ANA are slowly rising, albeit from a low base. Pay rates have gone up US$140 a month for a raw recruit; and of course the average wage in Afghanistan is only $40 a month. The ANA is on track to reach its November 2011 goal of 171,000 personnel, which will increase to 260,000 by 2014. There have been similar increases in Afghan police over the past year, to an expected 134,000 by the end of 2011. There will be 303,000 personnel in the ANA and ANP by the end of 2011.
By way of reflection, in 2001, 10 years ago, Kabul was a ghost town and home to 500,000 repressed, cold—because no heating worked—and oppressed people. There was no music, no dancing in the streets, no cinemas and little entertainment. It is now a thriving city of some three million people—cafes, shops, cinemas, music, girls and boys at school. In fact, two months ago when I was there, driving through the main street of Kabul it was refreshing to see little boys and girls skipping to school, playing with tyres, playing with dodgy toys, chatting on the sidewalk. It was great to see people milling around in their thousands, to the point that it reminded me more of a somewhat busy and crowded Asian city.
In 2001, 9 per cent of Afghans had access to basic medical care—just 9 per cent. Today it is 85 per cent. In 2001, less than 1 million boys went to school; today, seven million young Afghans go to school, one-third of whom are girls. In 2001, you struggled to find a phone. Today, one in three Afghans have a mobile phone. That is staggering. In 2001, only the Taliban's Voice of Sharia hit the airwaves; today there are over 100 active press outlets in Afghanistan. Afghan GDP growth today is 22 per cent, with almost $1 trillion of mineral wealth believed to be in the dirt, including rare metals such as lithium. By way of comparison, and this is for comparison only, each year, currently, more people are killed in Russia and Mexico because of political and criminal violence then are killed in Afghanistan from military, criminal and political violence, notwithstanding the size of those communities. This reflection is simply to point out that the change in 10 years in Afghanistan has been significant—significant for the lives of the Afghan people; significant for the destruction of criminal and insurgent networks that would seek to do us harm.
We must not forget that Afghan politics continues to be, in our view, corrupt, although in a federalised system the provinces simply look to the President for security and the odd gift, otherwise the strongly independent provinces ask to be left alone. There is substantial work going into governance issues within the Afghan government, and that needs to be encouraged and further developed. Previous moves to strike a deal with the Taliban have proved fruitless and the intensity of attacks has certainly increased, with the 8,000 insurgent incidents—IED, small-arms fire and rocket, mortar and suicide attacks—in 2008 doubling to more than 17,000 in 2010. This is, more than anything else, representative of the intensity of the ISAF and the Operation Enduring Freedom activity and the need for the Taliban to try to hold their own against inevitable defeat. Despite this, negotiations with the Taliban continue in the hope of brokering a way forward with a deal, and to that end I remain cautiously hopeful.
I join the minister in expressing careful optimism, having been in theatre three times in the past 24 months and having seen substantial improvement on each of those occasions. Most notably, to share an example with the House, I was in Tarin Kowt in October last year with the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. Around seven kilometres from Tarin Kowt, as Tony and I stood there in theatre, a massive military operation was underway with efforts by the MTF to put a patrol base in the Mirabad Valley, a mere seven kilometres from the fire support base at Tarin Kowt. So vicious was the fighting that it went over many hours and days. Fast jets were called in, and a section 2IC seeking to resupply the MTF, fighting on a small mound above where the patrol base was taking such a degree of direct aimed fire, had to lie doggo to show the enemy that he was dead so fire would be lifted and he could resume his resupply run—a vicious, brutal fight on a peninsula off from the valley base.
A patrol base at Musaza'i now stands where that battle took place. Two months ago I flew in there with Colonel Creighton, the commander of Combined Team Uruzgan, the CTU. The helicopter landed and we walked across the low-lying hill down to the patrol base, crossing the scene of that battle with thousands of expended ammunition shells across the ground. We walked down to the patrol base, met with the men who were manning the patrol base at the that time, 5 Battalion MTF2, and we then spent the next 90 minutes with the local shura, a meeting of the local elders. For those 90 minutes we were sitting down with 20 or 30 Afghan elders from the Mirabad Valley, not once was it suggested that we needed to do something about security in the area. Questions were asked: 'When is the road coming? Thank you for the mosque but can we have some access? When is health care coming? Thanks for some education; can we have more?' Not once was the question of national security asked. The difference between October last year and May this year in the lower parts of the Mirabad Valley speaks louder than any words possibly could. I note that Australia, in the minister's words, is committed to a metrics based, command judged drawdown; valley by valley, patrol base by patrol base. For this it has the overwhelming support of the coalition.
As so many nations flocked to withdraw forces and announce forced withdrawals on the back of the US announcement, I applaud the minister for holding his nerve and not making a political announcement, but sticking to the very sensible approach of a metrics based, command judged drawdown. He has overwhelming coalition support on a sensible approach to the withdrawal of troops as we move towards 2014. I note that of the over 25 patrol bases—forward operating bases out there in the valley—that at least half are manned solely by the Afghan National Army, proving the minister's point that we are already beginning a drawdown in terms of valley by valley, patrol base by patrol base, with some oversight by MTF forces. It is our expectation, Minister, that as we move to actual withdrawal of combat troops from the theatre the coalition will be informed of the metrics based, command judged approach to that withdrawal as it happens.
I take on face value the minister's statement that our drawdown is on track towards 2014. I also acknowledge the minister's statement that post drawdown we will continue to have a degree of overwatch forces in place that may include elements such as special forces, training components and reconstruction components. I thank the minister for his update on the mentoring task force where Lieutenant Colonel Darren Huxley, a classmate of mine, has withdrawn the 5th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment to be replaced by Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Smith with the 2nd Battalion. I note the great work of the 5th Battalion—over 2½ thousand patrols, 100 contacts by elements of the MTF, over 100 IEDs found, and 380 weapon and cache locations discovered. It was one of the most successful winter operations ever conducted by Australian forces within the combat area. I thank and give praise to Lieutenant Colonel Darren Huxley for the great work he and his battalion did in trying and difficult circumstances.
I welcome the rotation of the 2nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment under Lieutenant Colonel Smith with the MTF 3. Lieutenant Colonel Smith, you are going into a hard fight. The fighting season is well and truly upon you, as the SOTG and other elements have warned so harshly over the last few months. It is necessary that we continue the hard work with the mentoring of Afghan national forces in support of the kinetic disrupting and dismantling work of special operations to drive home the peace that we currently hold on to.
The provincial reconstruction team has now grown to over 189 staff, ably led by a great Australian. With funding increased to over $30 million this financial year, on top of the over $100 million from the Australian budget for the wider Afghanistan, it is already making a significant difference. When I landed in Musazai base, Colonel Crichton the head of the PRT, who was also on the same helicopter as me, jumped off to travel with some local Afghans to look at a bridge that needed to be fixed in the area. It just goes to show the provincial reconstruction, civilian and military teams working together.
I continue to praise the work of the Special Operations Task Group, commanded by another colonel colleague of mine who took over my platoon, the 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment. He is doing tremendous work in leading his men incredibly well. They are the third largest special forces group and their work with training the provincial response company of the ANP is proving of enormous benefit.
I reiterate to the minister that a political cap of 1,550 people should be able to be flexible and that the commander should be able to use judgment to use wider forces within the MEAO to affect command and judgment and effects on the ground. As we head into a difficult fighting season, I wish all the men and women who fight within the Middle East area of operations the best of luck. They enjoy our thoughts and our prayers.
As the 2nd Battalion takes over the Mentoring Task Force, and the bulk of the Special Operations Task Group is comprised of the 2nd Commando Regiment based on 4RAR, we now ostensibly have the old 2nd/4th Battalion back in operation again—this time in separate MTF and the SOTG forces. The coalition wishes them the very best. We will monitor their progress with great interest. We will support them to the hilt and we will continue to offer bipartisan support to the government to ensure our fighting men and women have everything they need to effect victory within Afghanistan.
I thank the shadow minister for defence for his remarks. On a separate matter, in respect of which I have given the shadow minister notice, I present a redacted version of the HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry report Allegations of unacceptable behaviour and the management thereof—part two: the management of the allegations and personnel involved.
HMAS Success is a supply ship used for the supply of fuel, ammunition, food and stores to naval units at sea. In March 2009, Success left Sydney for a deployment to South-East Asia and China. Between March and May 2009, incidents of unacceptable behaviour were brought to attention. These incidents were the subject of an internal Defence inquiry, a Senate estimates examination and a Senate inquiry. In March 2010, the then Chief of the Defence Force commissioned Roger Gyles QC to conduct an independent commission of inquiry into these matters. On 22 February, I tabled a redacted version of part 1 of the commission of inquiry report, which made very sorry reading about the failure of personal conduct, the failure of discipline, the failure of authority and the inappropriate culture aboard HMAS Success.
Last month I received part 2 of the report. Part 2 deals with Navy administrative inquiries, the management of three landed senior sailors, response to media queries and reporting, the treatment of the legal officer representing the landed senior sailors, and Australian Defence Force Investigative Service investigations. Part 2 identifies a number of very significant shortcomings in the management of the three landed senior sailors. As a result, they suffered an injustice for which Mr Gyles recommends both an apology and compensation. The report also rejects criticisms of bias made of a 2009 Defence inquiry into allegations on board HMAS Success.
I have just tabled a redacted version of part 2 of Mr Gyles's report. The redactions are made on legal advice to prevent the identification of individuals who may be subject to disciplinary procedures. I provided a copy of the full report in confidence to Senator Mark Bishop, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Senator Kroger, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee; and Senator Johnston, the shadow minister for defence. This satisfies undertakings made to keep the Senate fully informed of these matters. The Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy have accepted the findings and recommendations and will take action on all of Mr Giles's recommendations contained in part 2 of his inquiry. This includes a properly framed apology to the three landed senior sailors from the Chief of Navy for the failure to accord them proper process and an offer to make a payment of monetary compensation for each of them. It also includes an apology to the authors of the 2009 inquiry from the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy. Part 3 of Mr Giles's report will examine in more detail the conduct of administrative inquiries and wider considerations such as the interplay between enforcement of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, administrative decisions, redress of grievance and the role of equity and diversity policy. I thank the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: it has been announced this morning that the Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation, Dr Stephen Gumley, will retire as the Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation and from Defence. His retirement will take effect from today after more than 7½ years in one of the most difficult and challenging jobs in Canberra and in government. The Minister for Defence Materiel is in the chamber and he shares my view that Dr Gumley has done a very good job in difficult and challenging circumstances.
Dr Gumley became the CEO of the Defence Materiel Organisation in 2004, and in 2005 he oversaw the transformation of the DMO to a prescribed agency. The DMO is Australia's largest project manager, and in the course of his time as CEO Dr Gumley has presided over the implementation of significant reforms in the procurement area, most notably implementation of the Kinnaird and Mortimer reviews, and we are now seeing projects subject to those reforms improving in the range of 20 to 25 per cent so far as schedule slippage is concerned. Over his time in the DMO Dr Gumley has successfully managed the delivery of significant defence materiel to the Australia Defence Force including Super Hornets, Abrams tanks, Bushmasters and C17s, and he has overseen Australia's involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program.
Dr Gumley leaves the Defence Materiel Organisation, and the defence organisation itself, in a much stronger and better position than when he joined some 7½ years ago. The Minister for Defence Materiel and I thank him for his significant contribution, the government thanks him for his significant contribution and we wish him all the best for the future.
On indulgence: I would like to provide a few comments in response to the minister's tabling of the second report, the Giles report into HMAS Success, and I would also like to provide a few comments to farewell Dr Stephen Gumley from DMO.
With respect to the Giles report, the second report into Success, I will leave it to Senator David Johnston in the Senate to provide any comment as to the style and substance of the document. I will certainly point out the coalition's strong, enduring and ongoing support for the Navy and its personnel and its people who work in trying and difficult circumstances in all four corners of the globe in the area in which they serve. Notwithstanding, all organisations have their challenges and Navy is not immune to that. Sailors and officers of the Royal Australian Navy need to know that the coalition offers complete support for their continued work. Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, who has taken over as Chief of Navy, has a challenging and difficult time ahead of him as the Navy transitions in some significant areas. The new HMS Largs Bay comes into service with amphibious vessels working with Kanimbla and Tobruk and they will transition through to two landing helicopter dock, LHD, ships and of course the AWDs, which will significantly transform Navy as we know it. That of course will include the transformation of Army with an amphibious force that will work lock, stock and barrel with a substantially improved combat capability on the surface of the ocean. The force structure review may well throw up a range of options and indeed surprises for the military as to where some of this naval force structure will be deployed, and Vice Admiral Griggs will need to deal with these enduring challenges.
I know Navy is up to the task as these platforms come into service. As the minister moves forward with the submarine program, Vice Admiral Griggs will have to come to deal not only with the current sustainment issues with the current fleet of Collins but with the new submarine development program. Rarely has a service seen such change as the Royal Australian Navy will endure in the coming years. I am confident that Vice Admiral Griggs is up to the challenge. He knows he enjoys the support of the coalition for all of our sailors and officers within the Royal Australian Navy and he knows he will enjoy our support and encouragement as he tackles the difficult challenges ahead with the transformation of the Navy based on its surface and subsurface combatant fleet changes.
As Dr Gumley prepares to leave, the coalition wishes him all the very best. As CEO of the Defence Materiel Organisation from 2004 to now he has seen enormous changes. He has seen first and second pass approvals from 2005 to 2007 numbering something like 25 to 30 each year—a significant transformation of defence and its equipment that has come through from the DMO. As the minister said, he has seen the transition of DMO through to a prescribed agency and he has led the changes admirably. I have had the pleasure of speaking with Dr Gumley many times not only within industry visits but also within committee. His advice has always been frank, fearless, direct and honest. Looking across at Minister Clare, I think it would have been a pleasure to work with someone of such calibre who gives such open and direct advice. DMO still has its challenges; there is no question about that and the minister would be the first one to acknowledge those challenges. As DMO seeks to move forward with probably the greatest volume of military equipment our nation has seen, DMO will need to rise to that challenge. It will need to engage with industry in a very meaningful way. It will need to engage with Capability Development Group in an incredibly meaningful way to ensure that we can get the equipment and the capabilities that our fighting men and women so desperately need. I am looking forward to the minister driving DMO forward. I am looking forward to the announcement of a replacement for Dr Stephen Gumley and to meeting that person, sitting down and giving them the coalition's view on DMO and its challenges.
I acknowledge the hard work that Dr Gumley has done. Many people here may not know that every single one of the projects provides a weekly brief to Dr Gumley that outlines the state of the project and where it is up to. Every Saturday Dr Gumley will go through those written briefs for up to six or seven hours to check off every single project that he is looking at. That is not how you and I like to spend our Saturdays. I take the kids to the beach and the park and have fun. Dr Gumley spends it reviewing projects and making sure that, to the best of his ability, his organisation is doing what it can to deliver.
DMO has its challenges. We will continue to hold the minister accountable for those challenges. We will scrutinise his activities. I note that the commentariat have said that, with only 10 first and second pass approvals last year, for Force 2030 to be on track something like 58 first and second pass approvals will be required from the government this year. As I said to the minister yesterday, I have the DCP hanging on my wall and I shall be ticking off every first and second pass approval as it comes through. I will be holding you, Minister, absolutely accountable as the weeks and months tick by as to how the national security committee of cabinet is going with those first and second pass approvals and I will continue to give you a running update, Minister, as to how many have passed and how many you have to go.
To Dr Gumley I offer my sincere thanks and the thanks of the coalition for his hard work and work well done.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 will amend various acts to give effect to a 2009-10 budget measure to introduce three new private health insurance incentives tiers.
The new arrangements will commence on the later of 1 January 2012 or the day on which the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Act 2011 receives royal assent or the day on which the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 2011 receives royal assent. However, they will not commence at all unless both the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Act 2011 and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 2011 receive royal assent.
The bill was twice introduced into the House of Representatives on 27 May 2009 and 19 November 2009, where it was passed on 2 June 2009 and 3 February 2010 respectively. This bill was also previously introduced into the Senate on 15 June 2009 and 4 February 2010 and on 9 September 2009 and 9 March 2010, respectively, a motion moved in the Senate that this bill be read a second time was defeated.
The government is re-introducing this bill because we want to make the private health insurance rebate fairer and more sustainable into the future.
The government supports a mixed model of balanced private and public health services. We are committed to a sustainable private health system, and to ensure it remains sustainable the government will rebalance support for private health insurance to provide a fairer distribution of benefits.
Let me emphasise one point that has been missing in much of the debate about these changes. The vast majority of taxpayers with private health insurance will not be affected by the means testing this legislation introduces. Singles earning $80,000 or less and couples and families earning $160,000 or less will receive the same rebate as they currently enjoy.
In fact, the government’s changes will ensure that these taxpayers receive a greater share of the private health insurance rebate than they currently get.
Under the rebate model we inherited from the Howard government, approximately 14 per cent of single taxpayers who have incomes above $80,000 receive about 28 per cent of the total private health insurance rebate paid to singles based on an average premium—or twice their population share.
And approximately 12 per cent of couple taxpayers who have incomes above $160,000 receive about 21 per cent of the total private health insurance rebate paid to couples based on an average premium—again, almost twice their population share.
So when the opposition was in government it designed a system that favoured wealthier income earners; that is, people like myself and the opposition spokesperson on health—not the cleaners and security guards who work in this building.
How does the Leader of the Opposition reconcile his track record on this issue when he was health minister with the crocodile tears he was crying for the ‘forgotten families’ in his budget reply?
Under our reforms, the 14 percent of single taxpayers earning more than $80,000 with private health insurance will receive about 12 per cent of the total private health insurance rebate paid to singles based on an average premium.
Similarly, the 12 per cent of couple taxpayers earning more than $160,000 a year will receive around nine per cent of the total private health insurance rebate paid to couples based on an average premium.
Far from being an attack on families as some have alleged, this bill reinforces an important principle that has underpinned the Australian tax transfer system for decades—that the greatest share of benefits are provided to those on lower and middle incomes.
There is a second crucial principle at stake here—the need to ensure our health system is placed on a sustainable footing for the future.
Spending on the private health insurance rebate is growing rapidly and is expected to double as a proportion of health expenditure within the next 40 years.
Clearly this presents challenges in the current fiscal environment. It is estimated that these reforms will result in savings to government expenditure of around $2.8 billion across the forward estimates. This will help ensure that the government support for private health insurance remains fair and sustainable. The opposition’s previous refusal to support this legislation has already hit the 2010-11 budget bottom line by $890 million. If we do not act now the fiscal consequences will only worsen. Treasury estimates that not passing this legislation will have a cumulative impact on health spending of around $100 billion over the next 40 years.
No-one professing an interest in good fiscal management can ignore these statistics.
The opposition have also said on the record that if they oppose savings measures they will identify where these savings can be found in the budget. On 22 June this year Kevin Andrews said in this House:
... if we are going to oppose measures which the government puts forward and that opposition will lead to a cost to the budget, we will identify where the savings are going to be made in the budget in order to compensate for that loss to the budget.
I challenge the opposition to now find an area in the health portfolio where an equivalent saving of $2.8 billion can be found that will not have a noticeable impact on the health outcomes of Australians as is the case with this means testing of the private health insurance rebate.
So the government will act.
From 1 January 2012 the government proposes to introduce three new private health insurance incentive tiers. The tiers will mean high-income earners receive lower government payments for private health insurance but will face an increase in costs if they opt out of private health cover.
The government’s commitment to retaining the private health insurance rebate remains. Rebates for low- and middle-income earners will be unchanged, with the government continuing to pay 30 per cent of the premium cost for a person earning $80,000 or less and couples and families earning $160,000 or less. The existing rebates for older Australians will remain in place for people earning below these thresholds—35 per cent for people aged 65 to 69 and 40 per cent for people aged 70 years and over.
These people will continue to have no surcharge liability if they decide not to take out appropriate private health insurance.
The new tiered system will be introduced for higher income earners and will set three different rebate levels and surcharge levels based on income and age. The purpose of this is to reduce the carrot but increase the stick and ensure that those who can afford to contribute more for their health insurance do so. The government does not believe it is appropriate for low-income earners to subsidise the private health insurance costs of high-income earners.
Tier 1 will apply to singles with an income of more than $80,000 a year and couples and families with an income of more than $160,000. For these people the private health insurance rebate will be 20 per cent for those up to 65 years, 25 per cent for those aged 65 to 69, and 30 per cent for those aged 70 and over.
The Medicare levy surcharge for people in this tier who do not hold appropriate private health insurance will remain at one per cent.
Tier 2 applies to singles earning more than $93,000 a year and couples and families earning more than $186,000. The rebate will be 10 per cent for those up to 65 years, 15 per cent for those aged 65 to 69, and 20 per cent for those aged 70 and over. The surcharge for people in this tier who do not have appropriate private health insurance will be increased to 1.25 per cent of income.
Tier 3 affects singles earning more than $124,000 a year and couples and families earning more than $248,000 a year. No private health insurance rebate will be paid for people who fall within the third tier and the surcharge for avoiding private health insurance will be increased to 1.5 per cent of income for these people.
Annual indexation to average weekly earnings of the tiers income thresholds will ensure that these changes remain equitable and can be maintained into the future.
There have been some hysterical claims made in recent times about the effects of these changes.
None more so than the claim in the recent Australian Health Insurance Association report that 1.6 million people would abandon private health cover if the government introduced a means test for the rebate.
I will not waste any time with the House pointing out the flaws in this report, which are many, but I would draw the attention of the House to the statement about the impact of rebate changes issued to the Australian Stock Exchange by the private health insurer NIB on 4 May 2011 which said:
... our analysis indicates any impact would be moderate, which is in line with previous Treasury estimates which … rely upon the countervailing influence of the Medicare Levy Surcharge and proposed increases.
As the NIB statement points out, the government is retaining a system of carrots and sticks that will minimise the impact of the proposed changes.
The increased Medicare levy surcharge for people on higher incomes will help ensure that about 99.7 per cent of insured people remain in private health insurance. This is because those high-income earners who receive a lower rebate will face a higher tax penalty for avoiding private health insurance.
It is estimated that approximately 27,000 people may no longer be covered by private health insurance hospital cover and that this might result in 8,500 additional public hospital admissions over two years.
When considered against the fact that public hospitals have around 4.7 million admissions per year, the impact of this measure will be insignificant.
The Ipsos syndicated survey: Health Care & Insurance Australia 2009 was released on 2 November 2009. According to Ipsos even fewer people (approximately 16,000) would drop their private hospital insurance than estimated by the government— provided that insurers inform their members about the impact of Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare levy surcharge.
In summary, this measure will make private health fairer, more balanced and more sustainable in the long term. By maintaining a carefully designed system of carrots and sticks, it will have a negligible effect on both private health insurance premiums and the public hospital system.
At the same time, low- and middle-income earners who choose to have private health insurance will continue to enjoy the benefit of a significant government rebate.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 will amend the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to give effect to the budget measure to introduce three new private health insurance incentive tiers.
The bill will commence concurrently with the commencement of the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 2011. This bill, like the one that I have just introduced, was previously twice introduced into the House of Representatives and passed.
This bill was also previously introduced twice into the Senate and defeated. The bill is being introduced again into the House of Representatives to give effect to the budget measure to introduce the private health insurance incentive tiers that will make the private health rebate fairer.
The Medicare Levy Act 1986 determines whether an individual is liable to pay the Medicare levy surcharge in respect of their taxable income or that of their spouse. The individual’s income for surcharge purposes determines whether a person must pay the surcharge. If the individual’s income exceeds prescribed income thresholds they will need to pay the appropriate level of surcharge.
The bill inserts the new tier system in order to determine which level of surcharge a person must pay where they do not hold appropriate private health insurance. This bill makes up the carrot and stick process that I spoke about when introducing the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 just a few moments ago.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011 will amend the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to give effect to the budget measure to introduce three new private health insurance incentive tiers.
This bill will commence concurrently with the commencement of the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 2011.
Like the previous two bills that I have just introduced, this bill was previously twice introduced into the House of Representatives, where it was passed, and twice introduced into the Senate, where a motion that it be read a second time was defeated. This bill is again being introduced into the House of Representatives to give effect to the budget measure to introduce the private health insurance incentive tiers that will make the private health insurance rebate fairer.
The A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 determines whether an individual is liable to pay the Medicare levy surcharge in respect of a reportable fringe benefits total they or their spouse may have. The individual’s income for surcharge purposes determines whether a person must pay the surcharge. If the individual’s income exceeds prescribed income thresholds they will need to pay the appropriate level of surcharge.
This bill inserts the new tier system in order to determine which level of surcharge a person must pay where they do not hold appropriate private health insurance and, similarly to the previous bill, is an important part of this package to reform the private health insurance system.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That Main Committee orders of the day No. 10, relating to live cattle exports, and No. 12, relating to computers in schools, private members' business, be returned to the House for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following orders of the day, private members’ business, being called on, and considered immediately in the following order:
Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011—Order of the day No. 25;
Computers in schools—Order of the day; and
Live cattle exports—Order of the day.
It is the intention of the House to have the second reading vote on the Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011. It will then be referred to the Selection Committee where there will be further time allocated for the consideration in detail stage.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That following the completion of the discussion of a matter of public importance, items of government business that have been scheduled for consideration and the transaction of any business necessary in connection with messages from the Senate:
(1) the sitting be suspended until 10.00 am on Monday, 11 July 2011;
(2) when the sitting is resumed on Monday 11 July 2011:
(a) the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change each be permitted to make statements for periods not exceeding 15 minutes to outline to the House the details of the Government’s plans for the introduction and operation of a carbon tax;
(b) the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of The Nationals each be permitted to make statements for periods not exceeding 15 minutes in connection with the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers; and
(c) other Members be permitted to make statements for periods not exceeding 10 minutes on the same matter, the call being alternated in a manner that permits government, opposition and non-aligned Members to speak in accordance with their representation in the House; and
(d) from 2.00 pm until 3.30 pm the Prime Minister and the other Ministers who are Members of the House attend in the Chamber and answer questions in relation to the Government’s plans for the introduction and operation of a carbon tax, in accordance with the rules set out in standing order 98 to 104 so far as they are applicable.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sturt moving the following motion forthwith—That following the completion of the discussion of a matter of public importance, items of government business that have been scheduled for consideration and the transaction of any business necessary in connection with messages from the Senate:
(1) the sitting be suspended until 10.00 am on Monday, 11 July 2011;
(2) when the sitting is resumed on Monday 11 July 2011:
(a) the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change each be permitted to make statements for periods not exceeding 15 minutes to outline to the House the details of the Government’s plans for the introduction and operation of a carbon tax;
(b) the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of The Nationals each be permitted to make statements for periods not exceeding 15 minutes in connection with the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers; and
(c) other Members be permitted to make statements for periods not exceeding 10 minutes on the same matter, the call being alternated in a manner that permits government, opposition and non-aligned Members to speak in accordance with their representation in the House; and
(d) from 2.00 pm until 3.30 pm the Prime Minister and the other Ministers who are Members of the House attend in the Chamber and answer questions in relation to the Government’s plans for the introduction and operation of a carbon tax, in accordance with the rules set out in standing order 98 to 104 so far as they are applicable.
It is vital that standing orders be suspended, because we are in the absolutely absurd position in this parliament that the government announced on Monday that they would announce details of a carbon tax the following Sunday—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
The House divided. [10:37]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and seek to move that the member for Sturt's time be extended by up to five minutes.
The member for Cowper should have moved immediately that the time be extended because now, in seconding the motion, he has moved on. The member has the call.
This is the most cowardly government in the history of the Australian parliament and it is absolutely vital that the standing orders be suspended so that we can consider the impact of this carbon tax on the Australian people. This government is attempting to escape scrutiny at every turn. This government is showing cowardice in the face of the Australian people and that is why it is vital that the standing orders be suspended.
We have a situation where small businesses are struggling. We have a situation where the Australian people are facing massive increases in the cost of living. On top of that, we have a government proposing to introduce a carbon tax that is going to impose a massive impost on the Australian people. It is an impost that Australian families cannot afford to bear. It is an impost that this government did not put to the Australian people at the last election. We had a situation where the Prime Minister said, 'There would be no carbon tax under a government that I lead,' yet just weeks into her prime ministership after that election she went back on that solemn promise to the Australian people. How can the Australian people have faith in this Prime Minister? How can the Australian people trust anything she says? That is why standing orders must be suspended.
It is vital that they be suspended so that the parliament can sit on Monday and consider this very important issue. Why are the government running from scrutiny? Why are the government failing to face the parliament on this issue? Why are they being so gutless as to wait until there is a major break in parliament before releasing the important details of the carbon tax, a carbon tax that needs the immediate scrutiny of the Australian people?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order!
We urgently need to consider the impact of this carbon tax. We have a very rag-tag association with the Independents, who are pushing this. Every other member in this House—even the members opposite—does not want a carbon tax. The members opposite see the folly of this but the Prime Minister, because of her alliance with the Greens and because of her dependence on Bob Brown—the real Prime Minister of this country—is actually forced to introduce this carbon tax.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The member for Cowper has the call.
We need a question time so that we can consider these issues before the House so that the parliament can properly scrutinise this carbon tax, so that the parliament can properly scrutinise the important issue that is before it. We have the situation where this is the biggest economic change in the history of this country and they are running from scrutiny. They have been running from scrutiny for days. We had a situation where the Prime Minister was so gutless that earlier in the week she said she would announce the details of the carbon tax, but she would not announce them until such time as the parliament had risen. That is not acceptable. It is absolutely not acceptable—that we would have the parliament rising before proper scrutiny of this important matter.
The Australian people deserve better. They deserve a real Prime Minister. They do not deserve Bob Brown and they certainly do not deserve the current Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who has proved to be running an incompetent government, a Prime Minister who has proved to be denying the opportunity for this parliament to scrutinise this very important issue, an issue which is front and centre in the minds of the Australian people. We see in the media report after report of businesses facing great difficulty. We see reports of families struggling with the cost of living. It is real and this government is in denial. It is in denial of the needs of the Australian people. It is in denial of the needs of Australian families for relief from cost-of-living pressures.
We have a government that is intent on pursuing its own interests. We have a government that is intent on avoiding scrutiny and that is why the standing orders need to be suspended. We need the parliament to resume on Monday so the Prime Minister can face the music and be duly scrutinised in a timely matter—not in a few weeks time, but on Monday. The Australian people deserve better than a Prime Minister who is running from scrutiny at every turn, a Prime Minister who is failing to give parliament the opportunity to properly consider this very important economic change, a change that is going to have widespread repercussions for the whole economy. (Time expired)
I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. While the member for Cowper was speaking, we had such outrageous outbursts from the other side that it was really worse than question time. I draw your attention to the fact that no-one was named or warned while that entire outburst was going on. It was worse than any question time.
I thank the member for Dawson for the fact that he seems to have now learnt about proper behaviour, but I can tell him that one of the real problems was that there was a level of noise from behind the member for Cowper as well.
Mr Speaker, that point of order from the member for Dawson was just too much. We should oppose this suspension of standing orders because we want to get on with the business of government. Those opposite are struggling for relevance so much that not only have they sought to disrupt half of the question times through suspensions of standing orders but also they are now seeking to suspend standing orders while ordinary government business is being conducted. We are about to have before the parliament a series of business matters including committee reports, important health legislation moved by the minister for health—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
The House divided. [10:56]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion moved by the member for Sturt that standing and sessional orders be suspended be agreed to.
The House divided. [11:03]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
I move:
That the time for the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests to present its report on the inquiry into a Draft Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament be extended to the end of 2011.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Defence Force Academy redevelopment, Canberra, ACT.
The Australian Defence Force Academy provides a learning and living environment for officers and cadets of the Australia Defence Force undertaking military training and university studies. The scope and delivery of military training and education has changed since the academy opened in 1986. These changes have resulted in a gap between the current facilities provision and those required.
The government proposes to invest $98.5 million, plus GST, into a range of facilities to meet the future academic and military training needs of the Australian Defence Force. The proposed works include:
In its report, the Public Works Committee recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, the project is scheduled to commence construction late this year and be completed by the end of 2014. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development and construction of housing for the Department of Defence at Muirhead, Darwin, NT.
Defence Housing Australia, DHA, proposes to develop stages 2 to 7 of the Muirhead site, Darwin, Northern Territory, for residential construction. DHA will construct 279 houses for Defence members. Housing will accord with DHA’s national design and construction specifications for DHA residences. The total out-turn cost of the proposal is estimated at $410 million, inclusive of GST and land acquisition, with the net costs reduced through the sales of surplus lots.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed subject to the recommendations of the Committee. DHA accepts and will implement those recommendations. Subject to parliamentary approval, DHA will deliver 279 dwellings for defence personnel posted in Darwin. The project will be delivered over an eight-year period, with the first house due for completion in December 2013. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Robertson Barracks electrical reticulation system upgrade, Darwin, NT.
Robertson Barracks is a key Defence base in the Northern Territory and is located approximately 20km east of Darwin. It is the home of 1st Brigade, 1st Aviation Regiment and a number of lodger units. The base supports a working population of approximately 3,500 personnel. It was constructed in the 1990s under an initiative called the Army Presence in the North.
The original high-voltage system at Robertson Barracks has undergone ad hoc extensions over the past 13 years as the demand for power has grown. The existing high-voltage system is nearing its capacity and has insufficient redundancy to cope with disruptions to the power supply such as outages during tropical storms. The emergency power station has inadequate capacity and cannot fully support capability during power outages. It also lacks the controls necessary for effective power switching and load shedding, which is necessary to ensure that power supply is maintained to critical areas of the base. These shortcomings have a direct impact on the operation of the base and constrain future growth and development.
There is a pressing need to upgrade the high-voltage power supply and distribution network to provide a reliable and flexible system which has sufficient capacity to meet future demands. To this end, Defence proposed the following work:
Without a comprehensive upgrade, the high-voltage infrastructure will continue to be affected by power failures and will be further compromised by the need to undertake ad hoc and costly upgrades each time there is an increase in the demand for power. The proposed upgrade will provide a purpose designed power distribution system that will resolve existing inadequacies and will provide for growth and development at the base for approximately 15 years. The estimated cost of the proposed works is $43.4 million, plus GST.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence in late 2011 and is expected to be completed by mid-2013. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
As required by resolution of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 24 March 2011 and 6 July 2011.
I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the report be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee’s report, incorporating a dissenting report and additional comments, entitled 'The 2010 Federal Election—Report on the conduct of the election and related matters', together with the minutes of proceedings. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
This report continues the tradition of examining and reporting on the conduct of federal elections and relevant legislation which has been carried out by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and its predecessor, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, since 1983. The 2010 federal election was the first winter election since 1987, which created some challenges for the Australian Electoral Commission in terms of the locations to be serviced due to the increased mobility of electors during this period. The High Court decision in Rowe v Electoral Commissioner reinstating the seven-day close-of-rolls period and the Federal Court's decision in Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner regarding the use of electronic signatures also impacted to varying degrees on the election and its conduct by the AEC. The Rowe case enfranchised almost 100,000 electors, including 57,732 new electors who would otherwise have lost their voting franchise. The decision highlighted the need to protect the democratic right of Australians to participate in choosing their representatives, as provided for in the Constitution. This committee has a role to play in assisting to enfranchise eligible Australians. Making enfranchisement a priority does not mean the integrity of the roll is compromised.
The committee has made some 37 recommendations in this report to help protect the enrolment and voting franchise of Australians and to make other changes to improve the conduct of future elections. Overall, the AEC delivered a highly professional and independent service in its conduct of the 2010 federal election. However, there were the regrettable incidents in the divisions of Boothby in South Australia and Flynn in Queensland where thousands of votes could not be counted due to polling official error. The committee trusts that these were mistakes which the AEC has learnt from and will act to prevent any such occurrences of in the future.
The level of electoral participation in the 2010 federal election was of particular concern. AEC figures indicate that there were 3.1 million Australians—20 per cent of the eligible population—who collectively: (a) were missing from the roll; (b) were not marked off a certified list and so presumably did not vote; or (c) cast a vote that did not meet the formality requirements for a valid vote under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. This means that a significant proportion of eligible Australians are not exercising their franchise.
Eligible electors have a duty to enrol for federal elections by completing an enrolment form and submitting it to the AEC and to notify the AEC of a change of address. However, it is sensible to recognise the changing nature of how Australians choose to interact with government and business. People increasingly expect to be able to conduct their professional and personal business electronically and efficiently. The paper based form and the postbox are gradually going out of fashion.
AEC enrolment activities are necessary and must continue, but they have not been effective in achieving growth in the Commonwealth electoral roll at the same rate as the growth in eligible electors. To help address this, the committee supports direct enrolment and the update of elector details based on data received from trusted sources. This is not a panacea to the problem of decline in electoral participation but rather another tool for the AEC to utilise when it performs its important roll maintenance function.
Another issue that the committee considered was the situation that arises when some eligible electors who have enrolled and believe they are on the roll turn up to vote and cannot be found on the certified list. This may be due to a polling official error or being removed from the roll as a result of the objection process the AEC is required to undertake. Electors not found to be on the list can cast a provisional vote. At the 2007 and 2010 federal elections, due to the stricter requirements introduced by the then government in 2006, if the elector was subsequently found to be on the electoral roll the elector still had to provide proof of identity on polling day or in the week following for their vote to be admitted to the count. However, those electors who had been removed as part of the AEC objection process on the basis that they were not resident at their enrolled address could not be reinstated if they were in fact still residing at that address.
At elections prior to the 2006 change, after the required checks to ensure the eligible elector was duly enrolled or could be reinstated if they had been removed in error, their vote could be admitted to the count. This meant that roughly 50 per cent of the provisional votes at the elections between 1996 and 2004 were admitted. However, the stricter requirements for proof of identity and the prevention of reinstatements saw the percentage of votes being rejected increase to over 80 per cent. In 2010, 166,148 provisional votes were rejected and only 37,340 were admitted, in contrast to the 2004 federal election prior to the tighter restrictions at which 90,366 provisional votes were rejected and 90,512 were admitted to the count. The government has since legislated to remove the proof of identity requirement that has contributed to increased rejection of provisional votes. The committee feels that the government must go further to address this matter and enable the AEC to reinstate eligible electors to the roll if they were removed in error and consequently have their votes admitted to the count.
Another matter of concern to the committee was the high number of informal votes in the 2010 election. The House of Representatives informality rate was 5.55 per cent—729,304 votes. That was an increase of 1.6 per cent, 218,482 votes, in the 2007 federal election. The committee has considered the options presented by participants to reduce the impact of informality. After careful consideration, the committee has recommended the adoption of a savings provision based on that used in South Australia. The committee notes that the system has been used in South Australian House of Assembly elections since 1985 and has saved many votes which would otherwise have been informal. The committee is particularly attracted to the system because it reinforces compulsory preferential voting, prohibits advocating other than full preferential voting, is transparent in that tickets must be lodged with the Electoral Commission and was designed by electoral administrators and not politicians. The South Australian ticket voting system, if applied to House of Representatives ballot papers, could save a significant portion of informal votes. At the 2010 federal election this could have been as much as 42.12 per cent—namely, 307,156 votes—of the informal vote, assuming that all the relevant candidates had followed the appropriate procedure and lodged tickets with their preferences. Australians expect that participation in the electoral process is accessible, convenient and does not impede their ability to go about their business. At the same time, it is fundamental to ensure accuracy, secrecy and integrity in enrolment, voting and counting processes. These competing demands must be satisfied in such a way that the electoral process remains inclusive while preserving the high levels of integrity necessary to ensure continued trust and acceptance of election results. The committee has sought to achieve such an outcome with the recommendations made in this report.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members for their contribution to the inquiry and those who participated by making submissions or appearing at the public hearings. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat for their assistance. I commend the report to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker D'Ath, I seek leave to make some comments concerning the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the conduct of the 2010 election.
Leave granted.
In listening to the remarks of the chairman of the committee, you might have thought that the report of the committee had universal support. It did not; it split very much along party lines. I think it is true to say there has not been a more partisan discussion in this committee for many years. Basically the thrust of the discussions surrounded the three changes—and I use the word 'change' as distinct from 'reform' because 'reform' has connotations of good things being done—that would advantage the government and the Greens. It is interesting that their submissions to the committee reflected each other and it was very disappointing that some commentary from the AEC seemed to support the Labor Party position.
There are three things that the Labor Party are very anxious to see introduced, as are the Greens. Firstly, they want to introduce the South Australian ticket-voting system, which would mean that electors who simply place a 1 on the ballot paper would have their vote allocated by a bureaucrat in accordance with a registered ticket and it would be illegal to tell people that is what would happen to their vote. The issue of how we vote is set out in our Constitution. The words in the Constitution say that 'The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth,' and this proposal by the Labor Party is very constitutionally risky. Under the voting system we have for the Senate, where you may vote above the line, you may also place your preferences in every square if you wish. It is very important to note that the reason we changed the system of voting in the Senate was that we were seeing such huge ballot papers with so many people nominating that the margin of error was becoming something that was not considered acceptable. We will never see a House of Representatives ballot paper looking like that. So the so-called justification for the South Australian voting system is one that does not provide any justification at all in this context.
The AEC analysis said that 51 per cent of informal votes at the last election were assumed to be unintentional. The AEC has absolutely no basis to assume that those votes were unintentionally informal. In fact, if you look at the voting patterns in states other than New South Wales and Queensland, where it is a valid vote to put a 1 in the box or a cross or a tick, there is confusion between state and federal elections. Indeed, if you wanted to so-called 'save' those informal votes, the evidence is that, if you allowed ticks and crosses and 1s and you moved to an optional preferential system at the federal level, which would still meet with the constitutional requirement to be directly chosen by the people, you would save, in the terms used by the government, more votes than under the highly objectionable South Australian system with its secrecy and manipulation. People would be horrified to think that a bureaucrat could allocate their preferences in a way they did not intend. You may vote informally if you wish.
The second point that the Labor Party was very keen to push is the question of postal votes and postal vote applications. Currently the system, as everybody knows—this was challenged in the High Court and the challenge was thrown out—is that the political parties send out how-to-vote applications and individuals can choose to send those applications back to the political party of their choice, who then take them to the electoral office where they are processed and the electoral office then sends them out. There are some people who choose to send them directly to the DRO, but a huge number of people choose to send them back to the party of their choice. The Greens, despite the fact that they have now received the largest donation ever known in the history of donations—$1.6 million, which they failed to disclose in a timely way—do not at this stage send out their own PVAs. They want to have some electoral advantage by being sent a list that they can simply get on the back of with regard to the Labor Party's PVAs.
Analysis shows that more electors who choose to vote by way of postal ballot vote for the coalition than vote for the Labor Party. This is clearly seen as undesirable by the Labor Party and so, if they cannot attract the votes, they want to change the system. The statistics show that with regard to postal votes only 2.63 per cent of those votes cast were in fact informal as distinct from 5.5 per cent of votes in the overall count, which shows quite simply that the current system works, but because it does not work to the advantage of the Labor Party and the Greens they want to change the system. This is not a good way to be running fair and free elections.
The third way in which the Labor Party and the Greens want to change the system is that they want to reduce the integrity of the roll. Let me remind the House that, presently, you are required by law to register to get on the roll. Having got on the roll, if you should change your address it is your obligation to advise the Electoral Commission so that that change of address can be recorded. Those are your obligations under the law. Through our system of compulsory voting, we already oblige people to turn up, get their name marked off, take the ballot paper and then mark the paper as they will—they can vote informally if they wish. Some people choose to put expressions of their objection to being forced to vote; other people write comments about what they think about candidates. In other words: they are busy showing what their will is, but the—
The member's time—sorry, that was my mistake, having just taken the chair. My apologies, member for Mackellar, please continue.
Thank you. I am making the very strong point that, under our system of compulsory voting, you are obliged to turn up, get your name marked off, get the ballot paper and mark it. Nothing compels you to vote formally if you do not wish to, and you may express your point of view as a free person in a free system.
But the Labor Party and the Greens want to see what is called automatic enrolment. That means taking names from lists compiled for reasons other than inclusion on the electoral roll and simply adding those names to the roll. The names are not checked; they are simply added. That, of course, was one of the last-ditch desperate stands introduced by the appalling Labor government in New South Wales, which of course was flogged mercilessly at the polls, to try and garner a few extra votes. They may well have done that, but it certainly was not enough to counter the anger of the people.
It is on those three issues that this whole report is really based. The coalition has put a lot of its objections in the body of the report, so that people reading the report do not think that, in any way, manner or means, this was a unanimous recommendation or conclusion of the whole committee. It divided on party political lines. The opposition members noted in our dissenting report that we oppose 19 of the recommendations—the ones that relate to the three issues that I have just raised—but we do not oppose 17 of them. In addition, we make 10 other recommendations which we believe would be helpful for the way in which people cast their vote. The AEC was very keen to lessen the amount of time people could have to apply for postal votes—they are keen to lessen the time people have, when overseas, to get themselves a vote. We do not find that acceptable. We see no reason why voters should have their time limits shortened. Indeed, we had evidence from the CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union, which said that in fact the Australian Electoral Commission is less efficient today than it was 21 years ago, in 1990, when it was able to process more changes to the electoral roll than it is currently.
I think there is a very big point to be made that the Electoral Commission, rather than making recommendations to lighten its workload, should in fact work more efficiently. For that reason, we have made some very specific recommendations. We have recommended that it should concentrate on continuing to check the accuracy of the roll, by canvassing and advertising to make people aware of their obligations to enrol properly initially and advise when they change address. There should not be this idea that you can not follow the law and have bureaucrats within the AEC simply allocate your vote, saying, 'This vote is going to be formal and allowed into the count. Even though you didn't comply with the law, we deem it not to be too bad, so you can have it in the count.' If we have compulsory voting and registration provisions there has to be some obligation for the voter to value that vote and comply with their obligations to register and make sure their address on the roll is correct. The Labor Party obviously thinks that people who are less likely to comply with the law are more likely to vote for them. Perhaps that is the case, I do not know, but I do not see it as a reason to change the law.
We also note that there has never been a proper follow-up of multiple voting. There were in excess of some 20,000 incidents of multiple voting. The AEC has admitted in evidence that it does not have the power to adequately investigate and prepare briefs for prosecution for the DPP. We have made a recommendation, which the AEC would seem to be inclined to accept, that we should establish a dedicated fraud unit within the AEC to investigate multiple voting. When the margins in so many seats are small, the fact that there are 20,000-plus incidents of multiple voting should raise alarm bells for anybody. The AEC says there has never been a prosecution. We are told by research from the Library that in fact only three prosecutions have taken place. That is an unsatisfactory event and one for which the AEC should have those additional powers.
We also believe very firmly that the AEC should concentrate on its core business, the integrity of the roll, which means the accuracy of the roll. Offering that lazy system of automatic enrolment, where the integrity of the roll is put at risk, is not the way for it to proceed. We are always keen to see information from the AEC, but I am very concerned when I see that the AEC's recommendations are so much in lockstep with those of the Labor Party and the Greens.
In looking at this report, know that this is a very political report. The report split on party lines—the government had a majority. But if you look at the attendance record, and I will finish on this point, you will wonder just how keen they are, particularly the Greens, to see proper assessment of an election at all. Private meetings and public hearings were held, and an analysis of the minutes that are tabled with this report will show that the coalition attended more meetings than either the government or the Greens. Senator Brown of the Greens turned up for three out of 14 private meetings and two out of nine public hearings. In other words, his attendance record was 22 per cent—a bit more than his vote, but not much. The Labor Party members attended an average of 65 per cent of meetings and the coalition members attended 79 per cent of meetings. So although we were in the minority of people who had the right to vote on this report, we attended in a better fashion than either Labor or the Greens.
This is an important report. The division between the Labor Party, the Greens and the Liberal and National parties, who form a well-known coalition, has to be read in that light. There are grave concerns about the manner in which the Labor Party want to forge these changes to the way we vote to give themselves an electoral advantage.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into the operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006—final report. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Over the last two years the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity has been conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006—otherwise known as the LEIC Act—and fulfilling a statutory requirement within that act for such a review to occur. The final report, which it is my pleasure to present today, adds to existing recommendations made in an interim report tabled last February. The committee is pleased that one of those recommendations, the addition of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to ACLEI's jurisdiction, has already been accepted and acted upon by the government.
Since it last reported, the committee has continued to consider the extent of ACLEI's jurisdiction and, on that question, has continued to endorse a governing ethos based on corruption risk. In essence, those agencies with the highest potential corruption risk should be subjected to ACLEI's oversight, ensuring the application of measures and resources that are commensurate with the degree of risk.
The committee has now recommended the establishment of a second tier of jurisdiction within the LEIC Act for agencies assessed to be of intermediate risk. While those inherently higher risk law enforcement agencies, such as the AFP, ACC and Customs, would continue to be subject to full ACLEI oversight, second-tier agencies would receive a more limited degree of ACLEI supervision. This arrangement would enable limited corruption oversight of medium-risk agencies while preserving ACLEI's effectiveness and ability to manage with appropriate resources. ACLEI would have the opportunity to establish a relationship with medium-risk agencies that fulfil a law enforcement function of some kind to build resistance to corruption through education, awareness raising, ongoing communication and investigation as appropriate.
Based on the evidence provided during the course of this inquiry, the committee recommends, as a minimum, that the Australian Taxation Office, CrimTrac, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship be included within the scope of a newly established second-tier jurisdiction. The committee has also proposed a relationship between ACLEI and non-law enforcement but related Commonwealth agencies that would capitalise on ACLEI's unique experience and understanding of corruption issues. This includes continued collaboration with the Australian Public Service Commission to provide ethics training to the Public Service and the creation of the means for any agency to request ACLEI's assistance in a corruption investigation in appropriately defined circumstances.
The committee does not make any of these recommendations as a result of any actual or perceived corruption in second-tier agencies or within the broader Australian Public Service, but simply because the potential for corruption in such agencies makes it appropriate that they have the benefit of an effective, limited relationship with ACLEI.
As the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Anna Bligh, noted in a speech reflecting on that state's approach to integrity in the aftermath of the Fitzgerald inquiry:
Despite the inevitable embarrassment from time to time, I would much rather live and work in a system which is not afraid to pick up the rock and discover the ugliness underneath than one that is content to leave the rock alone and assume that an undisturbed rock is a sign of good health.
The committee continues to endorse an integrity approach that assumes the not unlikely existence of corruption wherever the incentive for corruption exists. For this reason the committee continues to emphasise the need for enhanced corruption detection and prevention measures.
The committee's interim report addressed ACLEI's ability to proactively engage in corruption prevention measures, noting concerns extending back to the establishment of the LEIC Act. It is essential that ACLEI expands the range of corruption detection and prevention activities currently undertaken, as these objects of the LEIC Act have not been matched by appropriate legislative functions to date. In enhancing the operation of the LEIC Act, the committee has also recommended that the definition of corruption be further developed to provide a more detailed and comprehensive description of potential corrupt conduct for the purposes of the act. The committee considers that this would provide greater clarity to the anti-corruption work conducted by ACLEI, while serving to more effectively delineate corruption issues from issues better handled by other agencies.
Finally, the committee considered the large amount of evidence provided in relation to broader issues of Commonwealth-wide integrity, including suggestions for greater coordination between existing integrity agencies and the possible establishment of a Commonwealth integrity commission. While the current efforts of agencies, including the Australian Public Service Commission, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the ANAO and ACLEI, contribute to Commonwealth integrity, the committee is left with the impression that more needs to be done. The committee certainly received evidence that suggested the need for anti-corruption measures which extend beyond narrowly defined law enforcement functions. The committee has therefore recommended that the government conduct a review of the Commonwealth integrity system, with particular examination of the merits of establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission for the entire Commonwealth public sector.
I am very pleased to table this final report. I thank the committee members and the secretariat for their work on this inquiry. In particular I would like to express my thanks to former committee members Senator Doug Cameron and Senator Steve Fielding for their contribution to the work of the committee. I also welcome new members Senator Lisa Singh and Senator Penny Wright and our committee secretary, Dr Jon Bell, who has taken the reins from Mr Tim Watling and who joins the very capable Bill Bannear and Rosalind McMahon on the secretariat.
Finally, I would like to extend my thanks to the many organisations and individuals who provided evidence to the committee. Their contribution has been essential to the work of our committee, and I thank them for their time and effort.
I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 123rd Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, and meetings with international organisations in Paris, France. I seek leave to make some very brief remarks in relation to the report.
Leave granted.
The delegation was part of the IPU's biannual assembly. It is very interesting that the IPU is often referred to as the parliaments' equivalent of the UN. Many nations meet biannually at that organisation.
Also of interest for members of the parliament who may be interested in taking part in a delegation or in reading this report, we visited the International Energy Agency, which was established in 1974, following the oil crisis of that year, and continues to do good work. We visited the French senate. It was very interesting to see how other parliaments work. We had a very interesting meeting with the Organisation for Economic and Development, otherwise known as the OECD, and another very interesting visit to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, otherwise known as UNESCO. So there is a lot of material in this report that may be of interest to other members of parliament. I thank the House.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Forrest be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Question agreed to.
I am mindful of people in the gallery today, and perhaps people listening to parliament, understanding where we are up to. Last night we were having a conversation about this very important legislation that once again demonstrates the government's commitment to competition and consumer law reform, which does impact on the lives of ordinary Australians. The bill on which I was speaking when we stopped our debate last night at 7 pm so that adjournment speeches could proceed, as they normally do, between 7 pm and 8 pm is the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011. The bill contains a number of regulations that I consider to be very appropriate and much needed, because the banks certainly need to be responsible when they are making their pricing decisions.
We have to give significant credit to the Australian banking sector because during the global financial crisis they weathered the storm far better than many other banking sectors around the world. This was due both to good economic management by the Australian government and to generally good long-term management by the banks. But, despite this history of good management, the banks should not have the ability to engage in anticompetitive practices to the detriment of customers, who are the ordinary Australians we represent here in this place.
Our economy is greatly influenced by consumers who live in mortgage belts, and I certainly live in one of them on the Central Coast of New South Wales. We are an outer regional area on the edge of Sydney and we have a very fast growing population, many of whom have mortgages and are significantly impacted by any variation that the banks make to our credit. Gosford City local government area has experienced the 19th largest population growth in New South Wales. The Wyong Shire local government area, represented by my colleague the member for Dobell, has experienced the 10th largest population growth in New South Wales. So there are a lot of new houses being built.
These population growth numbers need to be considered in addition to the fact that the adult children of the families that moved to the Central Coast in the 1980s and 1990s are now of home-buying age. The general implication of this is that the Central Coast, as a mortgage belt, is significantly affected by unnecessary practices—if I were unkind I might even say collusive practices, at the very worst extent of behaviour—to the detriment of families in my electorate.
It is always ideal that in times of economic growth governments ensure there is downward pressure on interest rates. We must, however, always remember and recognise the important role of monetary policy, as set by the independent bank. Indeed, I recognise that it was both Labor and coalition governments that reformed monetary policy and enabled the establishment of our current inflation-targeting system. While increases in the cash rate undoubtedly cause mortgage holders great stress, the prospect of inflation is just as detrimental to ordinary Australian workers and their families. Indeed, inflation is often the most detrimental economic problem that a country can experience. Inflation would be very detrimental in my electorate because of the high population of retirees, many of whom rely on fixed incomes. Additionally, the effective control of inflation ensures the increase of real incomes and therefore the increase of the standard of living. While as a mortgage holder I am always concerned about rate rises, I nonetheless have great respect for the role of the Reserve Bank in making tough economic decisions that provide for the long-term, stable economic growth that is essential in our society.
The role of monetary policy is, however, eroded when banks increase their interest rates beyond the increase in the Reserve Bank target. The banks in our economy are able to make their pricing decisions independently and, in my opinion, this is acceptable. What is not acceptable is the ability of banks and financial institutions to tacitly collude in their pricing decisions following a cash-rate increase. Such actions are uncompetitive; such actions are detrimental to working families; such actions may be beneficial to individual banks but they are certainly detrimental to the economy as a whole. To ensure that this situation cannot continue and to ensure competition remains very healthy in our banking sector this bill will address those issues. An important aspect of the bill is that it provides exceptions to the banks relating to the information that they can disclose. These exceptions are detailed and concern the legitimate sharing of information in a variety of circumstances. They include disclosures between related bodies, corporate disclosures and disclosures covered by exclusive dealing.
This bill also contains appropriate arrangements for banks to seek immunity where their conduct provides a net public benefit. The ACCC will have the appropriate power to determine if immunity from provisions is appropriate on the grounds of a net public benefit. This bill provides a balance between providing for a free and competitive banking sector and providing sensible regulation when it is needed.
Whilst both sides of the House contributed to reforms on monetary policy, I once again affirm my strong belief that Labor is the party of competition and consumer law reform. The success of this government and this parliament in reforming and modernising the law in relation to competition and consumer law, national consumer credit law and personal property securities must not be overlooked. These reforms that the government has succeeded in passing through this parliament are empowering economic reforms. They empower communities, consumers and small businesses and they also ensure that regulation is appropriate for the economic conditions and circumstances of this nation as a whole. This compares with the divisive and ideology based policies that those opposite dream about implementing.
The classic is what we saw in the Work Choices legislation that the opposition put before the Australian people. If only Work Choices had remained a bad dream. Instead, the impact of that nightmare is still fresh in the minds of all those Australians caught up in a gross distortion of fairness for workers. It was enacted by those opposite, who are interested in ideology rather than the real lives of ordinary Australians. This legislation is about impacting positively on real Australians and ordinary lives.
We do have to recognise that a strong and healthy banking and financial sector is fundamental to our economic health and that the actions of our banks do affect ordinary people. Indeed, it was the actions of banks and financial institutions—certainly in other contexts—that inappropriately provided low documentation credit to people who were really unsuitable to manage that level of debt that they got themselves into. The end result was the crash of the financial system in the United States and the global financial crisis that ensued and caught all of us in its wake.
In Australia we have responded in an excellent manner to these issues and I believe that we have struck a great balance between ensuring a healthy financial sector and ensuring that consumers are not exploited. Our banks, due to their superior regulations, did not experience the same crisis that banks in the US and UK experienced. An effect of the global financial crisis has, however, been the increased difficulty for smaller lenders to effectively compete in the Australian market. The ability to compete becomes even more difficult if the larger banks are allowed to collude in relation to their pricing policies.
This legislation provides protection for smaller lenders, many of whom are regionally based. This legislation allows for the reality that we need to construct a regime in which large banks are forced to act competitively. This legislation once again demonstrates the superior economic management of this Labor government. This is a government that is absolutely committed to reforming the economy so as to ensure that our economic strength is something that not just benefits the few but, in fact, benefits all Australians, and that we all move forward together.
I believe that this bill succeeds in advancing this great objective. In saying that, I echo the words of the Treasurer who in his second reaching speech indicated clearly that the bill strikes an appropriate balance between allowing legitimate or pro-competitive conduct and cracking down on anticompetitive price signalling which harms consumers. It is an important reform and will help ensure that banks can no longer avoid the full force of competition in the marketplace.
The Gillard government is absolutely committed to getting a better deal for Australian families and small businesses in the banking system. I encourage all members of the House to support the passage of this bill and I commend it to the House.
I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No.1) 2011 and to support the comments of my good friend the shadow minister for small business, competition policy and consumer affairs, the member for Dunkley, and I also support the thoughtful comments of my colleague the member for Bradfield on this bill. We all know the great wisdom of Adam Smith, who noted back in the year 1776:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
However, Adam Smith's famous quote continued:
It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.
Therefore, following on from the lead of American antitrust law, we rightfully have a provision in our Competition and Consumer Act, formerly known as the Trade Practices Act, which makes it unlawful for a person to make a contract, an arrangement or an understanding which has the purpose, or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition.
This bill aims to deal with the meaning of the words 'arrangement' and 'understanding' which can be achieved through price signalling. However, not only is this bill badly flawed in many ways but also it provides yet another case study of this government's mismanagement. But at least, thankfully through the work of the shadow minister for small business, competition policy and consumer affairs, some commonsense has prevailed and some of the obvious flaws of this bill look like they may be remedied with amendments.
Firstly, when considering the issue of price signalling, it also worth noting the comments of competition law expert Professor Frank Zumbo, who has insightfully noted that the problem of price signalling is merely a symptom of an illness. That illness is the duopolies and oligopolies that many of our markets in Australia have degenerated into as a result of the failed ideology that big is better. It is only in highly concentrated markets that price signalling becomes as problem. If you have laws that, as our competition laws currently do, mistakenly encourage and reward bigness and work to protect duopolies and oligopolies from their more efficient and smaller competitors, price signalling can become a problem.
The textbook might describe price signalling with the following example. Let us say supermarket A wants to jack up its prices, but before supermarket A jacks up its prices it wants to ensure that supermarket B will follow its lead and jack up its prices as well. In theory, supermarket A might not be confident that supermarket B will follow its lead and increase prices immediately. Also supermarket A may wish to send a message to its competitor, supermarket B, that supermarket B has nothing to fear if it raises its prices as supermarket A will respond immediately and match the same price increases. Therefore, to encourage supermarket B to raise its prices, supermarket A could engage in price signalling by making public statements whereby a wink is as good as nod. So, the very minute supermarket A jacks up its price, supermarket B will immediately follow and the cosy club is maintained.
Under the current interpretation of our laws, such tacit collusion falls short of an 'arrangement or understanding', as our courts have interpreted the words 'arrangement or understanding' as meaning that there must be 'a meeting of the minds'. It is difficult to address such tacit collusion with legislation, but in the above example the real problem is that there are only two supermarkets in the market—A and B. It is the type of duopoly which exists throughout most Australian suburbs. Therefore the best way to fix the problem of price signalling is to ensure that there are not only supermarkets A and B in the market but also supermarkets C, D, E, F and G and so on—all in vigorous competition with each other—as in such a highly diversified market, with many competitors, supermarket A can price signal until the cows come home and it will not influence its competitors.
The origins of this bill go back to the ACCC's bungled case against a group of Geelong petrol retailers. As amazing as it may seem, at the very same time as the ACCC were cheering on the supermarket duopoly to engage in third-line forcing by the use of shopper dockets to destroy competition from independent fuel retailers, and as the ACCC was watching on as the big oil companies were manipulating prices to create the weekly fuel price cycle, the ACCC unleashed their legal dogs of war against predominantly small family-owned businesses, petrol retailers in Geelong. What a debacle that was by the ACCC, with millions of taxpayer dollars wasted on futile legal proceedings against mainly small family businesses.
The Age reported on 17 June 2005 that an ACCC analyst had fabricated data in a working paper, and that the regulator had omitted data showing when petrol prices fell and by how much. During the case, Justice Peter Gray said the ACCC should seriously examine the way it compiled evidence, and he said about that evidence:
It does not give anything like a complete picture of what is going on.
Justice Grey concluded:
The ACCC must certainly be made to pay the costs of all the respondents who defended the proceedings.
When he says the ACCC must be made to pay, that is the taxpayers—you and me, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the ACCC could not obtain direct evidence of an understanding, why it did start proceedings? Why did the ACCC not seek an enforceable undertaking, which would saved the taxpayers millions of dollars in wasted legal fees?
The problem of price signalling, being just one of many loopholes in our competition laws, has been evident to this Labor government since the ACCC had their case against small petrol retailers in Geelong thrown out by the Federal Court in 2007—and the ACCC has been complaining ever since. For more than three years this government has been sitting on its hands—typical of this government in relation to competition law reform. All they have given us so far is gimmicks, such as the high farce of Fuelwatch and GROCERYchoice, which do nothing to address the underlying problem of the continued destruction of competition as markets become more concentrated.
With the government asleep at the wheel on competition policy, it has been left to the coalition, through our very learned member for Dunkley, the shadow minister for small business, competition policy and consumer affairs, to act to address the problem of price signalling when he introduced a bill back in November 2010 to deal with this exact issue. Instead of supporting the coalition and attempting to address this problem, the government for months played catch-up football and in so doing delivered a badly flawed bill. There is a simple reason for the government being asleep on the job following the unfortunate stints by the members for McMahon and Rankin as failed competition ministers in the first Rudd government, a government which no less an authority than the current Prime Minister confirmed had lost its way. Although it is universally accepted that the Rudd government had lost its way, just one example of how the Gillard government has wandered deeper and deeper into the wilderness and become hopelessly lost is the government's downgrading of the oversight of one of our most important portfolios, that of competition policy, to a parliamentary secretary, at the very time Australians are being punished by some of the highest rates of food inflation in the developed world. I remember looking through the Gillard ministry when it was announced, and seeing that we had a ministry for social inclusion, a ministry for sustainability and a ministry for privacy but we had no ministry for competition policy. This is an insult to consumers.
So it is little wonder that the government has been caught asleep on this issue and once again found itself playing catch-up football. When you push the pass, when you rush a move, when you sidestep sound policy, when you take shortcuts, this only leads to further mistakes—and that is exactly what has happened with this bill. As reported in the Financial Review of 23 May this year, the chairman of the Law Council's trade practices committee said, when referring to this government bill, that it had had the shortest consultation period he had ever seen and the time permitted for feedback was 'manifestly inadequate'.
One of the many problems with this bill is that it only applies to only one sector of our economy, the banking sector. It is even unclear if it applies just to retail banking, commercial banking or merchant banking. Either price signalling is an anticompetitive problem or it is not. It simply makes no sense for this government to limit this legislation tackling the problem of price signalling to just the banking sector, while leaving other dangerously concentrated sectors such as petrol, groceries and liquor free to engage in anticompetitive price signalling.
The next question is: why is the government seeking to limit this bill to the banking sector only? The Treasurer's second reading speech for this bill stated:
Today I introduce amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to crack down on anticompetitive price signalling and to get a better deal for consumers in the banking system.
'Crack down' and 'better deal'—this language indicates that the Treasurer acknowledges that price signalling is a problem in the banking sector and that Australian consumers are being done over by our big banks. In the second reading speech, the Treasurer also noted:
… the ACCC has told us there is strong evidence of banks signalling their pricing intentions to each other in a bid to undermine competition.
The question to be asked of the ACCC is: if they believe there is 'strong evidence' that the banks are engaged in price signalling 'in a bid to undermine competition', why on earth did the ACCC allow the merger of St George Bank with Westpac?
The need for a bill on pricing signalling in the banking industry is a clear acknowledgment that the Treasurer and the ACCC made a tragic blunder when they allowed St George Bank to be taken over by Westpac and removed as an independent competitor in the market, a tragic blunder that consumers and small businesses are paying for to this very day.
As the ACCC appear to now belatedly admit that we have problems with competition in our banking sector, just look at the 2009 report by Fujitsu Consulting, which found that Australian bank customers pay the Western world's highest bank fees. The report states:
… a lack of competition in Australia meant local banks were collecting $5 billion in fees from consumers, making them the most expensive in the western world.
The report goes on:
The average household is, in our view, paying up to $200 more each year than they should thanks to the wide range of fees and charges levied in Australia, and to the lower levels of competition in the market.
But it is not only banking. Just have a look at the OECD's figures on food inflation and see how Australia rates. These figures simply show how Australian consumers are being punished by the grocery duopoly with some of the highest rates of food inflation in the developed world. These OECD figures are a damning indictment of the uncompetitive nature of our supermarket sector. So why is the government protecting the supermarket duopoly and exempting them from this legislation?
But this is not the first time we have seen this government work to protect the supermarket duopoly from competition. We witnessed the unedifying spectacle of this government closing down GroceryWatch to prevent the consumer organisation Choice from exposing the duopoly's use of geographic price discrimination.
The pitiful excuse given by the Treasurer for protecting the supermarket duopoly from this legislation—again, from his second reading speech—was:
We have been very clear all along that we would only extend these laws to other sectors of the economy after further detailed consideration.
At best, this is simply an admission that the government has failed to think this legislation through and consider all the unintended consequences.
There is no doubt that the bill presented by the member for Dunkley is far superior, because it would prohibit anticompetitive price signalling in a measured and targeted manner and apply the law across the whole economy. More needs to be done to ensure we have more competition, more diversity and more choice for the benefit of consumers. We need effective competition laws which deal with the underlying disease that is eating away at the fabric of our free enterprise system. We need to stamp out all forms of anticompetitive conduct and ensure that mergers and acquisitions by dominant players in the market are not allowed to continue to knock out the efficient competitors that are so essential to a vibrant and competitive market.
I look forward to working with the coalition in the months and, hopefully, years ahead to bring in policies that deal with this underlying problem and give the Australian consumers the deal they deserve, which they are not currently getting.
I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011. I wish to begin by rebutting a claim made by the member for Dunkley repeatedly in his various speeches on this legislation, of which I think there have been three. The member for Dunkley has repeatedly claimed that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics did not have the opportunity to hear witnesses give evidence on the government's bill. The claim that he repeatedly made to this parliament was that the witnesses called before the House of Representatives economics committee inquiry only looked at his bill and did not give evidence on the government's bill. But that of course is false, and one can see quickly how false it is simply by going to the transcripts. Allow me to quote from a couple of points in the transcript of the hearing of the House of Representatives economics committee on 18 February 2011. In opening his evidence for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Mr Brian Cassidy said:
… we are pleased to be here today to be able to provide comment and answer questions on the bills—
plural—
that have been proposed.
Later in the hearings the member for Dunkley himself asked the following question of the ACCC:
On the cases that you are considering—as it is explained in the EM for the government’s bill …
And he went on to ask the question—clearly a question from the member for Dunkley, directed to a witness, about the government's bill. He himself was asking witnesses about the government's bill. That is not the impression one would have gained if one only had listened to what he said in this chamber.
The member for Dunkley later asked the same witness:
… why is your bill, the government bill, not weighing purpose …
Again, clearly he was asking witnesses to adduce evidence on the government's bill.
Later the member for Dunkley said to a witness 'in the two bills that we are discussing'. He then went on to say:
… essentially the difference is that in the government’s bill there is a per se prohibition on private communication …
He then asked the witness to draw a comparison between the bills. Indeed, the member for Dunkley later, when hearing evidence from the Australian Banking Association, asked Mr Munchenberg:
Can you just, for the benefit of the committee, contrast the two bills as you understand them …
So let us not have any suggestion, as the member Dunkley just made to members in this chamber, that somehow the House of Representatives economics committee left half of the job undone. We did not. We considered both bills and, by a majority, we found the government's bill to be superior to the bill put forward by the member for Dunkley.
As the committee's report makes absolutely clear, there is a wide range of areas in which the government's bill is superior to that of the member for Dunkley. Allow me to go into some of the key reasons why the government's bill is superior to that of the member for Dunkley. As the committee's report pointed out, there are four chief areas of difference: whether the bills apply to prices or whether they apply to other market information, whether the bills require purpose and effect, the substantial lessening of competition test, and the coverage of the bills. I will deal with each of these in turn.
On the question of the price related information, the ACCC and other witnesses argued that there is a range of behaviour that, while not directly involving price, ultimately impacts on consumers. The ACCC gave examples: quantity based offences, collusive tendering, and market sharing in which a business discloses to the market or particular competitors that they are going to focus on part of the market and leave the rest to their competitors. Those kinds of activities work to undermine markets, but it is the government's bill that picks up the full range of information. The inferior bill put forward by the member for Dunkley captures only pricing information.
The next key difference goes to purpose and effect. The committee noted that the purpose and effect test required in the member for Dunkley's bill would be so onerous that the ACCC would, as they advised us in evidence, 'probably take very few cases'. The committee noted that again, in this respect, the government's bill is superior, and that is because it places a strong prohibition on private price disclosures between competitors.
The next difference goes to industry coverage. As the committee recognised, there is a question of balance. There is general advantage in having widely applicable legislation but there is also significant community concern about the conduct of banks. Given that the ACCC is—like every part of the government—resource constrained, the government's bill has the key advantage that the ACCC can focus its resources on a high-priority area. It gives the government the flexibility to make further regulations to apply the prohibitions to other sectors of the economy as called for but to do that with time for review, time for detailed consideration.
The House of Representatives economics committee rightly concluded by majority that the government's bill was superior, capturing the most serious conduct with a per se offence and thereby ensuring that we have the competitive markets which are so critical to raising productivity and boosting efficiency and innovation—those advantages of competitive markets which have underpinned substantial improvements in living standards for Australians.
This bill very much lies in a Labor economic reform tradition. It was Labor that cut tariffs in Australia, Labor that put in place enterprise bargaining, Labor that floated the dollar and Labor that put in place the key competition reforms of the early 1990s that underpinned the subsequent rise in productivity. In other areas, again, Labor are committed to long-term reform with the market in mind. We put in place a timely, temporary and targeted stimulus when the global recession hit. We are committed to a market based mechanism for addressing dangerous climate change.
While those opposite put in place command and control systems often likened by some to 'Moscow on the Molonglo', we on this side of the House are committed to using markets to find the cheapest and most efficient way of addressing dangerous climate change. While those opposite are running from serious economic reform they have even, in some cases, found themselves running from their very own reforms. So we saw the spectacle in the most recent settings of those opposite refusing to back a reform on fuel taxation first introduced in this place by then Treasurer Costello in 2003. Those opposite have walked so far away from reform that they are now walking away from Peter Costello's economic reforms. Meanwhile, we on this side are committed to long-term, fundamental economic reform across the macroeconomy, the microeconomy in our education reforms and in competition policy, such as in this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
This bill attempts to prohibit price signalling, particularly between banks. It does so by claiming that the current status of the industry allows anticompetitive price disclosures that, while falling short of cartel measures, are detrimental to consumers. Anticompetitive price signalling refers to corporations revealing their future pricing strategy to their rivals and in so doing eliminating price uncertainty and reducing the functioning capacity of a competitive market. It has become a topical issue in Australia, particularly after last November's RBA decision to raise rates which prompted the four big banks to all act in a similar way.
I understand the government's sentiment and its need to at least appear that it wants Australian markets to operate with transparency and efficiency. However, this bill simply will not achieve this and, despite a huge backlash from industry, the Treasurer will not listen. He does not seem to be willing to make all of the changes required to bring this bill in line with sound economic principle. It is the industry, not the government and not government departments, that understand how regulation affects their business practice and how the cost of that regulation is passed on to consumers.
While the Treasurer announced this amendment in December last year, he closed public submissions in January. What is this Gillard government trying to hide? Transparent consultation is a crucial part of the process of good government. This government has failed in that process by leaving stakeholders with less than two months—a large portion of which was over Christmas—to make submissions regarding legislation that substantially affects their lives.
The government had an opportunity to rectify this in May this year when the bill was sent to the House Standing Committee on Economics. However, true to form, the government gave only a two-day period in which submissions could be made. This demonstrates yet again that the government is simply not interested in consultation with stakeholders. It appears that the Treasurer is very set on pushing this policy through regardless of the consequences.
This is particularly disappointing as in recent sittings we have seen that some of the Treasurer's colleagues were able to address the faults of their legislation through consultation—a process which has seen commendable legislation put forward in the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA. What a shame the Treasurer cannot follow Minister Evans's lead and actively engage with the industry to address the faults of this proposed amendment. It seems that the Treasurer is complicit in this government's standard approach—big ideas and rushed announcements but, as usual, no thought for the consequences of its implementation.
The government has failed to ground this bill in sound competition policy concepts. To quote the Hansard record of the Treasurer's introduction of this bill to parliament, he stated that:
This important reform will help to ensure that banks can no longer avoid the full force of competition in the marketplace.
This is concerning as a government cannot simply stand over an industry and demand it to be competitive. Market forces need to be allowed to act in order for competition to thrive. Simply introducing one-size-fits-all regulation is unlikely to achieve what the government is aiming for, and coupling that with the lack of consultation, poor drafting, ambiguity, and a less than solid competition policy base has resulted in legislation that could really have disastrous effects on the industry. In fact, the Business Council of Australia has warned that this policy could:
… actually result in poor outcomes for consumers and act as an impediment on legitimate and pro-competitive commercial behaviour.
This reflects what I believe to be one of this government's greatest failings. They fail to understand the ripple effect. They fail to realise that their policies and legislation affect all industry and all members of society.
They seem to approach legislation with the view that they can implement policy that affects only one sector of the economy. They think the carbon tax will only affect 'big polluters', the mining tax will only affect profitable mining companies and cutting medical research will only affect scientists. This simply is not true, and not addressing the ramifications of their policies in their entirety has already and will continue to cause our nation great harm if it is not rectified by this government in the very near future.
By not thinking through the policies of the bill we are debating today, the government seems to have overlooked that the amendment over-reaches into disclosures with legitimate business justification. The private disclosure clause of this bill seeks to prevent corporations from making a private disclosure to their competitors of any information relating to their price, from discounts to strategy. The broad nature of this prohibition makes the legislation ambiguous and illogical when followed through. The government may intend for this legislation to simply stop one bank manager picking up the phone to their counterpart at another bank; however, the drafting of this bill is solely focused on who and how this information is disclosed. It does not focus on the type of information or its purpose in its assessment of anticompetitive behaviour. Not all price discussion is inherently anticompetitive, but this broadbrush policy does not allow for this assessment to be made—you breach the prohibition by disclosing price information to a competitor in any sense. The proposed legislation before us takes the stance that any price disclosure whatsoever is so serious that it need not even be anticompetitive in its nature to be a punishable issue. There is no provision that competitors must be acting strategically. It is unclear as to whether this is the government's intention, it is an unintended consequence or it is simply poor drafting, but the end result is that this legislation has huge scope to overreach—indeed, unjustifiably overreach. Furthermore, by making these per se prohibitions, the government is opening a door for the legislation to be easily circumvented by institutions simply making these disclosures more public, lifting it out of the per se category. In this situation, the objective of stopping anticompetitive price signalling would not occur even if the legislation were in place.
It is also concerning that the legislation is so industry specific. From my understanding of what the Treasurer has put forth in relation to this bill, the focus is to prohibit the banking system from disclosing price strategies to each other. In fact, the Treasurer stated that this is the primary aim of the bill when he said:
Today I introduce amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to crack down on anticompetitive price signalling and to get a better deal for consumers in the banking system.
The Treasurer went on in his speech to solely discuss the banking sector, with a particular focus on the big four banks, and the amendment itself, at least initially, will only target the banking sector. This seems contradictory as the amendments themselves are quite general.
The government's position seems to be that price signalling is only bad in the banking sector, but not bad elsewhere—that is, the bill is market specific rather than economy wide, which introduces ambiguity at best and, at worst, uncertainty, into the entire industry. It also goes against the general intention of bills of this nature, such as the Trade Practices Act. As the ACCC said:
The general principle of the Trade Practices Act … is that it should apply with very rare exceptions, such as telecommunications, across all sectors of industry and commerce. We consider that this is an issue that will affect a variety of sectors in industry and commerce in Australia and ought to apply across the board.
This bill, however, is solely focused on the banking sector.
The industry is highly critical of this bill. From the government's arrogance in the consultation process to its blind determination to dig its heels in and not make changes, this bill is simply not up to scratch. I implore the government to consult properly, consult with stakeholders and address the issues raised by the member for Dunkley in his amendment. This is legislation which will have a significant impact on consumers through producer regulation and it is vitally important that the government gets it right.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank honourable members who have taken part in this debate on the government's Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No.1) 2011. The government's intention to introduce these new laws was announced in December last year as part of its comprehensive package of reforms to the banking sector to empower families, support smaller lenders and secure the flow of credit to our economy. We have worked closely with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission since mid 2010 to carefully design these amendments and we have consulted extensively on draft legislation with businesses, legal experts and other stakeholders. The government's bill reflects the results of these consultations and is an effective and targeted way to address anticompetitive price signalling in the banking sector.
The bill closes a gap in the anticompetitive conduct provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, fulfilling the government's commitment to crack down on anticompetitive price signalling and get a better deal for consumers in the banking sector. These laws will build on our 2009 reforms to strengthen Australia's cartel laws by banning signalling designed to keep interest rates higher. These laws will be initially applied to the banking sector, where the ACCC has told us there is strong evidence of banks signalling their pricing intentions to each other in a bid to undermine competition.
The bill adds two new prohibitions to the act to address anticompetitive price signalling and information disclosures. First, the bill prohibits outright the private disclosure of pricing information to one or more actual or likely competitors. This prohibition is targeted at those disclosures which are the most clearly anticompetitive and harmful to consumers. Second, the bill gives the ACCC the power to take action against any bank which signals its pricing intentions to a competitor for the purpose of substantially lessening competition.
The bill provides a comprehensive set of exceptions to ensure that legitimate business activities are not captured by the prohibitions and today I will move amendments so that further exceptions are provided that give clear guidance to business around what conduct is and is not subject to the prohibitions. More specifically, disclosures made in the ordinary course of business will not be subject to the outright prohibition. Disclosures in relation to corporate workouts, syndicated lending arrangements and credit distribution arrangements will also be explicitly exempt from the outright prohibition.
Consistent with the existing anticompetitive conduct provisions in the act, the bill also provides notification and authorisation arrangements for businesses to seek immunity from action under the new prohibitions where they can demonstrate that their conduct provides a net public benefit. Like other prohibitions in the act, breaches of the prohibitions will be subject to civil penalties of up to $10 million, 10 per cent of a business's annual turnover or three times the benefit of the conduct, whichever is higher. The bill demonstrates the government's strong, ongoing commitment to promoting competition in the banking sector. Anticompetitive price signalling and information disclosures are used by competitors to facilitate prices above the competitive level. They can lead to inefficient outcomes for the economy and ultimately higher prices for consumers. The government's bill will provide the ACCC with effective and targeted tools to ensure that banks who signal their prices to competitors to undermine competition, to the detriment of Australian consumers, can no longer get away with it.
Again, I wish to thank all members for their contribution to this debate. I commend the bill to the House.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I have circulated amendments in my name. As a consequence of the quite constructive collaboration with the government, the Treasurer's office and my debating partner on Thursday morning, Mr Bradbury, I would like to withdraw all amendments other than amendment (2), which deals with an effort to fillet out the per se prohibition in the bill. I move amendment (2):
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 15 to 26), section 44ZZW, omit the section.
Question negatived.
by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet CA206 and (1) to (5) on sheet CA209:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (after line 2), at the end of section 44ZZZ, add:
Disclosure if borrower insolvent etc.
(5) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information between 2 or more corporations (the relevant corporations) if:
(a) at least one of the relevant corporations:
(i) has provided a loan or credit to another corporation (the borrower); and
(ii) has been notified of a borrower insolvency situation (see subsection (6)); and
(b) the information relates to services, being loans or credit, supplied, or likely to be supplied, by one or more of the relevant corporations; and
(c) the disclosure is for the purpose of one or more of the relevant corporations considering whether to take measures to return the borrower to solvency, or to avoid or reduce the risk of the borrower becoming insolvent.
(6) For the purpose of subsection (5), a relevant corporation is notified of a borrower insolvency situation if:
(a) the corporation is notified that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that one or more of the following may be or become insolvent:
(i) the borrower;
(ii) a person who has given a guarantee or indemnity in respect of loans or credit provided to the borrower by one or more of the relevant corporations; and
(b) the notification is given by the borrower, or by a person referred to in subparagraph (a)(ii).
(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 21 (after line 10), at the end of section 44ZZZ, add:
Disclosure if borrower insolvent etc.
(5) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information between 2 or more persons (the relevant persons) if:
(a) at least one of the relevant persons:
(i) has provided a loan or credit to another person (the borrower); and
(ii) has been notified of a borrower insolvency situation (see subsection (6)); and
(b) the information relates to services, being loans or credit, supplied, or likely to be supplied, by one or more of the relevant persons; and
(c) the disclosure is for the purpose of one or more of the relevant persons considering whether to take measures to return the borrower to solvency, or to avoid or reduce the risk of the borrower becoming insolvent.
(6) For the purpose of subsection (5), a relevant person is notified of a borrower insolvency situation if:
(a) the person is notified that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that one or more of the following may be or become insolvent:
(i) the borrower;
(ii) a person who has given a guarantee or indemnity in respect of loans or credit provided to the borrower by one or more of the relevant persons; and
(b) the notification is given by the borrower, or by a person referred to in subparagraph (a)(ii).
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 3), at the end of section 44ZZT, add:
(3) The regulations must prescribe a process to be gone through before regulations are made, for the purpose of subsection (1), prescribing a class of goods or services. Before the Governor-General makes regulations, for the purpose of subsection (1), prescribing a class of goods or services, the Minister must be satisfied that the prescribed process has been complied with.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to the first regulations made for the purpose of subsection (1).
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (after line 24), at the end of section 44ZZW (before the note), add:
; and (c) the disclosure is not in the ordinary course of business.
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (after line 29), after subsection 44ZZZ(3), insert:
Disclosure relating to provision of loans etc. to same person
(3A) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information between 2 or more corporations (the relevant corporations) if:
(a) the information relates to services, being loans or credit, supplied, or likely to be supplied, by one or more of the relevant corporations; and
(b) 2 or more of the relevant corporations are, in relation to the same person (the borrower), doing either or both of the following:
(i) providing such services to the borrower;
(ii) considering whether to provide such services to the borrower;
(c) the disclosure is for the purpose of, or related to, providing services, or considering whether to provide services, to the borrower as mentioned in paragraph (b).
Disclosure between credit provider and provider of credit service
(3B) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation to another person if:
(a) either:
(i) the corporation is a credit provider, and the other person provides a credit service, within the meaning of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009; or
(ii) the corporation provides a credit service, and the other person is a credit provider, within the meaning of that Act; and
(b) the disclosure is made in the course of the relationship between the corporation and the other person in their capacities as credit provider and provider of a credit service.
(4) Schedule 1, item 17, page 16 (after line 36), at the end of section 44ZZW (before the note), add:
; and (c) the disclosure is not in the ordinary course of business.
(5) Schedule 1, item 17, page 20 (after line 34), after subsection 44ZZZ(3), insert:
Disclosure relating to provision of loans etc. to same person
(3A) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information between 2 or more persons (the relevant persons) if:
(a) the information relates to services, being loans or credit, supplied, or likely to be supplied, by one or more of the relevant persons; and
(b) 2 or more of the relevant persons are, in relation to the same person (the borrower), doing either or both of the following:
(i) providing such services to the borrower;
(ii) considering whether to provide such services to the borrower;
(c) the disclosure is for the purpose of, or related to, providing services, or considering whether to provide services, to the borrower as mentioned in paragraph (b).
Disclosure between credit provider and provider of credit service
(3B) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information by a person to another person if:
(a) one of the persons is a credit provider, and the other person provides a credit service, within the meaning of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009; and
(b) the disclosure is made in the course of the relationship between the persons in their capacities as credit provider and provider of a credit service.
These two sets of amendments will give the banking industry absolute certainty that it can continue to engage in legitimate business conduct without breaching these new prohibitions against anticompetitive price signalling. As I indicated earlier, the government has consulted extensively with business and has provided a range of explicit exemptions for legitimate conduct. We have also extended the availability of the immunity arrangements under the notification and authorisation regime administered by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to businesses who wish to make disclosures which fall outside the scope of the exemptions in the bill.
Today's amendments provide a series of further explicit exemptions for legitimate business conduct. The first amendment will provide banks with certainty that certain disclosures made in the context of corporate work-out arrangements will not be subject to the private disclosure of pricing information prohibition. The government recognises that it is important that banks assist financially distressed businesses in avoiding insolvency. These discussions are often commercially sensitive and time critical, and it is vital that we allow banks to support businesses and the jobs of their workers.
The second amendment has four parts. Firstly, it confirms that disclosures made in the ordinary course of business will not be subject to the outright prohibition on the private disclosure of pricing information to competitors. Secondly, a specific exception is provided in relation to syndicated lending arrangements in addition to the joint venture exception already provided. This exception provides lenders with the surety that they need to continue to engage in discussions for the purposes of syndicated loan arrangements. Thirdly, an exception for disclosures as part of credit distribution arrangements will provide explicit protection for discussions between banks, mortgage brokers and financial planners. Lastly, we will set out the process which future governments will be required to follow if they are to consider extending the application of the prohibitions beyond the banking sector.
I take the opportunity to thank the member for Dunkley and the coalition for the constructive discussions that we have had that have led to these additional measures. We believe that they maintain the integrity of the provisions that we have brought before the House and strengthen them to ensure that there are sufficient exceptions provided to provide businesses with the certainty that they need but at the same time to ensure that these provisions continue to have full effect.
I table supplementary explanatory memoranda.
I advise the House that the coalition will be supporting these amendments. It was quite an ordeal, but we got there eventually, to try and save the government from itself, some might suggest. These amendments, as I mentioned earlier, faithfully reflect the objectives of the coalition's amendments, so the Office of Parliamentary Counsel obviously has a greater flair for drafting than I have. I accept the word that they do faithfully reflect the objectives that we had set out.
We felt it important to have some process defined for markets that may be prescribed under this bill to be subject to these provisions. The government has made it clear that the banking sector is the first cab off the rank. I am not aware of any other markets. I acknowledge that the parliamentary secretary is shaking his head. He is slightly at odds there with the chairman of the ACCC, who has been repeatedly quoted as saying he can imagine any number of markets to which these provisions should apply. Mindful of that, we were keen to make sure that markets were not shirt-fronted in the middle of the night by a regulation that no-one knew quite where it had come from or why it was there and that process was just a tad too political, in that it did not provide a proper opportunity and proper process steps. So we think that is a constructive step. I note again the parliamentary secretary's advice that banking is all that is on the table at the moment. I also note and encourage the government to continue constructive contributions with the banking sector. I know that, the day before we delivered our dissenting report on this bill from the House Standing Committee on Economics, there had still not been a clear definition of what banking actually was, so we are still not quite sure what will be in, but at least we have a process to be defined that will set out if additional markets are to be captured.
The exceptions are very important. We argued in the dissenting report that there were clear, acceptable and ordinary business transactions and conduct that should not be captured by this bill. The government members on the committee said: 'No, that's wrong; the bill's perfect. Let it pass through.' I am pleased the executive has seen fit to pick up the work-outs for people in a distressed financial situation or facing insolvency. They are a clear example where lenders would need to engage in a discussion about what to do. The syndicated multiparty lending transactions—I am pleased the government has picked that up. On the legitimate and proconsumer conduct of mortgage and finance brokers: it would have been a crying shame if they had been frozen out of doing that worthwhile work.
I accept the advice from Treasury and the government on the 'white labelled' or 'vanilla' products in the banking sector, where one bank might provide certain services on behalf of other banks and the other bank puts its brand on them. I accept that a specific exemption for that is not necessary and that the notification and authorisation process will capture that.
They are all the provisions that we were arguing for. Above all, the ordinary-course-of-business exception is extraordinarily important. Whilst the government has publicly said and has just confirmed now that it is intending only to apply this competition regulatory framework to the banking sector, the machinery is in place for it to be expanded across any markets. The utility of the bill provides for that, yet the exceptions are overwhelmingly banking centric. They would mean basically nothing to other markets and to other areas of goods and services. So, without having some ordinary-course-of-business exception, if other markets were to be captured and prescribed under this bill, where would they go? They would not have any responsive exceptions for their particular industry. We would need to amend the law every time a new market was prescribed under the bill. That is not tidy, that is not reasonable and that brings no comfort to anybody wondering just how these new provisions might be applied.
With those remarks, I indicate that the coalition will be supporting these amendments. I again thank Mr Bradbury, the Treasurer's office and officials for their assistance in getting to this point.
The Greens will be supporting the amendments on sheets 206 and 209. They are—to follow on from the previous speaker—testament to the scrutiny that has been applied by the member for Dunkley to this bill and to the debate generally. I should place on the record too that I have been assured that the amendments relating to ordinary-course-of-business exemptions will not substantially lessen competition and will allow legitimate business activities that otherwise might have been hindered by the bill.
I am also pleased to see that the government has lifted a number of the member's amendments relating to prescribed classes of goods and services, albeit with redrafted wording. We believe that they put in place a sensible process of consultation should these laws need to be extended in future by any government.
The adoption of the provisions to allow the private disclosure of pricing information to competitors in some circumstances is also welcome. The member has identified circumstances in which the bill may have hindered the work of corporations which does not have a purpose of substantially lessening competition in a market.
We are pleased that the government has agreed to, proposed and reworked some of these amendments, and the Greens, as well, are happy to support these amendments on sheets 206 and 209.
Question agreed to.
I move amendment Greens amendment (1):
(1) Schedule 1, after item 14, page 13 (after line 14), insert:
14A After subsection 95AC(1)
Insert:
(1A) The Commission must not grant a clearance to a body corporate that is, or is related to:
(a) National Australia Bank Limited; or
(b) Commonwealth Bank of Australia; or
(c) Westpac Banking Corporation; or
(d) Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited;
to acquire shares in the capital of a body corporate that is an ADI for the purposes of the Banking Act 1959, or is the holding company of such a body corporate.
14B After subsection 95AT(1)
Insert:
(1A) The Tribunal must not grant a clearance to a body corporate that is, or is related to:
(a) National Australia Bank Limited; or
(b) Commonwealth Bank of Australia; or
(c) Westpac Banking Corporation; or
(d) Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited;
to acquire shares in the capital of a body corporate that is an ADI for the purposes of the Banking Act 1959, or is the holding company of such a body corporate.
The House has just spent some time finessing the finer details of the bill—which, as we have noted, the Greens support—but it does strike me that if there were some seriousness about tackling anticompetitive behaviour we would be taking a more active role in preventing what are known to be some of the most blatant examples.
Australia has one of the most concentrated banking sectors in the world, and it is killing competition for consumers. We know that the Australian banking market is more concentrated than it has been for a century. In 2007 the big four banks had a 68 per cent market share of the home loan market, but now the big four banks hold around three-quarters of Australia's deposits and assets and 88 per cent of home loans.
The provisions of this bill are only one piece in the puzzle. The Greens have provided support for the second reading as well as strong support for moves to end price signalling by the banks, but strengthening the powers of the ACCC on signalling will do little to help competition and nothing about growing concentration in the sector. If we are serious about ensuring real competition in the Australian banking industry, we should do more than flog them with a piece of damp lettuce.
My amendment will ensure that the big four banks are not able to take down their competitors by swallowing them up. It will ensure that the ACCC will prevent mergers such as Westpac's takeover of St George in 2008 and the Commonwealth Bank's takeover of Bankwest, resulting in the Commonwealth Bank being clearly the dominant bank in Western Australia. This amendment will protect smaller players and regional banks from the historically predatory actions of the big four, and in doing so it will bring about a healthy change in the culture of Australia's finance sector—and it will result in positive changes for consumers. I encourage all members to join me in addressing the most serious problem in Australia's arguably most anticompetitive sector, and I commend this amendment to the House.
The government will not be supporting this amendment brought forward by Mr Bandt. There are a number of reasons and I will set out some of those reasons shortly. But can I say from the outset that the government endorses much of the sentiment of what the member for Melbourne has just said, particularly in relation to the importance of competition in this sector. That is why it is important that that be a discussion that be given its proper context. The proper context of that discussion is to acknowledge that the price signalling legislation which we are currently debating in the bill before the House is one component in a broader package of reforms that the government announced in December last year under the competitive and sustainable banking package. This parliament has already passed and enacted into law a number of those measures and they will contribute towards the objectives of that package. The objectives of the package were to empower consumers, to provide support to the smaller lenders so that they could provide competitive pressure into the marketplace, and to secure a sustainable banking sector into the future. I will not go into each and every one of the measures but some of them continue to be under discussion as far as the government is concerned, and a number of consultative processes have previously been engaged in.
In relation to the substance of the proposal that the member for Melbourne has brought forward, the government has concerns on a number of levels. The first and most significant concern we have is that there is in place a consistent and very effective framework for competition policy, particularly in relation to mergers and acquisitions. Section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act is the vital provision that needs to be considered in this context. Section 50 has been in place in this country since 1993. It is representative of similar provisions that exist in similar legislation elsewhere in the world. There has been a considerable amount of jurisprudence built up around section 50, and in addition to that jurisprudence has been the practice of the regulator in the way in which they have dealt with merger and acquisition proposals in the past. It provides the community, the business community and indeed individuals at large with some certainty around how these provisions will be dealt with when any future merger or acquisition is to be considered.
One aspect of the proposals within the amendment put forward by the member for Melbourne that the government has particular concern about is the impact of these provisions where an institution were to be in some financial distress. To seek to put in place a mechanism which would preclude or prohibit the ability of one of the larger institutions to enter into a merger or acquisition of a smaller institution may well lead to an outcome that is against the national interest and against the economic interest of the company concerned, the institution concerned. Certainly it may lead to an outcome that is against the interests of shareholders, employees of the company, depositors and other creditors. We think it is appropriate that there be flexibility available for mergers and acquisitions to be considered in those circumstances. We think that is adequately dealt with under the existing regime and we certainly support that continuing to be the case.
I will make a few further observations in relation to the way in which section 50 operates. I specifically draw the House's attention to a non-exhaustive list of items set out in section 50(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act. This sets out some of those matters to which regard should be had when a merger or acquisition is being considered in the context of the substantial lessening of competition test. Factors that need to be considered include the actual and potential level of import competition in the market, the height of barriers to entry to the market, the level of concentration in the market, the degree of countervailing power in the market, and it goes on. There are a range of factors that guide the deliberations of any court and indeed the regulator. We believe that they form part of an effective regime set out in the Competition and Consumer Act, and that is a regime we believe should be retained in its current form. So the government will be opposing this amendment.
The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. We have just had a debate about good economic concepts and how competition law sees them applied across the whole economy. I wish I had been able to persuade the government about that on the price signalling bill and perhaps we would be debating my private member's bill, not the one that we are dealing with now. So the idea that we then go in and not only deal with a sector-specific but then a transaction-specific prohibition strikes me as an idea that really needs a lot of work to make that argument. We have not seen that argument. The parliamentary secretary has outlined the existing provisions in section 50. I have just come from the Main Committee outlining areas where I think that general provision could be improved, and that may go some way to dealing with what the member for Melbourne was referring to and in other sectors such as supermarkets and the like.
Without dwelling on the subject, I would say that the example cited around St George and Westpac is probably not a good example. Because of the GFC, St George's credit rating meant that their access to wholesale funding offshore was quite expensive and much more expensive than Westpac. Gone are the days when a few slight differences in credit rating meant a very thin spread on the cost of your funds. That all changed with the GFC. If for no other reason but for the St George customers not to get a real smack in the chops over higher costs for their mortgages and the like, there was a reason that Westpac could take over St George and then use its wholesale funding machinery and its credit rating to deliver significant savings to consumers. That is the kind of market dynamic that the broad competition and consumer framework dealing with mergers and acquisitions should turn its mind to and that is where transactions of this kind, if any are proposed into the future, need to take account of the market and the consequences on consumers. So the opposition will not be supporting a blanket prohibition of the kind that is being proposed here.
Question negatived.
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.
Reform of this bill follows a classic Labor path: reform means creating yet another bureaucracy. The National Health Performance Authority is to be charged with monitoring and reporting on the performance of local hospital networks, public and private hospitals, primary healthcare organisations and other bodies that provide healthcare services. It was to be an incredibly wide-ranging brief. Unfortunately, though, the bill provides absolutely no performance indicators that the proposed authority would monitor and report upon. The government controlled House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing held an inquiry into this bill. There was one extremely brief public hearing for the Department of Health and Ageing to answer, seemingly, one question, and a report from the committee was then tabled, with just one recommendation, that being for the House to pass the bill with a minor amendment requiring an annual report to the parliament. Given submissions to the inquiry outlined serious reservations regarding this legislation, coalition members presented a dissenting report that it would be unwise for the House to pass legislation until stakeholder concerns were addressed.
The dissenting report noted:
… there are far too many unanswered questions about the National Health Performance Authority … . The House should not debate this bill until the Government clarifies this matter.
It also noted:
… a number of stakeholders that wanted to contribute to the Inquiry were unable to due to the haste with which the Inquiry was conducted.
So it is worth looking in some detail at what some of the stakeholders said about this legislation. The Australian Medical Association, for one, has called for the legislation to be deferred, wanting an assessment of the impact of the legislation and detail of what data must be provided to the authority by health provider organisations.
The explanatory memorandum to this legislation states that its measures will have no regulatory impact on business or individuals. The AMA bluntly responds: 'We do not believe this is a true statement.' The AMA is also concerned that smaller private hospitals and medical practices will not be able to cope with some as yet unidentified data collections. It wants the data that is to be provided to the new authority to be included in a disallowable instrument and made publicly available prior to the passage of this bill through parliament. The AMA expresses concern that the legislation does not provide any information on the interaction between this proposed authority and the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, established in the prior legislation, or the proposed independent hospital pricing authority. This stakeholder wants consultation about what this authority will do, it wants open and transparent processes and it wants accountability to parliament. Passing strange is the claim from the government that the authority is all about enhancing transparency in the healthcare system, yet it does not intend that there be transparency in this legislation.
The Consumers Health Forum of Australia is another stakeholder wanting more information on the areas of performance to be assessed by this proposed authority. In its submission its states:
… we consider that it is appropriate, and indeed necessary, for the legislation to outline at least a minimum scope for the areas of performance to be assessed by the Performance Authority.
Among other numerous concerns, at another point Consumers Health Forum says they 'would like to see more detail about the functions of the Performance Authority'. The forum also wants greater safeguards for patients in relation to information the authority may gather and release.
Clarity, transparency and scrutiny are aspects that recur throughout stakeholders' submissions. The Australian Private Hospitals Association has concerns that this new authority will simply add 'yet another layer of compliance burden for both the public and private hospital sectors'. Its submissions to the House committee inquiry stated that 'any national data collection must replace the current system of multiple reports' to multiple government agencies, which it says places a 'significant regulatory compliance burden' on private hospitals. Again, it adds to the cost of delivery to patients. The association argues for real reform but it, too, wants scrutiny of the data that hospitals may have to provide to this proposed authority. And, when decided upon, that data set, the association says, 'should be presented to the Parliament as a Regulation, so that it may be properly and publicly considered'.
The bill was also the subject of a Senate committee inquiry. Submissions to the Senate inquiry raise even greater concerns about this bill. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners warns that the provisions of this bill hold long-term threats to 'harm the current high standard of medical services, and consequently health services, delivered to the community'.
Catholic Health Australia held similar worries. In its submission to the Senate it stated:
The legislation as currently drafted is very broad – indeed vague – on the scope, range and detail of data that will be required to be submitted.
CHA wanted to see that detail set out in regulations, which would enable the parliament to exercise oversight. It said that such details needed to avoid 'unintended consequences' and that the authority should 'not result in health services unduly focusing on particular performance indicators to the detriment of their overall performance.' CHA issues this warning:
We need, for example, to learn from the recent experience of the Mid‐Staffordshire NHS Trust in the United Kingdom, where it has been reported that between 400 and 1200 excess deaths together with appalling lapses of patient care and hygiene occurred between 2005 and 2009 as a result of the local board and hospital management focusing more on meeting performance and cost cutting targets than on actual patient care.
Apart from those overriding issues, stakeholders found a myriad problems with this bill. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners was concerned about virtually every aspect of the proposed performance authority from its composition to its functions and powers, its independence and its relationship to the other authorities this government has established and is proposing to establish. A body with such wide-ranging reach over every aspect of health care, the college submitted, should draw on expertise from all sectors, yet the only specification for the make-up of the authority in this legislation is that one of its members must have experience in rural health. The college pointed out that it was unclear whether general practice will be monitored by the authority, and clarity is needed on the issue. It fears that if general practice is to be monitored then onerous data collection and reporting requirements could be imposed on already overworked and overstretched GPs and could subtract from their capacity to deliver services to communities.
Finally, it noted that 'there is a significant overlap between the roles and functions of' this authority 'and the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare.' Catholic Health Australia echoed many of those points in calling for clarity on the role of the authority, noting that the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australian Bureau of Statistics already collect data on hospitals and health services. CHA also wanted the legislation drafted in such a way that the governance arrangements of the authority would reflect the make-up of Australia's health system and therefore would have members with knowledge of public and private hospitals, primary health care and private or non-government healthcare provision.
The Australian Institute for Primary Care and Ageing also raised significant issues with the functional overlap between this authority and the already-operating commission for safety and quality that would 'place a substantial administrative burden on individual health services'. Its criticisms noted that there was no objective for the performance authority itself and the bill provides only a list of its functions. In response to the minister's past rhetoric about the importance of this new bureaucracy, the institute stated this:
It is difficult to see how the bill will create the "backbone of a modern, integrated, high-performing health system" when the bill itself does not appear to be integrated.
A submission to the Senate inquiry from the Council of Procedural Specialists queried the very need for the authority proposed by this bill. It said it could find 'no justification or compelling case' as to why it is needed. It submitted that Australia already has an independent major national agency to provide reliable, regular and relevant information and statistics on Australia's health and welfare: that is, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The submission said the council had 'concerns about the agenda, nature and ultimate purpose of this new agency'. It went on to say, 'The establishment of a new authority may have a wider purpose than that which is currently being outlined.'
So it is true to say that there were recurring themes throughout many of the submissions to the House and Senate committees, namely that there is a lack of clarity about this legislation and the authority it will establish, a vagueness about what it will do, a lack of goals and objectives, a concern about duplication with other existing and new agencies this government is establishing, worries about the administrative burden being placed on health service providers and concern about the composition of the authority board.
In assessing stakeholder commentary on Labor's so-called health reform, researchers in the Parliamentary Library found that many of the concerns raised by stakeholders were pertinent. In fact, the Bills Digest raises more questions than it answers. Let me just take some of the points and issues raised in the Digest in relation to this bill. It points out, firstly, that it is unlikely that the authority as a single entity will be able to achieve its objectives and, secondly, that the bill does not provide any details on how the three national governance agencies, the safety and quality commission, the performance authority and the pricing authority, will work together to deliver improvements in the Australian health system. The next point is that it is not yet clear how the upstream National Health Performance Authority proposed in this bill will connect with downstream factors, namely, healthcare providers. The fourth point is that this bill does not give the authority any enforcement powers; it cannot compel state and territory governments or private and non-government organisations to provide performance data, and it cannot compel individual providers to make changes that will lead to better performance. Next it is stated that it is unclear how many primary healthcare providers will be monitored directly by the National Health Performance Authority. The frequency of reporting by the national performance authority is not specified in the legislation. It went on to say that the authority is reliant on the goodwill of organisations to provide information; next, that currently the proposed legislation is silent on arrangements for private hospitals; and, finally, that the lack of any specific provision regarding private hospitals in the bill highlights jurisdictional limits on the Commonwealth.
There are some further interesting points from the Digest that I think need to be highlighted, and they relate to the concerns of stakeholders. It summarises them in this way: that this legislation does not appear to reflect the initial remit of the authority except in very broad terms, that there is a lack of clarity about the role and function of the authority and that what the Minister for Health and Ageing outlined as that role in her second reading speech differs to what has been previously outlined by the government. The Digest concludes:
This lack of detail combined with the lack of power attributed to the Authority raises questions about the extent to which the Authority can achieve its objectives as set out in the Bill … or as articulated by Government.
In other words, this was a totally flawed piece of legislation which should not be before this parliament, and the amount of amendments presented today clearly highlights that fact. The Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association publicly expressed concern in March of this year about the lack of consultation by the federal government with stakeholders. In its submission to the Senate the association stated:
It is clear that the legislation fails to recognise the formal role of state and territory Governments as majority funders and system managers of public health services including overall responsibility (statutory and political) for the performance of LHNs, public hospitals and state/territory primary health care services.
The Western Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, made exactly that point in a submission to the Senate. He said:
… I believe the Commonwealth has gone beyond what is contemplated as the role and function of the NHPA in the HoA I signed at the COAG meeting on 13 February, 2011.
He further wrote this:
… the Bill undermines the States' and Territories' role as system managers of the public hospital system with the potential to significantly disrupt and destabilise the on-the-ground operations of the State's hospitals and health services.
The Premier points out that the authority is being established on the basis of a joint agreement at COAG, and yet the provisions of the bill would allow the Commonwealth minister, without consultation with the states, to extend the functions of the authority. That, the Premier said, was unacceptable to Western Australia. The Victorian minister apparently expressed similar concerns in a letter to Minister Roxon, which brought up the multitude of amendments now before us.
Given those views—and it is my understanding that it was not just the two states I have mentioned; several other Labor states expressed a similar view—ultimately Minister Roxon realised that she needed to consult with the states overall on her so-called historic reform and consequently was forced to convene a special meeting of the Australian Health Ministers' Conference at an airport lounge in early June. As the communique from that meeting stated, the ministers agreed that the states and territories are the system managers and, as such, the performance managers of public hospitals in our country. That is now reflected in the amendments before the House. New clauses spelling out the role of state and territory health ministers as health system managers form a key amendment stating that this parliament will acknowledge that role and that the parliament intends that the national performance authority in performing its functions will have regard to that role. The Council of Australian Governments will be able to set policy principles for the authority rather than this minister being able to simply impose her view on the world and ride roughshod over what are rightly state functions.
Other amendments which this minister now puts forward will limit her actions in relation to this national performance authority. The minister will need the state and territory ministers to approve her specifying which bodies and organisations are local hospital networks or hospitals for the performance authority to report on. The authority's function to monitor and prepare reports on healthcare services other than hospitals, hospital networks and primary care will need approval in writing from COAG. The minister will need approval from COAG if she intends to widen or change the functions of the performance authority. The scope of the authority's reporting will be changed totally by these amendments. The authority will not have the right to directly consult and seek responses from individual hospital networks or hospitals where reports of poor performance are being prepared. Under these amendments, it will provide the reports to and seek responses from state ministers. The authority's strategic plan will also need agreement from the states.
So change has been forced upon this hapless minister. States' concerns have been addressed. The minister has been sanctioned and duly embarrassed. But not all of the significant concerns and issues voiced by stakeholders in their submissions to the House and Senate committee inquiries have been addressed. In particular the private sector of health is no clearer about what the establishment of this new bureaucracy will mean for it and whether it will face a new and increased burden in reporting to yet another arm of government.
This remains an unnecessary and flawed piece of legislation. I would remind the House that, at the time the government introduced the National Health and Hospitals Network Bill that this bill now seeks to substantially amend, the coalition called on the government to introduce all of the provisions for all of the new bureaucracies it sought to establish in one piece of legislation so that the parliament, the stakeholders and the public could see exactly what this government proposed with these authorities and their operations. I repeat that call again today. I call on the Independent members of the House to note the serious issues that have been brought to the fore and the widespread deficiencies pointed out in this legislation. I call on them to support the opposition in refusing to give this bill a second reading and to put a halt to this piecemeal approach and growth of bureaucracy.
In summary, it has to be said, particularly with the developments of the last 24 hours, that this is a government that are completely shambolic. They promised as far back as 2007 that they would fix public hospitals. They promised to become the major funder. They promised that they would work in a collaborative way with the states. They have promised amendment after amendment and reform after reform. I think on three or four occasions different iterations of the reform have been described as historic by this government. Nothing is further from the truth. They have walked away from, backflipped on, compromised on and ultimately given up on every piece of reform that they have had on the table for the last four years.
This Prime Minister said four months ago that she had an agreement. It turned out to be a heads of agreement to agree at a later date. Four months down the track what we find is that they have had to delay the COAG process, not because some sort of result is pending and they need to tick off on a couple of additional points, as the minister pointed out, but because, as the minister loosely let slip yesterday in a press conference—embarrassingly, she later had to have her press secretary call up and say, 'This is under embargo until tomorrow'—this government have basically given up on health reform. It is patients around the country who are suffering as a result. It is clear that this minister has no capacity to negotiate.
As we have seen during the course of the last few years on every issue that they have put before the Senate, the government have either compromised or let it go. They have no capacity to negotiate and it has been seen clearly over the last 24 hours that the states have completely outmanoeuvred and outnegotiated what is a desperate government. The problem for this government is that they are a buyer in distress. The Indonesians know it in relation to other debates at the moment. The Malaysians know it in relation to other debates. The Australian business industry knows it in relation to other debates that are underway at the moment. The Australian premiers and health ministers know it as well. This is a government on the ropes because of their own incompetence. They have not been able to put forward a coherent package.
We warned on a number of occasions that this eventuality would be arrived at in the health portfolio. We said to the government, 'Do not bring forward this piecemeal approach of additional bureaucracy.' That was the formula that New South Wales Labor had for health. That is the formula that Queensland Health still has in place because of the Labor government in Queensland. Increasing the bureaucracy and increasing the burden of bureaucracy in the health system is not the way to fix our health system at all. In fact, what Labor is enacting at a federal level is the completely failed model of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland Labor over the last decade that has led to disastrous outcomes. This government now seeks to try and apply that same failed formula, not just to this aspect but also to the private health insurance arrangements that are proposed at the moment, which I think would put into ultimate decline the private health insurance numbers in this country and increase the burden on the public health sector at a time when Australian families cannot tolerate another increase in their out-of-pocket expenses as proposed by this government.
Throughout the period of this Labor government, first under Kevin Rudd and now under Julia Gillard, there has been constant talk about health reform—but, as I say, very little in the way of concrete results. Despite the pages, the multitude of press releases, the communiques, the agreements and the numerous volumes of publications produced on health reform, many are left shaking their heads at the lack of actual detail about how most elements of this so-called reform are actually supposed to fit together and operate in the real world. The reality is that the government do not know what they are doing in every area of their responsibility, and that is sadly the case for health as well. I think Australian patients right around the country, and the whole public, want to make sure that we see improvements to our health system—but this government just do not have the capacity to deliver on that which they promise. They may well be full of good intent but they have no ability whatsoever to deliver what reform is desperately needed. This government have squandered four years of opportunity, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Accordingly, I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House declines to give the bill a second reading until provisions establishing the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, including its functions and responsibilities, are presented to the House for its consideration.”
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
I am pleased to speak in support of the National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011. This piece of legislation builds on the government's national health reform agenda and is an amendment that will greatly improve the transparency of hospitals, healthcare services and national performance standards. This amendment is a crucial part of this government's national health reform agenda, as settled by the Council of Australian Government meeting last year, and agreed again in the Heads of Agreement National Health Reform meeting earlier this year.
This bill is designed to introduce new national performance standards and improve transparency for the healthcare sector. On 13 February this year the respective state leaders and the Prime Minister agreed that more transparency on the performance of health services will help drive improved performance and will help patients to make informed choices about their health care. This bill is a direct result of that meeting and it will work to increase that basic tenet of any healthy democracy: transparency. This bill achieves this transparency for the healthcare sector through the proposed establishment of the National Health Performance Authority.
I want to turn to some of the main provisions of the bill, which makes a number of amendments to the National Health and Hospitals Network Act 2011. These additions will greatly improve the transparency of the healthcare sector and allow for all Australians to make more informed choices when considering healthcare services, and I thank the minister for her steadfast commitment to increasing transparency in the sector. The specific provisions outlined by these new chapters propose slight changes to the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, in chapter 2, and the establishment of the National Health Performance Authority in chapter 3. The establishment of the National Health Performance Authority is the main provision outlined by this amendment and will work to enhance healthcare services around Australia.
According to this bill, the National Health Performance Authority's main function is to monitor and report on performance of the following: local hospital networks, public hospitals, private hospitals, primary healthcare organisations and other bodies that provide healthcare services. This will create increased transparency and greatly assist all Australians in making informed decisions about their health care. The MyHospitals website will continue to report information on the performance of individual hospitals as well as on the performance of local health networks. This is another aspect of this government's commitment to increasing transparency through e-government initiatives. A paper from the Public Administration Review by Caroline Tolbert and Karen Mossberger entitled 'The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government' found that 'e-government improves process based trust by improving interactions with citizens'. And this is what the MyHospitals website does. Partnered with the new National Health Performance Authority it will allow for taxpayers to be kept informed on matters relating to the healthcare sector through more accessible and efficient services. The funding for this amendment was allocated in the 2010-11 budget at a cost of $118.6 million over four years. The government has also decided to offset $9.1 million, resulting in the net cost to the performance authority being $109.5 million over four years.
Last month a number of amendments were endorsed in principle by a meeting of health ministers which are designed to establish a stronger partnership between all Australian governments in the spirit of the COAG agreements, something that I also endorse. These amendments will allow for greater cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states and will recognise the role of state governments as managers of the public hospital system.
The provisions outlined by this bill are indeed fantastic initiatives and ones that will have a positive impact on all Australians, especially those in my community. I would like at this point to turn to my electorate of Greenway, where the demand for health care is extremely high. With a large population of vulnerable citizens, including more than 13,000 people over the age of 65, and a staggering 69,000 citizens aged from zero to 14 in the Blacktown local government area, healthcare services are a high priority and are in serious demand from my constituents.
The west and north-west growth areas of Sydney are rapidly expanding, due to escalating housing developments and other factors. With this rapid growth comes the demand for increased services and more information. The CEO of the Hawkesbury Hills division of the Australian General Practice Network, Mr Frank Kellett, has highlighted to me on a number of occasions the challenges that we in the west and the north-west of Sydney face. In correspondence to me earlier this year Mr Kellett raised concerns over the challenges health services face in many parts of my electorate and further north. He said:
The rapid growth of the north-west growth centre requires that primary healthcare services be planned according to the unique needs of this area.
With the population of the north-west growth centre expected to grow from 300,00 to half a million in the next five to 10 years, according to the Hawkesbury Hills Division of General Practice, the healthcare sector must respond accordingly, and this government is committed to doing this. The creation of the National Health Performance Authority in association with the My Hospitals website will allow people in my electorate and the north-west of Sydney to access information regarding the performance of their healthcare providers and manage their healthcare affairs accordingly.
This government's record of improving healthcare services continues. Since 2007 the government has committed funding to 36 GP superclinics, increased GP training places by 35 per cent, continued to provide grants to support the viability of after-hours GP services, and provided incentives to encourage general practices to provide quality after-hours services. On top of this, the government has drawn together Australia's highly fragmented healthcare system and created a national arrangement through the National Health and Hospitals Network.
The $416.8 million invested in the establishment of Medicare Locals will support health professionals, improve the delivery of primary healthcare services at a local level and improve access to after-hours primary care. Medicare Locals will provide better integrated care, making it easier for patients to deal with the local healthcare system.
In my electorate, and indeed in the wider communities of Western Sydney, this government continues its commitment to improving services, and it has been welcomed from all corners. WentWest, an organisation in my electorate that provides training to general practice registrars, has praised this government's commitment to strengthening and integrating the primary healthcare sector, and for the decision to build Medicare Locals on the existing infrastructure of general practice divisions.
As of 1 July, WentWest became one of Australia's first Medicare Locals, and this again highlights the government's commitment to improve healthcare services in Western Sydney. This continues, and was reaffirmed by, the previous state government's $245 million redevelopment of Blacktown and Mt Druitt Hospital which was officially signed off earlier this year. As is clear for all to see, this government is delivering for Australian families, especially on health. This amendment will add to this proud record and ensure that all Australian families have the tools necessary to handle their healthcare needs.
In light of this amendment being discussed today, I would like to mention an associated event that took place in parliament in March this year. The Decision Makers' Forum, organised by the Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council, provided an opportunity to highlight the key issues affecting the health sector. The forum found that the latest industry information has highlighted an increased demand for community and healthcare services. The council also found that there is an increased demand for primary health and non-hospital based services. Meeting this demand will be this government's primary healthcare service, the Medicare Locals. The forum also highlighted the important role of new technology, such as the government's My Hospitals website, has to play in streamlining health services. The government's My Hospitalswebsite will work with the proposed authority described in this amendment and distribute timely information for all concerned.
Earlier this year, the Minister for Health and Ageing came to Greenway to tour Blacktown's new clinical school, a development that will allow for increased training places for local doctors and nurses. Without the $17.6 million of Commonwealth funding provided under round 1 of the $3.2 billion Health and Hospitals Fund, this development would not have been possible. This funding will make it easier for people to see a doctor or nurse when they need one, and will deliver healthcare professionals on the ground in Western Sydney.
Only last week, the minister again visited Greenway to help launch the after-hours GP helpline with Leanne Gardner and her family—her sons, Jayden and Bailey, and her mother, Betty—in Lalor Park. This new service will see one of Australia's most trusted health brands, Medibank Health Solutions, operate an after-hours service with a team of 100 GPs and over 240 nurses on staff to answer calls and deliver peace of mind for families. Leanne said the new service would be a great help to her family, telling the minister and me that:
It is nice to know that you can contact someone late at night, when your local GP is not open. It gives you reassurance that assistance is always available.
This is another example, in a very long list, of how this government is delivering services that matter to families in Western Sydney. On top of these developments, Greenway has benefited from the allocation of Primary Care Infrastructure Grants. These grants allow local practices to expand and upgrade their existing facilities for the benefit of all in the community.
Torbet Avenue Family Practice, located at Quakers Hill, received $271,000 under stream B of the Primary Care Infrastructure Grants. This funding will be used to provide two additional consulting rooms, two nurses stations, a conference room and an expanded waiting room. These developments have allowed this practice to recruit an additional doctor and a nurse, and a dietician, a podiatrist and a psychologist part time.
Western Sydney also stands to benefit from this government's investment in e-health records. E-health records will provide faster diagnosis, cut down on medication errors and give patients peace of mind as doctors will be able to see the patient's medication history no matter what the circumstances. On top of this, people in Western Sydney will soon have better access to MRI scans, thanks to changes announced in the budget. Western Imaging Group in my electorate has been granted a Medicare licence for their upright MRI machine to allow for greater access to Medicare rebates.
I want to make it clear how this government has delivered on health. The developments in my electorate and in the wider community have only been possible due to this government's focus on improving health services, and I particularly thank the minister for her commitment to helping people in Western Sydney in this regard.
The bill achieves a great thing for all Australians, and it continues this government's commitment to provide quality, affordable and efficient health care. This amendment will create the National Health Performance Authority that will scrutinise and provide feedback on all aspects of the health industry, greatly improving transparency. The feedback will also allow all people to make informed decisions on their health care and improve the way they manage it. That is why I commend this bill to the House.
When introducing the National Health Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011 the Minister for Health and Ageing in her second reading speech declared that the National Health Performance Authority would form 'part of the backbone' of the government's so-called health reforms. Such a statement is very hard to assess given that scant details about the workings of the authority are contained in this bill, or in public explanations by the government about how it is to operate.
The bill will amend the National Health and Hospitals Network Act, which passed both houses on 21 March. That act established the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, or ACSQHC, as an independent statutory body. This body existed before that as a non-statutory body established by the Australian Health Ministers' Conference on 1 January 2006, which itself evolved from the Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care, which was created in January 2000 under the former coalition government.
Throughout its various iterations the commission has led and continued to coordinate improvements in safety and quality of health care, reporting publicly on clinically relevant topics, such as patient experiences, medication safety and hygiene, against national standards. Whilst it does not report on performance data of individual health providers, the commission does supply strategic advice to health ministers, especially to drive topical performance improvement and recommend quality and safety standards. In amending the National Health and Hospitals Networks Act, this bill seeks to create a national performance authority to formulate performance standards for hospitals, collect and analyse data to determine whether hospitals are meeting those standards and advise the health minister on the performance of health service providers. The bill does not intend to enlarge the function of the ACSQH or replace it with the performance authority. Instead, the amalgamated bills, to be known as the National Health Reform Act 2011 once enacted, will create two separate bodies, one reporting on existing healthcare standards for safety and quality and advising the health minister on thematic issues and another one formulating performance standards for hospitals, collecting data on hospitals and advising the minister on particular service providers.
The cost to government is $35.2 million for the ACSQH over four years and $109 million over four years for the performance authority. Considering the similarities in purpose of the two statutory bodies and the fact that the government will amalgamate the two bills, it is incredible that the government has not simply considered amalgamating the two bodies. Continually expanding bureaucracy has been the hallmark of this government's reforms. As outlined by my colleague the shadow minister for health during the debate on the National Health and Hospital Network Bill 2010, the bodies to be established by this government as part of the health reforms include the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, at a cost of $91.8 million; the national performance authority, at a cost of $109 million; Medicare Locals, at a cost of $416.8 million; the national funding authority, at an unspecified cost; the state-based funding authorities, which have since been scrapped; and local hospital networks, at an unspecified cost. The final figure will be well in excess of half a billion dollars, and perhaps more towards $1 billion, to establish separate bureaucratic bodies.
Whilst the 13 February 2011 agreement of the Council of Australian Governments specifically mentions the creation of the performance authority, its apparent genesis is in recommendation 33 of the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission report published in 2009. That recommendation was:
To improve accountability, we recommend that public and private hospitals be required to report publicly on performance against a national set of indicators which measure access, efficiency and quality of care provided.
The recommendation does not call for a new government body to collect and publish reports. In fact, it places the onus on the hospitals to produce the report publicly outlining whether particular indicators have been met. Of course the government would argue that one of the functions of the performance authority, as the bill outlines, is to investigate and determine exactly what those indicators should be. However, the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards notes in its submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, which is currently investigating this bill:
ACHS has a well-established, substantial indicator program which holds one of the largest clinical data sets of its type in the world. ACHS is willing to collaborate with the Performance Authority to adopt or incorporate ACHS clinical indicators.
If a not-for-profit, Australian-based organisation already has the available information and is willing to work with the government, why is $109 million of taxpayers' money required to establish a new body?
In her second reading speech to this bill, the Minister for Health and Ageing stated that the government has 'listened to the advice of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission.' However, the final report of the reform commission, entitled A healthier future for all Australians, does not mention the creation of a performance authority. It does mention, in appendix H on page 252, that the creation of a national performance reporting and accountability framework—not body—is estimated to cost $12 million, not $109 million. Later, on page 261, the report explains its costings and expands on recommendation 33, which called for performance reporting. The passage states that the:
… Australian Institute of Health and Welfare currently exists and its funding could be increased to reflect an expanded function of national performance reporting.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare was established in 1987 as an independent statutory body to provide statistics and reliable information to the Australian government. It collects and analyses data, including on individual hospitals, and is accountable to the parliament through the Health and Ageing portfolio. I had the pleasure of working closely with this organisation when I was a minister and I can vouch for the incredibly good work that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare does. Its website notes:
… in doing our work, we collaborate closely and have effective data partnerships with many experts from around Australia, including the Australian Bureau of Statistics, government at all levels, universities, research centres and non-government organisations.
The institute even currently supplies data for the government's My Hospital website.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has existed for 24 years. It is an independent statutory body collecting, analysing and reporting on hospital and health statistics, with an established range of partnerships. The expert panel of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission appointed by the government called for a relatively modest expansion of the institute to cope with any performance reporting requirements. But instead the government believes that it is appropriate to reinvent the wheel and establish another independent body at enormous cost to the taxpayer. Had the government instead agreed to fund the expansion of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the costs would have been only 11 per cent of that of the proposed performance authority.
How the proposed performance authority shall operate in conjunction with the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is unknown. No details are included in this bill. There is no detail on how the authority is meant to 'improve quality, increase transparency and drive value for money,' as the minister claimed it would in her second reading speech. Under this bill, the performance authority has no power to compel disclosure of statistics or information by hospitals and health providers.
In pursuing the creation of the performance authority, the government is doing exactly what its own former Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Hon. Lindsay Tanner, expressly warned against. In a speech to the Australian Institute of Company Directors on 14 October 2009, the then minister stated:
The indiscriminate creation of new bodies, or the failure to adapt old bodies as their circumstances change, increases the risk of having inappropriate governance structures. This in turn jeopardises policy outcomes and poses financial—
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Pearce will have leave to continue her remarks.
Today is a very special day for one of my constituents, and in fact she is a constituent of my own household who joins us in the gallery today. Abbey Rose Morrison today turns four. It is a very special day for us. Those who were in this place when I made my maiden speech might recall that I talked about my daughter, who was our miracle child. We are blessed to have two children, and Abbey was the product of 14 long years of waiting and various fertility treatments and other things—it was a very difficult period of time for our family.
I particularly want to commend today my wife Jenny, who is in the gallery with us, for her patience and prayers over many years and her faithfulness. I also want to thank Dr Anne Clarke and Professor Alan Lam, who were instrumental in the treatment that we went through over many years and were responsible for the great blessing we have with our two wonderful children. Abbey is a miracle child—she was born on the seventh of the seventh of 2007. That tells me that God has a very good sense of humour in reminding us of his faith in us, and his faith being expressed through these two children is remarkable.
It is rare that we meet in this House in July so I doubt that in the future we will have the opportunity to have Abbey's birthday again in this place. It is a great thrill and a privilege to wish my dear, beautiful daughter Abbey a very happy birthday. We love you very, very much.
Elections are the best way we have yet devised to choose representatives of the people, and to hold leaders accountable. Malaysia has a parliamentary system, one that has now functioned for more than 50 years but without the ruling National Front ever having experienced defeat at the national level. Belief in the integrity of the electoral system is crucial for Malaysia's stability and prosperity.
Bersih—which literally means clean—is a coalition of organisations that believe that the government appointed electoral commission must urgently address policies, regulations and procedures that allow electoral outcomes to be corrupted and the wishes of the people to be no longer accurately reflected in parliament.
Whilst it is understandable that the ruling National Front sees itself as 'the government' and utters forebodings that its defeat would harm the country, Malaysia is a much more prosperous and advanced country than its naysayers might suggest.
Bersih 2.0, led by a former president of the Malaysian Bar Council, has agreed to forgo the major street demonstration scheduled for 9 July and accept a compromise to hold its rally in a stadium. I hope Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak will order the immediate release from detention of MP Jeyakumar Devaraj and all those who have been arrested simply for wearing yellow or expressing support for the process of electoral reform.
On Sunday there will be a lot of discussion, and in fact Labor members are reported to have been prepared with a household-by-household analysis in their electorates of the impact of the Labor carbon tax—household by household data to help Labor survive walking into its own political disaster. Taxpayers' money has been used to analyse household impacts in order to support the survival of Labor MPs, but no data has been collected on the impact of this carbon tax on Australia's small businesses. In fact, small businesses are the unspoken word of the carbon tax debate. We hear it might be 1,000, it might be 600, it might be 700—who knows precisely, in this muddled mess that is the carbon tax? We hear about them paying this carbon tax but you never hear the government talk about the impact on small business; you never hear them speak about the punishing impact on small business.
For those people who are listening, after Sunday the carbon tax that the government will have announced will hit you everywhere you go—even if you go to your local pizza shop. It is an energy intensive industry and you might have a choice about whether you want capsicum or anchovy on your pizza but you will have no choice about whether or not it comes with a carbon tax. This is just one of a number of small businesses captured in the Herald Sun today that indicate that small business is fearful of this tax. Small business has not been factored into any of the government's decision-making and compensation packages. The question is, why does Labor so hate small business?
This federal Labor government is helping small business. My area—Ipswich and the Somerset region—was flooded and under the Small Business Advisory Service's natural disaster assistance $2.5 million has been allocated for 25 not-for-profit business advisory bodies not just in Ipswich and the Somerset region but across the country. I want to congratulate the Somerset Region Business Alliance and the Business Enterprise Centre Ipswich Region, both of which received $100,000 to provide advisory services to primary producers, tourism operators and small businesses affected by the floods. About 600 Ipswich businesses were flood affected and suffered damage and loss, and 279 agribusinesses and 100 small- to medium-sized businesses in the Somerset region suffered loss and damage from the floods. We are providing significant support.
I congratulate the Ipswich Business Enterprise Centre and Tony Axford, who is the CEO, and I also want to congratulate Paul Heymans for his advocacy on behalf of the Somerset Region Business Alliance. The services will provide assistance for business mentoring, business planning advice, assistance in developing marketing plans to help businesses get back on their feet, and guidance on loans and leasing and government regulation. This is another example of why this federal Labor government is the only government committed to small business in Australia.
Traditionally Sunday in Australia is a day of rest—a day for going to church, mowing the lawn, tending the garden and spending time with your kids. But this Sunday will be known as sell-out Sunday—sell-out Sunday will be the day when the government of this country sells out the people it represents. There will be no greater example of sell-out Sunday, and no greater level of sadness, than in the town of Kandos. At one o'clock today Cement Australia announced that the Kandos cement plant will close. They produce 450,000 tonnes of cement a year. They have been there for 98 years. They will be not be able to compete with cement companies from Asia. They will now have to import cement from Asia because the Kandos cement plant has become uncompetitive. There are other factors that have led to this, but the carbon tax is the straw that will break the camel's back.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
If the parliamentary secretary at the table is so confident it is not the carbon tax, he is welcome to accompany me to Kandos tomorrow. At 11 o'clock tomorrow, he can stand outside the Kandos cement plant with me and explain to the workers that it is not his tax that is closing the plant. (Time expired)
Unfortunately, the member for Parkes has just given us a snapshot of what we can expect on Monday after the government's announcements on Sunday. The fact is that both sides of the parliament are committed to doing something about climate change. Both major parties in this place have the same target on carbon reductions. The difference is that we have a market based mechanism—the most efficient and low-cost way of addressing this issue—and they have higher taxes to subsidise the big end of town. The member for Parkes has been irresponsible. He knows he is being irresponsible. He knows that that concrete plant has been marginal, at best, for a long, long time. He knows the area well. It is totally inappropriate and irresponsible for him to come in here and try to blame a carbon tax that is not yet announced for the closure of a plant which has been under review for a long, long time, and he knows it. If he had taken the opportunity to read the statement from the CEO of the company concerned, he would know that the company has attributed the closure of this plant to just about everything else bar the coming carbon tax—the age of the plant, the inefficiency of the plant, the isolation of the plant, the skills shortages in the area— (Time expired)
Last week, the Ryde Lantern Club in my electorate of Bennelong celebrated 45 years of service. Volunteer workers at the Ryde Lantern Club raised funds for the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children. At their birthday luncheon last week, club president, Rosemary Costar, and treasurer, Lynn Anderson, handed over another cheque—this time for $59,100. The club would not be celebrating this milestone if not for their tireless efforts along with the work by Gloria Lardelli, Rose Rocca, James Clarke and Sue and Annette Lusty, just to name a few. The Ryde Lantern Club has raised nearly $2 million for the institute and CEO, Chris Rehn, was there to graciously accept another donation. Much of this funding is raised through Ryde Lantern Club's op shop in Church Road, Ryde, with its trusty, hardworking troupe of volunteers very committed to this great cause. I strongly applaud their efforts. The Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children provide high quality education programs for over 800 children and their families Australia-wide. It is primarily dependent on community funding to continue making a difference to the lives of children with different forms of sensory impairment. The selfless work performed by charity organisations like the Ryde Lantern Club form the backbone of what makes the electorate of Bennelong and indeed our nation so special.
This Saturday last, five local councils from the Illawarra, Southern Highlands and Shoalhaven communities got together to recognise community driven leaders from local Aboriginal communities. Shellharbour, Wollongong, Wingecarribee, Kiama and Shoalhaven councils held their joint local government regional NAIDOC awards ceremony. Year 12 Dapto High School student, Ricki Lee Donovan, received the 2011 Aboriginal Young Achiever of the Year award from the Shellharbour City Council. Ricki is the first in her family to go on to year 12 and has done so with credits and honours. Despite living in other towns and suburbs during her secondary schooling, Ricki continued her education at Dapto High School, making the two-kilometre daily walk from the Dapto train station to her school and back again. Ricki's achievements extend beyond the classroom. Her extracurricular activities include working in the Aboriginal community and helping with the Narinya Aboriginal grief and trauma healing programs through New South Wales in Aboriginal communities. In fact, Ricki's nan founded the Narinya program, a healing program for Aboriginal people affected by childhood and adult sexual abuse. Ricki is also involved in bush food catering activities and brings her skills and knowledge of food science to this. Ricki has just returned from Vietnam and Thailand where she spent two weeks with her school, teachers and leaders. Ricki has recently received an ANZ apprenticeship, which she hopes to enter into upon completing year 12. (Time expired)
I call the great Maroons supporter, the member for Wright.
I rise to inform the nation and the House of the resilience that the people in my electorate have shown in recent months. Earlier this year in January, we were disastrously impacted by the floods and we lost several lives in my electorate. Resilience has also been shown by the 36 dairy farmers who have been faced with a lack of confidence in their industry following the Coles' decision to lower the price of milk. That has had a severe impact on our dairy farmers and their investment in the future and it has affected the communities who rely on that investment. I also applaud the resilience of the beetroot growers in my electorate. Those beetroot growers are the sole suppliers to Golden Circle factory in Brisbane—in the Treasurer's seat. That beetroot chain is going offshore and the future of the 20,000 tonnes that they have been supplying is now in question. I also advise the House of the recent hendra virus outbreak in my electorate—the story in my electorate just seems to go from bad to worse, as the news cycles go around. There are 14 people awaiting their test results for the hendra virus, knowing that the hendra virus has been fatal for 57 per cent of the people who have been infected by it. However, the people in my electorate are resilient and with God's grace we will be prosperous once more.
I rise in the House to raise the issue of WIN Television axing its weekend news service for Tasmania. The decision to cut news has cost jobs, including a vital camera position in Northern Tasmania. By cutting the weekend news, WIN has effectively delisted Tasmania as a state. The national Nine bulletin from Melbourne has no relevance for Tasmanian viewers—and thank the Lord we do not always get news of Ted Baillieu as our Premier, but this weekend we will. Any loss of local services affects Tasmania, affects diversity in the media and affects people's choice. WIN's sacking of Tasmania is a kick in the guts for Tasmania and it is a kick in the guts we do not need.
Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that excluding petrol from her carbon tax will not lead to lower costs for households because abatement that would otherwise have come from the transport sector will have to occur elsewhere and at higher cost?
Did you write that, Prime Minister?
I would say to the Leader of the House: there is no truth in the rumour I am writing the Leader of the Opposition's questions.
To the Leader of the Opposition let me say this: I made a deliberate choice in designing the scheme that will be announced on Sunday. We are finalising the carbon pricing scheme and it will be announced on Sunday. In designing that scheme I took a deliberate decision that we would design it in a way which was true to our Labor values of assisting households who needed our assistance the most. That is why we are in a position to say that we will be working with Australian households and providing nine out of 10 households with tax cuts, with payment increases or a combination of both.
I also believe it is appropriate not to have householder petrol covered in the scheme. As I have explained to this parliament during the course of this week, I understand what it is like for people to live in communities where, whilst we would wish public transport were better—and we will be working over time to make public transport better—the reality is that members of the community who need to get around really have no choice but to jump in their car. Of course, that is true across country Australia as well, in many of the electorates that Labor members represent as well as the electorates represented by the member for New England and the member for Lyne. So we made a determination that petrol should not be covered in the scheme. I think that is the right thing to do for Australian households.
Yes, that is a design change from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition: pricing carbon in the way we are intending to price it is the most efficient, cost-effective way of cutting carbon pollution. So every choice we have made is about making the greatest change at the least cost.
Mr Speaker, a point of order on direct relevance: I asked the Prime Minister to confirm that excluding petrol would not actually lead to lower costs for households, and that is the question she should do her best to answer.
The Prime Minister—
Mr Windsor interjecting—
Order! The member for New England should contain his enthusiasm, or whatever he is displaying. The Prime Minister is responding and she knows the obligations on her under the standing orders.
I can confirm that petrol will not have a price impact from pricing carbon and consequently petrol will be cheaper than it would otherwise have been if we had put a direct carbon price on petrol. Australian households, despite the fear campaign from the Leader of the Opposition, will not see extra cents per litre when they go and buy petrol as a result of us pricing carbon, so it is good for Australian families and good for Australian households, and I am really quite surprised the Leader of the Opposition would be recommending anything else.
As for costs of abatement throughout the scheme, economists tell us, and of course they are right, that pricing carbon gets you the lowest cost abatement, and that is what the government is determined to do. The Leader of the Opposition, in contrast, is wedded to his grossly inefficient and costly scheme which would give us far higher costs of abatement per tonne, putting an extra burden on Australian families. And we can put a dollar figure on that burden: it is $720 per year.
A supplementary question to the Prime Minister: I refer the Prime Minister to this Australian government transport fact sheet dated July 2008, which states:
Excluding petrol would not lead to lower costs for households—to the contrary, any abatement that would otherwise have come from the transport sector will have to occur elsewhere and at higher cost.
I ask: doesn't the Prime Minister's own fact sheet prove that, whatever the spin, Australians will pay more for everything under her carbon tax?
What I can confirm for the Leader of the Opposition is that the emissions trading scheme which he helped design when he was in the Howard cabinet had petrol in it. It is also true to say that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme had petrol in it. We have made a different decision in the interests of Australian households to take petrol out and, of course, we will be working to support Australian households, with nine out of 10 households getting the benefits of tax cuts or payment increases. For the Leader of the Opposition, with his so-called professed concern about cost-of-living for Australian households, we stand by nine out of 10 households getting a tax cut or payment increases; the Leader of the Opposition stands for taking that money away, including money which would have been provided to the most at risk in our community. Older Australians with pension increases—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I can understand why the Prime Minister does not want to answer this question but she certainly was not asked anything about the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly she has been caught out and she should simply sit down.
Opposition members: Clean bowled!
Order! There will be a few people clean bowled right out of the chamber—except for Western Australians! Again, the Manager of Opposition Business does not help himself by the amount of argument he has in his points of order. I remind the Prime Minister that she must contain her response in a directly relevant manner to the question. I am sure that she is aware of that. The Prime Minister has the call and she will be heard in silence. As we indicated yesterday, it helps if we hear the responses, to know whether they are within the standing orders.
I was asked about cost of living and the way in which carbon pricing works for Australian families. I am making the very simple point that the government are intending to provide nine out of 10 households with tax cuts or payment increases. They are the very tax cuts and payment increases that the Leader of the Opposition is determined to claw back from Australian families, from older Australians, from pensioners, from sick Australians on the disability support pension, and from the mums and dads who are supporting kids who need that money in their family payment. The Leader of the Opposition is determined to claw that back and then, having taking those dollars away, to put an additional burden on Australian families of $720 a year. The government have made a different choice: to price carbon in the most efficient way, to assist Australian families with tax cuts and payment increases as we do so and not to put a carbon price directly on petrol.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government working to secure a sustainable future for the nation's live animal export industry? How is yesterday's decision to lift the suspension on live exports accompanied by strong protections for animal welfare?
I thank the member for McEwen for this question on a very serious issue. Of course, the government moved to deal with the cruelty we saw on the Four Corners program a number of weeks ago. Australians were rightly shocked to see Australian cattle treated with that kind of cruelty and Australians rightly wanted action. As I have said before in this parliament, I had the opportunity just before the suspension came into effect to meet with representatives of the live cattle industry. I have since met with them on a number of occasions and every time they have said to me that they do not want to see their animals treated like that. We needed to move to a suspension to address these animal welfare issues.
I am pleased that yesterday we were able to move to resume the trade because several important factors came together which made that possible. Those factors were that we agreed with industry how the international standards would be operationalised and the framework that would give them effect. We also had confidence, having reached that agreement and from information provided to us by some elements of industry, that a number of exporters in Australia were ready or close to ready to meet these standards. Also, we had received advice from Indonesia that they were prepared to issue permits for the importation of live cattle. That meant we were in a position to say that Australian industry could seek export permits under the new standards, that export permits would be granted on the basis that people could track and trace animals, that there would be transparency at every point of the supply chain and that there would be independent auditing including in the abattoirs in Indonesia. We were able to reach that situation through a new regulatory framework agreed with industry. Then we were able to see that a number of producers could meet that regulatory framework and we got advice from Indonesia that they were in a position to issue import permits.
I understand that the days of the suspended trade have been pressurised and anxious for people in the live cattle industry, which is why I am pleased we were able to work to this conclusion and announce it yesterday. I thank in particular the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Joe Ludwig, for his work. During these pressurised days, we have continued to work with industry on support measures including the $5 million animal welfare fund and the $30 million assistance package, as well as income subsidy arrangements for those who work in the industry. As the trade resumes, we will continue to work with industry to support cattle growers and to support others who work in this industry. I am glad we have reached a stage where we are able to see a resumption of this trade with appropriate animal welfare standards met and I am glad we are able to reassure Australians that appropriate steps have been taken, so that we do not see the kind of animal cruelty we saw on the Four Corners program.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why a 44 per cent increase in electricity prices since June 2008 is not a sufficient price signal to change consumer behaviour? And why is an additional tax on electricity required on top of that?
I thank the member for his question. First, I thank him for his frank acknowledgement that electricity prices have been going up and that that is nothing to do with carbon pricing. Often in this place we hear a great distortion about what is happening with electricity prices, with members of the opposition coming into this place and trying to pretend that the electricity price rises Australian families have sustained have somehow been caused by carbon pricing. Yes, electricity has risen. It has risen for a number of reasons. It has risen particularly because there is a need for more investment in electricity, including in electricity distribution. That investment is costly and it has been flowing through to electricity prices. And Australians have not got direct assistance to help them with the cost of that rising electricity. Now to the member I would say: people, I do believe, look at electricity prices. If they can receive good information about how to reduce their energy consumption whilst still doing the things that they need to do in their daily lives and still enjoying all the creature comforts that we are used to and want to keep, I believe people will respond to that information. There are a number of relatively simple things people can do to reduce their electricity consumption and to reduce their carbon pollution, and I believe that many Australians are motivated to do that and that with the better provision of information many more Australians will do that. On the question of carbon pricing and electricity, what I can say to the member is, yes, we have always said that when we were putting a price on carbon pollution to be paid by the biggest 500 polluters in this country—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is a very simple one on direct relevance. How much more does the price have to rise to change consumer behaviour—a very simple question. If the Prime Minister cannot answer it she should kindly sit down.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
I was asked about consumer behaviour and electricity pricing and I am directly dealing with things that can influence consumer behaviour and electricity pricing. I have just talked about questions of information provision to consumers which I believe can make a difference and now I am going on, having been asked about carbon pricing and electricity, to directly explain the impact of carbon pricing on electricity. I was explaining, before I was interrupted by the point of order, that we have always been very clear that the way carbon pricing was going to work was the big polluters would pay the price, so around 500 polluters paying the price, and that there would be flow-through impacts on prices paid by families, including electricity, and that, to assist those families, we would provide tax cuts and increases in family payments and pensions.
So I can say to the member, who is professing concern about the impact of electricity prices, that nine out of 10 Australian households will get compensation, will get assistance through tax cuts or increases in payments. Now that is a pretty stark contrast to Australian families having seen electricity prices go up with no assistance directed to help them with those prices and it is a pretty stark contrast too to the opposition's plan to take away all of the assistance we intend to provide and to put on top a new tax of $720 per year.
Order! I invite the member for Goldstein to apologise and I would allow him to remain in the chamber, even though his mobile phone went off, if he were to acknowledge that it was in error. I invite him to apologise.
I apologise, Mr Speaker.
I do say that the distraction of mobile phones is something that I think is black and white as to 'disorderly'. I am tempting fate. I am being generous to the member for Goldstein.
Mr Robb interjecting—
The member for Goldstein wants to tempt fate like that, given that I have had to mention him as interjecting on a number of occasions today. He does not see that he has simply had a favour done, I really think. Sometimes I wonder whether people realise that they have come into the chamber.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the government will deliver a price on carbon? How will the government assist households and industry in building a clean energy future and a strong low-emissions economy?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Members may not have heard of the HGI, the Harry grumpiness index, but it is very high and I expect a bit better from the chamber.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is about the order of the question. Given that the Prime Minister has been unable to answer any questions from the opposition this week about the carbon tax—and it is not until Sunday that—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I indicate that, because of the hubbub, I did not hear the question and I invite the member for Kingston to repeat her question.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the government will deliver a price on carbon? How will the government assist households and industry in building a clean energy future and a strong low-emissions economy?
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Having heard the question, I think it clearly asks for an announcement of government policy. I would suggest that you might ask the member for Kingston to reword it or rule it out of order.
Order! Similar to a response I gave to the Leader of the House yesterday when he alleged that somebody was inviting the Prime Minister to announce policy, I give the same ruling: the question is in order.
I am asked how we will deliver a price on carbon; let me answer that question. We will deliver a price on carbon in the most efficient way. We will deliver a price on carbon, respecting the science that is leading the way and telling us that our climate is changing, that that change is caused by carbon pollution and human activity and that we need to act to cut carbon pollution.
The plan I will announce on Sunday will be a plan to cut 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution by 2020. That is a very large change in the way that the nation generates carbon pollution. It is the equivalent to taking millions and millions of cars off the road, and that is the aim of pricing carbon: to cut carbon pollution. The plan that we will announce on Sunday will be a plan that protects Australian jobs and gives us access to the clean energy jobs of the future.
I am pleased to report to the House that, this month, we have seen in our nation 60,000 new jobs created. That is fantastic; we want people to have the benefits and dignity of work. As we go about pricing carbon, we will protect Australian jobs and get access to the clean energy jobs of the future. Around 1.6 million extra jobs will be created by 2020. We will price carbon in an efficient way, which is through an emissions trading scheme. We will reach that through a limited period of a fixed price and then reach an emissions trading scheme. This is the system of pricing carbon that was supported by former Prime Minister Howard. It is the system for pricing carbon that was supported by the member for Wentworth. It is the system for pricing carbon that economists recommend as the most efficient way of pricing carbon.
Because we are a Labor government we will ensure, as we price carbon, that we assist Australian families, and particularly that we assist those families most in need. Fifty per cent of all of the revenue raised will go to Australian households; nine out of 10 households will see tax cuts and increases in payments. We are talking about pensioners, family payments and tax cuts for working Australians. Three million Australian households will see a 20 per cent buffer. That means that the net amount of new money provided to them will be 20 per cent more than the expected impact of the carbon price on the goods they buy. They can come out better off as a result of our pricing carbon. Indeed, across the nine out of 10 households that we will assist, we will be providing information to people about how to cut their energy use. If people take some simple steps to cut their energy use, they too can pocket the tax cuts, or pension increases or family payment increases provided to them.
This is the right plan for the nation's future. It is a plan to create a clean energy future, tackle carbon pollution, get big polluters to pay, protect Australian jobs and assist Australian households. It is the right way to price carbon, driven by our Labor values, and all of the details will be available on Sunday.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her repeated statement that the carbon tax will affect 'the top 1,000 emitters'. I refer her to reports now that, just three days out from the announcement, the Prime Minister has cut that to 500. Have 500 companies suddenly stopped emitting greenhouse gases, Prime Minister, or are the Australian people being told only half the bad news?
I thank the member for his question. Let me explain to the member that coverage decisions have been made which do reduce the number of big businesses who will be paying the price for their carbon pollution. The biggest 500 polluters will be, under the scheme, required to pay a price for the carbon pollution they generate. Our plan is to make polluters pay. The Leader of the Opposition's plan is to make Australian families pay. So, in making those decisions about coverage, the number of big polluters who will be paying has been reduced. I would have to say that I detect a theme across the opposition's questions today. I detect an emerging theme. There are some days when you come in here and you have absolutely no idea what they are on about, but today I can tell what they are on about. They are on about their sense of disappointment because they have spent months and months and months trying to raise fear about carbon pricing. Now I think we can see written on their faces, as more and more details become clear about the scheme, that they can feel it. They can feel that their scare campaign is not going to be able to be sustained.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. I ask why 500 companies have suddenly stopped emitting greenhouse gases.
In answering the member's question and explaining the coverage changes that have been made in the scheme as compared with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, what I increasingly sense is a sense of disappointment from the opposition. They wanted to have their petrol price scare campaign. The Leader of the Opposition was already out claiming 6.5c a litre, and he was dead wrong. They wanted to have a campaign about how wide the scheme was covering and now they can see that scare campaign shrivelling before their eyes, because as usual they have been dead wrong. They wanted to have a cost of living scare campaign. They wanted to be out there scaring Australian families about the impacts of carbon pricing, and now of course it is clear nine out of 10 households will get tax cuts or payment increases, which should actually lead the opposition to say to itself: how irresponsible they have been over the last year trying to scare Australians, making things up, as we get on with pricing carbon in the most responsible way.
We will cut carbon pollution. We will get the big polluters to pay. We will protect Australian jobs. We will provide tax cuts and payment increases. We will get this job done in a Labor way, driven by our Labor values. Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition is hostage to sceptics. He is determined to rip assistance off Australian families. He wants to put an extra $720-a-year tax on them. He wants to go around scaring Australians about the prospects of their jobs. Well, we are a confident, creative nation. We have been up to the big challenges in the past. We will be up to this big challenge, and the Leader of the Opposition will be increasingly exposed as someone who went about generating fear with hollow and untruthful claims and as someone who is not ready to lead this nation—no ideas for the future, just relentless negativity and the saying of no, no, and no.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In Australia, animals cannot be slaughtered unless they are stunned first because it is the humane thing to do. The government has resumed the live export trade but without imposing any requirement that the animals be stunned before they are killed. Why didn't the government insist on this as a condition of resumption of trade? How can the government even pretend to guarantee that animals will be killed in a humane way if this basic minimum requirement of stunning them first does not have to be met?
I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. In answer to the member's question, I would inform him of the following. Australian standards do not mandate the use of stunning. It is widely used but it is not compulsory in Australia, and international standards do specify ways of humanely slaughtering animals where stunning is not used. However, we have been clear that we think stunning is to be encouraged and preferred, and that is the approach we will take as we work on the resumption of the live animal trade. In terms of the mandated standards, we have gone for international standards. Those international standards do not mandate stunning; neither do Australian standards mandate stunning. So I understand that this is a debate in which people will have a variety of perspectives.
There are, of course, some who come to the animal welfare debate with more stringent views than others about the slaughter of animals. There are some people who believe the killing of animals for food is wholly wrong. Now, of course, people are going to bring their various perspectives to this debate. But, in working out the conditions under which we would resume the trade, the relevant conditions that we have adopted are the international conditions. With the new export permits and control mechanisms, exporters will have a permit which enables them to export live animals, provided there is tracking, tracing, auditing and the standards are the international standards.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the importance of undertaking the big economic reforms, including putting a price on carbon for our nation's future. How has this approach been received and what is the government's response?
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The member for Dickson is warned!
I thank the member for Canberra for her very important question because, as I outlined to the House yesterday, the global economy does face some substantial challenges and, thankfully, our economy is one of the strongest in the developed world. You can see this in the pipeline of investment in resources—the $430 billion that has been outlined by ABARES. Of course, we have a debt position which is the envy of the developed world. We have low unemployment. When the global financial crisis hit, our unemployment rate was the same level as the United States. Now theirs is twice ours, with unemployment here at 4.9 per cent. Today we have seen the Labor force figures, which show unemployment again at 4.9 per cent. Something like 23,000 jobs have been created in the past month of June, with strong growth in full employment—something which is celebrated and supported by everybody on this side of the House. Of course, this adds to the 750,000 jobs that have been created and the 222,000 jobs created in the past year. One of the reasons why employment is so strong in this country is that this government got the big economic decisions right. We acted at the height of the global financial crisis and the global recession to support our economy. But that is not the only reason why our economy is strong compared to other developed economies. We have also over a 25-year period put in place the really big economic reforms, and that adds to our economic strength compared to the economic strength, or lack thereof, of so many other developed economies.
You would have to ask the question: where would Australia be now if we had not put in place a great reform like compulsory superannuation, which was opposed by those on that side of the House? Where would we be if the government of the day then had caved in to the fear campaign that was being run against that great reform?
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Higgins is warned!
Where would Australia be today if past governments did not have the guts to bring down the tariff wall and to float the dollar? Where would Australia be today? What these instances demonstrate is the importance of fundamental reform for the future because, if we face up to the challenges of reform, we will be doing the right thing by future generations. Those that are opposing fundamental reforms are in fact supporting lower living standards for future generations.
Government members: Shame!
Shame on them. We in this country have a strong economy because governments over 25 years have been prepared to take the tough decisions, to look to the long term, to look to those policies which will drive prosperity, but unfortunately those on that side of the House do not have that courage. In 25 years time there will be people looking back and saying, 'Why were they debating and contesting the science of climate change in the parliament 25 years back? Why were there sceptics then who did not believe in the importance of pricing carbon, did not believe in the science of climate change?' We on this side of the House understand the science and we understand the economics of climate change and we understand its importance for our future prosperity. The fear campaigns we are seeing now we have seen in the past, and those that run those fear campaigns will be reflected on very poorly in the pages of history.
My question is to the Treasurer. At 2:15 yesterday in this House, you said:
We are putting a price on carbon pollution, to be paid by up to 1,000 of our largest polluters.
Treasurer, when did you find out that it is just 500?
For once I have been quoted accurately by the shadow Treasurer because I said 'up to'.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. I simply say to those who argue that they think this is an important part of the day that we can sit here in silence and not give the opportunity for questions to be asked. It would absolutely assist if people could contain themselves simply for a short period of time. The Treasurer has the call, and he should be heard in silence.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The government makes no apology whatsoever for not putting a carbon price on fuel used by passenger vehicles or light commercial vehicles. But, listening to the questions from those opposite, you somehow get the impression that they now favour a carbon price on fuel used by passenger vehicles and light commercial vehicles. That is the only logical consequence you can gain from what is being said by those opposite. Those opposite are just completely embarrassed. The government's policy is very clear.
Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the Treasurer was asked only when he found out it applied to only 500 companies.
Order! The Treasurer has the call.
I thank the shadow Treasurer again for his question. We have been very clear that the largest polluters will be paying a price for their carbon pollution and we will be using the revenue to assist households and to support jobs. The reason those opposite are now so embarrassed is that their policy is actually to tax families and households $720 a year and give the money to the large polluters.
He's got leave this afternoon. He's got to go early.
Order! The Leader of the House is warned.
I seek leave to move a motion of censure against this government.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—That this House censures the Government for deceiving the Australian people by bringing in a carbon tax that is nothing more than a bad tax built on a lie.
We know that this is a bad tax built on a lie because what else have we been hearing for months now from this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has said day in, day out in this House that this carbon tax will make the 1,000 biggest polluters pay. What have we got today? The great disappearing carbon tax. All of a sudden it is not 1,000 it is just 500—shades of the East Timor boat people solution, shades of the climate change people's convention. This is a Prime Minister that cannot get her story straight from one day to the next. This is a Prime Minister who simply cannot be trusted with a new tax. This is the government of pink batts. This is the government of school halls. This is the government of boat arrivals one after another, day after day, and now this government wants the Australian people to trust it. The most incompetent government in Australian history wants the Australian people to trust it with the most complex change in Australian history. They will get it wrong on Sunday, just as they have got it wrong day in, day out in this House since February of this year. Standing orders must be suspended because this government must be censured.
This is a bad tax based on a lie. It is all economic pain for no environmental gain. The biggest lie of all—the Prime Minister can turn her back on me, but she cannot turn her back on the Australian people. She can turn her back on me and pretend to be interested in the conversation of her colleagues but, I tell you what, she does not talk to her colleagues about the design of a carbon tax. She does not talk to any of them about the design of the carbon tax. She does not even talk to the Treasurer, who just yesterday thought it was still 1,000 big companies. What an embarrassment! We have got a Prime Minister who lied about the carbon tax before the election, who cannot get her story straight in this parliament, who runs away from the people at an election, who will not face the people at a plebiscite, who will not face questions in this parliament and now she turns her back. How childish, how immature, how cowardly is this Prime Minister?
This is a bad tax based on a lie, but it is not just the lie six days out from the election, the whole argument for a carbon tax is lie after lie after lie. She says that we have got to have a carbon tax to keep up with the rest of the world—wrong, just a lie, a lie that has been nailed by no less an authority than the Productivity Commission, which says there is no country in the world, not one, that is imposing an economy-wide carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. Answer that question, Prime Minister. You can shuffle the papers all you like, but answer this question, Prime Minister: what do you think of the Productivity Commission's statement that there is no country on earth—
Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer his remarks through the chair.
I say through you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister should answer this question: what does she think of the Productivity Commission's statement that there is no country on earth, not one, which is imposing an economy-wide carbon tax or emissions trading scheme? Answer that question, Prime Minister, because that is the question—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The Leader of the Opposition continues to defy your ruling and it was the Leader of the Opposition who suspended question time. He cannot then, during a suspension motion—
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will refer his remarks through the chair. I remind him that this is a motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders and that is what we are debating.
We must suspend standing and sessional orders because we have got to get a few answers finally from this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has been consistently running away from the parliament of this country. Let me remind the Prime Minister of her own words just a few months ago to the National Press Club:
I believe Australians want greater scrutiny of their government and greater accountability to parliament.
It is not just the pre-election lie, what about the post-election lie?
Order! The Leader of the Opposition will be very careful in the use of the expression 'lie' in making an accusation. I know that he has put it in his motion and the motion, if sessional and standing orders are suspended, will be in order, but the accusation of lying needs another device of this place. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr Speaker, I accept your point, but I simply make this point in response to the Prime Minister: how can this Prime Minister look the Australian people in the face, how can this Prime Minister expect to be taken seriously, when she said to them at the National Press Club on 31 August:
I believe Australians want greater scrutiny of their government and greater accountability to parliament.
This is a Prime Minister who has not just run away from the people but run away from this parliament. This is a Prime Minister who day after day after day in this House runs away from parliamentary scrutiny and now she is refusing parliamentary scrutiny of the biggest structural change this country has ever been asked to make. This government is in deep, deep trouble, and why wouldn't it be in trouble, because a carbon tax only works if it hurts. This tax is going to hurt every single Australian, and members opposite know it. That is why they look so happy. Don't they look so happy, Mr Speaker? Don't they look so cheerful every time the Prime Minister gets up and gives us another one of these long exercises in pollie waffle and robo speak?
Finally, on Sunday, members opposite are going to get the bad news. This is a government by teleconference. That is what we are going to get—the 103 Labor members of parliament are going to ring up and get the recorded message: 'If you are a Labor member of parliament, press 1 and get a recorded message from the Prime Minister; if you are a Green member of parliament, press 2 and the Prime Minister will talk to you directly.' That is all she ever does. She talks directly to the Greens all the time.
We have had bad government in this country. We had bad government before the last election because we had a gang of four—the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was then the Prime Minister, and the former member for Melbourne. That gang of four gave us pink batts and school halls. Now what have we got? We have got the gang of six. We have got the Prime Minister, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, two Greens senators and two Independents. The gang of six is just as bad at process as the gang of four was. Bad process gives us bad government. Bad government is the result of bad process.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood this was a motion for a suspension, and the Leader of the Opposition—
The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is a suspension motion.
I simply say this to the Prime Minister: the Australian people are not mugs. They know that, if $1 is taken out of one pocket, and 50c in compensation is put back into the other pocket, that is not a good deal. The Australian people will never take a dud deal from this government. They know Paul Keating's words: 'If you don't understand it, don't vote for it. If you do understand it, you'll never vote for it. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. This government's credibility is rock bottom. Its credibility is rock bottom because this Prime Minister's personal credibility is in tatters. At the heart of this government's problems—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made no attempt to address the matter before the House.
The member has been on her feet for 20 seconds. She knows what the motion is.
The reason this government's credibility is rock bottom and the reason this Prime Minister's personal credibility is rock bottom is that this Prime Minister and this government are trying to introduce a tax, impose a burden on the Australian people, having made a statement just six days before the last election that the Australian people believed—they took this Prime Minister at her word—and how she has betrayed them. How she has deceived them. The Australian people should have learned from what happened to the member for Griffith when the member for Griffith was so betrayed by her, when he was so betrayed by his deputy, who would said she would rather—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will relate her speech to the suspension motion.
fly to Mars than challenge the member for Griffith—but she did. She then said to the Australian people, six days before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am reluctant to do this, but the reality is that, on a number of occasions, you have advised those speaking that they should speak to why there should be a suspension of standing orders, not in relation to these erroneous matters that have nothing to do with the standing orders.
The member for Banks will resume his seat. From now until the end, you wish me to strictly enforce that? We will see what problems that brings.
The reason we seek to censure this Prime Minister is that this government is trashing parliamentary democracy. This government is refusing to answer questions day after day in question time. This government is afraid of having to face the people through this parliament. I wonder why that would be. You see, when you lie to the Australian people via the media, there are not the consequences—
Order! The member will withdraw.
I withdraw. When you make a misleading statement in the parliament, oh yeah, there are consequences, but when you mislead the Australian people through the media there are not the consequences, other than you lose the next election because you have lost the faith of the Australian people. A breach of faith with the Australian people is the reason that this government's credibility is rock bottom.
When the Prime Minister was seeking to woo the Independents, to win over the Independents to prop up her minority government, she made a number of pledges. She made a number of pledges to the Independents in her speech to the National Press Club. She promised—
Who's 'she'?
The Prime Minister. Aren't you aware of who your Prime Minister is? She made the pledge that she would strengthen the role of the national parliament in the decisions that affect the everyday lives of Australians. That was the Prime Minister's pledge—
A government member: Miaow!
to the Independents and to the Australian people, yet she has trashed that pledge, as she has trashed every promise to the Australian people. The fact is that she looked the Australian people in the eye and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and yet she now seeks to impose it.
The Prime Minister also said in the National Press Club address that she believed Australians wanted greater scrutiny of their government. Well, yes, they do, and they want to be able to scrutinise this government's carbon tax through the parliament. They want their questions, through their representatives, answered by this Prime Minister, yet she is scurrying away from Canberra. After the lights have been turned out, after the people have left, after the members are back in their electorates, then the Prime Minister wants to make a speech on national television about the carbon tax so that she cannot be asked questions in this parliament. She is avoiding scrutiny. She is trashing parliamentary democracy. She has broken the pledge she made to the Independents about the supremacy of this parliament and she cannot be believed on anything she says. This carbon tax is based on a lie. The Prime Minister's credibility is in tatters.
Order! There was an incident during the Deputy Leader's speech. If I knew who the culprit was—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! You can point your fingers all you like.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: with all due respect, it is very important that you look to the tapes to find out who made that catcall. I think it is an outrageous serve—
Order! The member for Higgins will resume her seat. If you want me to use the word 'disgust' I will use the word 'disgust' and I would have dealt with it if I knew who it was. I have already indicated to those who control behaviour that they should do so. The Prime Minister has the call.
I rise to oppose the suspension of standing orders on the basis that—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat.
Mr Speaker, a point of order: respectful of you, I believe that the House would be much more likely to remain in order if the member responsible confessed and apologised.
Mr Speaker, I believe there were a number of interjections that—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! I am not wishing for a debate, because the Prime Minister has the call. If the Chief Government Whip has something to say, he will not argue the case; he will just say it.
Mr Speaker, I believe there were a number of interventions from this part of the House during that provocative speech from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I make a catch-all apology for any that I may have made.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Higgins will resume her place. Regrettably, we leave tonight, and no matter who is blameless or not will be reflected upon for all the wrong reasons. Some people have to expect that there are levels of intervention that are seen as of being of a higher level of disgust than others. As I indicated to the House, if I had known who had made that particular intervention, it would have been dealt with. I am in the invidious position that I do not know. I think, reasonably, an invitation was made that should have been taken at its face value as being generous to actually complete and conclude the incident. If that is not possible, regrettably I will try to keep control of the chamber whilst the Prime Minister completes the last 6½ minutes of this debate. I will pause—if nothing happens, I will give the call to the Prime Minister to complete the debate. Order! The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to oppose the suspension of standing orders.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it is with great regret that the House will find it almost impossible to move on while the member concerned hides behind anonymity. We all know who it was. The press gallery knows who it was. I would invite him to apologise to the House.
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
Order! I just want to get this straight. People might allege that everybody knows. I do not know. I absolutely understand I have the problem of controlling the House. I have made attempts to bring this to a conclusion, but that has not happened. In fact, the only action I took was to indicate to people that had control of behaviour my disgust.
Mr Speaker, I apologise in a catch-all way. I thought that covered the incident.
An opposition member: Unreservedly.
My apology is unreserved.
Order! The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. That is an apology and I think that nothing should be added. The Prime Minister has the call.
I rise to oppose the suspension of standing orders because this parliament, and this nation, does not need a further opportunity to listen to the relentless negativity of the opposition. We are a confident and creative country. We are a country that is rightly proud of its past and a country with the courage to make sure that we have the best possible future. We are not a nation that has, in the past, tried to avoid seizing the challenges of the future.
Today we are called upon to seize the challenge of our age—and that is tackling climate change. We are up to this job. As Australians, we are up to this job. We are up to the job of accepting the science. The science is now unambiguous and clear—carbon pollution is changing our climate, it is caused by human beings and we need to cut carbon pollution. We are not a nation that has sat idly by when the world has faced challenges in the past. We are one of the 20 big polluters on the planet. We are the highest polluter per head of population in the developed world. We need to make sure that we keep pace with the world. We should not lead the world but we should not be left behind either. We need to cut carbon pollution.
The economists are telling us that the best way of cutting carbon pollution is to price carbon. Prime Minister Howard believed that and the members of his cabinet believed that, including the current Leader of the Opposition—before he succumbed to the kind of opportunism we see on display today. We will use the most efficient mechanism to cut carbon pollution.
Because we come to this with our Labor values, we will ensure that we protect jobs and assist those Australian families who need our assistance the most. Our Labor tradition, our Labor way, is to understand that working people need access to the benefits and dignity of work, which is why we are so proud that more than 700,000 jobs have been created since the government was elected in 2007. More jobs will be created in the future, including after we have priced carbon.
And we will be providing assistance to Australian families. We want to work with Australian families to manage their cost-of-living pressures. That is why we will provide tax cuts, it is why we will increase payments and it is why we will provide benefits to pensioners. We will look after those in the community who need our assistance the most—that is the Labor way.
The Leader of the Opposition is inviting this nation to be less than it can be. He is inviting this nation to believe we are not up to the challenges of reform. He is inviting this nation to pretend that we can shape a future by sleepwalking towards it. I believe differently. We are a proud people, we are a creative people, we are a confident people and we are up to getting this job done.
On Sunday we will answer the questions Australians have rightly been asking us. My door has been open to the scientists, to the economists, to the energy experts, to the social welfare sector, to employers, to unions and to people of goodwill who want our nation to get on with this job. Having worked with them, we are now at the stage of saying that we know the very best way to price carbon, the very best way to reduce our pollution and the very best way to make sure we are ready for a clean energy future. We will seize the opportunity of that future. We will not allow the tide of negativity from the opposition and the scare campaigns to hold this nation back. We will walk towards this future, we will deliver the reforms the nation needs and we will work with Australian families as we do so. My message to Australians is very clear: we are up to this job and we are going to do it together, creating the clean energy future that the Australian community deserves.
Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired.
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Abbott's) be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:15]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a very short statement on indulgence. I understand that the member for Hunter made an inappropriate noise towards the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when she was speaking during the suspension debate. I have been advised of that during the course of moving around. This was clearly the wrong thing for the member for Hunter to do. I will be requiring him to apologise personally to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
As a woman in this parliament of course I say to all members of the Labor team and all members of the parliament generally that conduct towards women in this parliament which would not occur towards men in this parliament is inappropriate and wrong and should not be indulged in by any member.
Mr Speaker, also on indulgence, I rise simply to thank the Prime Minister for her extremely gracious statement after what was quite a taxing debate.
I genuinely thank both leaders.
For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 25 November 2010, the date of the last schedule, and 6 July 2011. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and it will be incorporated in Hansard.
The schedule read as follows—
GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS
RESPONSE TO THE SCHEDULE TABLED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON 25 NOVEMBER 2010
Circulated by the Leader of the House
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
6 July 2011
ABORIGINAL TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS (House, Standing)
Indigenous Australia at work: Successful Initiative in Indigenous employment
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Open for business: Developing Indigenous enterprises in Australia
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Everybody’s Business: Remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Stores
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY (House, Standing)
Taking control: a national approach to pest animals
Circumstances and policy settings have altered since this report was tabled in 2005; the government does not propose to respond to this report.
COMMUNICATIONS (House, Standing)
Hackers, Fraudsters and Botnets: Tackling the problem of Cyber Crime
The government response was tabled on 25 November 2010.
COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS (House, Standing)
Digital Television: Who’s Buying It?
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Community Television: Options for digital broadcasting
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report: Tuning in to community broadcasting
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
CORPORATIONS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES (Joint Statutory)
Inquiry into the Review of the Managed Investments Act 1998
The government response is being considered.
Inquiry into Regulation 7.1.29 in Corporations Amendment Regulations 2003 (No. 3), Statutory Rules 2003 No. 85
The Government does not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled. Key recommendations relate to the introduction of a licensing exemption for accountants who provide certain financial services. This issue is being addressed by the Future of Financial Advice reforms which will come into effect on 1 July 2012.
Corporations Amendment Regulations 7.1.29A, 7.1.35A and 7.1.40(h)
The Government does not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled. Key recommendations relate to a licensing exemption for accountants who provide certain financial services. The exemption is being addressed by the Future of Financial Advice reforms which will come into effect on 1 July 2012.
Corporate responsibility: Managing risk and creating value
The Government does not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled; and the significant developments in the corporate social responsibility area since the inquiry.
The structure and operation of the superannuation industry
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Better shareholders – better company – Shareholder engagement and participation in Australia
The Government does not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled.
Aspects of agribusiness managed investment schemes
The Government will provide a response on the finalisation of two separate committee inquiries that overlap with issues raised in this report.
Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, June 2010
The government response is being considered.
ECONOMICS (House, Standing)
Competition in the banking and non-banking sectors
Report overtaken by the recommendations of the Senate Economics References Committee report on Competition within the Australian Banking Sector.
Inquiry into raising the productivity growth rate in the Australian economy
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING (House, Standing)
Review of the Department of Education, Science and Training annual report 2006-07
The government response was tabled on 23 May 2011.
Adolescent Overload? Report of the inquiry into combining school and work: supporting successful youth transition
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
ELECTORAL MATTERS (Joint Standing)
Inquiry into the implications of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Automatic Enrolment) Act 2009 (NSW) for the conduct of Commonwealth elections
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report on the 2007 Federal Election – Events in the Division of Lindsay: Review of penalty provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 1 July 2011 and tabled in the House of Representatives on 4 July 2011.
EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION (House, Standing)
Making it work: Inquiry into independent contracting and labour hire arrangements
The government is currently in discussion with the Committee.
EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS (House, Standing)
Making it Fair: pay equity and associated issues related to increasing female participation in the workforce
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE (House, Standing)
Sustainable cities
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Sustainability for survival – Creating a climate for change: Report on the inquiry into a sustainability charter
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
FAMILY, COMMUNITY, HOUSING AND YOUTH (Joint, Standing)
Housing the Homeless: Report on the inquiry into homelessness legislation
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Avoid the Harm – Stay Calm: Report on the inquiry into the impact of violence on young Australians
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE (JOINT, STANDING)
Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific: Challenges and opportunities
The government response is being considered.
Review of the Defence Annual Report 2008-2009
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 28 June 2011 and tabled in the House of Representatives on 4 July 2011.
HEALTH AND AGEING (HOUSE, STANDING)
Weighing it up: Obesity in Australia
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Regional health issues jointly affecting Australia and the South Pacific: Delegation Report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Roundtable forum on burns prevention in Australia
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND INNOVATION (House, Standing)
Seasonal forecasting in Australia
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Australia’s International Research Collaboration
The government response was tabled on 23 June 2011.
INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (House, Standing)
Rebuilding Australia’s coastal shipping industry: Inquiry into coastal shipping policy and regulation
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Funding regional and local community infrastructure: Proposals for the new regional and local community infrastructure program – Interim Report
Minister Crean wrote to the Secretary of the Committee on 3 April 2011.
INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY (Joint, Statutory)
Annual report of Committee Activities 2008-2009
The government response was tabled on 12 May 2011.
Review of Administration and Expenditure: No 8 – Australian Intelligence Agencies
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (HOUSE, STANDING)
A Time for Change: Yes/No? Inquiry into the Machinery of Referendums
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
MIGRATION (Joint, Standing)
Negotiating the maze – Review of arrangements for overseas skills recognition, upgrading and licensing
The government response was tabled on 23 June 2011.
Immigration detention in Australia: A new beginning – Criteria for release from detention
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Immigration detention in Australia – Community-based alternatives to detention
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Immigration detention in Australia: Facilities, services and transparency
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Enabling Australia: Inquiry into Migration Treatment of Disability
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES (Joint, Standing)
Inquiry into the changing economic environment in the Indian Ocean Territories
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
PETITIONS (House, Standing)
Electronic Petitioning to the House of Representatives
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
The work of the First Petitions Committee 2008-2010
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND RESOURCES (House, Standing)
Farming the future: The role of Government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impact of climate change
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
PROCEDURE (House, Standing)
Motion to suspend standing orders and condemn a Member: Report on events of 10 October 2006
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Building a modern committee system: An inquiry into the effectiveness of the House Committee system
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT (Joint, Statutory)
Report 417 – Review of Auditor-General’s reports tabled between February 2009 and September 2009
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Inquiry into the development of a digital repository and electronic distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
TREATIES (Joint Standing)
Report 99 – Treaties tabled on 3 December 2008 and 3 February 2009
The government response was tabled on 10 February 2011.
Report 100 – Treaties tabled on 25 June 2008 (2)
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 107 – Treaties tabled on 20 August (2) and 15 September 2009
The government response was tabled on 12 May 2011.
Report 110 – Treaties tabled on 18, 25 (2) and 26 November 2009 and 2 (2) February 2010
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 11 1 – Treaties tabled on 25 November 2009 (3), 4 and 24 February 2010
The government response was tabled on 24 March 2011.
I present the Selection Committee's report No. 27 relating to the consideration of private members' business and bills. The report will be printed in today's Hansard. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
1. The committee met in private session on 6 and 7 July 2011.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry:
Standing Committee on Economics:
Standing Committee on Health and Ageing:
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs:
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
3. The committee recommends that the following items of private Members’ business listed on the notice paper be voted on:
Orders of the Day
House of Representatives Chamber
Funding for non-government schools (Mr Pyne)
Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 (Mr Wilkie)
Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 (Mr Bandt)
Main Committee
SA Remote Areas Energy Supplies scheme (Mr Ramsey)
Fraud under the Home Insulation Program (Mr Fletcher)
Centenary of the Royal Australian Navy (Mr Alexander).
I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip, the Chief Opposition Whip and Mr Bandt nominating members to be supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purposes of the committee’s inquiry into the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2011.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Bandt, Ms Smyth, Mr Neumann and Mr Billson be appointed supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2011.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the resolution agreed to by the House on 5 July 2011, relating to constituency statements in the Main Committee on equality for same sex couples, be varied by omitting “17 August 2011” and substituting “24 August 2011”.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Department of Finance and Deregulation—Parliamentarians’ Expenditure on Entitlements paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation – July to December 2010
Department of Finance And Deregulation—Former Parliamentarians’ Expenditure on Entitlements paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation – July to December 2010
Department of Finance And Deregulation—Parliamentarians’ Overseas Study Travel Reports – July to December 2010
Department of Defence—Schedule of Special Purpose Flights – 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010
Department of Health And Ageing—National Health and Medical Research Council – Report of the Independent Review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 – A Report to the Parliament and the Council of Australian Governments – June 2011
Debate adjourned.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The adverse effect of the carbon tax on confidence in the Australian economy.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
What an extraordinary sequence of events today. If you wanted any evidence of why consumer confidence is down, business confidence is down and building investment is down, and if you wanted know why there is a general despondency across the nation, look no further than the fact that 24 hours ago the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer of Australia declared in this place that '1,000 big polluters' would be paying a carbon tax and yet 24 hours later he refused to reveal when he found out that 500 had gone missing. Five hundred companies have gone missing. How do you lose 500 companies? They are like aircraft carriers but much bigger! Are they in the dispatch box? Are they under the table? Where have they gone? Are they hiding in the meditation room upstairs? Where are they? I can only think that the Treasurer must be an acrobat and that he would be well served if he was in Circus Oz, because he has done what no magician has done since we had old Alan Bond around—he has managed to destroy big companies. He has taken them out of the equation. Five hundred companies have disappeared out of Australia in the last 24 hours.
The Prime Minister on Monday night in a joint statement—roping old Swannie in and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—said, 'The principles are settled; the 1,000 biggest polluters.' They confirmed on Monday night that it was all done and dusted, that 1,000 big polluters would pay. Come Thursday, three days before Sunday, it is down to 500.
I walked outside for a brief moment and there was a gentle hum in the background. I wondered, 'What is that hum out there?' Do you know what it was? It was the sound of the pulping of all those documents that have been printed—all those glossy brochures. They are re-cutting the ads tonight. They have probably flown to the other side of the world to get some daylight so that they can redo the ads and redo the brochures because they suddenly have to take out 500 companies. Imagine, this is the only time in Canberra's history that the whirr of the pulping machines has been louder than the printing machines. Where are things at? What is frightening is that their mob, their backbench—the caucus—must be wondering what the hell is going on. If the people on the frontbench who are going to make the announcement do not know how many companies are going to be affected by a carbon tax, how can their backbench have any confidence in them? This is not the way to run a country. Was it a surprise to the member for New England that it had gone from 1,000 to 500?
You'll find out, Joe.
Oh, we will find out! Was it a surprise to the member for Lyne?
Mr Oakeshott interjecting—
It was! Ring up Bob Brown. 'Hey Bob, it's Rob here. No, Bob, it's Rob. I have to say to you, Bob, we've heard that it is down to 500. Good news.' Imagine how pleased No. 501 is! 'Today is a glory day. I'm excluded. I'm No. 501 on the list.' What about poor, old No. 500? What a bum steer for No. 500! Poor, old No. 500. It is probably a little family company that thought they were getting the guernsey.
Mr Windsor interjecting—
You are No. 1, old soul. Old china, you are No. 1.
Mr Windsor interjecting—
You've got a No. 10! You cannot count either. Lord knows, he is now the man running the Treasury! On their side, it is a complete comedy act. And no wonder it is having an impact on the Australian people. No wonder retail is down. No wonder manufacturing is frightened. Why? Because the people running the show are treating it like a circus. That is what it comes down to. They only decided on Monday night to make the announcement because Christine Milne went on Sky News on Monday and said, 'We'll be making an announcement at the end of the week.' Less than 24 hours earlier, the Prime Minister said, 'It could be some weeks.' But now we know: Christine Milne called the timetable for the announcement of carbon tax.
An opposition member: Who is she?
She is a Greens senator in the other place who was not elected by the majority of the Australian people to run the shop. Nor was the member for New England, nor was the member for Lyne, nor was Senator Bob Brown, nor any of them. They were not elected to run the shop. They were elected not to deliver a carbon tax. That is what they promised.
It comes down to three core principles. No. 1 is the cost of the tax. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that when it comes down to it, it does not matter what the government says about compensation. Compensation is only delivered when injury has happened. And the government is determined to injure the Australian people. You do not have to compensate people if you do not cause injury. The second key fact associated with that—bear this in mind—is that the government will collect more money than it gives back to the Australian people. It is boasting that it is going to deliver so-called tax cuts and increased pensions, but the fundamental point here is that for almost every dollar it gives Australians it is collecting two dollars out of every Australian's pocket. The government can talk about tax cuts and compensation, but it is meaningless for Australians because ultimately Australians will pay the price. Whether it is 500 or a thousand, as Ross Garnaut said: every Australian will pay the price. That is the fundamental point. The cost is real; the impact is real.
The second key point is trust. We cannot trust what the Prime Minister or the Treasurer say. The Prime Minister said before the election 'no carbon tax'; now we are facing a carbon tax. The Prime Minister said that there will be no carbon tax under a government she leads. Well, she leads this incompetent government but now we have a carbon tax. And the Prime Minister said, as recently as in the last 48 hours, that a thousand big polluters would pay. Now we discover it is 500. Yet I would expect the revenue raised to be just the same. And as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out—through the government's own publication—even if they exclude petrol at the pump for households the costs for households will increase. That is the word of the government; it is not confected, it is not designed by us. It is reality that every Australian will pay because somehow, in some way, whether it is $10 billion a year or $11 billion a year, the fundamental truth endures that it comes out of the pockets of Australians. That is what will be the real impact of this tax. It is so fundamental.
The third key factor is this: everything comes down to the confusion that will be generated. This is not just about the tax, it is not just about a lack of trust in the government; it is about the confusion that will be wreaked. These are the three key components of why the carbon tax is a flawed tax: it is costly, it is confused, and whatever this government says cannot be trusted. What we know is that as soon as the government introduces a second component, going from a carbon tax to an ETS, it will add confusion. And when the government says it is going to exclude some people and not others it adds confusion. No wonder the Treasurer could not answer the question in this place about whether a landscaper would have to pay tax on the fuel that goes into a mower or into a chainsaw—yet those are the key components of a landscaper's business. The government could not even answer that simple question.
I give the government a very clear warning: some of us were around for the GST debate and we had to answer, day in and day out, at public forums and everywhere else, questions about how the tax would be applied, who would be affected, how they would be affected and whether there would be enough compensation for everyday Australians. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker: we will pursue this issue until the election. We will pursue this issue until the government explains to the Australian people—individually if necessary—the exact details of how Australians are affected, because the Prime Minister lied to those Australians. She specifically told an untruth.
Order! The honourable member will withdraw the word 'lie'.
I will withdraw the term 'lie' and say that the Prime Minister deliberately misled the Australian people.
The honourable member will withdraw that term. He is not able to reflect upon the Prime Minister other than by way of substantive motion.
Yes, I will withdraw that as well, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have reduced my argument to nothing, because I am only telling the truth.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that the withdrawal be made unreservedly. I believe it is not unreasonable to regard that as a qualified withdrawal.
My understanding is that the member for North Sydney did withdraw unreservedly. Is that correct?
I withdraw unreservedly. It is as simple as this: the Treasurer said less than 30 days ago that the budget would be neutral in terms of the effect of the carbon tax; today we discover it is going to cost $4 billion. We thought it was a thousand companies; today it is 500. We were of the understanding that the government was going to take weeks and months to sort this out; now it appears that it is all happening on Sunday. This is not the way to run a country. It is like a bad episode of Bewitched. The problem is that the Treasurer is old Darrin, the one who does not know what is going on. And he has a hostile mother-in-law, old Agnes. Do you remember Agnes? She makes something appear then disappear. The budget is going to be neutral then all of a sudden it is going to cost $4 billion. There are 1000 companies and then all of a sudden there are 500 companies. Old Darrin does not know what is going on. I loved that show. We all loved Darrin's confusion. The only problem is that Darrin is the Treasurer of Australia. The only problem is that old 'Durwood', as Agnes used to call him, is the Deputy Prime Minister.
An opposition member: Endora.
Endora, that's right! Agnes Moorehead—we miss her. I would say this: when you look at the details and lack of confidence in the Australian community, you say to yourself, 'How has it happened so quickly?' With the best terms of trade in 140 years, you would think that Australia is doing well. With an unemployment rate of 4.9 per cent and more full-time jobs created, you would think every Australian would think they are doing well. But the fact is that this tax will affect the things that Australians need, not what they want. It may have little impact on computers, it may have little impact on the cost of purchasing a TV, but it will have a direct, immediate impact on the cost of electricity, something every Australian family has to buy. It will have an immediate impact on the cost of housing, something Australians need. It will have an impact on the cost of water because pumping water to people's homes costs money. It will have an impact on the plumber and the electrician. It will have an impact on the builder's labourer and it will have an impact on the brickie. It will have an impact right cross the economy, on the things that people need on a daily basis.
As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, if this tax is meant to have any impact on the environment, it has to hurt people. The government would have you believe that this is not going to hurt, but the truth is that it is going to hurt the Australian economy at a time when Australia cannot afford it. It will be the biggest economy-wide tax on carbon in the world. If it is not the biggest today, it will be in three, four or five years.
Now the true agenda has been revealed. If the Prime Minister does not know what is happening in her government, if the Treasurer does not know what is happening in his government, if the member for New England or the member for Lyne do not know what is going on, it proves that what we have said is true—that the Greens are in power and the Greens are running the country. Sadly, that is a poor reflection on this mob.
The biggest threat to confidence in the Australian economy is a federal opposition who have no confidence in the Australian people and are always trash-talking the future and the capacity of Australians to change. The government understands that what generates confidence are decisions and positive plans. The government understands that the constant talking-down of the ability of Australians to cope with change undermines confidence. The government understands that to keep writing some sort of Stephen King horror novel, trying to scare the Australian population, will damage confidence.
I would submit to this House that this nation and this economy, and indeed the government, pass what I would call 'the airport test'. There are not a lot of Australians who, when they come back to Australia from overseas, get off at an airport and say, 'Oh, my goodness! I want to go back overseas.' This is a good country. This is a great country. This country has never shirked change. We have never hidden from change.
This government has a plan—it will provide details on Sunday. The Gillard government also understands what business knows and what the Australian people know—that you cannot put up a proposition that Australia can just be frozen in the moment. The opposition would have you believe that now is not a good time to change, tomorrow will not be a good time to change and that it will never be a good time to change.
This nation cannot progress on a policy prescription that we do not ever have to change. This nation needs leadership. This nation needs to confront issues. Change is never easy. The government understands that. Also, this government understands what business knows. Business knows that the Australian economy is in transition and that we cannot stand still. This government knows that business appreciates the value of certainty. This government understands that Australian business knows that the world is moving to improved energy efficiency and to lower carbon pollution.
This government understands that we need to lower carbon pollution in this country and that big polluters should pay. You would not be allowed to tip your garbage in the street and expect someone else to clean up your mess. This government understands intuitively that we need to act to do something to lower carbon pollution. The government also gets that families and consumers should get a fair go and that climate change is real. Depending on who is in power in the opposition, they believe it is happening—like Malcolm Turnbull. If they do not believe it is happening, like Tony Abbott—
The member for Wentworth!
I beg your pardon—the Leader of the Opposition.
No, the member for Wentworth!
The member for Wentworth—former Leader of the Opposition, until torn down. The member for North Sydney said that a vote on climate change is just a 'matter of conscience'. This government knows that, whoever is in charge, they will have to put a price on carbon. The opposition would have you believe that, if they were to come to power, nothing will change, that we can be frozen in the moment, like true conservatives. The government understands that whoever is in charge of this nation they have an obligation not to betray the leadership entrusted in them by the people. Real leadership does not always involve telling people what they want to hear. Real leadership means dealing with issues.
Business know and the Australian people know that, if you tell people you can pretend but you never have to change, that is a deception which betrays the trust Australians have in their political leaders. Let us be clear. The Economic Intelligence Unit, a private organisation, has done a survey of Australian business and found that 50 per cent of Australian businesses have already anticipated moving to a low-carbon future and that 70 per cent of Australian businesses are already putting in place measures to reduce their carbon footprint.
The good news is that Australian business and the government are not waiting for the opposition to get on board and join the 21st century. The Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia support a price on carbon. I suppose those opposite would rubbish the CEO of the National Australia Bank as some sort of mad, left-winger. He is not. He said that the Labor plan 'will drive certainty and investment'. 'What would the CEO of one of Australia's largest banks know about investment?' those opposite would cry. My money is on backing their judgment about what drives investment rather than that of those economic witchdoctors of the opposition economics team. Then you have to look at other companies.
Opposition members interjecting—
As much as the opposition wish to interject and wish it were not so, the truth of the matter is that Shell, BP, AGL, Alstom, Rio Tinto, Origin, Grocon—all massive Australian companies involved in heavy industry—say—
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Order! The member for Riverina has been given a fairly good go. He will restrain himself.
The member for Riverina is always welcome to stand up and speak rather than relying on sitting down and interjecting. What would all those companies—Shell, BP, AGL, Alstom, Rio Tinto, Origin and Grocon—know about the economy? What would they know about energy? What would that they know about mining? Anyway, let us not just rely on a whole lot of heavy hitters of Australian industry, people who are part of the carbon pollution business, who accept the need to put on a price.
Let us be clear. There was an important story on the front page of today's Australian Financial Review. It was reporting what the compliance people at the Australian Stock Exchange have said. They put forward some important facts contained on the front page of the Australian Financial Review. They reminded people of listing rule 3.1. For those opposite, who probably are not aware of what listing rule 3.1 is, it is the requirement that company directors must disclose to the market matters which are material to operations; they must report them.
This is a timely intervention by the ASX, so let me be clear. The ASX are agnostic about government policy or opposition policy but they are absolutely determined to enforce the listing rules of the Australian Stock Exchange. They have put an emphasis—and again this is timely—on the need to be responsible. They are saying that there should be facts, not exaggeration. They are reminding Australian companies that they must inform the market of material developments, which are very likely, and that they would also have to take account of the assistance provided by the government.
I regret to report to the parliament that it is a shame there is no listing rule 3.1 for the opposition. Instead of economic hard work, those opposite are relying on a strategy to shout their way into government. Let us go through some of their fear and negativity. They have predicted the death of the coal industry, yet economic modelling for the CPRS has shown that it would increase by 66 per cent by 2050. They have predicted the death of the steel and aluminium industries.
So you know more than the steel industry!
I organised those in the steel industry and I won them wage rises when you had Work Choices.
Mr Billson interjecting—
I have met more steelworkers than you have had hot meals, my friend. Given what we know about the steel and aluminium industries and heavy industry, let those opposite not feign crocodile tears on behalf of the workers of those industries.
Mr Billson interjecting—
You think manual labour is a Mexican tennis star.
Mr Billson interjecting—
The member for Dunkley will withdraw that.
What? The charlatan, the spiv or the climbing on the back of workers bit?
The member for Dunkley will withdraw unreservedly. I call the member for Dunkley to withdraw unreservedly otherwise I will deal with him.
Unreservedly, Sir.
They have said that all these industries are doomed and ruined. What they do not say when they are scaring people is that, under the recently modelled CPRS, these industries are going to be shielded from 95 per cent of the carbon price. Anyway all the myths and the negativity are the Stephen King-like bogeymen with which they would scare the Australian people. They have said it is a lie that the rest of the world is acting. For goodness sake, let's not tell the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands or Sweden, which are all acting. Let us look at the Europeans and let us look at the ETSs that are going on elsewhere. But then those opposite would also say, 'If we have a carbon price, that's the end of jobs in regional Australia. That's the end of jobs in the energy intensive industries.'
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
With all our economic modelling we rely on facts.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The member for Bradfield will remain silent.
We do not rely on scaring people into power. The economic modelling showed that we will grow. We will talk about pensioners. Those opposite have been saying that pensioners are vulnerable.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
I have just asked the member for Bradfield to assist me by remaining silent.
I predict there will be generous permanent assistance for those. They even tried to scare us about housing prices going up $6,000. What a gross exaggeration! But we come to the biggies. Talking about big numbers, let us talk about the $10 billion that those opposite would give the large polluting companies as their fig leaf to acting on climate change. What a clever plan: take money from the taxpayer and give it to the big polluters. Why didn't we think of that? Because it is a bad idea. But what the opposition would do goes further, so they can undermine the Australian economy. Those opposite are Inquisition monks and burners of books.
Opposition members interjecting—
Well, your leader has rubbished the economists and the scientists. Those opposite have rubbished Australian economists. Indeed, if you look at their $10 billion plan to spend taxes rewarding big polluters—why didn't we think of that idea?—no serious business leader or economist has come out and backed it. When the Leader of the Opposition jumped up over the trench with that ill-thought-out fig leaf of an economic idea, he looked around and saw no-one was behind him. But I think the fundamental issue, going back to the shadow Treasurer's proposition about economic confidence, is that those opposite would rely on threat to give them purpose.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
I warn the honourable member for Bradfield!
Let me repeat that: they rely on threat to give them political purpose whereas we rely on hope to give political purpose. They rely on conservatism to give them purpose whereas we rely on innovation. We do not accept the proposition that industries in Australian agriculture, mining and manufacturing, the service industries and this nation lack innovation and lack the capacity to change. You opposite rely on fear; we rely on optimism. You opposite rely on hostility; we rely on hope. We understand that the future is not something to be frightened of. Those opposite think that the future is something to be frightened of. Instead of talking down the Australian economy, instead of talking down small business, instead of talking down the capacity of Australian business, perhaps you should engage in a process of change.
We on this side of the House understand that the world will not stand still for Australia. We understand that Asia has re-emerged as an economic powerhouse. We understand that we are living longer than ever before. We understand the importance of digital information. We understand the need to have a sustainable climate and a sustainable economy for not just our generation but our children and our grandchildren. We also understand that we need to develop new jobs in Australia and not just rely upon existing jobs. We understand that the world will change. Whoever is in power, the forces I have just enumerated will apply even if those opposite were members of the government, which will be a long time coming, thank goodness.
We understand these forces are at work and we are not going to shirk the task of change. How easy would it be to hop into the hammock of economic and political conservatism and say, 'No change'. How easy would it be to turn back the clock and say that Australia does not need to change. What a lazy economic prescription that provides no hope for the future.
To return to where I started, if we are going to have a debate on confidence, let us look at what is really happening in the Australian economy; let us look at what is happening in the world. Our prescription for the future we have already seen working out. Since Labor was elected in 2007, 740,000 new jobs have been created. In the last 12 months Labor has been in government and we have seen the enablement of 258,000 new jobs. At the end of the day, it is the scoreboard that counts.
We are the party of hope. We accept that the future is happening. There is just one choice: do you let the future run over the top of you, or do you say that the future is not something to be frightened of, that we are a country and a nation capable enough to move and anticipate change? Those who would say to you, 'Stay as we are,' are dangerous because they have no capacity to anticipate and manage the future. It is happening, whether or not they like it. (Time expired)
It is fascinating to sit in the chamber and listen to the Assistant Treasurer talk about how the Labor Party is the party of hope. It is fascinating to stay in the chamber and hear about how the Labor Party espouses a policy that looks to the future with confidence, that recognises that our best days lay ahead of us. If you actually took on board what the Assistant Treasurer had to say, you would think that maybe the Labor Party offered the people of Australia some real alternatives. But the reality is that, consistent with Labor Party policy, every step of every day when it comes to swapping their positions on policy, what we heard from the Assistant Treasurer today was yet another example of saying one thing but doing something completely opposite.
I turn my mind to an article that was published in the Australian on 26 March 2011 which contained the most recent speaking points from the Labor Party organisation and which went to every backbencher and every frontbencher on the Labor Party side. These were some of their talking points—let us call them the talking points of hope; let us call them the talking points of not making sure the Australian people are fearful but, rather, that the Australian people are inspired. Let us look at some of the gems they had that inspired the Australian people. There were talking points like:
Without action on climate change average temperatures across Australia could increase by between 2.2C and 5C by 2080. People in northern NSW will feel like they live in Cairns.
Without action on climate change the average snow season in Australia is expected to contract by between 85 and 96 per cent by 2050, and disappear by the end of the century.
No more snow in Australia. But these are not the politics of fear; these are the politics of hope and inspiration!
Without action, climate change is expected to reduce the value of irrigated agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin by 12 per cent in 2030 and 49 per cent by 2050.
And:
Temperature rises and population growth mean the number of heat-related deaths in our capital cities is expected to more than triple to between 4300 and 6300 a year by 2050.
What a great message of hope! What a great message of inspiration for the Australian people! The Assistant Treasurer is right: the Labor Party are not in a scare campaign; they are about a vision for the future. What absolute rubbish. That is the reason why the Australian people look upon the Labor Party and the Assistant Treasurer as complete and utter frauds. They are frauds in the same way that the Assistant Treasurer comes into this chamber and dares to lecture the coalition about engaging in the politics of hope but then voices and condones talking points like those I have mentioned. That is the reason why we will stand up to the Labor Party. That is the reason why we will reject every step of the way their ridiculous policy to make this country less competitive—a policy that, importantly, will do nothing to change the global environment and the global temperature.
But, importantly as well, this is a government that, entirely consistently, every day since it was first elected in 2007, has chopped and changed when it comes to policy. Let us cast our minds back to the 2007 election. Does everyone remember the hype about the Kevin 07 campaign? There were videos and YouTube advertisements, and there were television advertisements in which we saw a very earnest looking member for Griffith put his hands together and say: 'Are you concerned about the cost of living? So am I.' As part of that campaign what we saw from the member for Griffith on behalf of everyone in the Labor Party was a resolute promise to do something about the cost of living. The tag line that the Labor Party used—it is on YouTube; I would encourage people to have a look at it if you want to kill a minute of your life—was, 'If the economy is doing so well, why aren't we?'
That was four years ago that the Labor Party campaigned on doing something about the cost of living. Who can remember the centrepiece of their policies? Fuelwatch—to bring down the price of fuel. GroceryWatch—to bring down the price of groceries. What have we found over the last four years? We have seen that the Labor Party have forgotten all about the cost of living. They have completely forgotten about it in the same way that they have forgotten about the member for Griffith. They turned their back on GroceryWatch and they turned their back on Fuelwatch. Instead, we had a Deputy Prime Minister who, after promising that it was more likely that she would be a full forward for the Western Bulldogs, rose up only a matter of hours later and actually slit the throat of the member for Griffith and took over the leadership of the Australian Labor Party.
Opposition members interjecting—
There was no stunning beforehand. It was a very savage killing, perhaps even worse than some of the worst examples that we have seen over the past couple of months. But, that notwithstanding, once again we saw the resolute earnestness of this new Prime Minister as she stood there and wrung her hands and said: 'I've got a great idea for the future. We'll have a people's congress on climate change. We'll get the best and the brightest in the country'—with visions of 2020 haunting us still. 'We'll get the best people in the country together and we'll develop a people's congress on how to deal with climate change.' But, oops, we have heard nothing about it since the election. This Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead' six days out from the federal election. Oops! The Labor Party have turned their backs on that as well. The Prime Minister also said, 'I can stop the boats, and I'll do it by getting a regional solution in East Timor.' That then became a regional solution in Papua New Guinea, which has now become the regional solution in Malaysia.
The Labor Party have turned their backs every step of the way, every single day, on the policies that they put forward. That is the reason the Australian people look at the Prime Minister and the Australian Labor Party and say: 'We have no confidence in your ability to lead. We have no confidence in what you say. We have no confidence in the direction in which you are going because, frankly, you are going around in circles. And we have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to take Australia forward with confidence into the future.' That is the reason there is crisis of confidence in this country when it comes to the direction and the policies of the Australian Labor Party.
This is the worst Labor government that this country has seen since before Whitlam. This is the worst Labor Party, in conjunction with the Greens, that has been inflicted on the Australian people, because this is a government that stands for nothing and believes in nothing. This is a government whose policies on the one hand claim to be full of promise but on the other—when we see leaked copies of their talking points—are actually all about neglect, fear, scare mongering and doing what they can to make sure that they berate the Australian people into backing their policies.
But the reality is that the Australian people know all about this government. They have got their measure; they have got their mark. They know that this Prime Minister is a complete fraud when it comes to policies and the words that she utters. That is the reason why, when it comes to this policy, the Australian people also know that Labor's great big new carbon tax will do nothing to make our environment better. When questions have been put to the Labor Party such as, 'If the parliament were to roll over and accept every single policy proposal that the Labor Party put forward, what impact would that have on Australia's environment and how quickly would that make a difference to saving the reef or the rainforests?' of course we get no answers. We get no answers because we only contribute 1.5 per cent of global emissions. So, even if we were to jeopardise our economic future by adopting this ridiculous new carbon tax that the Labor Party is implementing, it will do nothing to change the global climate and that in turn will do nothing to make sure that, like Labor's talking points, there are fewer bushfires, fewer droughts, fewer floods and better and more fertile land. That is precisely the reason that people laugh now when the Australian Labor Party claim to be sincere.
Less than 24 hours ago we saw the Treasurer of this country claim that, through the carbon tax, Australia would be taxing 'up to 1,000 companies' and then try to justify the inclusion of those words 'up to' as though that somehow demonstrated that it was okay that that figure had now been halved. In the same way, we could say that Australia's debt level under the Labor Party is now up to $200 billion. Sure, it might actually be $107 billion but $200 billion is near enough! The reality is that this Treasurer has no idea in which policy direction this country is going, and the reason for that is that the Prime Minister herself has no idea about the policy direction of this government.
Although there might be a little bit of money splashing around, it has very little to do with the economic management of this government—rather, it is because of China. Although there might be a little bit of money splashing around in the Australian economy than there is elsewhere, there is no confidence in this government, no confidence in the policies of this government, no confidence in the direction of this Prime Minister and fundamentally no confidence in the Australian Labor Party to do anything to help lead this country into a better future. (Time expired)
Labor's policy on climate change is grounded on three simple facts: (1) Australia is the largest per capita polluter of carbon in the developed world; (2) climate change is real; and (3) the market mechanism is the most efficient way of dealing with dangerous climate change. What is striking about what the member for Moncrieff likes to say about this is that Australia's emissions should not be taken into account; Australia cannot do anything about dangerous climate change. He neglects the fact that Australia's per capita emissions are the highest in the developed world. And what is particularly striking about the comments of the member for Moncrieff is that the coalition themselves are committed to a five per cent reduction by 2020. It is odd, isn't it? You would think if the member for Moncrieff really believed what he was saying, he would be arguing that Australia should not do anything and that the Liberal Party should walk away from the bipartisan emissions target. But he is not saying that. He just thinks that we should get to that target in a very inefficient way. That is the coalition's policy. By contrast, Labor recognises that we want to reduce pollution using market mechanisms. Business needs certainty, big polluters should be taxed and families deserve appropriate assistance. So our package targets the big polluters. It provides assistance to nine out of 10 households and it will cut 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution by 2020.
The Leader of the Opposition has gone into interesting territory in recent weeks. He has been repeatedly asked to name a single economist who will back him up, and he cannot name one. He cannot name a single economist who will back him. I have put that question to the member for Moncrieff from time to time and he will sort of shrug his shoulders and wriggle a little. But the Leader of the Opposition has decided he is going to come out punching on this. He said last week: 'maybe that is a comment on the quality of our economists'. Professor Joshua Gans, my good friend and co-author, who won the Economics Society of Australia award for the best Australian economist under the age of 40, put it best on his blog when he said: 'maybe that's a comment on the quality of our opposition leaders'.
You might well think, if you were to listen to the Leader of the Opposition, that he is talking about just Australian economists. There is something specific about the Australian economics profession. But as Professor John Quiggin pointed out in the Australian Financial Review today, overseas economists are just as hostile to the sort of voodoo economics that the coalition would have you believe in. John Quiggin reminds us that Greg Mankiw, George Bush's chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, established the Pigou Club dedicated to the notion that appropriate corrective taxes are the best way of dealing with environmental challenges. Who are the radical, low-quality economists that have signed up to the Pigou Club? There is Gary Becker, Paul Krugman, William Nordhaus, Kenneth Rogoff, Larry Summers. You would expect maybe there is a 'No Pigou Club' to go up against it. Well, actually there is not. Someone tried to form one and it turned out that they could not find any members for it.
Then you might think—and we have been making this claim a little—that the opposition's policy would have some supporters among command and control economies. We have been suggesting that their climate change is effectively Moscow on the Molonglo. The sad thing is I think we now have to withdraw that claim. Even in China, as John Quiggin points out, where central planning is still very much in vogue, the Chinese Communist Party's 12th five-year plan, the one that will run from 2011 to 2015, includes market mechanisms to deal with dangerous climate change. The Chinese, with all their central planning, are far more pro-market than is the current opposition.
Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has been hitting up businesses left, right and centre with his mobile scare campaign. This is a man who is pulling more stunts than Jim Rose. The great stuntman of Australian politics has been inflicting much of this misinformation upon my own constituents. That is the great cost of things. He has been taking his mobile scare campaign to some of the local businesses near this House. He went to David Smash Repairs in Queanbeyan and said that they would face substantial costs and substantial job losses. It is a little hard to see exactly how this is going to eventuate. They are a smash repairer. They fix people's cars. Are we going to be sending cars overseas to get fixed under an emissions trading scheme? I do not think so.
Of course, there is generous household assistance. This is exactly the sort of thing that the household assistance is for. More than half the carbon price revenue raised from big polluters will go to households to cover the very small price impacts.
The Leader of the Opposition then went to Ziggy's Garden Fresh in the Belconnen Markets. He walked around there telling any shopper who would listen to him that food and grocery prices were going up under a carbon pricing regime. We can go to CPRS modelling. What does it say about the impact of the former Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on fresh food prices? It suggests the impact would have been 0.6 per cent. Let us take a kilogram of apples or oranges. That means that the price impact would have been less than 2c. A kilo of broccoli would have been 3.5c. Once we take into account household assistance, many households will be well ahead under the carbon pricing package. They will not, however, be well ahead under the Leader of the Opposition's 'subsidies for polluters' policy. As the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition's subsidies for polluters policy would cost an average family $720 a year which is, if you want to talk Ziggy's Garden Fresh numbers, 241 kilos of apples.
The Leader of the Opposition then took his mobile scare campaign to Capital Doorworks, a business owned by a former Liberal Party political candidate in the ACT. The Leader of the Opposition then began his scare campaign suggesting the price of doors would go up as a result of carbon pricing. Capital Doorworks is, I can assure the House, not one of the businesses to which carbon pricing will apply. Treasury modelling suggests that the prices of products such as those sold by Capital Doorworks would rise by 0.7 per cent under the former Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the government will provide generous assistance to deal with price impacts.
The Leader of the Opposition has been taking his mobile stunt campaign, his Jim Rose campaign, to Visy. He has visited a number of Visy plants, claiming that there will be massive impacts on Visy's business. Of course, he always neglects to mention the industry assistance that will be provided. Under the former CPRS, 94.5 per cent shielding from the carbon price would mean an impact of just $1 per tonne of product. Put another way, if you had enough boxes to hold 3,000 pizzas, the cost impact under the former CPRS would be $1. I think the household assistance will well and truly cover that.
It is very difficult to know the position of the Leader of the Opposition on this because he did write in Battlelines:
The Howard government had a preference for market mechanisms because these are generally most conducive to maximising choice.
A government member: He was right.
He was right, as my colleague points out. The Leader of the Opposition also wrote:
The Howard Government ... proposed an emissions trading scheme because this seemed the best way to obtain the highest emission reduction at the lowest cost.
That leaves me with a dilemma. This was written down by the Leader of the Opposition in Battlelines and the most recent claims were things that he said. So, given the guidance that the Leader of the Opposition gave us in the last election campaign, I suppose we should probably favour the things that are written down. But then he sends out press releases as well. I am a bit confused by that because it is something he said but it is written down. Do I believe this or do I believe the book because it has a nice solid binding around the outside?
Frankly, the Leader of the Opposition is all scare and no facts in this debate. The carbon pricing scheme is the right scheme to deal with dangerous climate change. We will provide appropriate household assistance and Australia has a bright future ahead of us under a carbon pricing regime. (Time expired)
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance in the House today because we have a crisis of confidence in our local economy. We have a crisis in business confidence and we have a crisis in consumer confidence. In the small business sector we are seeing sales collapse, we are seeing businesses closing, we are seeing people walking out on their life's work, we are seeing buildings left vacant and we have got the carbon tax driving this uncertainty. We have got business people saying that these are the worst business conditions in living memory.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the words of Howard Morrison, a very competent business man who runs a shop called Morrisons Electrical Mega Store in Coffs Harbour in my electorate. The Morrisons have been in retailing for three generations and operate a very good outlet. Howard and his son Garth run a very good operation. Howard said: 'On the home front, interest rates, fuel, food and electricity are all up about 30 per cent. If you are still on your feet, the knockout blow in the form of the carbon tax is on the way.' I think that is what a lot of small business people are thinking: the knockout blow is on the way. They are hanging on by their fingernails. They are facing rising costs of business operation at the same time their sales are falling and this government, because it does not understand business, particularly small business, is ignorant of that fact and is introducing a carbon tax at a time when the small business sector can least afford it.
I was interested to see the member for Lyne out in the media on 1 July after we saw an 18 per cent increase in electricity prices being levied by the local electricity distributer on the North Coast. It is not a small price rise by any stretch of the imagination and the pizza shop to which the previous member referred would certainly be reeling from an 18 per cent increase in their electricity bill. The member for Lyne was letting the electorate know how outrageous this 18 per cent increase in electricity is—quite rightly so, it is an outrageous increase. But I ask the member for Lyne: if you have just highlighted to your electorate the difficulties they face as a result of an 18 per cent increase in electricity prices, why would you make the situation worse? Why would you add to that difficulty?
We have a situation in his electorate on the North Coast where we have seen tourism slow because of the high Aussie dollar, we have seen rapid increases in the cost of living eroding the spending power of local families, and we see the property sector is very slow at this time. The member for Lyne is going to be effectively legislating to put greater cost imposts on the small businesses he is representing. Businesses in his electorate are suffering and households are suffering, yet he is prepared to come into this House and advocate against the interests of those households and against the interests of those businesses.
When I speak to national chains they actually tell me that business conditions are difficult out there, but they are particularly difficult on the North Coast. Their North Coast outlets are underperforming some of their other national outlets. We do not have a mining industry driving our economy. We depend on small business. We depend on the property sector. We depend on the health and education sectors. We have an economy that is very much locally focussed without many large employers and we need to support our small business sector. This carbon tax is going to hit our small business sector very hard indeed.
I think the very simple action that the people of Lyne are asking for, as they are in the electorate of Cowper and as they are in the electorate of Page, is to oppose this tax. They are saying: 'We are struggling. As business people we are barely hanging on. Don't give us another impost at this time.' You can have all the arguments you like about the environmental benefits of one approach or another to the issue of carbon pollution, or the increase in carbon dioxide levels, but the bottom line is that small business cannot take any more pain.
I do not know what the member for Lyne is going to say to the people who have been forced to walk out of their business as a result of the new carbon tax coming in. I do not know what he is going to say to the people who cannot afford to turn their lights on at night because of the carbon tax. I do not know what he is going to say to the young job seeker for whom employment opportunities are extremely limited and who walks around the streets of Port Macquarie or Taree handing resumes over the counter to local businesses only to hear that they are actually putting off staff and cannot afford to hire any more staff. What is the member for Lyne going to say to those people? They need his help to stand up for them in this place and ensure that small businesses, a major generator of employment in his electorate, is not further burdened by price rises. They are looking to their local member to protect them from this tax. They are looking to their local member to support them. Local businessmen are looking for help from their local member and they have enunciated to me that they are not getting that help. As a result of that, the state member for Port Macquarie has actually invited the Nationals to Port Macquarie to talk with local businesses who feel let down by their federal member.
She's a very good member.
Leslie Williams, the member for Port Macquarie, is a very good member. It is interesting to note that the New South Wales Business Chamber put out a press release on 5 July entitled 'NSW Business Chamber launches carbon tax campaign in Oakeshott and Windsor electorates.' This is not a personal campaign. It goes on to say:
This is a campaign about an issue that will impact the competitive position of most small business.
It goes on further to say:
Australia’s capacity to compete internationally is currently impacted by a very high Australian dollar, relatively high interest rates, relatively high fixed wages, relatively high taxes and by our geographic isolation leading to relatively higher transport costs.
… the NSW Business Chamber would continue to consult its members in New England and the Mid North Coast to see what form the campaign will take in the coming weeks and months.
They are very concerned. They do not undertake a campaign like this lightly. They undertake this campaign because they feel that their voice is not being heard and that their members' voices have not been heard by the local federal representative. So I hope the member for Lyne will heed the words of the New South Wales Business Chamber. I hope he will heed the words of small business, who are saying: 'I've got a life's work here swinging in the balance. I've mortgaged my house to capitalise my business, and I can't pay the rent at the moment. My costs are going up, and I don't want to see my electricity prices go up at a time when my turnover is falling, at a time when my motel units are empty,' or 'when there is no-one coming into my shop.' It is a real problem, and it is not one that is going to go away any time soon. For all of us in the House, it is a problem about which our constituents are looking to us for support.
There are two options here. We can continue with this misguided strategy of driving up business costs, driving down confidence and driving away opportunities for young people, or we can do the right thing—and that is to abandon this tax, abandon a tax that has destroyed confidence, abandon a tax that is going to make our businesses less competitive internationally, abandon a tax that is going to make it more difficult for small business to survive. It is a very stark choice.
I hope that the member for Lyne will see the light. I hope that he will listen to his small businesses. I ask him to walk down the main street of Port Macquarie, go into businesses and ask them how they are travelling, ask them how they are dealing with increases in costs, ask them what their strategy is for the future, ask them what they are going to do when they lose their house as a result of the business failing and ask them what it is like to be operating a business surrounded by vacant shops. It is an incredible problem that small business is facing at the moment. It is a problem that is getting worse and worse. People out there in our electorates are looking to us in this place to do the best we can to support them and to make business conditions just as strong as they can be from a federal perspective, but unfortunately it is a call for help that is falling on deaf ears amongst the members opposite and amongst the Independents. So I call on the member for Lyne and the member for New England to do the right thing and support their electorates, support small business and abandon this carbon tax. (Time expired)
Order! The discussion is now concluded.
I want to take this opportunity to speak about the reality of living with disability and about the opportunities that exist for policy reform in this area. I am proud to be part of a government that has broken new ground when it comes to disability support and education and in undertaking the long-term analysis and planning needed for further reform. No reform question is bigger in that respect than the need for a new comprehensive model of disability care and support, which I will come to in a minute.
In 2008 the government ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This has given impetus to the reform task in Australia and helped focus the job before us. As the National Disability and Carers Alliance has pointed out in its submission to the current Productivity Commission inquiry:
While it is clearly not the only factor to be considered, it is important to acknowledge that rights can remain elusive if adequate resources are not provided.
Providing better support for people with disability and their families is essential if, in Australia, we hold to the principle that disadvantage and discrimination should be fought at every turn. To deliver on that principle, we must ensure that there is both an effective model and adequate resources. It is a difficult challenge.
Today I want to mention some of the people in my electorate who are living with disability but who are also, remarkably, working to advocate for better approaches to disability support. Lesley Murphy is an example—and I have spoken before about Lesley and her son, Conor, who suffers from Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In addition to the incredible commitment of Lesley and her husband, Maurice, to Conor, Lesley has worked hard to argue for more and better research into Duchenne's. The newly established National Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Registry is a key part of delivering on that need, and I pay tribute to Lesley for being one of the people who has worked to make this real.
Ray and Wendy Walter and their son Glen are an example. Glen is now a constituent of mine because Ray and Wendy have purchased a flat for him in my electorate. Over the last several years, the Walters have been a critical part of pushing for the creation of the disability support trust, a mechanism that allows parents to provide for a disabled child through the purchase of a house or unit without jeopardising their support payments. I pay tribute to Ray and Wendy, and I say welcome to Glen, who is a lovely man.
Chloe Corfield is an example. It is my privilege to have been chosen by Chloe and her family through the adopt-a-politician scheme in WA. I have spoken before about how much I have learned from and how much I have been inspired by Chloe, who has Rett syndrome and epilepsy and about the efforts of her family to ensure she has as full and happy a life as possible.
Last Thursday, I visited the Guilfoile family in my electorate, because Julie Guilfoile asked if I would come to see the way that she and her husband Jim and their other teenage children care for their 15-year-old son, Eamon, who has spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. Julie and Jim wanted me to understand the financial and support service factors that recently forced them to make the heart-rending decision to move Eamon to a group residential care facility. I think everyone in Australia would understand how the Guilfoiles would look to the introduction of something like an NDIS as the means by which they could bring Eamon back home. That is what they want more than anything, it is what Eamon wants, and it is not hard to see that this would constitute a better care environment and a better life for their son.
In the May budget, as part of our core belief that a strong economy should be the springboard for fairness and reform, the government committed $147 million to early intervention disability services for children and $200 million for students with a disability. I welcome these funded measures, just as I welcome the government's decision to ask the Productivity Commission to report on the question of a national disability insurance scheme. When I recently met with a number of people, including both carers and clients, from Mosaic Community Care, a multidisciplinary service provider, they made it clear to me that an NDIS had the potential to transform disability policy and funding.
The driving concept behind the NDIS as a model is to provide more resources for disability services and support and to address the current systemic shortcomings on a financially sustainable basis. These shortcomings include insufficient resources; service gaps; inconsistency; lack of control and involvement for people with disability and their families; inappropriate models of care, especially in relation to age specific needs; a lack of coordination; and, sadly, a great deal of uncertainty when it comes to the future.
It has to be acknowledged that no new national disability scheme is likely to dispense with all these problems to their full extent or in quick time because they are, in many respects, difficult and complicated. If we do not admit this, we may be setting unreasonable expectations, but that does not mean we cannot take on this challenge. We must take it on. I look forward to the Productivity Commission's report and its recommendations as the next step in this essential reform process.
On 23 May I spoke in this place on early onset dementia. Unfortunately, on that day the debate was interrupted and, whilst I was able to put some matters in relation to this issue on the record, I was unable to complete my contribution. I take the opportunity today to continue and to recap some of those earlier points that I made. When we think about dementia we typically think of an older person's illness. We generally think of the diagnosis and the effects on the elderly. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The tragic reality is that dementia not only affects the elderly but also can and does affect young members of our community. Early onset dementia describes a person who is under 65 years of age and who is diagnosed with dementia.
It is estimated that approximately 250,000 Australians are currently diagnosed with dementia and that by 2030 this will increase to 590,000—double the current number. In addition, there are about 10,000 people with early onset dementia, and it is predicted that this figure will rise to over 14,000 by 2020. These are certainly very significant figures. However, we do still associate dementia with the elderly and many people in Australia are unaware that early onset dementia exists. We need to change that profile.
It is most important that early onset dementia is diagnosed as soon as possible so that we can ensure that appropriate information, support and medication can be provided to treat this disease and also that family, friends and care givers are then in the best possible position to support the person with the diagnosis. The earlier a diagnosis can be made the sooner and more adequately the issues of behavioural changes and employment issues can be addressed.
I will focus specifically today on the employment issues. Those diagnosed in their 40s and 50s have often not adequately planned for their retirement as they did not envisage their retirement taking place for perhaps another 10 to 20 years. Often people are at the height of their career, and often this coincides with significant family commitments, including mortgage payments, school fees and the significant costs associated with a growing family.
The lives of the carers, too, are also affected by early onset dementia. They are often the mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and partners who have to take on unplanned financial and social responsibilities when the person with dementia is unable to work. Carers are the unsung heroes in these situations as they give up their time, their money and their livelihoods to care for their loved ones.
I make mention here of the Commonwealth Respite and Carelink Centre in my electorate, which offers great assistance in this area. I have met numerous times with Mrs Linda Walk, the team leader of information support service at the Commonwealth Respite and Carelink Centre at Varsity Lakes to discuss the services that they provide. I commend Mrs Walk and her team on the wonderful job they do.
Soon after my election, one of my first official meetings was with the President of Alzheimer's Australia (Queensland), Ms Marianne Gevers. It was greatly appreciated that Ms Gevers took the time to raise with me some of the issues facing sufferers of dementia, particularly from a personal perspective. I extend my appreciation to Ms Gevers for her active role with Alzheimer's Australia (Queensland) and note that I am fortunate enough to have her as a constituent of McPherson. I also offer my continued support and commitment to the vision of Alzheimer's Australia 'for a society committed to the prevention of dementia, while valuing and supporting people living with dementia'.
I believe that the issue of early onset dementia should receive support from all political persuasions. It is an illness that is often overlooked due to the misinformation out there about dementia. We must make progress to further educate the public on this health problem.
Build it and they will come—that is the message. Australia is a nation of city dwellers. We are one of the most urbanised countries on earth. Three-quarters of the population live in our 17 cities with a population of more than 100,000 people. The majority of these live in the five biggest cities: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. When compared to others around the world, Australian cities perform well in quality of life and other social issues, but this is changing—and not for the better. Australian cities face a large number of challenges, challenges in the areas of population growth, affordability, sustainability, demographic change, productivity and commutability.
One of the biggest and most significant factors creating these challenges is traffic congestion. Many Australians feel the frustration of traffic congestion every single day. The traffic chaos seems unavoidable and only adds to everyday stress. Apart from being inconvenient and stressful, congestion also has massive costs, both social and economic. The State of Australian cities 2010 report estimates that the avoidable cost of congestion to Australian capital cities was approximately $9.4 billion in 2005. The report estimates that this will grow to $20.5 billion by 2020. The fact that the State of the Australian cities 2010 report also states that the freight task—the movement of goods—is expected to grow by 70 per cent between 2003 and 2020 gives a lot of food for thought.
Congestion obviously lengthens the working day for many Australians. This has a social cost in tipping the work-life balance in a way that is contrary to the ideal. Congestion has a negative effect on air quality, on the environment and on quality of life. Cities are not just places where large numbers of people live, they are also our economic centres. Studies show that major Australian cities contribute more than 80 per cent of national gross domestic product and employ nearly 75 per cent of the Australian workforce. This is pretty significant.
As congestion grows, productivity declines and businesses expenses increase. But I believe that we can do something about all of this. Easing congestion may be a challenge for all levels of government, but it is a challenge that we can meet and that we can, in fact, exceed. While fixing bottlenecks in infrastructure can help, simply building bigger and wider roads is not always the right way to go. We know that, in Victoria over the last decade, many major new roads have been built, yet the overall level of congestion has remained steady—for a number of reasons. One is that if you build new or wider roads, traffic increases to match the new capacity.
But some good news came out of the Emerging Crises Summit held in parliament this week. We heard that one of the main reasons for congestion levels remaining steady in those cities where more roads were built was increased patronage of public transport—where public transport is actually provided. So we must place more emphasis on this and develop policies that improve transport options for commuters and reduce dependence on private motor vehicles.
In May this year, the government also released Our cities, our future:a national urban policy framework for a productive, sustainable and liveable future. In this policy framework, the government has highlighted that 28.6 per cent of people travel less than five kilometres to work or study. The majority of these trips, unfortunately, are made by car. But nearly a fifth of all people will walk, cycle or take other options provided the trip is less than five kilometres. So there is something we can do and this helps us inform policy development. The key determining factor in people choosing active transport is proximity between where they work and where they live.
Pushbikes!
Absolutely, pushbikes. Encouraging the building and development of polycentric cities is the key and that is what we should be aiming at. Encouraging employers to set up in regional and outer urban areas is also crucial. Ensuring people live in closer proximity to their work, play or study is also key in reducing congestion. Once people do live closer and you ensure they have safe and easy access to their destination, it encourages that active transport. And it does more than one thing—it has more than just a social impact, more than just an economic impact; it also has a health impact on the individual and on the environment.
Building safe and well-connected cycling, walking and public transport networks is critically important. The government has worked with, and will continue to work with, state, territory and local governments to improve travel times in our cities though encouraging more compact and mixed use development and improving public transport. Providing active travel options is the right way to go. We need a holistic approach to these issues through the three levels of government. The future challenges for liveability and productivity are complex but, with the right tools and the right determination, we can continue to grow in a properly managed environment.
I would like to take the opportunity today to speak on two important matters. Firstly, I would like to highlight a recent outstanding achievement by a Coffs Coast resident and, secondly, I would like to note how the Coffs Coast and Clarence Valley will be hosting a world-class sporting event.
Last month, Crossmaglen resident Jason Bake and a colleague, Steve Widders, walked the Kokoda Track. Some members in this place would understand the challenges that Kokoda presents, but what makes Jason and Steve's effort all the more remarkable is that they are blind. The two vision-impaired Australians walked the track as part of the Blind Courage team. The history and significance of Kokoda is well documented. This 96-kilometre track is among the most difficult in the world and we can only stand in awe at what the diggers experienced during the Second World War.
For as long as he can remember, Jason Bake has dreamed of walking the Kokoda Track. He has had an interest in military history and always believed he would one day walk in the footsteps of the diggers who bravely fought and died for our freedom. Jason Bake is an inspiring person. Despite his disability, he has completed studies in agriculture and runs a successful dairy business at Crossmaglen, just outside of Coffs Harbour. His wife's name is Michele and together they are raising a young family of four children.
Jason had two aims when completing the trek. He wanted to highlight that having a vision impairment would not stop someone from achieving their goal and he also wanted to raise money for Guide Dogs Australia. On 12 June, Jason and Steve successfully arrived at the Kokoda Plateau having successfully completed the Kokoda Track. With the assistance and great support of their team, Jason and Steve completed the trek without injury, which is truly an outstanding achievement. Additionally, the Blind Courage team raised more than $25,000, which is a great outcome for Guide Dogs and should serve as an inspiration to us all.
The second issue I would like to bring to the attention of members is the world-class sporting event soon to be held in my electorate. The Coffs Coast and Clarence Valley will host a round of the World Rally Championship between 8 and 11 September this year. Securing this event in 2011 has been a coup for the Coffs Coast. After previous rounds were hosted in the NSW Northern Rivers, organisers decided to relocate to the Coffs Coast. The decision was a reflection of the proactive approach adopted by our local council, businesses and the broader community. Collectively, they identified the tremendous value that hosting such an event would bring to our region through tens of millions of tourism dollars and invaluable worldwide exposure.
Just on two months before the event commences, preparations are in full swing to ensure this event is a success. This is an event which the Coffs Coast would love to host year in, year out. I know everyone is focused on making the 2011 event a success. The impact of such an event was very evident when I attended a changeover dinner for the Sawtell Rotary Club last week. The members of Sawtell Rotary were explaining how they were looking forward to getting involved in the organisation of the rally. Of course Sawtell Rotary is just one of the community groups working to ensure that this round of the World Rally Championship is one which Rally Australia will never forget. Stages will be held across four local government areas in the region: Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca. This will give visitors to the region a chance to see why our region is the envy of many others. I would like to extend an invitation to all members to come and see this world class event in September and enjoy some of the natural and cultural features of our area, our cuisine delights and all that the Coffs Coast has to offer.
Last week, on Friday 1 July, I attended the opening of Nunawading Christian College's new multipurpose hall, centrally located in the electorate of Deakin. This is another excellent example of what local schools have been able to achieve under the Building the Education Revolution program. From memory, I think this is the 16th such opening I have had the pleasure of attending in my electorate—and there are more to come yet. There will be a great rush of them coming along later this year. Schools have been able to pay special attention to their needs and get a result at the end that suits them.
Nunawading Christian College is a non-government school that has been a great example of this. Although the opening was 1 July, they have been using their hall since December last year. On 2 December I attended a very large concert put on by the students there, and it was a great event even then. Since that time the hall has just about been fully fitted out and now not only is it a hall for school assemblies and musical performances but also it has a fully equipped basketball facility that includes nets that can be dropped down to protect the video screens on each side of the stage while it is being used for basketball. The hall also has facilities above and beyond what I have seen at any other school that has built a similar size multipurpose hall, and that includes things like having an area upstairs which is particularly good for stage shows—it allows for lighting to be done in much better ways than just from the one angle. There are also new offices downstairs and facilities that the school simply did not have prior to the Building the Education Revolution program.
The great thing about this project is that they were able to build onto part of what they already had. The school previously had a small indoor hall—far too small for the whole school to fit into—but by remodelling that and joining the new building to it they were able to construct something bigger and better than most equivalent schools have been able to do. That is great testament to the benefit of putting some thought into how the job should be done. All up the project cost $2.167 million, $2 million of which was from the P21 component of the Building the Education Revolution program. As I mentioned before, the rear projection video screens on each side of the stage are a great idea and they enable anyone in the hall—whether you are short or tall—to see what is going on on the stage. Even if you cannot quite see the stage, you can certainly see what is happening on the video screens.
I had the great pleasure to be invited to the official opening and I was shown to my place by the primary school captains, Ella Rankin and Jack Stott. They did a great job of doing the introductions, standing up in front of those hundreds of people. They were very well practised in what they did and they were naturals—it was a great effort. Mr Peter Michalski, the Nunawading Christian College primary school principal, delivered the welcome address, and a great performance was put on by the student musicians. They played an amazing number of instruments. Some very small primary school children also did a fantastic puppet show for us—that kept a few people laughing as well. With all the staff, around 200 primary school students and all the college's secondary school students, there were around 450 or so in attendance for the opening, and of course there were a large number of parents at the school to witness the event.
Mr Adrian Styles, the Nunawading Christian College secondary school principal, introduced me for the speech, after they pulled a bit of a surprise and got me up on stage for an ad hoc interview—but there were no trick questions; it was a very good interview. Brian Mercer, the regional director of Adventist Schools Victoria, was also there, and Minister Chester Stanley attended for the dedication address. Lyndon Chapman, the former principal of the college, was also in attendance and I would like to thank him especially for all the work he put in when the Building the Education Revolution program was announced. He almost had plans ready the next day, and it was refreshing to see at the time that someone had such a clear judgment and view of what the school needed to do. Ben Stennet, the Mayor of the City of Whitehorse, was also in attendance to witness the opening.
Nunawading Christian College is a great non-government school in my electorate of Deakin that continues to excel and will do so into the future.
Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to record the tragic death on Wednesday morning in Italy of the Australian cyclist Carly Hibberd. Carly was on a training ride on Wednesday morning, just north of Milan, when she was struck by a car and tragically died at the scene. At 26 years of age, Carly was a former runner who came into cycling through a talent identification program. She was a scholarship holder at the Queensland Academy of Sport for two years and raced domestically in Australia with the MBCycles team from 2006 to 2008. Carly won the Australian national road series in 2008, earning points in all six rounds, and moved to Italy in 2009 to pursue her cycling career racing with the Michela Fanini-Record-Rox team up until this season, when she joined Cassina Rizzardi A Style Fionucci.
Carly was a bright, friendly person; one who was fulfilling her dream of cycling in Europe. It is a great tragedy that she has died at a time when so many hundreds of thousands of Australians are watching the Tour de France each night, and this reminds us that cycling can still be a very dangerous sport. Tragically, following the death of Amy Gillett in an accident with a car in Germany while training with a group of Australians in 2005, this is an event we had hoped and prayed would never occur again, but tragically for Carly it has.
I am sure on behalf of all members of this place I extend our condolences to Carly's family and fiance.
I rise to pay tribute to the wonderful work undertaken by Rotarians throughout the world, particularly the 10 local Rotary organisations that play an active role in the electorate of Kooyong. Founded in 1905 by Chicago lawyer Paul Harris, Rotary's mission is, in its own words, to provide service to others, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations and help build goodwill and peace in the world. From a seed of an idea first countenanced over lunch between Harris and three business friends, the organisation derived its name as early meetings were rotated between the offices of the members. The exponential growth in its membership over the last hundred-plus years now sees the organisation comprising 1.2 million Rotarians, belonging to over 32,000 clubs in more than 200 countries. Its values are universal and transcend any form of national boundaries or explicit race, religious or linguistic ties.
Rotarians are exemplified as individuals who do not seek fame or fortune but are motivated by an active intent to contribute to their local communities. Rotarians in return enjoy some immense satisfaction from their contribution to humanity and the fellowship they share with their fellow members. In Kooyong, I have been fortunate to have met many fine Rotarians and indeed I am an honorary member of the Rotary Club of Canterbury. I have seen firsthand the fantastic work each club does in our community. I would like to pay tribute to each club individually.
The Rotary Club of Balwyn is extremely active and well known. It has raised a significant sum of money over the years and distributed to it many deserving causes, including scholarships for Indigenous youth, medical research, disaster and drought relief and, importantly, youth leadership programs. I pay tribute to outgoing president, Ken McQualter, and incoming president, Peter Freuh.
The Rotary Club of Canterbury has also had an extremely busy year under the presidency of Kyle Wightman. Its work supporting children with disabilities at Belmore School, the Boroondara Cares program for communities suffering the impacts of drought and in the Philippines, including an eye screening project, is to be commended. Best of luck to incoming president, David Chudasko.
The Rotary Club of Boroondara has supported Camcare, Cancer Council, youth leadership awards and international projects in the Philippines and Tibet. Best of luck to incoming president, Rosemary Waghorne, and thank you to outgoing president, Greg Vero.
The Rotary Club of North Balwyn has done terrific work for the community of Tulagi in the Solomon Islands, including the refurbishment and provision of equipment for the community school and the medical centre. It has helped the Eva Tilley Home locally and been responsible for the establishment of Jack Nankervis House, which I have visited which provides a home for young people in need. Well done to outgoing president, Findley Cornell, and welcome to incoming president, Matthew Pauli.
The Rotary Club of Mont Albert and Surrey Hills has focused on leadership and education programs, including the dictionary project, the youth science forum and primary and secondary schools speech competitions. It has also done important regional work. Congratulations to outgoing president, Joe Somers, and welcome to incoming president, Tony Kuc.
The Rotary Club of Glenferrie under Ian Salek has been renowned for its work at the Boroondara farmers market and contributed much locally and internationally, particularly through its eye-care projects in West Sumba, Indonesia. Best of luck to incoming president, Don Heath.
The Rotary Club of Hawthorn, where I recently enjoyed their changeover dinner, has done much under the presidency of Meredith Hayes and we look forward to the presidential term of Geoff Dumayne. The club's work in establishing the Hawthorn Community Chest decades ago is still running today and their work providing toolboxes to the people of East Timor and immunisation services in Mumbai has made a real difference.
The Rotary Club of Kew, under outgoing president, Jonathan Shepherd, and now with new president, Michael Stillwell, has done much through its local design projects, including the Kew Rotary Garden DesignFest and internationally in East Timor with its village women and children project, training people to work in soap-making cooperatives.
The Rotary Club of Camberwell under the outgoing chair, Robert Davies, and incoming president, David Baker, is in its 44th year of the Camberwell Rotary Art Show. It supports Boroondara Cares, including its drought relief program in the Moira Shire on the Murray River.
The Rotary Club of Kew on Yarra, under David Shave and new president, Ed Brown, supports a number of not-for-profit charitable organisations, including Guide Dogs Australia, Camp Getaway for young disadvantaged people and is also doing important work with drought relief in towns of Cobram and Yarrawonga.
All these groups deserve to be congratulated for their efforts at being fine Rotarians and significantly contributing to the community of Kooyong. Thank you from a grateful local community.
On Sunday, I was privileged to attend the Reserve Forces Day function held by the National Servicemen's Association at the Victory Memorial Gardens monument in Wagga Wagga, where the Reserve Forces Day Council announced that during the celebrations the Recognition Medallion would be presented to 19 people who have given so much for their country and for their partners in the reserves. We all know what a great part reserves play in this country. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is at the table, as a former long-serving and distinguished army officer would also acknowledge the fact that reserves are often the ones first sent into combat, and that they do so much to keep this nation safe and to keep our democracy in great shape.
I would like to acknowledge the Riverina recipients of the Recognition Medallion: in Leeton, Phyllis Hunt and Mary Tasker; and in Wagga Wagga, Shirley Bowman, Rita Cameron, Wendy Clay, Ruth Cantwell, Elaine Dudley, Judith Henry, Shirley Holden, Helen Marshall, Margaret Oliver, Beverly Thompson, Barbara Trist and Eileen Wells.
Sir Laurence Street, National Chairman of the Reserve Forces Day Council, said, 'The Recognition Medallion will in some way serve to honour their stalwart support for all those family members in uniform who chose a part-time military career. It is a small token of our thanks and gratitude for the extra workload they embraced in order to release a person who was then able to leave home in order to bolster Australia's defences.'
On Sunday, it was great to catch up with Brigadier Wayne Dunbar, who had a distinguished career with the Australian Army and served at the Army Recruit Training Centre, then known as the 1st Recruit Training Battalion at Kapooka—Blamey Barracks. That is the home of the soldier where all army recruits go to learn the rigours of battle before being sent on their deployments. I had not seen Brigadier Dunbar since 1983-84. He gave an eloquent and moving speech on behalf of those recipients of the medallions. The main street was a sea of movement and colour as the proud reservists marched down the street in their numbers, rode in jeeps or on horses and waved flags. It was a sight to see and I truly acknowledge the part that reserves play for our country and I also acknowledge those recipients of the Recognition Medallion. Well done to them, one and all.
House adjourned at 17 : 00
I rise to speak this morning in the House on behalf of the many hardworking agribusinesses in the electorate of Casey, in the Yarra Valley, the heart of agribusiness, just east of Melbourne. In particular, I wish to speak about the critical issue of the importation of New Zealand apples. You would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, as I know the member for Wannon would be, that the importation of New Zealand apples into Australia has been banned for a considerable period of time. In fact, they have been banned since 1919 for biosecurity reasons, as it was in that year that fire blight, a bacterial disease with catastrophic consequences for the apple and pear industries, was discovered on the North Island of New Zealand. As many members from rural-regional electorates have said in this House, once fire blight takes hold, there is really no turning back. It is like that saying: once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is impossible to get it back in. Of the 49 countries that have had fire blight affect their agribusiness industries, not one has managed to eradicate it. It is for that biosecurity reason that, for 91 years, we have prohibited the importation of New Zealand apples.
Recently, after years of appeals from New Zealand, the WTO deemed that this risk can be managed; but the protocols to manage this are, on any reading, completely flimsy and, in this regard, there has to be action. I support absolutely the introduction yesterday of the private member's bill by the shadow minister for agriculture and food security, the Hon. John Cobb. The Quarantine Legislation Amendment (Apples) Bill 2011, as it is called, would make a permit to import apples a disallowable instrument. This is absolutely critical to ensuring that we have the most stringent biosecurity standards possible. I strongly support the bill and I strongly support the statements from my colleagues, including the member for Wannon, on this very important issue. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the 2011 Eastern University Games, hosted this year by the University of Canberra and the Australian National University. The games were launched in style on Sunday night and finish up today. Canberra is playing host to 19 universities from across New South Wales, the ACT and, for the first time, New Zealand. The Eastern University Games complement the Northern, Western and Southern university games being held across Australia.
There are 1,600-plus students attending the Eastern University Games, which were opened by my good friend the ACT minister for sport, Andrew Barr. Representatives from the University of Canberra and the Australian National University appropriately took an oath on their own behalves and on behalf of all athletes to uphold sportsmanlike conduct and commit to a fair and fun week of competition. Last year's champions were the University of Technology Sydney, and all other universities are aiming to give them a run for their money this year. There are 15 sports being played at the Eastern University Games: basketball; football, futsal; handball; hockey; lawn bowls; netball; both kinds of rugby, league and union; squash; tennis; tenpin bowling; touch; volleyball; and ultimate frisbee. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the ultimate frisbee players, who have played this week in blizzard-like conditions in Canberra. To them, my hat goes off—as theirs no doubt did.
The games have been accompanied by a great social program, including 1980s nights, country and western nights and hero and villain nights. What the Eastern University Games represents is the notion that student life in Australia is alive and flourishing. Camaraderie at universities is a critical part of the student experience. The friends many of us make at universities are friends who we keep for life. On the sporting field, we not only make friends but learn new skills, such as how to win with grace and how to accept losing.
The teams that are coming together this week will in some cases be wonderfully well prepared. They will be teams that have been training together every week for the past year. But there will also be teams that have come together more recently, with not everyone feeling that they know their team mates. They will not necessarily all have been playing the sport since they were kids. I pay tribute to them as well, because they are in that great Aussie spirit of diving in and giving it a go. Good luck to all of those competing this week. May the best university win.
I rise to discuss the collapse of the funds manager Trio Capital Ltd, which has led to many Australians being very severely affected, including a number of my constituents in Bradfield. I have been approached by a number of constituents who invested very substantial amounts of money via self-managed superannuation funds with Trio Capital and its products, including the ARP Growth Fund. After Trio collapsed in 2009 and investigations began, it became clear that there was substantial evidence of fraudulent conduct involved in the substantial loss of money. Over $100 million appears to have been lost. That has been lost principally by two categories of investors: self-managed super funds, as I have mentioned, and also those who invested via what are called APRA, or Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, regulated superannuation funds.
Earlier this year, Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten announced that there would be compensation for those Australians who had lost money as a result of the Trio Capital collapse who had invested by APRA regulated funds. However, this compensation does not extend to persons, including my constituents, who invested via self-managed superannuation funds, because self-managed superannuation funds are not regulated by APRA.
What has happened here is a real tragedy. Constituents who have been to see me have lost much money. They are people who have sought to do the right thing: to work hard to provide for their own retirement. They are financially sophisticated people. They are people who had accumulated substantial balances, which appear to have completely disappeared. On average, it appears that holders of self-managed superannuation funds have lost balances of $700,000 as a result of this collapse, so this is a very serious matter.
It should be fully investigated and pursued with vigour by ASIC. ASIC has certainly taken some action and has provided some funding to the liquidator to continue its investigations. I am also very pleased to note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services has resolved to conduct an inquiry into the collapse of Trio Capital and the lessons from it, including—among other things—the policy issues surrounding investments via self-managed superannuation funds and whether there ought to be compensation available in extreme circumstances of fraud and theft.
I want to talk about a very special Anzac Day event that was conducted at the Fountain Gate Secondary School as part of the school's 10th annual Anzac Day ceremony. This was the presentation of a Lone Pine seedling which can obviously be directly traced back to the pine trees used by the Turkish soldiers to cover their trenches in the battle of Lone Pine. Since this battle at Gallipoli, Lone Pines have been planted as a memorial or as a mark of respect to those Australian and New Zealand soldiers that fought at Gallipoli during World War I.
It really was a rare honour as a member of parliament to present the Lone Pine to this school, a seedling that brings the Anzac experience at Gallipoli literally to life. It was the first time I had had the honour of presenting a Lone Pine seedling and, as far as I know, it is the only Lone Pine to be planted in my electorate. It was great to see the keen interest of the students during the ceremony. The school's year 12 captain, Junior Folueno, was delighted to participate in the presentation. In his words:
As a school, we feel privileged to have the Lone Pine—it will serve as a reminder of the sacrifices made by the ANZACs.
I commend the Fountain Gate Secondary College for the ongoing success of this ceremony, particularly City of Casey councillor and teacher at the school, Wayne Smith. Year after year he has been central to organising inspiring Anzac Day commemorations at the school and this year was no different. I also commend the great students at Fountain Gate Secondary School that have shown that the Anzac spirit will be recognised long into the future. It was very appropriate on that day that retired Turkish Army officer Lieutenant-Colonel Mehmet Kemal Boran and the president of the Turkish RSL sub-branch, Mr Ramazan Altinas, attended the event. They addressed the students and they were very warmly received.
The ceremony also specifically highlighted the Korean conflict and was attended by the Korean ambassador and a number of veterans who had fought in the Korean conflict, including the president of the Korean Veterans Association of Australia, Mr Vic Day. In his speech the ambassador of the Republic of Korea, His Excellency Dr Kim Woo Sang, mentioned the strong economic, political and strategic alliances shared by Australia and the Republic of Korea. This year, 2011, marks the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Australia and the Republic of Korea. I thank the ambassador for his involvement in this local ceremony. Rather unfortunately for this country, Dr Kim will be leaving our shores fairly shortly. My experience with him is that he has been a distinguished representative of his country. He has served his country phenomenally well, particularly through his achievement in organising President Lee's very successful visit to Australia in March 2009 and his work on the free trade agreement. Congratulations to you, Mr Ambassador—your presence will be missed in this country. (Time expired)
I welcome the Senate inquiry into foreign investment in agriculture. Yesterday it was announced that the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee will conduct an inquiry into how the Foreign Investment Review Board's national interest test is applied to the purchase of Australian agriculture and agribusinesses. I called for a Senate inquiry into the sale of our farmland after I was approached by farm groups about the sale of 252,000 hectares of Great Southern Plantations land.
It is worth reminding the House what happened with the sale of this land. The National Farmers Federation and the Victorian Farmers Federation on behalf of local farmers approached the government to see whether this 250,000 hectares could be broken up into the original allotments so that family farmers could have the chance to buy this land. Sadly, although they wrote to the government, a response was never given to that letter and that 252,000 hectares was sold as one package to an overseas investment company at what ended up being a rock-bottom price. I look forward to seeing how the Senate inquiry views the sale of this land. Since then we have seen state owned enterprises come in and buy land in western Victoria and in New South Wales, and once again there has not been proper transparency around these purchases. One of the things that I am hoping that we will see from the Senate inquiry is a review of the inconsistencies in how we deal with urban land and rural land. With urban land, foreign governments are required to get the approval of the Foreign Investment Review Board before they can go ahead and purchase. Rural land is treated differently. State owned enterprises can come in and purchase the land and then it just seems to be a flick-and-tick process with the Foreign Investment Review Board. We need to keep confidence in how we deal with foreign investment, because it is crucial to Australia, and this Senate inquiry should help us to do that. (Time expired)
I rise today to inform the House of the exciting work being done by Vipac Engineers and Scientists, who just happen to be located in the good electorate of Adelaide. I recently visited the facilities of Vipac in Kent Town. They are in a building I would have travelled past many, many times over the years, none the wiser about what was actually taking place behind those walls.
Behind those walls, Vipac is a high-technology engineering consultancy engaged in a range of business areas, including rail, defence, infrastructure and space. One of the exciting potential projects that I was briefed on during my visit was the Greenhouse Gas Monitor project. This project seeks to develop a suite of instruments to remotely measure concentrations of CO2, and other gases, in the atmosphere. Technology with the ability to accurately measure levels of CO2, and other gases, in our atmosphere has never existed before. The development of this technology represents an incredible opportunity not only for the nation but also for our local community, as it holds numerous benefits.
This initiative will establish Australia at the forefront of the global debate on climate change. It will do this by positioning Australia internationally as a major contributor to the understanding of greenhouse gas effects upon climate change; fostering the world's best research, attracting international recognition and collaboration on all major climate-monitoring programs; and providing the tools to determine the establishment of carbon reduction strategies around the world through evidence based measurements of carbon.
Of course, this technology would complement our government's plan to introduce a price on carbon, because the ability to accurately measure carbon emissions in our atmosphere will be critical to government, industry and the community in transitioning through this vital economic reform. It is for this reason that I fully supported Vipac's application for federal funding, acknowledging just how important the development of this technology would be to all of our plans to take action on climate change.
It is with great pleasure that I can inform the House that Vipac were successful in receiving some $2.3 million as part of the Australian Space Research Program. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Vipac on receiving this funding, which will mean that our local community, our researchers, our industry and our students will play a key role in addressing the problem of climate change. I would also like to thank the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator the Hon. Kim Carr, and his department for working collaboratively with Vipac on the development of this proposal and for funding this initiative.
The people in the town of Gulgong have been without a hospital now for nearly 12 months. The previous state government in New South Wales was forced to close down the Gulgong Hospital due to issues with contamination from asbestos in August last year. It was an indictment of the management of that government that the hospital was allowed to deteriorate to that level. That prompted a large rally by the people of Gulgong last year, where the entire population of the town turned out to protest their lack of health services. There has been some progress since then. Indeed, we had an announcement from Minister Roxon some two months ago with a commitment from the federal government to fund six aged-care beds in a new MPS. Also, the New South Wales government have gone to tender on the construction of the HealthOne facility, with the promise of an MPS facility to follow. We need to make sure that this process does not get lost in the bureaucracy and that all efforts are made at both the state and federal levels to make sure that the people of Gulgong get the hospital that they deserve.
Gulgong is the only town in my electorate with a district population of 5,000 people that does not have a hospital. What that means is that it is very hard to attract doctors, because doctors need somewhere they can treat acute and subacute patients and where they can visit them on a regular basis. Once they have to ship them off to either Mudgee or Dubbo they lose those patients and it is very hard to treat them. Also, a town needs somewhere for its aged residents to be able to age in place, surrounded by their family and friends, and not be taken to another town. Even though Mudgee is only 40 minutes away, with no public transport, quite often couples that have been married for 60 or 65 years are separated for the last years of their lives.
Another thing that is important is that a town needs somewhere for its residents to die with dignity, and that is what an MPS does. People need to be able to die surrounded by their family and friends in an environment that they are comfortable in—where they can be surrounded by their loved ones, not in a stark room in a hospital some kilometres away. So I will be continuing my efforts in working with Minister Roxon and Minister Skinner to make sure that this becomes a reality. (Time expired)
It was my great pleasure to be at the Calwell shopping centre last Saturday to see the opening of a new medical practice and meet with the community at my mobile office. The opening of the Calwell Medical Centre is thanks to the terrific and tenacious work of the local community, in particular, Con and Nick Tsoulias and the Doctors4Tuggeranong group. Doctors4Tuggeranong has been working with both the federal and ACT governments and doctors in the local community for more than three years to enhance the medical services available for people living in south Tuggeranong.
It may come as a surprise to some in this chamber that Canberra has some of the lowest rates of bulk-billing in the country, and access to GP and medical services remains a challenge. This shortage has come about because of more than a decade of neglect from the previous government, which actually cut the number of GP training places, to the great detriment of my electorate. That is why I have been so pleased to see the commitment of both the Gillard and ACT Labor governments to reforming and investing in health care for my constituents. Just last week, I joined the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, and the ACT Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher, in touring a new operating theatre and beds at the Canberra Hospital. These new facilities have been made possible by a contribution from the Commonwealth of over $14 million in funding as part of the Gillard government's national health reforms.
Last week's announcement forms part of an investment in ACT health of over half a billion dollars. The ACT has also seen investments of $6.8 million to boost elective surgery at the Canberra Hospital, $8.3 million to expand the capacity of the ACT's emergency departments and over $10 million to support GP and allied training in the ACT. We are also well into consultations on a GP superclinic for Canberra. This complements the efforts of the ACT government, whose initiatives, such as the $4 million GP Development Fund, continue to expand the health services available to Canberrans.
Providing all Australians with access to quality health care, no matter what their background, is a core Labor value. I am proud to be part of a government and a party that is committed to delivering reform to health care at the Commonwealth and state level and that is particularly committed to investing in Canberra and investing in improving health care. At the GP level, at the primary health level and right up to the acute health level, it has been a substantial, across-the-board investment, and I am very proud of what Labor has done in terms of investing in health in the ACT.
Science is the cornerstone of Australia's productive economic and social future. Through their work as industry technologists, researchers, inventors, manufacturers, information technology developers, information communicators and agricultural producers, scientists have helped to create once unimaginable economic and technological opportunities. Science gives us new insight into the natural world, broadens our knowledge and shows us how to ask questions and solve all sorts of problems. Above all, science has transformed daily life and continues to do so, enabling us to discover ways to develop knowledge and resources to make and do the things that will bring economic and social wellbeing.
At present Australia is, unfortunately, experiencing a shortage of skilled science professionals to meet industry demand, particularly in rural and regional Australia. It takes six years to move a student from year 11 through to graduation, so it is imperative to act immediately to address this gap. The Primary Industry Centre for Science Education, PICSE, is a national strategy of collaboration between universities, their regional communities and local primary industries to attract students into tertiary science and to increase the number of skilled professionals in agribusiness and research institutions. PICSE is the national infrastructure for a supply chain which provides the next generation of researchers and industry scientists. The primary industries targeted by PICSE are those which focus on the sciences of agriculture, aquaculture, ecology, horticulture, fisheries, water security, sustainability, climate action and the environment.
In 2007, PICSE's presence grew, with an activity centre being opened at Charles Sturt University at Wagga Wagga in my electorate of Riverina. The centre operates from the EH Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation, with Emma Wordsworth of Wagga Wagga taking up the role of science education officer. Since Ms Wordsworth joined the department as the science education officer, many schools from around my electorate have got on board to promote the PICSE program. Schools in Ardlethan, Ariah Park, Barellan, Ganmain, Griffith, Grong Grong, Hillston and Wagga Wagga have done this.
The outcomes of PICSE are many and varied, and it is a wonderful organisation. They work with schools, teachers and students to encourage greater engagement in science, and linking schools with local industries is one of their main aims. The centre in Wagga Wagga has attracted much interest, and recently Amber Tullberg, a Mount Austin High School student, secured a spot in PICSE's industry placement camp and travelled to the north-west of Tasmania in December last year to participate in that program. This local student was more than thrilled with the opportunity offered to her. And Nakita Smith, a science teacher at Mount Austin High School, received a travelling teacher scholarship. She travelled to Hobart to participate in teacher professional development before joining Amber for three days on the student camp. This is a great initiative which teaches our students the importance of science and provides hope for a better future within the industry.
During the week that parliament did not sit, I was privileged to attend five Building the Education Revolution recognition ceremonies, and each and every one of those school communities was overwhelmed by the investment that the federal government has made in their schools.
The first school I attended was Swansea Public School, one of the oldest schools in the Hunter region, whose history goes back to the 19th century. The building and classroom refurbishment there were done in a very special way to preserve the integrity of the school. I also attended the Building the Education Revolution recognition ceremonies at Mannering Park Public School and Gwandalan Public School, two schools that I worked very closely with during the process. I would like to put on the record of this parliament that the principals of those schools—Annette Parry, the Principal of Mannering Park, and John Begg, the Principal of Gwandalan—were outstanding in the way that they performed and worked with me, and they got every possible cent that they could out of the program. During the building phase, I attended Gwandalan Public School with the member for Blaxland, who was the parliamentary secretary at that stage, and we were able to see the Apprentice Kickstart program working in conjunction with the Building the Education Revolution program. It was largely through the lobbying of both of those principals that a number of schools received interactive whiteboards. Charlestown Public School had a refurbishment of its facilities. St Patrick's Catholic Primary School had a new school hall built, and I have to say it would be the most aesthetically pleasing school hall in the whole of Australia. It is built on the shores of Lake Macquarie. You can look out the door and just metres away you will find the beautiful Lake Macquarie. Congratulations to all these schools.
I would also like to recognise that the new Liberal state member for Swansea, Garry Edwards, attended all of those openings in the Swansea electorate. It is really pleasing to see that a Liberal state member can support this program while members down here oppose it and do not recognise the fine work that has been done. (Time expired)
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
I was saddened to hear the terrible news that another Australian soldier had been killed in action in Afghanistan this year. Sergeant Todd Langley, a member of the Special Operations Task Group, was shot and killed in a firefight last Monday, 4 July. Sergeant Langley leaves behind a wife, Reigan, four children and his parents, Neville and Val. My great sympathies go out to Sergeant Langley's family. By all accounts Sergeant Langley represented the best in all of us. He was a true Anzac digger—loyal, hardworking and well respected. He was a leader and a larrikin. Sergeant Langley was on his seventh tour of duty. He was not just a soldier but also a family man, and I can only imagine what his family must be going through today.
Sergeant Langley was born at Margaret River and raised in Katanning and Broomehill in my electorate of O'Connor. He attended Katanning Senior High School, and I understand his family still lives in the area. I know the Great Southern community will rally around the Langley family and support them in their time of need. The Great Southern region of WA has a very rich Anzac heritage, a heritage that lives on today in our Australian troops overseas. The Great Southern city of Albany was the gathering place of ships carrying Australian and New Zealand soldiers to war. For many of our diggers, Albany was the last place they ever stepped on Australian soil.
Sergeant Langley exemplified the Anzac spirit. He was a man of honour who served his nation well with distinction and courage. He will be greatly missed by his family, friends and colleagues, and he will be greatly missed by all of us here today. Sergeant Langley has the gratitude of this parliament and this nation.
When our service men and women leave this country to serve overseas, we know in our hearts that it comes with an element of risk. They and their families know that more than anyone. Unfortunately, that knowledge does little to ease the pain or reduce the shock when the terrible news comes that one of our soldiers has fallen. All of Australia is mourning the loss of our 28th digger in Afghanistan—Sydney based commando Sergeant Todd Langley, aged 35, who was ambushed and shot by insurgents on Monday. He was killed in action, a soldier's death, the loss of one of our best, the bravest of the brave. He laid down his life for his friends and there can be no greater love than that. Sergeant Langley, who was born and raised in Western Australia, has been described as an exemplary warrior and a brave commando. Within 10 minutes, a second commando was badly wounded just a kilometre away from Sergeant Langley. Our prayers and thoughts are also with him and his family.
Sergeant Langley had twice been awarded a commendation for distinguished service. He was a true leader who always brought out the best in those around him. He knew more than most about the risks, as it was his fifth tour of duty in Afghanistan. He was a brave and professional soldier who never took a backward step. Despite their grief, his comrades said he has left behind a legacy and they will continue to aspire to be the soldier he knew they could be. Described as a devoted soldier and family man, Sergeant Langley has a brother, who is a corporal in the Australian Defence Force. He also leaves behind a widow and four children, who will now have to grow up without their father.
In this sad time, however, it is imperative that we not walk away from our mission in Afghanistan, which is in our national interest, because this would be an injustice to the 27 Australians before Sergeant Langley who have also laid down their lives for their friends. There must be no safe haven for terrorists. There must be no cradle for terrorism. We must continue to fight the good fight with our coalition partners and other allies. We must stay the course. We must continue to do our duty, to serve, to play our part. In the words of Defence Chief General David Hurley:
... they are fathers, husbands, sons, brothers and mates. They are soldiers and Australians will not forget their selfless sacrifice.
Lest we forget.
It is with solemnity that I rise today to speak on this condolence motion to offer my sincere condolences to the family, friends and comrades in the Defence Force, particularly the Special Operations Unit, of Sergeant Todd Langley. I also offer the condolences of the people of Canberra, a group of people who are familiar with those who serve their country. We are home to a number of defence facilities and bases, as well as the Australian Defence Force Academy and the Royal Military College. Every year we welcome young Australians from across the country who have chosen to serve. We welcome them with open arms as one of us. They make our community a better place, just like they make Australia a better place.
I do not know if Sergeant Todd Langley ever came to Canberra and I never met him but, from the reports of those who served with him, he was a man who constituted the very best of what it is to be a soldier in the Australian Army and the very best of what it means to be an Australian. Sergeant Langley was described by his comrades, his brothers, as a true leader who brought the best out of his team.
Sergeant Todd Langley was killed in action while serving his country in Afghanistan. He was an exceptionally skilled soldier and was on his fifth tour of Afghanistan, doing vital work to bring security and stability to that country and fighting terrorism. He had previously worked with great honour and great skill in East Timor, helping to bring security and safety there as well.
The commandos are a close group of army soldiers. This loss will have hit them hard. I was fortunate to meet soldiers like Sergeant Langley when I was recently in Afghanistan. I was there for five days in Tarin Kowt, Kandahar and Kabul as part of the Defence subcommittee tour. Then I was overwhelmed by the gritty and determined Australians who are focused each day on stamping out terrorism and building a safe Afghanistan.
There can be no words to lessen the grief of his family, his friends and his comrades. All I can do is offer my thanks and gratitude for the work of Sergeant Langley and to assure his family that his service and his life mattered and will not be forgotten. I thank him and will remember him. Sergeant Langley's honour, courage and experience have made a difference to the lives of the Afghan people. He has made a difference to his team through his leadership and he has made a difference to Australia by being one of those Australians who put themselves on the line to protect the nation. As I said, I have seen firsthand the efforts of the contribution that our soldiers are making in Afghanistan and I know the Afghan people appreciate it.
I also want to take this opportunity to honour the lives and sacrifice of Lieutenant Marcus Case, Lance Corporal Andrew Jones and Sapper Rowan Robinson, who were also recently killed in Afghanistan. Lieutenant Marcus Case was from the Sydney 6th Aviation Regiment. He was born in Melbourne. He had quite an extensive career as a commando. He served in a range of missions. He was described as a keen and motivated soldier who excelled as a pilot. He lived life to the fullest, taking every opportunity that was given to him and making the most of it. He was always the go-to man who was able to get the job done. My condolences are with his family, friends and comrades. I also wish to honour Lance Corporal Andrew Jones, who was also killed recently in Afghanistan. Andrew was described as a 'dependable, yet cheeky character who we will be missed with all our hearts'. He enjoyed his role in the Army and was an excellent soldier. His mates will miss him. They will miss his professionalism but, most of all, his sense of humour. His dedication to his role as a cook was second to none. I understand he was always calling on his resources to provide the very best meals for his mates—and, I imagine, that was a bit of a challenge—including using his favourite family recipes.
Finally, I would also like to acknowledge and send my condolences to the family, friends and comrades of Sapper Rowan Robinson, who also recently died in Afghanistan. Again, it is another tragedy for this nation. He was described as a superb young man whose easy-going nature made him very popular with his unit. He was also a great team player, which is very important in that environment. He was dedicated and professional, with a range of skills and qualifications that were more than those that could rightly be expected of someone so young. These men also made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and I am equally moved by their deaths.
My trip to Afghanistan put into sharp focus the work that they do and the work that other men and women do who serve there. It left an indelible impression on me. As I observed, life in Afghanistan for our service men and women is difficult and challenging. We were on the edge of summer and the temperature was about 42 degrees then. The heat and dust are incredibly challenging and, when you couple that with the incredibly cold, freezing winters, it is a pretty bitter environment. As I said, it is hot, dusty and uncomfortable, but our service men and women endure these conditions with great tenacity and, as usual, great Aussie humour. They get on with it, as all Australian soldiers do. And, as only Australians can do, they do it with a strong sense of commitment, vision and purpose. They are very clear on why they are there.
I conclude by, once again, offering my thanks and condolences to the families of those who have died and, most recently, to Sergeant Langley's family. They are perhaps feeble words, but I offer them on behalf of all the people of Canberra with all sincerity and gratitude.
War will always remain a very serious business. When the circumstances are such that government orders our soldiers to load live ammunition into their magazines and be deployed to areas of conflict around the world, then the reality is that people will die.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:13 to 10:33
We hope that the training and preparations that our commanders and soldiers undertake will put them in the best possible position to keep themselves alive and inflict upon our opponents death, where necessary; defeat, on all occasions; and the loss of territory and materiel, where that is part of the mission.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10 : 33 to 11:09
We hope that the training and preparation that our commanders and soldiers undertake will put them in the best possible position to keep themselves alive, to inflict upon our opponents defeat, the loss of territory, the loss of materiel and, if necessary, death. Our opponents have a similar approach but they certainly do not operate with any sense of honour, integrity or respect for human life. That is very much the hallmark of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in their operations in not only Afghanistan but also Pakistan. Today I pay tribute to Sergeant Todd Langley. I extend my condolences to his wife, Reigan, his four young children and his parents, Val and Neville. It has been reported what a great guy Sergeant Langley was. His parents made comment on that. His parents made comment on what a devoted father he was. All of us who are parents—and I think we are all parents in this room—always feel that sense of sadness when we are away from our children. We enjoy the games we play, particularly when our children are younger. But it goes to the uniqueness of service in the Australian defence forces that this parliament asks our soldiers to leave their families for extended periods of time, months at a time in most cases. Particularly in this current period of conflicts, there is a need for our soldiers to be deployed in various places around the world, and that is hard for those families, and for the children most of all. As his parents, Val and Neville, said, it is hard for the little kids—their dad was away for a number of deployments. It is most tragic of all, of course, that he will never return to them.
When we look at the supreme sacrifice that Sergeant Langley made for his country and to our national interest—and the 27 other soldiers and officers who have passed before him in Afghanistan—we should remind ourselves that there is a good cause here and it is a good cause that has been worth fighting for. We can never allow terrorism and the instability that the Taliban and people like al-Qaeda offer the world. We can never allow them to maintain areas in the world where they are secure, where they can train and practise their deadly and despicable crimes. We can never allow them the freedom to operate with impunity in any place in the world. We must be prepared to go after them, to attack those home bases.
One of the principles of opposing terrorism is to attack the home bases of these people, so that they will always be under pressure, so they will always feel that they are under surveillance, that someone is coming to get them. That is what is important, that we are prepared to do what needs to be done. But, when we see the cost of that, when we see that 28 soldiers have given their lives for this cause, this very good cause, and that their families have suffered and will continue to suffer for the future, it bears testament to the responsibility that we have in this place to do none of this lightly, to identify: is this the right way forward? I commit to that. I believe it is the right way forward. This parliament is committed, in the majority, that this is the right way forward. We must maintain pressure in Afghanistan. We must maintain our presence and fight to the end that has been decided. But our decision comes at a cost: people will die; people have died; families have suffered. That is a tragedy and we should never lose sight of that.
Our mission remains the opposing of terrorism, the opposing of extremists and the need to create in Afghanistan an increasingly stable democracy, a society where there is social advancement and a society where people can seek the opportunities of the future. That will not be the case if we are defeated or if we pull back from the course or go soft on these people. We can expect, if we do not have the commitment and the resolve to carry on, that the terrorists—the Taliban and their mates al-Qaeda—will once again assume control over that country, that they will once again have a safe base from which they can train for their terrorist acts and export them around the world. They will continue to oppress their people. Women will be treated like second-class citizens. Girls will not be allowed to go to school. Boys will be under increasing pressure to be extreme in their views and in their religion. That is not something that we want in the world.
We must be prepared to do what has to be done, but it comes at a cost and it will always come at a cost. On this occasion, Sergeant Langley has given his life. I pay tribute to him. I offer my condolences to his family. We will never forget him. We will never forget his family. On behalf of all members here, I wish his family all the best for the future. We hope that they can move on with their lives as well as possible. On behalf of a grateful nation, and from my own perspective, I pay tribute to all that he has done for our great country and the terrible sacrifice that his family has accepted in our national interest.
Sergeant Todd Langley was a highly experienced Special Forces soldier. This was his fifth tour of Afghanistan. He also deployed twice to East Timor. He was also a decorated soldier. In 2002 and 2008 he was awarded a Commendation for Distinguished Service. In 2006 he was also awarded a Unit Citation for Gallantry. In Afghanistan, he was a leader of very special men, the men of the Special Operations Task Group. At home, he was a father of four even more special people—three young daughters and a son. I want to extend my sincere condolences to each of them, to his wife, Reigan, and to his mum and dad, Val and Neville. Nothing that we say here can bring back a father, a husband and a son. But we can say thank you. Thank you for devoting your adult life to serving us. Thank you for doing everything you could to make this world safer than it is. Thank you for, time and again, going back to Afghanistan to do this.
On Monday, another Special Forces soldier was also wounded. I take this opportunity to wish him a swift and strong recovery. He is one of 182 soldiers who have been wounded in Afghanistan since 2002. This is a long and difficult war. Much of its burden has been borne by the men of our Special Forces. It has also been borne by the families of the men and women we send overseas. They are as strong and brave as the men and women they love, and they often bear the heaviest burden—none more so than the family of Sergeant Todd Langley. We are forever in debt to him, as we are to the more than 100,000 Australians who have lost their lives serving this country over more than a century, all around the world. Lest we forget.
I too rise to speak on this condolence motion, a very sad motion that recognises the sacrifice that has been made by Sergeant Todd Langley. Sergeant Todd Langley died in battle. He was serving with the 2nd Commando Regiment, a very special regiment that works on behalf of all Australians to keep us safe. He was a highly decorated soldier who was on his fifth tour of Afghanistan, which demonstrates a very significant commitment to our country. He also served us in East Timor on two tours. He joins a total of 28 men who have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan. As a member of this parliament, I express our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to him for the service he has given our country. I would also like to express our condolences and thanks to his family. As we have just heard from the minister, he was the father of four children, the husband of a wife and, as well, the son of two parents who cared very deeply for him. So we express our thoughts and prayers towards them for the sacrifice that they too have made. Lest we forget. Finally, while speaking here today I would like to recognise the work that is done by all of those men and women in our Australian defence forces who put their lives at risk every day for us. We thank them.
I join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Defence and all those members who have made a contribution to this important condolence motion in honour of Sergeant Todd Langley. Another great Australian has given his life in Afghanistan for his country. Indeed, Sergeant Langley is the 28th Australian to do so—and that is 28 too many. We mourn his loss and today we are here to express our sympathy to his family, his wife and his children and to his broader family and, of course, to his comrades in the Australian Defence Force. It is really very difficult to comprehend the idea that one might do five tours as a special forces soldier in Afghanistan. It is a challenging place—hot, dusty, certainly with none of the comforts of home. It is difficult to comprehend what goes through the mind each time they go out through the front gate of Camp Holland into theatre with very little knowledge of what might come next and indeed not knowing whether they might return. I know they do not dwell on that very much, but you wonder what goes through the mind of a special forces soldier on a fifth deployment. Goodness knows how many times Sergeant Langley had gone out through that front gate. As typical of a sergeant, Sergeant Langley was 35 years old. Special forces soldiers tend to be a little bit older than many of our infantrymen. It is fairly obvious why: they are mature and very experienced soldiers. They are our best, our finest. So I take the opportunity to pay tribute to all of them.
I am never sure whether to say this, because it is a strange thing in some ways to say, but I do take some comfort from the fact that Sergeant Langley lost his life in a firefight, rather than at the hands of those who are creating, constructing and manufacturing improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan. There is something most critically unfair about the indiscriminate use of IEDs. As strange as it is to say, I know that Sergeant Langley was engaging in something that he knew well—and there is something fair about a firefight; at least it is fairer than an IED, given the way that they are used in Afghanistan. He leaves us a hero who lost, and gave, his life in combat.
He and his fellow members of the ADF are doing very important work in Afghanistan. It is work we must continue to do. It is work that goes right to the interests of Australia and Australians. It is work that goes to the safety and security of Australians, whether they be travelling the globe or here on their own soil. We cannot allow Afghanistan to once again descend into a breeding ground and a launching pad for those prepared to perpetuate their acts of terror on innocent people around the globe. That is why we are there. That is why we must continue to be there. We do have an exit strategy, of course. When we train the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police to a level at which they are capable of taking care of their own security, then our people can come home. In the meantime, the training will continue. Special Forces will continue to disrupt the Taliban leadership and those who work under them, and that is obviously critically important work.
Sergeant Langley was a volunteer. I am not sure that I knew him, but I do know that he would have been more than willing to deploy for that fifth time. I know that he would have been fully committed and would have absolutely believed in what he was doing and what we were seeking to achieve. I am also confident, without knowing his family, that he would have had their full support in his determination to continue to do what he was doing. That, of course, does not make it any easier for them. I am sure they are going through the most horrendous time, a period impossible for us to comprehend. Today, I hope we help in a small way by paying tribute to Sergeant Langley and what he did for his country over a long period of time, with two tours in East Timor in addition to his commitment to Afghanistan. Our thoughts are with his family, and we thank them again for the great sacrifice he made and for the great sacrifice they have made in allowing him to do what he felt he needed to do and what he wanted to do in Afghanistan for his country.
I rise on this motion of condolence to offer the deep sympathy and commiserations of our community to the family of Sergeant Todd Langley. As an experienced soldier, serving seven tours of deployment in East Timor and Afghanistan, Sergeant Langley was a colleague his mates looked up to. They described him as a true leader and as someone who will continue to inspire them as they continue to stand up and perform their work in spite of the grief they feel following the loss of their mate.
For the past seven years, Sergeant Langley was based out of Holsworthy with the 2nd Commando Regiment, formerly 4RAR, who are leading Australia's way in Afghanistan. They are the best of the best, and Sergeant Langley was an inspiration among the team. Beyond their positioning in the military, this famous unit has been and remains something that the people of Hughes have a lot of pride in. We, as the community that hosts the unit and the Holsworthy Barracks, take pride in living among these brave soldiers based at Holsworthy and recognise the contribution they make overseas, on the nation's behalf, and the contribution they make to our community back home. Sergeant Langley was no exception. My thoughts, and those of our community, are with his wife and his family at this most difficult time.
Sergeant Langley was someone who made a difference in life. Both the Minister for Defence and the shadow minister today listed the progress being made in Afghanistan, including polio vaccinations, school construction and economic development. But perhaps the greatest achievement of men like Sergeant Langley is the million Afghan children, especially girls, who are now receiving an education thanks to their efforts.
Sergeant Langley was just 35. He was also a husband and a father to three school-age daughters and an infant son. These children can grow up with the knowledge that their father was a true-life hero; someone who served his nation and someone to whom this nation will always owe a debt of gratitude that we will never, ever be fully able to repay. In saying that, we in this parliament have an ongoing obligation to ensure that his family and his children grow up with all the benefits that our society can afford them. That is our obligation and the debt we owe. Lest we forget.
I rise, sadly, to support the remarks of the Prime Minister regarding the tragic loss of Sergeant Todd Langley in Afghanistan earlier this week, and I commend the contribution of the other speakers as well, including the Leader of the Opposition. Sergeant Langley died on the battlefield in southern Afghanistan serving with the Special Operations Task Group and an Afghan National Security Forces team. The group were engaged by insurgents and, in the ensuing battle, Sergeant Langley was fatally shot.
I heard Defence Force chief General David Hurley, in what must surely be a very tough start to a new job, describe Sergeant Langley as:
A devoted family man … an exemplary warrior, a true leader who always brought out the best in those around him.
He was a brave and professional soldier who never took a backwards step …
Those were exactly the circumstances when Sergeant Langley's life was taken. The 35-year-old soldier was a very experienced member of the ADF, he was on his fifth deployment to Afghanistan and he had also undertaken two deployments to East Timor—so seven tours of duty. This is a particularly brave Australian that we are talking about. Sergeant Langley was awarded two Commendations for Distinguished Service and a Unit Citation for Gallantry. Is it any wonder that he was, is and always will be such an inspiration to his fellow soldiers—in fact, to all of us, I would suggest?
Sadly, Sergeant Langley is Australia's 28th fatality in Afghanistan and the seventh this year alone. Too often we have been standing here commemorating those that have lost their lives. We also need to recall the 180 soldiers who have also been wounded in Afghanistan, some quite horribly, with devastating consequences for the rest of their lives. We all share the burden and grief for every father, son and husband killed in the service of this great nation. Over 100,000 Australians have made this sacrifice since Federation. Sergeant Langley, sadly, paid the ultimate price for carrying out Australia's important mission in Afghanistan, which is to prevent that country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. We all know how the Taliban and al-Qaeda thrive in such conditions, so this mission that Sergeant Langley lost his life in the service of saves lives. We know this, whether we go and stand in New York at Ground Zero, go to Mumbai, go to Bali or go to the other parts of the world where terror has been allowed to breed. We know that Sergeant Langley paid the ultimate price saving Australian lives. The Labor government and the opposition remain committed to this objective, and we also support the strong determination of the international community to transition to an Afghan-led security environment during 2014. So there is a plan to carry out the task that Sergeant Langley has been doing, and Australia remains in Afghanistan, with 47 other countries, to carry out our United Nations mandated mission.
I know that these are mere words and they will not bring back a father or a husband. I especially acknowledge how tough it must be for Sergeant Langley's grieving daughters and son, and I hope that these words in the years to come will be some comfort. But they are mere words. For the 27 soldiers who have lost their lives before in Afghanistan, and even the 100,000 before Afghanistan, we know that they are mere words. I am reminded of that poem by Wilfred Owen—'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.' I know they are only words, but it is better to say something in these circumstances. So I hope that the Margaret River community, where Sergeant Langley came from, and his parents, Val and Neville, take some comfort from the fact that we acknowledge and are proud of the sacrifice that Sergeant Langley has made. I extend my deepest sympathy to the entire family of Sergeant Langley; all of his friends and comrades still in the military; and those that have recently left. I thank them all for the sacrifices that they have made to Australia's security. Lest we forget.
It is with great sadness that I rise to speak on the condolence motion following the tragic death of Sergeant Todd Matthew Langley during an operation in Afghanistan on 4 July 2011. Sergeant Langley is the 28th Australian to die in this very difficult and distant Afghanistan conflict. Sergeant Langley was a decorated soldier and commando. He was a member of the Special Operations Task Group that was formerly the 2nd Commando Regiment, formerly 4th Battalion, RAR. He is the eighth member of his unit to be killed in Afghanistan. He had been deployed to Afghanistan five times in the last six years and deployed to East Timor twice. He was awarded two commendations for distinguished service, firstly in 2002 and then in 2008, and he was awarded a unit citation for gallantry in 2006.
Sergeant Langley was described by the Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, as a brave and professional soldier who never took a backward step. Despite their grief his comrades say he will continue to inspire them. So said General David Hurley. Sergeant Langley leaves behind his wife, Reigan; his parents, Val and Neville; and three beautiful girls and a young son. In the words of his family: 'Todd was an all-round great guy. He had a competitive streak when playing board games and a fascination with world affairs. The children are so proud of their daddy and the work that he did. They knew their daddy was a soldier and would miss him terribly each time he went away, but they and the rest of the family were always so proud of him at the same time.'
Sergeant Langley's family can rest assured that a grateful nation is also very proud of him and is grateful for the service that he and his comrades have given in this difficult conflict in Afghanistan. I have had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan and see firsthand the important work that our men and women in uniform are doing and they are making a difference to ensure that, once again, Afghanistan, does not become a safe haven for terrorists.
On this sad day I join with colleagues on both sides of the chamber to pay my respects to a brave and distinguished Australian, a brave and distinguished soldier, and to his family and to say we will always be there with you. Lest we forget.
I would like to offer my sympathies at the death of Sergeant Todd Langley and of course extend my condolences to his wife, Reigan; his parents, Val and Neville; his three daughters and his son; his friends; and, of course, importantly, those who will not be hearing this message because they are in Afghanistan, namely his comrades. Clearly, Sergeant Langley among so many is survived by a loving family. He was a beloved son, husband, father, brother, uncle, son-in-law and brother-in-law, who will always be in the hearts of his family. Nothing we can say in this place or anywhere can fill the gap that is now there permanently.
Sergeant Langley was born in Margaret River, a lovely part of Western Australia, in 1976 and grew up in the towns of Katanning and Broomehill. He enlisted in the Army on 18 April 1993 and transferred to the Regular Army on 14 September 1994 and was posted to 1RAR. On completion of the commando selection and training course in 2004 he was posted to the 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (Commandos), now the 2nd Commando Regiment. He was a highly experienced, decorated, 35-year-old commando section commander, normally based at the 2nd Commando Regiment, Holsworthy Barracks. Of course, as we know he was serving with the Special Operations Task Group in Afghanistan. We know that Sergeant Langley was killed in action during a small arms engagement with insurgents in southern Afghanistan, on 4 July 2011, during one of the several engagements between partnered Afghan National Police and Special Operations Task Group patrolling insurgents. Another Special Operations Task Group commander was seriously wounded in action earlier, in a separate engagement, and was evacuated from the field for medical treatment. I wish him a speedy recovery.
We know that this was Sergeant Langley's fifth tour of duty in Afghanistan, having previously served with the Special Operations Task Group in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. He also served in East Timor in 2000 and 2001, and again in 2003. He was awarded the Commendation for Distinguished Service in 2002 and 2008. All in all, Sergeant Langley devoted to us, the Australian people, 2½ years of service overseas, much of it beyond the wire, fighting a deadly enemy.
The Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, said that the commando section commander was leading his team in the thick of battle when he was killed in action. He said:
Sergeant Langley was a brave and professional soldier, who never took a backward step. Despite their grief, his comrades say he will continue to inspire them.
He was an exemplary warrior, as we know—a true leader who always brought out the best in those around him. He was awarded the following honours and awards: the Commendation for Distinguished Service 2002 and 2008; the Australian Active Service Medal with clasp East Timor, clasp ICAT; the Afghanistan Campaign Medal; the Defence Long Service Medal; the Australian Defence medal; the United Nations Medal UNTAET; the NATO Non Article 5 Medal with clasp ISAF; the Infantry Combat Badge; and the Unit Citation for Gallantry.
Sergeant Langley is the 28th Australian soldier to have been killed since Australia commenced Operation Slipper in Afghanistan in late 2001. Seven Australian soldiers have been killed in action this year. Fifteen members of the special forces have been killed in Afghanistan since the ADF commenced Operation Slipper. One hundred and eighty-two soldiers have been wounded since 2001. Thus far, 17 soldiers have been wounded this year. We cannot anticipate what may happen in the future, but what we know in this place is that these brave men and women put on the Australian uniform knowing they will put themselves in harm's way. They are different from the rest of us. They show the courage and heart that is required to defend us and fight for us. They do it without question. We are a volunteer army; a volunteer defence force. When these people sign up to serve this country, they know they may have to pay the ultimate sacrifice. Here we had a brave soldier, a father with four young children, paying the ultimate sacrifice.
I am not sure that the community comprehends all of this. It is, after all, a foreign land. This engagement is in a foreign place. But we need to assure the people who are doing the fighting that they have our total and unqualified support in the work they do. We have to assure them and continue to assure them, as we are doing, that there is no difference across this parliament about the support for Australian Defence Force people who are wearing our uniform overseas and are fighting on our behalf. They know, and they need to continue to know, that they have our total and unqualified support. Theirs is a difficult task. We, members of parliament, the executive government, determine what they do. They operate under instruction from government, representing the Australian people, so we bear a special responsibility when we hear of the death of an Australian serving man or woman in conflict as a result of us placing them there. This responsibility is with us and we need to understand how grave that responsibility is every day we are here, because whilst we are here people are fighting for us in Afghanistan. They are putting themselves in danger. When they put themselves in danger, they do it because we have requested them to do it for us, so we need to pay them the respect that is properly their due. We need to assure them that they need not worry about their families. They need to be assured that whilst they are there, whilst they are in uniform, we will be looking after them and that, should sad events such as this occur, their families will be cared for into the future. That is the very least we can do to share our obligation as members of the Australian community and, most importantly, as members of this parliament. Ultimately, whether we are in opposition or government, we share the responsibility for sending them there in the first instance. It is a special responsibility we have and it is one which we need to comprehend.
I say to the Australian community that, whilst there may be some sceptics about the mission in Afghanistan, people should understand that, whatever their views about the mission, the people who are carrying it out are carrying it out because we have requested they do it. People should not brook—and I know they do not—any question about the sincerity of those who work and sacrifice for us and who potentially can make the ultimate sacrifice, as Sergeant Langley has.
We can assure his family—and I know this view is shared across the parliament—that this outstanding soldier will be forever remembered. We remember him now, just as we remember all the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of a very grateful nation. His family must know that we are extremely proud of his courage, his selflessness and his service. We know from his family that Todd epitomised the spirit of the Aussie digger: loyal, hard-working and well-respected. We need to know, and we need to make sure everyone else knows, that he will never be forgotten. Lest we forget.
Todd Matthew Langley, Sergeant, 2nd Commando Regiment, Special Operations Task Group. He was a Western Australian and the thing that Western Australians and Queenslanders have in common is an adventurous spirit, so it is only natural that he would have been drawn to the outdoors. It is only natural that he would have been drawn to being a team player. It is only natural that he would have been drawn to taking more risks than a lot of people would. He was a father, a husband, a son and a friend. To become a soldier of his calibre—five tours, decorations, toughness—requires a great deal of discipline, heroism and training.
I have had conversations with the men and women of 3rd Brigade in Townsville at the RAAF base. The training they do involves making sure that when they are in a situation they rely on muscle memory so that there is nothing left to chance. The 3rd Brigade in Townsville is our ready-deployable part of the service. They spend day after day training so that, if something happens, they know exactly where they are going to be. If they are not trained in that way, someone will get hurt or die. Even though these guys are so brilliantly trained, even though they are so brilliantly ready, there are always going to be tragedies.
Sergeant Langley is the 28th person to die overseas in this conflict in Afghanistan. It is a loss we all bear greatly. I note the words of the minister when he said that as members of this House we all share the responsibility of sending our men and women overseas. When they fall we obviously do not take it as hard as the family, but we are very aware of the responsibility we have. When you talk to the soldiers and men and women of the ADF that come back from Afghanistan, and indeed our parliamentary colleagues who go over there, you understand the work we are doing in training the Afghan army and trying to make that place a better place. We take education and human rights for granted. I am the parent of three children. I have one daughter now at university and one in year 12 weighing up her options. In the Afghanistan of old, before we got involved in this, the people did not have options. We are now seeing kids there go to school, and through school is education, through education is power and through education and power is freedom. That is what we are there for. We are not there to fight a war; we are there to make them masters of their own country, to give them the opportunities that we take for granted. While I understand extremely well people's reservations about us being in a foreign land, I think when you put these things into context you see we are able to say these things because we are in a country that is defended by our men and women of the ADF. We are able to have those debates openly and frankly, and more power to us. But when you talk to the soldiers that come back, when you talk to the airmen that have been there, you realise they want to be there, they need to be there and they feel that they are doing a great job, that they are making progress—and those are the things that we have to watch out for.
People often say—and I suppose for Todd Langley it would be very much the case—and I say it myself, 'I could be a world champion if no-one hit me back.' To be tough, to be a soldier of Todd Langley's calibre, you must first be able to play while injured, you must first be able to cope with the pain that comes with being in a very, very rough environment for long periods of time, away from your family and friends. To do that takes a special kind of person. To be at his age, to be in peak physical condition, to be the man whom everyone back here loves and to be capable of divesting himself of that to become the ultimate warrior in Afghanistan, he must have been a tremendous person. As the dad of four kids it must have torn him inside to be away from them.
Todd was ex-1RAR, so he has spent time in Townsville, and the community there is very much behind all our men and women in the ADF. We are a huge veteran town and a huge defence town, and we take our involvement in this very, very seriously. When one of ours goes down, there is always someone in Townsville that knows them or has worked with them. We are currently seeing the 2RAR Townsville based regiment being deployed in various stages for various fields of fire and training organisations in Afghanistan; when these guys are going overseas, we know that we are at risk. Our schools and our workplaces are full of defence men, women and children, so when these things happen there is a little bit of reflection by the whole city of Townsville.
I will finish by saying that we respect what our men and women of the ADF do in trying to make this world a safer place. For Todd's parents, wife, children and friends, it is cold comfort that we in this House speak of him, because it is their loss. Sometimes I feel when we are doing these things that we are in fact intruding on someone else's grief. But it is right that you should grieve. You should be proud of Todd—your son, your husband, your father and your friend. So grieve but please remember him for all that was good, all the good things he did, all the good times you had and not the tragedy of his death. Sergeant Todd Matthew Langley will be missed—a great Australian gone. Lest we forget.
Lest we forget. I thank all the members for their contributions. I understand it is the wish of members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the Committee.
I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
I rise today to speak on the Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 and do so having risen, I think, in this very room in the same place, to discuss this legislation before parliament was prorogued for the last election. The bill is very much exactly as it was the last time we discussed it in this chamber. There are some additional technical amendments to the Australian consumer law that are attached to this legislation.
It is important to open the batting by saying that we do not oppose this legislative change. In fact we made it clear that we find this bill quite unobjectionable in that what it seeks to achieve is extraordinarily modest, and it manages to achieve such modesty. There is no harm from this legislation, but it would be false and quite wrong—to use the consumer law language, false representations would be made—if the government were to claim that some enormous shift will be achieved by this legislation. It will not. And that is one of the reasons the opposition has no objection to this legislation. However, we will be highlighting how it fails to achieve a number of the things that the government has described as being the ambition of the legislation.
Essentially, the bill has two main aims. One is to clarify the operation of existing provisions, not new provisions, relating to mergers and acquisitions by attacking a potential uncertainty or a potential ambiguity that may arise—it has not yet—in defining what a market is for the purposes of section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act. Its second aim is to insert interpretive principles. These are not new provisions. They are not new measures that will give greater protection to small business in relation to unconscionable conduct by big business. It does nothing of that sort. It simply seeks to insert interpretive principles into a unified unconscionable conduct provision for consumer- and business-related provisions to assist the courts in applying the law and to assist stakeholder understanding.
Stakeholder understanding is an important concept here in that the government in the second reading speech talked about these measures offering new protections for small business. That is completely false. It does nothing of the sort. The claim in the second reading speech that it will somehow protect small businesses is not right. There is no change. The legislation is purely about clarifying existing provisions and then inserting these interpretive principles so that people's expectations are managed. The government is trying to make it sound as if there is a new tool in the tool kit to tackle big business unconscionably pushing around small business, but there is no new tool. You can imagine the man cave—the shed—with the tools on the wall. Sometimes they are outlined so you know where to put back certain tools. Well, that is all this does. It outlines what these unconscionable conduct provisions might mean so that people's expectations are not too great.
It achieves those extraordinarily modest objectives. The objectives as stated in the more sober and objective provisions of the second reading speech—as modest as they are—are actually met. Some of the rounding-out comments in the second reading speech are not met. They try to create the impression that there is some miraculous change and some enormous renovation to the competition and consumer laws in Australia. That is not correct.
Over the past decade or so there have been concerns raised within the community about market concentration in a number of key sectors—we have seen it in banking, retail fuel, groceries and some other areas—and the ability of section 50 of the competition and consumer law to deal effectively with creeping acquisitions. These creeping acquisitions are acquisitions which may, of themselves, not be terribly significant. They may, of themselves, not represent a substantial or wholesale change in market conditions, but when accumulated over time they bring about quite a different complexion in the conditions in the market place.
To some extent you can look at the supermarket area to see this. When Professor Hilmer was doing his landmark work looking at our competition and consumer framework, and recommending reforms that earned a wide degree of support, I think the two major supermarket chains had less than half of the total grocery market. Changes were foreshadowed that would supposedly nurture competition and consumer interests. We now know those two major chains have nearly three-quarters of the market. Nothing enormous or transformational may have happened overnight, but a system and a series of acquisitions, new presence and purchasing of other properties has seen the majors in the supermarket area really enhance their positions. That is called creeping acquisition.
The Baird committee considered creeping acquisitions in 1999 in its report, Fair market or market failure?
The committee recommended a code of conduct be established requiring the mandatory notification of supermarket acquisitions by publicly listed companies. The Baird committee also considered whether subsection 50(6) should be amended to specifically allow consideration of a regional market in order to address creeping acquisition concerns at a regional, rural or more localised level. The interpretation of that subsection by the ACCC has not been tested by the courts. In response to the Baird review and in commentary that followed, the ACCC felt that specifically allowing for consideration of a regional or more localised market was not needed—because the law already provided that utility by the description of the commission being able to consider the impacts on the market. In Justice French's decision in 2003 in the Federal Court of AGL v the ACC, while not offering a concluded view on it, he left open the possibility that a market needed to be considered substantial and may be determined with reference to Australia as a whole. That opinion has not been tested and there is no jurisprudence to validate that view, but it was a risk and a potential avenue of action for those concerned with merger and acquisitions proposals and perhaps aggrieved by the ACCC's conclusion.
It was conveyed to the ACCC that one major supermarket chain may possibly press that interpretation to resist any objection to acquisitions in geographically confined markets from being considered under section 50. Prior to the last parliament and in this parliament, given the threat of a legal challenge being mounted on that basis, the government thought that the law should be clarified. Given that lack of jurisprudence, the bill seeks to redefine 'market' as 'any market' and to remove the term 'substantial' to define the market to be any market in Australia—which might otherwise prevent the application of section 50.
A related area which arises when talking about distinctions in the supermarket sector is that one of the major supermarket chains has routinely informed the ACCC about vacant site acquisitions plans. Another has not been so enthusiastic about that in communicating intentions in regard to greenfield sites, to be purchased or leased, claiming that such an acquisition is undertaken in 'the ordinary course of business' and therefore would be exempt from the creeping acquisitions provisions. While the bill contains no express provisions to deal with this issue, in bringing this bill forward the government has made it clear that, if the government believes the ACCC's interpretation is valid but this proves not to be the case, and if the ACCC's powers do not extend to considering the acquisition of greenfield sites, the government will act to clarify the law.
So we have clarification about a possible risk through a potential ambiguity on the basis of a threat about how someone might attack a legal argument—that is the justification for one of the provisions. There is an announcement that the government is telling supermarket chains or any others that, if it thinks acquisition of greenfield sites is not an acquisition for the purposes of section 50, it will argue that that is wrong but, if challenged on that, it will change the law.
I hope you can see from that description that there is really no great joy. There is no sense that the toolkit available to nurture durable consumer benefits and a competitive market place will be enhanced by these changes because effectively they do not change much. They are just window dressing and aimed at dealing with a potential risk. On the basis that it is risk management, the coalition supports the bill. So, on the basis of the argument that it is risk management, the coalition support the bill, but we do not support it on the basis of the government's argument that this is somehow strengthening the competition and consumer protection framework—on that, we beg to differ. That is nonsense and hyperbole, and the government should desist from over-egging the pudding in that regard.
The other part relates to the unconscionable conduct provisions. Again, let me make it clear: there are no changes to those provisions, none whatsoever. What the bill seeks to do is implement some recommendations from 2009, from an expert panel of eminent competition and consumer lawyers established to consider the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into the statutory definition of 'unconscionable conduct'. The coalition were very much the pioneers in introducing the concept of unconscionable conduct into our competition laws. While we appreciate that those who feel a bit hard done by sometimes conclude that the conduct directed towards them was unconscionable, that conclusion is often not really well informed by an understanding of the law. The law makes it quite clear what unconscionable conduct is, but it is not something that is well understood generally out in the business community, particularly amongst the small businesses that I am very honoured to represent, and that is why the Senate Economics Committee said a statutory definition should be provided.
The committee recommended that the government set up an inquiry process to determine whether examples would be helpful and whether a statement of principles would enhance the unconscionable conduct provisions. The expert panel found that the unconscionable conduct provisions had been regularly enforced since their inception and that the case law was still developing. I am mindful of the fact that, when these provisions were first introduced, the Howard government provided resources to the ACCC to build up the case law—to pursue instances where it was believed unconscionable conduct had been inflicted on a smaller business, to establish the legal facts and precedents and then, through that, inform the broader marketplace of what unconscionable conduct is really about. The government accepted the panel's statement that unconscionable conduct provisions are not easily understood and that they could and should be made clearer for businesses, consumers, enforcement agencies and the courts. The panel also found that a list of examples might give rise to misguided expectations and stated that the inclusionof some interpretative principles in the TPA would assist.
Essentially, the conclusion the government accepted was that, if you put case studies into the law, people will read their own circumstances into those case studies, which might create the expectation that the law is able to act in relation to what is often their commercial disadvantage at the hands of a larger competitor, but that might not be well founded in the law itself. So the government have moved away from providing case studies and examples, for fear that they might increase people's expectations about the remedy and relief that is available to them through the unconscionable conduct provisions. Instead, these interpretive principles are being introduced.
Let me again emphasise that this is not a change to the material content of the law. There are no new tools being brought to the unconscionable conduct tool kit. What there is is the introduction of some principles to give people better insight into how the existing provisions actually operate and to manage expectations about the relief and remedy that may be available through unconscionable conduct provisions. So, again, it is quite misleading of the government to conclude in the second reading speech and in other commentary on this bill that there is somehow improved protection of small businesses under these provisions. There is not. The substantive elements of the law, and the machinery and the efficacy of the law, are unchanged; it is just an improved explanation so that stakeholders, including agencies and courts, have a clear sense of the principles that underpin it.
The interpretive principles aim to ensure that the courts do not too narrowly interpret the bill or apply a common-law concept of unconscionable conduct to business and consumer relationships; that unconscionable conduct provisions are not solely limited to the way a contract is formed but also apply to the terms of the contract and the manner in which the contract is carried out; that the prohibition on unconscionable conduct applies to systemic conduct or patterns of behaviour; and that there is no need to identify a person at a disadvantage in order to attract the prohibition. That last point is very relevant as it relates to the common law concept of unconscionable conduct, where there is a need to identify the victim of that unconscionable conduct as having some kind of disadvantage, impairment or inability to fully engage and appreciate the kinds of transactions they have entered into. Clearly, people with no such disadvantage, impairment or diminishment of faculties can still be the subject of unconscionable conduct. Therefore, this is aiming to ensure that the courts do not resort to that narrow common law concept but actually look at the statue law as it has been written. These interpretive principles should give clarity to the court on what was intended.
There is some other stuff in there which seeks to harmonise the ASIC related provisions with the Australian consumer law, so that there is a single set of specific factors which the court may consider, rather than a risk of separate provisions being interpreted differently. That is designed to eliminate any potential for confusion. Again, there is no evidence of confusion but this is designed as a risk management measure to eliminate the potential for confusion where unconscionable conduct provisions are applied to both businesses and consumers.
There is not a lot new in this; in fact, there is very little new in this because the parliament has considered it before and it has passed the House of Representatives with the support of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. It headed its way off to the other place but, in between, parliament was prorogued and we had an election.
For the government to claim that this is some major change is completely false. There is nothing in this bill which could substantiate such a claim. This is clarification and interpretation, avoiding any risk of confusion. It is nothing new, no new tool kit in the competition and consumer protection framework, nothing like the kind of enhanced protection for small business some would suggest. This is not even in keeping with the expectation the government itself has created about the creeping acquisitions issue in the public's mind, as in the election campaign in 2007.
The government has attracted some criticism that this bill amounts to nothing more than window-dressing. I think that is fair and well-justified criticism. It also does not do much to deal with what inspired Senator Xenophon with his Richmond amendment, which was designed to improve what he considered were unresponsive and ineffective provisions dealing with creeping acquisitions. Interestingly, neither the government nor the opposition supported Senator Xenophon's legislative proposal. It was very well intended, I am sure, and I certainly understand the motive behind addressing the unresponsiveness and ineffectiveness of the current provisions, but the particular provisions in the Richmond amendment did not achieve that. So it was understandable why neither the government nor the opposition backed it.
What is also undeniable in my view is that there is a need to have a very close examination of creeping acquisitions and some of those legal concepts that shape the regulatory process for considering merger and acquisitions proposals. What would be wrong would be for people to point to Senator Xenophon's amendment, the Richmond amendment, and say that, just because it was poor and did not achieve what it set out to achieve, there is somehow no problem. I think that is a mistake. There is so much debate about market concentration, about creeping acquisitions and their impact not only on consumers but also on those participating in the supply chain.
The ACCC is in a position to consider whatever it feels it needs to consider when assessing merger and acquisition proposals and in the way creeping acquisition provisions apply. I think the ACCC should be obliged to consider implications for the supply chain, those selling into businesses that are acquiring or already have an extraordinarily substantial market share. I think that would be a more worthwhile discussion to have. It would reflect the kind of sentiment that inspired Senator Xenophon, but it would also recognise that just because Senator Xenophon's response was not all that it could have been that does not mean that somehow the problem is not there. I think there is a good case to have a look at the impact on the supply chain.
There are a range of areas the coalition has identified and put to the Australian parliament that would improve and enhance our competition and consumer framework. Prior to the last election the then government minister who had responsibility for this area, Craig Emerson, was quick and quite shrill in announcing to the Australian public and the business community that there was nothing more that needed to be done to the competition and consumer protection framework in Australia. It was a bizarre statement that he made when he was attacking the coalition's election commitment to have a root and branch review of that framework, the toolkit that is available and the way in which it is implemented.
I would characterise that as Hilmer 2.0. Hilmer did that work and made sure that the competition and consumer affairs concepts, frameworks and regulatory arrangements were relevant at the time that review was conducted. Much has happened since. Many of the assertions, conclusions or, dare I say, misguided assumptions that influenced the conclusions of Hilmer's work have proven not to be true. They have not been borne out by the facts, and the market today looks very different than it did in that time.
We on this side of the chamber think that the work is far from done and we completely reject the government's assertion that it has done all it can to the competition and consumer law framework in Australia. It was a ridiculous statement that the minister made then, which was inspired by political opportunism and to have a go at the opposition. You do not have to take my word for it. We are here today talking about amending the bill. Those very laws were claimed to be so perfect that they would not benefit from refreshing, renovating or rethinking, so precise were they in the eyes of the Labor government, but we are here talking about changes, albeit changes that are immaterial and window dressing.
Later today in the chamber we will also be talking about a bill relating to price signalling. Again, that is another area where the coalition has led the debate on the need to improve the competition and consumer protection framework. Belatedly, the government has now come to that task. The government's own actions clearly prove that the claim by Dr Emerson, the then minister at the time, that everything was sweet and hunky-dory was just not right.
This extends into other areas, such as the assumptions about the reach of section 46, how the provision dealing with the abuse of market power operates and how in the eyes of many, including some of the regulators, there is a whole lot of effort required to demonstrate the abuse of market power. These are very difficult provisions. If the case is proven only a fine is applied. Where so much weight is being put on one provision of the law that has proven itself to be extraordinarily difficult to implement and where someone who has been found to have offended that law faces relatively modest consequences, it undermines the utility of that very provision.
I think that section 46 needs to be revisited. So much weight has been placed on that provision in order to achieve all sorts of things, including the claim by the Hilmer review and embraced by the Hawke-Keating government that it would deal with price discrimination better than the old section 49 because it was a more comprehensive approach to anticompetitive market behaviour. If that is the ambition behind that provision it has not lived up to it and it needs to be examined. If it was said to have been able to cover all sorts of circumstances and it has been proven to be deficient in that task then it needs to be revisited. That is just one area.
There are also issues around the way in which the effects test applies. For the life of me, I cannot understand why our competition laws are not more interested in effect and purpose. So much of our law relates to the motive of particular participants. Where a purpose to lessen competition at varying degrees is proven then an offence has been committed and an option for some remedies is to be implemented. But most countries base their abusive market power test on an effects test because people are interested in the consequences, the outcomes, the actual diminishment of consumer interest and detrimental impacts on competition. They are interested in the effects.
I would think there is a very strong argument for adding purpose and effect. I think there is a very strong argument in competition law and in an economic policy sense to make sure that we capture those outcomes that are detrimental to consumers and are anti-competitive, regardless of the motive, so that we can attack the harm not just go to people's motives as we make those assessments. There are even opportunities to strengthen areas of the retail code from the models that you see overseas on aspects of unacceptable behaviour. There is a very strong argument to revisit that case.
We have touched on mergers and acquisitions. I pointed out that I think there are some opportunities to look at impacts on the supply chain. Some of the tests for market power are so incredibly complex to prove, yet in other jurisdictions the way in which market power, and therefore the abuse of it, is substantiated introduces a range of concepts ours do not really focus on. Market power in our context looks at the impact of the almost impunity with which a business can raise prices with no detriment to their market position. That is a consumer focus. What if the market power is so profound that the suppliers to that company or business with a strong market position can virtually name their price and the suppliers are left saying they are price takers? Surely where there is an abundance of evidence that suppliers into particularly dominant companies in certain markets are price takers there is some unhealthy imbalance in market power.
I think these concepts should be teased out. They should be teased out because the ambitions that were set through the reforms that emanated out of the Hilmer review and are captured in the current law in many cases have not been met. Therefore that would be a worthwhile exercise. That would be the clear justification for the coalition's policy position that we need a root-and-branch review of our competition law, the framework within which it operates, the tools available to the regulator and the way in which they are implemented. It is the implementation of appropriate tools that we should be looking at not an ongoing defence of the law as it currently stands.
For those operating in a highly competitive marketplace it comes as little comfort when they know what is being done to them is hardly in the spirit of competitive markets and durable consumer interest when the answer they get is, 'Ah yes, but that conduct has not offended the law.' In our country it does not come down to an argument about whether the conduct is pro-competitive or even neutral, whether a consumer benefits or not, it comes down to an argument over whether black-letter law has been offended. If the law has not been offended, it is assumed to be okay. The market has changed since Hilmer. The pressure on those in the supply chain is getting greater and greater.
The weight of market concentration is playing out in so many different areas of our economy and that is why we need to make sure that our competition framework, the tools within it and the way in which it is implemented are fit for purpose. That is not what this bill does. This bill is window-dressing. It is ornamental at best. It achieves no new outcomes for small business. It is a false and misleading for the government to claim so. There is a job that needs to be done. The coalition has said we are prepared to do that work. It is work that needs the government's resources. It also needs a clear mind about what a competitive marketplace and durable consumer benefits mean in Australia for the long run. That is the work that needs to be done because the law is far from perfect, as the government would try and tell people. Its own evidence is on bills being discussed in the House. I hope we get to have that more substantive discussion about what really is needed for the framework of competition and consumer protection in Australia because there is much work to be done here. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak in favour of the Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. In doing so, I wish to speak primarily about the issue of creeping acquisitions. The free market system in which Australia operates may not be perfect, but it has proven over the course of history to be the best method of ensuring that consumers get the services and products they need to live their lives at a price and quality that represents good value.
At the heart of this system lies competition—competition based on the ability of people to freely trade with each other; competition to ensure that larger actors in the market do not seek to unduly use their influence to shut out better deals and competitors; and competition to ensure the right of the consumer to freely choose the products and services that suit their needs and ensure a system that is fundamentally based on a fair go, where the crucial freedom is that the community has the opportunity to engage in the marketplace. This is a fundamentally Australian value and it is a core value of the Labor Party and this government. Competition ensures that Australians are given meaningful and fulfilling jobs. It keeps the cost of living down by keeping the economy efficient and it improves the standard of living by driving innovation and change.
To ensure that fair competition happens, government must from time to time act to ensure that the regulatory framework is such that it drives adequate competition in any marketplace in Australia. Governments have an obligation to monitor and constantly improve competition policy, for one of the characteristics of a free market economy is dynamism and change. When problems are identified, governments must act. This imperative is simply a specific case of the need to always stay on the reforming path.
We have seen through the global financial crisis what can happen when governments fail to implement appropriate regulatory processes and consumer protections. In fact, Australia was spared from the full effect of the global financial crisis entirely because of its robust regulatory frameworks and swift, decisive and effective government action. However, because of the very nature of the dynamic market, the need for reform never truly ends. Labor governments of the past knew it; this government knows it and is committed to it. Reforms can be large and small but must always be measured and appropriate and aimed at improving the fundamentals of the Australian economy. These reforms are not designed to fix problems associated with the political whims of the day. In fact, to act in such a manner would be counterproductive in the long term. The reforms of Labor governments are designed to fix problems over the long term to ensure that every Australian benefits from the nation's wealth. This has been our history and it remains core to this government's values.
So we arrive at the legislation before us today. It is apparent that there is uncertainty or lack of clarity around the powers of a competition policy body—in Australia's case, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—so it is necessary to take careful steps to remedy the problem while avoiding the creation of new problems through unintended consequences. The issue of mergers and acquisitions illustrates the fact that, in a market economy characterised by competition, some firms will falter and others prosper, there will be changes in ownership and some firms will become larger. Of itself, this is nothing but a consequence of competition. However, mergers and acquisitions can create the risk that competition will be lessened.
It is therefore the responsibility of government to ensure that the ACCC is in the best position possible to assess and deal with this possibility. In particular, this bill seeks to provide greater clarification as to what the definition of a market is. The legislation as it currently stands prohibits mergers or acquisitions that would, or would be likely to, substantially lessen competition in 'a market'. While the ACCC has always held the interpretation that this includes the lessening of competition in any market, this cannot be guaranteed.
Further, there is also a concern around the issue of the interpretation of 'substantially'. Again, while it has generally been interpreted that this includes Australia as a whole or a state or territory, or indeed a region, statements by Justice French have highlighted a concern. In particular, Justice French noted:
It does not seem likely that the relativity implied by the term ‘substantial’ in s 50(6) relates to the size of other markets in whichever of the geographical areas mentioned in the definition the market is to be found. For there is no lower bound on the size of ‘a region of Australia’. It may be that having regard to s 4E the substantiality of the market in question, even if it be geographically limited to a State or a Territory or a region, is to be judged by reference to Australia as a whole. I express no concluded view on that difficult constructional issue …
Debate interrupted.
I rise today to speak about Rotary. I had the privilege of attending two handover dinners, at which the discussions that I had with Rotarians brought back memories of the time that I spent in Rotary. Rotary International is an organisation of Rotary clubs located all over the world. Rotary began as an idea more than 100 years ago. Today Rotary flourishes worldwide, with 1.2 million members in more than 200 countries and geographical areas. Rotary International is the world's first service club organisation, with more than 33,000 clubs worldwide.
Rotary members are volunteers who work locally, regionally and internationally to combat hunger, improve health and sanitation, provide education and job training, promote peace and eradicate polio. Rotary's best known motto is 'Service above self' and its secondary motto is 'They profit most who serve best'. In my first speech I made reference to the fact that I will always put service above self. The object of Rotary is to encourage and foster the ideal of service as a basis of worthy enterprise and, in particular, to encourage and foster, firstly, the development of acquaintance as an opportunity for service; secondly, high ethical standards in business and professions, the recognition of worthiness of all useful occupations and the dignifying of each Rotarian's occupation as an opportunity to serve society; thirdly, the application of the ideal of service in each Rotarian's personal, business and community life; and, finally, the advancement of an international understanding of goodwill and peace through a world fellowship of business and professional persons united in the ideal of service.
Based on the objects of Rotary, the avenues of service are Rotary's philosophical cornerstone and the foundation on which each club activity is based. 'Club service' focuses on strengthening fellowship and ensuring the effective functioning of the club. 'Vocational service' encourages Rotarians to serve others through their vocations and to practise high ethical standards. 'Community service' covers projects and activities the club undertakes to improve life in its community, and there are several significant projects within the electorate of Hasluck that Rotarians provide their time to in order to improve the quality of life of many individuals. 'International service' encompasses actions taken to expand Rotary's humanitarian reach around the globe and to promote world understanding and peace. 'New generation service' recognises the positive change implemented by youth and young adults through leadership, development activities, service, projects and exchange programs.
The four-way test that Rotarians hold themselves to is a test which has been translated into more than 100 languages. It asks the following questions:
Of the things we think, say or do
1.Is it the TRUTH?
2.Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3.Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
4.Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
What I enjoy about the Rotarians that I have met within my own state, within my electorate and across this nation is their preparedness to give of their time even when their time is challenged by the occupations in which they work and live on a daily basis. Their unfaltering commitment to improving communities and the nation and their international commitment to the eradication of polio are highly ethical thoughts and pathways of action that they undertake. What I always find interesting is that people who are busy always tend to find time to give to fellow human beings in a way that sometimes all of us should give. Passion for what you do and what you believe is the essence of group camaraderie, but it is important that you, as a collective group of professionals, believe that your personal value in serving others above self is in the way in which you build a community and a society that protect and look after their own and that nurture those who require support and intervention during their life. I commend to all of you the thought that Rotary is an organisation that is well worth being concerned with. (Time expired)
Recent polls suggest Australians are disillusioned with our involvement in Afghanistan, and the tragedy of young soldiers being killed, most recently Sergeant Todd Langley, only fuels this sentiment. I can understand that, but following my recent visit to the country, as part of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have returned with a clear and strong understanding of what we are doing to fight terrorism and to stabilise and secure Afghanistan. With it, I have a degree of optimism, because we have made progress in Afghanistan in the last nine years, particularly at a human level. Now, when people ask me why we are in Afghanistan, I no longer just cite our commitment to the alliance and the need to eliminate terrorists to defend our presence. I cite the training centres, roads, airfields and mosques I saw, and the girls schools I heard about. Now six million children go to school, one-third of whom are girls; in 2001 this was around the one-million mark, and there were no girls at school.
Afghanistan's future stability and security rely as much on infrastructure and getting the basics in place as on strong-arming the enemy. Stability and security will come from eliminating the presence of terrorism, but it will also come from training the military and the local police, so they can defend and protect their own people and their own country; from improving roads so food can get to market and the economy can prosper; from introducing a largely agricultural community to alternative crops to stop the addiction to the poppy trade; and from training people so they have the skills to rebuild their own nation. The approach needs to be tailored to the needs of the vastly different communities.
Having lived in India and having worked on the Middle East desk in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I have a strong appreciation of the differences between metropolitan, regional and rural communities from Egypt to Bangladesh. However, the differences in Afghanistan are stark, deeply tribal and built on centuries of warring and religious and ethnic adversity. That is why the challenges of this country need to be tackled province by province, and in many cases village by village—and they are. To highlight the differences: in Kabul province, 66 per cent of men and 48 per cent of women can read, averaging out to about 50 per cent. On average, 46 per cent of girls and boys are in school. Women work and wander the streets freely. In Oruzgan province, by contrast, male literacy stands at 18 per cent and female literacy at 0.2 per cent, infant mortality is 38 per cent and school attendance averages out at 20 per cent. Women are largely confined to their homes.
In Kabul, we met with a number of members of parliament, one of them the internationally renowned Fawzia Koofi. Ms Koofi is the chairwoman of the defence and territorial affairs standing committee, has a masters in business and management and is a strong advocate of human rights, particularly of women's and children's rights. She is also from a politically active family. In our meeting she was articulate and forthright. She praised the international presence in Afghanistan and wanted it to last as long as possible, because it ensured women like her were safe. In Oruzgan we met only with the men from the provincial government: army and police in Tarin Kowt and local leaders in the Mirabad Valley. All of them, particularly the influential Governor Shirzad, praised the international community's work in building vital infrastructure, including waste management and food storage facilities and women's and children's health centres. Governor Shirzad was also at pains to point out the gains in stability and security in the last 12 months, particularly in the last six months
In recent years, the international community has trained tens of thousands of members of the Afghan National Army. Many of them have been trained by young Australians in the artillery training team in Kabul. The 20 trainers are mainly young men in their 20s. At first glance, they are your classic Australian blokes: cracking jokes and being cheeky. But when they share their training experience they have a disarming maturity, commitment and patience that belies their years. Our mission in Afghanistan is multifaceted and it is working. Oruzgan now has double the number of patrol bases, from 18 to 36, thanks to the Australian Federal Police mentoring program with the Afghan 4th Brigade. It also has hundreds more tradesmen thanks to our trade training centre.
There are many examples of very human things that happened there but, for me, the most profound of them was going to the training centre. There was a trainee soldier there aged 55 years but claiming he was 35, the maximum age for the ANA. He was bearded, greying, painfully thin and deeply lined from years of sub-zero winters and piercingly hot summers. When we were there he did something that he had not been able to do all his life until six weeks ago: he read. He read clearly, loudly and proudly—and he read thanks to the efforts of the international community.
What Afghanistan needs is stability and security, first and foremost. As with any society, nothing can be built without these most fundamental foundations. We have made a significant investment in Afghanistan and we have made the ultimate sacrifice. We cannot waste the efforts of those who have made that sacrifice by leaving the mission early. (Time expired)
Last Wednesday, 29 June, it was my honour and pleasure to officially open Murri Teilah Medical centre in Caboolture. It was fantastic to be there and to share in the excitement of local Indigenous elders, medical professionals and about 300 Indigenous members of my community. I take this opportunity to recognise Ken Wyatt, my friend and colleague, who is a strong advocate for better health services and who has developed his own relationships with local Indigenous elders, including Auntie Lynne Matsen.
There are several exciting aspects of this centre. The first of these is that it is specifically designed to deliver culturally sensitive medical care to Indigenous people in our community. Sadly, it is the case that some Indigenous people are reluctant to access mainstream health care, for any number of reasons. This can sometimes result in conditions that could have been managed, or better yet prevented from turning into chronic conditions, if they had been caught early enough.
It is my understanding that initially the centre will focus on providing services to those who, for whatever reason, are unable to attend regular service providers. While this is the focus of the centre, its doors are open to the whole community. Another of the services that Murri Teilah Medical will provide is a patient transport service, which will make access to the centre so much easier for some members of my community. The centre will provide women's health services, including a clinic for mothers and babies, an immunisation clinic, chronic disease management and prisoner release care. Importantly, it will also cater for allied health referrals such as oral health.
There are approximately 5,000 Indigenous people in the Moreton Bay region, and until now there has been no dedicated medical centre to cater to their needs. The idea for the establishment of Murri Teilah Medical came about through the vision and energy of the founding directors of the centre, Jennie Anderson and Anita Kemp. They believed in the development of a medical centre which would cater to the needs of the Indigenous community in the Moreton Bay area and which was not dependent on government. Their energy and dedication has seen that vision come to fruition. This medical centre represents a vibrant and active community seeking to find solutions to very real problems and, in the process, to own its own destiny.
The second exciting aspect of the Murray Teilah Medical centre model for health care is that it is privately funded. A need was identified in the community and the community went about finding ways to meet that need. As soon as the Indigenous community in the region became aware of the idea of the centre and the services proposed, they worked tirelessly through fundraising efforts and volunteering. This is about the community delivering a real result. It is a fantastic example of how a community can identify and deliver services required for that community without the solution being imposed by the government. If the community wants it and the community delivers it, the outcomes are probably going to be good, and we have high hopes for Murri Teilah.
The centre expects to have some 1,500 financial members, comprising donors from the private sector, private citizens and Indigenous community groups. The centre bulk-bills, so cash flow will be generated through Medicare rebates. It is my understanding that Murri Health Group has developed partnerships with Queensland University of Technology and is looking to partner with Queensland Health to further enhance and provide care programs for older Indigenous people and for mothers and babies. Intervening early through regular health checks and immunisation programs will undoubtedly improve health outcomes for Indigenous people in my community.
I share the excitement of the board of the management of Murri Teilah Medical. It is exciting for my community that there is now a place where Indigenous people can come to receive culturally sensitive care. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the elders, Jenny Anderson and Anita Kemp, and everyone that has contributed to the establishment of this important new facility in our community.
It was my pleasure recently to visit sites in the Dorset municipality representing the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Crean, to celebrate the official opening of five projects funded under round 2 of the Australian government's Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. Firstly, I visited the construction sites of a recreational walking track; secondly, the site of an upgrade of fire cabinets in the Bridport area, at Bridport Caravan Park. Work on the trail includes preparation of the site, new paving, signage and bridges as stage 1 of a larger project. I also visited Bridport Caravan Park to look at a project involving the installation of stainless steel fire cabinets to upgrade the safety of that caravan park. Bridport is a well-known holiday destination. It has a local population of about 1,350, which almost triples over the summer months. With this kind of increase in population at peak times there is a need for quality recreational facilities such as the walking track to ensure the safety of visitors to the region.
The third project site I visited was the Derby gaol, to see work on its restoration and preparation of its move to the Derby Tin Mine Centre. This will ensure that Derby's roots are preserved for many generations to come. Derby has a long and proud history of mining dating back to 1876. A group of volunteers played an important part in the restoration of the gaol. These volunteers worked tirelessly to restore it to its former glory—if a gaol can have a former glory—so that the current generation and generations to come can appreciate this important part of Derby's history.
Funding has also been provided through the program for the construction of the Gladstone memorial wall, which has allowed members of the Gladstone community to have a place to go and remember their loved ones. This is at an important project that was requested by members of the community. This program has also funded a project to upgrade of the facilities at the Springfield hall, which will improve the building's safety and ensure the longevity of this iconic building. The upgrades will also enhance the look of the building and prevent deterioration. All these projects are a great example of the local government identifying community needs and working towards solutions that will have a wide-ranging benefit for the community.
At the core of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program is the whole-of-government approach to regional development which works with local governments to find local solutions to local challenges. The Australian government has provided $80,107 through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. This program is building significant local infrastructure such as the projects I have mentioned across Australia, supporting thousands of jobs along the way. The Australian government is acting decisively and working with local communities to support jobs and improve local infrastructure into the future. The five projects I have spoken about are great examples of local governments identifying community need and working towards solutions that will have wide-ranging benefits for their communities.
The north-east region of Tasmania is a very tight-knit community. Its people have again demonstrated this by working together to achieve these five impressive projects, for which the Australian government is pleased to have provided the money. I congratulate everyone involved in these projects. It was great to visit this wonderful part of my electorate, the wonderful north-east of Tasmania, where they have created magnificent facilities which people will be encouraged to use. This has only come about with support from the Dorset council and the Australian Labor government. I would also like to congratulate the North Eastern Advertiser. The north-east of Tasmania has had an economic downturn. But the North Eastern Advertiser, which is locally owned, has been a magnificent coverer of these great projects and many others. It has tried to maintain a positive image for the local community. I congratulate the North Eastern Advertiser for its involvement.
I want to share an experience that I believe is absolutely critical and important to our democracy, its principles and the way in which people develop an understanding of our parliament. I had the opportunity yesterday of speaking to the three young finalists who were part of My First Speech, which was organised by the International Community Relations Office, which was formerly the Parliamentary Relations Office. What I saw there were three incredible young people. If I was the member for Canberra, I would certainly be worried about the winner of that competition, because he spoke very eloquently, knew his material and contributed in the spirit in which the program was established.
They will be three great Labor candidates.
They may be at that, member for Bass. I also enjoyed having the Deputy Speaker, the Hon. Peter Slipper, coming to Thornlie in my electorate and running a session with the students of Thornlie Senior High School. I was talking with the students afterwards and I asked them how they found the experience. What they liked was the fact that they went through a process that we take for granted in this House. What I hope to see is that at some point all of us as parliamentarians in this House indulge ourselves in the same process so that we can teach what this institution and democracy are about and the importance of people having the freedom of speech to speak on matters that are important to them as individuals. We can teach them to understand that we operate within a party context but also within a Westminster system of government with tiers of government. What we do not see very often is young people having an understanding of how this great House works.
To the credit of those teachers who take year 11 and year 12 classes through the various aspects of political structures and the range of views that exist—from fascism through to the democracy that we enjoy—that is extremely enlightening for future generations. I know that in this House, while we may be separated in terms of being in parties of differing political persuasions, the friendships that we develop within that context enable us to better contribute to the public life of all Australians. When I look at the references where the display is, I see some great statements from future young leaders. They reflect many of the issues that are extremely important to them.
Nevertheless, as the Speaker, Mr Harry Jenkins, said yesterday, some of the comments were not dissimilar to the comments that we were once making in the campaigns we were involved in when we were much younger—when we were in our twenties.
Back in the day!
Some of us have aged, but some of us believe that we have not. Let me say that the beauty of that is that they are feeling empowered to express themselves. I know that when the Deputy Speaker was with the Thornlie group was that what they liked was the fact that they had a part to play. When we talked afterwards, they said that they had a better understanding of some of the interactions between the functions of the office. Most young people will see the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, because of where the cameras are. What they do not look at is the roles and functions of the clerks of the House and the staff who support us in the parliament. Developing that understanding will serve us well in the future.
Let me say that the quality of those speeches that I heard yesterday was outstanding. We have three young people who, if they follow their destiny and their dream, will, I have no doubt, be standing in this chamber and in our main chamber contributing to the debates on some of the legislation that they will have to deal with in the future. What I think is absolutely critical is that all of us play a role in developing our understanding as a nation not only of the freedoms that we have and the democracy that we enjoy but also of a parliamentary system, at both the national and the state and territory level, that enables ordinary Australians to become members of those great houses.
I rise to speak on the workers and families of a significant local business in my electorate of Chisholm, Australian Envelopes, which has gone into voluntary administration. Australian Envelopes has gone into voluntary administration, with 300 employees made redundant around Australia, including approximately 100 at one of its major manufacturing sites at Notting Hill in my electorate. I am very angry that Australian Envelopes went into voluntary administration, with 300 employees being made redundant, particularly as there seems to be no apparent reason why the company has taken this step of going into voluntary administration.
An article in theAge just the other day states:
WORK had been plentiful and the future seemed secure for workers at Australian Envelopes in Notting Hill.
But last Thursday at 10am they were told to shut down the machines as there was no money left and their jobs were no more in the latest job losses to hit manufacturing.
That was despite the overtime worked in recent weeks, staff said, and plenty of orders from big customers. About 300 jobs yesterday were confirmed redundant at the company nationwide, including more than 100 at its Notting Hill headquarters.
Staff have said that they were made really angry as management had kept this situation a secret. The article continues:
Married couple Bruce White and Susana Espejo, who have four children between them, were to move into their new house today but face an uncertain future. ''We don't know how we are going to pay the mortgage,'' Mr White said.
The couple, who both had worked at the company for 6½ years, may be forced to rent their new home out.
They have no idea where they will get an income and they do not know who is going to employ them.
I understand the company did not approach the government at any stage for assistance. It also did not speak to the union or its staff. I also understand the company's workforce at Notting Hill were advised of the company's entering into administration by the company's administrator, with the company's CEO being overseas at the time and the company's HR manager not being present when this tragic news was delivered.
My immediate concern is for the displaced workers and their families. The government will not leave these workers to face this alone, as the company has advised there is no money to pay their redundancies or outstanding entitlements. Established by the previous federal government was the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme, GEERS, which enables employees to access their entitlements when they have lost their employment due to liquidation or bankruptcy of their employer and who are owed certain entitlements. Australian employees can access assistance under this scheme, and I know that we will be offering all assistance to the workers to do so. The Australian government will also provide additional support to affected workers through Centrelink and Job Services Australia. I know that Job Services Australia has already been out on site. A meeting has been arranged for tomorrow by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union to provide the workers with as much assistance as possible regarding accessing GEERS and Centrelink as management has failed to do so.
The government considers manufacturing to be an important, integral part of the Australian economy. It is certainly an integral part of my electorate. The government remains committed to putting in place an economic framework that supports existing jobs and creates new jobs. As I have often said in this place, manufacturing is an important driver of the economy and development within my electorate and the nation in general. Sadly, these job losses do come on top of the job losses at Bosch that are going to take effect at the end of this year. We are seeing a downturn of manufacturing in my seat, but we need to be putting more in place to ensure that we do not continue to see the reduction in manufacturing jobs.
The government shares community concerns about manufacturing job losses and factory closures, particularly in regional areas but also in metropolitan Melbourne, because as soon as a factory closes it is bulldozed and houses are put on it, and no jobs can be replaced in those areas because it becomes a residential area. Land in my neck of the woods is so tight and so expensive that, as soon as the factory goes, houses go up and the jobs are lost. It is not just the jobs at this site of the 100 people; it is all the downstream people who supply into this factory who will be impacted. Under this federal Labor government we have created many, many jobs and there has been enormous job growth. I am hoping that some of these redundant workers will be able to transition into those new jobs, but I know it will be hard. Often in these areas there is an ageing workforce and it is hard to transition in. That is why I am ensuring that everybody gets every bit of entitlement they are entitled to.
I am very dark on this company for the way they have handled this. They only purchased the company last year, and it does seem like this is an asset-strip situation. The company was ongoing. The staff had no idea that this was going to be taking place.
In the time remaining I would also like to present a petition that has been accepted by the Standing Committee on Petitions from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association about Easter Sunday as a public holiday. I have previously spoken on this in this place but am receiving more and more petitions. I would like the House to take note of it.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that:
We therefore ask the House to:
Amend the Fair Work Act 2009 so as to include, in the National Employment Standards, Easter Sunday in the list of recognised public holidays.
from 31 citizens
Petition received.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 13:00, until Wednesday, 17 August 2011 at 9:30, unless in accordance with standing order 186 an alternative date or time is fixed.